On January 19, President-elect Trump announced that he will allow Tik Tok to keep operating in the US, likely undoing a ban imposed by a law upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court. The law required divestment of Tik Tok by its Chinese parent company, reflecting concerns over PRC hacking in the US.
This law reflected proven concerns, in that the PRC government retains access to technology of Chinese companies that allows them to enter networks where they are installed. Hostile PRC hacking is well documented.
The Biden administration, which had passed the ban, deferred enforcement to the incoming Trump administration. Similarly, it did the same for an order to dissolve the Nippon Steel acquisition of US Steel. Extremely un-similarly, the national security concern in that case reflected a tortured re-casting of the idea of national security. Nippon Steel is a corporation in a capitalist nation, not subject to government rule as a Chinese entity is. And Japan itself is a democratic ally, which we have long entrusted with advanced US defense technology. The deal does not even raise new supply chain threats, as Nippon would be investing in manufacturing facilities in the US.
In logic, the Tik Tok ban makes sense and should stand – and It may be that Trump intends to unwind their use of Chinese technology, as his order refers to a US ownership stake going forward. The steel deal ban does not make sense, and it remains possible that litigation launched by the firms will impose this logic. Will President Trump also reverse the steel ban? And will his rationales and measures follow real national security logic, or put unequal deals on equal footing?
Will the volume of outcry outweigh real national security?
The politicians have already shown that real logic is immaterial to them. Biden and Trump both declared opposition to the US Steel deal, which poses no security risks and which would have extended manufacturing – and its jobs – on the US. Both had tried (Trump in his first administration) to ban Tik Tok, and now both seem willing to back away from that position.
The lesson, it seems, is to raise a wide hue and cry in the media, and appeal to Trump’s interest in overriding anything that Biden did. It worked for Tik Tok, including in a craven appeal to Trump. Perhaps it would for US Steel and Nippon Steel – the more sober meetings of mayors and steelworkers in towns that host US Steel plants have not gained the same attention – though a lawsuit did.
But what is the value of US public opinion if a Tik Tok ban gains such loud opposition? And, in particular, if a US Steel merger does not? We all know by now that the politicians are craven enough to follow an outcry if it’s loud enough, with logic and actual dangers as an incidental interest. And it this respect, this pair of cases makes clear that Trump is not different in kind from Biden, and neither from many many other politicians. That we need to guide such characters is no revelation and should pose not trauma.
But our problem does not end with the politicians. Our popular outcry is not over principle – we’ve known that for decades, however implicitly. Nor is it even over national interests. The loudest outcry, it turns out, is over selfish complaints, sparked by personal inconvenience and frivolous activities. Yes, some people make livings as TikTok influencers – but prefer to override national security rather than seek a new forum. And many will buy the national security argument if a famous name is bought by an Asian ally. We need to look in the mirror. Those who follow these matters need to ensure that their motives are straight. Those who claim to serve the public need to ensure that they do not pander. And all of us need to take stock of what’s really important. For all the turmoil – or hope – that people anticipate in the coming administration, any hopes will be dashed, and any hopes for ‘correction’ blocked, so long we indulge our thoughtless impulses.
Common Conviction 