By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As part of an agreement to establish a US-controlled version of TikTok, investors are reportedly set to pay the Trump administration a substantial transaction fee totaling $10 billion. This fee, described by the US government as a “fee-plus,” is being paid by administration-friendly entities such as Oracle and MGX, which took over TikTok’s US operations from its Chinese parent company. This arrangement, where the government receives a significant percentage of the deal’s value, is an exceptionally rare occurrence in private business transactions. The deal allows TikTok to continue operating in the US, with profits being shared with ByteDance, amidst ongoing concerns regarding national security and Chinese ownership.
Read the original article here
The news that the Trump administration is set to receive a staggering $10 billion for brokering a deal involving TikTok has certainly sparked a lot of conversation, and frankly, it raises some eyebrow-raising questions about legality and ethics.
Many are quick to label this situation as outright bribery, with the sheer scale of the payment suggesting something far beyond a typical transactional fee. The implication is that this isn’t just about facilitating a business arrangement; it feels more like a payoff for influence.
The question of where this $10 billion is actually landing is paramount. Is it flowing into the U.S. Treasury, intended for the benefit of the nation and its taxpayers, or is there a possibility that these funds are earmarked for the personal accounts of individuals within the administration, including former President Trump himself? If it’s the latter, the legality of such a transaction would be highly questionable, bordering on outright corruption.
The recurring figure of $10 billion, appearing in various contexts lately, also seems a bit too coincidental. It’s as if it’s become a default number for significant transactions, much like the frequently cited “couple of weeks” for timelines. This consistency in large sums feels less like a natural financial occurrence and more like a predetermined arrangement.
The idea of a government administration actively “brokering” deals for private companies, especially in this manner, is a departure from standard free-market principles. While administrations can and do facilitate business, the direct financial benefit to the administration itself for such brokering raises concerns about conflicts of interest and potential abuse of power.
The comparison to past presidencies, like Jimmy Carter who reportedly had to give up his peanut farm, highlights the stark contrast with the current situation, where actions perceived as personal profit-making through the office seem to be happening with alarming frequency and lack of consequence.
Furthermore, the sheer amount of money involved prompts scrutiny. This isn’t a minor fee; it’s a sum that could have significant impacts on national debt or public services. The fact that it’s being discussed as compensation for a political deal, rather than through established governmental processes, is what fuels the skepticism and accusations of impropriety.
The lack of transparency surrounding the destination of these funds is particularly concerning. Without clear confirmation of the money going into public coffers, the natural assumption leans towards personal enrichment, which is precisely what many find so deeply troubling and, frankly, illegal.
It’s also worth noting the irony that while fears of censorship on platforms like TikTok might have motivated some actions, the outcome appears to be an administration potentially profiting immensely, leading to questions about whether the intended beneficiaries of these platforms are actually being served.
The situation invites comparisons to other financial dealings, often highlighting a perceived double standard. While individuals outside the administration might face severe penalties for lesser financial transgressions, the scale of this reported $10 billion payment for brokering a deal seems to be met with a different set of reactions, leading to frustration and accusations of impunity.
The notion that this $10 billion could be compensation for “brokering” a deal implies a level of intervention and negotiation that, when tied to direct financial gain for the administration, crosses a line for many. It’s seen as a direct reward for using political influence for personal or administrative enrichment.
Ultimately, the core of the unease surrounding this $10 billion payment for the TikTok deal lies in the perception of corruption and the potential for personal profit derived from governmental actions. The questions about legality, transparency, and fairness are not just minor quibbles; they strike at the heart of public trust in governmental dealings and the ethical responsibilities of those in power.