Donald Trump declared victory on a TikTok deal following his call with Xi Jinping, but China's silence is deafening. The proposed agreement would hand Oracle, Silver Lake, and Andreessen Horowitz an 80% stake in TikTok's US operations - yet Beijing's official readout mentions no such approval, leaving the tech world questioning whether this deal actually exists.
The biggest question mark in tech just got bigger. Trump's triumphant Truth Social post claiming TikTok victory after his Friday call with Xi Jinping tells only half the story - and China's not confirming the other half.
"The call was a very good one, we will be speaking again by phone, appreciate the TikTok approval, and both look forward to meeting at APEC!" Trump posted. But China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs readout tells a different story, speaking vaguely of "productive commercial negotiations" without mentioning any approved deal.
The proposed structure, according to The Wall Street Journal, would see Oracle, Silver Lake, and Andreessen Horowitz lead a consortium taking roughly 80% of TikTok's US operations. Oracle would continue storing US user data on domestic servers, while the new entity would license ByteDance's algorithm technology.
But here's where it gets murky. "Any details of the TikTok framework are pure speculation unless they are announced by this administration," a White House spokesperson told WIRED. That's not exactly the confident confirmation you'd expect for a done deal.
The timing couldn't be more critical. TikTok briefly went dark in January before Trump's inauguration, then mysteriously reappeared when he took office. Since then, he's repeatedly extended the PAFACA Act deadline - most recently to December 16, 2025 - drawing criticism that these extensions violate federal law.
Vice President JD Vance reportedly played a key role in negotiations, with advisor Sean Cooksey leading talks on his behalf. This mirrors Vance's broader role as Silicon Valley's conduit to the West Wing, though the deal's tech industry implications remain unclear.
Legal experts aren't convinced this proposed structure solves anything. "In plain terms, ownership change without technical separation is a violation of the law," says Craig Singleton from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He calls it "joint custody" rather than the "divorce" PAFACA requires.
