In recent years, the future of TikTok operations in the United States has been called into question several times. Last year was particularly tumultuous for the company. In January 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a law banning TikTok in the US unless the app’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, sold off the company’s US assets. The justices cited concerns over national security and TikTok’s data collection practices in the US. As a result, TikTok’s servers went dark in the US for several hours on January 18, 2025, before being brought back online through an executive order signed by President Donald Trump that temporarily stayed the ban.

In the year since, investors have competed to purchase the app and take over US operations. In December 2025, ByteDance signed a deal backed by President Donald Trump to divest a portion of its US assets to a group of American investors in order to avert a TikTok ban in the US.

With the new deal expected to take effect this month, we asked SIS professor and Director of Research at the Center for Security, Innovation, and New Technology William Akoto a few questions about what this new deal will mean for TikTok users in the US and whether this deal effectively addresses national security concerns.

Under a framework deal established between the US and China at the end of 2025, a new consortium of investors will oversee TikTok’s US operations—including the app’s data protection and algorithm security. Reports indicate the deal is expected to close on January 22. Based on what we know now about this deal, what will this mean for TikTok users in the US?

Yes, you’re right—according to news reports, the US–China TikTok framework deal is expected to close on January 22. This means TikTok will continue operating in the US under a new US-based consortium of investors. This consortium includes companies like Oracle, private equity firm Silver Lake, and Emirati-backed investment firm MGX. This arrangement averts a looming nationwide ban and keeps the platform available for its American users. 

Under the new structure, the consortium will control most of TikTok’s US business and governance, including data protection, algorithm security, and content moderation for US users. Additionally, US user data will be stored in secure servers domestically and the recommendation algorithm will be retrained on US data to align with US regulatory requirements.

For everyday TikTok users in the US, the experience of posting, viewing, and interacting with videos on the platform should look familiar at first, but there could be gradual changes behind the scenes. Importantly, because the algorithm that determines users’ “For You” feeds will be under US control and may operate differently than before, the kinds of content that trend or get recommended might shift over time.

Threats to ban TikTok were initially brought forth over national security concerns. Under this new deal framework, can you explain the national security concerns that are being addressed and which remain? 

The original national security concerns that drove repeated efforts to ban TikTok in the US were primarily about two key risks: (1) that TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, could be compelled by Chinese law to hand over vast amounts of sensitive US user data to the Chinese government, and (2) that the platform’s powerful recommendation algorithm could be manipulated covertly to influence political attitudes or public opinion in ways that benefit Chinese interests. 

The new framework deal aims to address the first of these concerns by placing TikTok’s US operations under majority US ownership and control, requiring that US user data be stored and governed domestically, and subjecting algorithms and software updates to oversight by trusted US partners. This is intended to sever or significantly limit China’s ability to access US user data. 

However, the second concern remains unresolved. Experts note it is still unclear how fully the algorithm’s proprietary elements will be insulated from Chinese influence or whether subtler forms of influence such as content recommendations or indirect data flows can truly be prevented over the long term. There is also concern that as long as ByteDance retains a stake in TikTok’s US operations, the risk of algorithmic manipulation may persist. Moreover, it remains unclear how enforcement and transparency mechanisms will function in practice. Without clarity on this issue, policymakers may find it difficult to assess whether the new governance structure genuinely neutralizes foreign influence or simply repackages existing vulnerabilities under a different corporate label.

Is there any precedent for the US taking over US-based operations for an app, or is this kind of deal a first in the tech space? 

This TikTok deal is unprecedented in the US tech space in the sense that there isn’t a well-established historical example where the US government forced a foreign tech company to hand over or restructure its operations in the US in quite this way. 

That said, the US government has used national security review processes and investment screening mechanisms to block or unwind foreign acquisitions of US companies in other contexts. For example, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has, on occasion, forced or persuaded foreign investors to divest sensitive assets when a transaction posed a security risk. One earlier instance involved the US government pushing for the divestiture of the dating app Grindr (then-owned by a Chinese firm) after national security officials raised concerns about access to sensitive personal data, though that case unfolded through mitigation agreements rather than a statutory sale mandate.  

Beyond divestitures, the US has also taken other national security-related tech actions, such as banning sales or use of equipment from foreign telecommunications firms like Huawei and ZTE, restricting exports to them, and placing them on restricted lists. However, these are regulatory and market bans, not corporate takeovers or forced restructurings of US operations.  

In a previous Q&A posted on our website, you explained that the threat of a TikTok ban aligned with a larger trend of “techno-nationalism.” Does this new deal continue this trend, and if so, in what ways?

Yes, the new TikTok deal does continue the broader trend of techno-nationalism, but in an updated form. Techno-nationalism refers to the idea that states increasingly treat technology not just as economic or commercial assets but as strategic tools that must be governed according to national security interests. Both the US actions against TikTok (and earlier moves against Chinese tech like Huawei) and China’s own digital restrictions illustrate this dynamic, where governments seek to control or restrict foreign technology to protect perceived security interests and project power. 

The legal push that led to the TikTok divestiture requirement was fundamentally driven by the belief that foreign ownership of a major social platform poses national security risks because of data access and influence concerns—a hallmark of techno-nationalist thinking. The framework deal fits into the same pattern by institutionalizing a uniquely national approach to technology governance. Rather than simply allowing global market forces to dictate ownership and control, the US has effectively said that certain technologies, especially those with large datasets tied to citizens and powerful algorithmic influence, must be placed under domestic oversight to mitigate strategic risk. That logic echoes China’s own export controls and digital policy moves that treat algorithms and data as sensitive technologies subject to state approval. 

In that sense, the deal does not break with techno-nationalism but reinforces the notion that digital platforms are now arenas of geopolitical competition where national governments assert control over data, algorithms, and corporate structures in pursuit of strategic advantage.