Power

‘This has been botched’: This is what makes Trump’s TikTok tirade so unusual

People who have worked with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States say this is not how any of this works.

Trump's Twitter account on a phone in front of the TikTok logo

The chaos surrounding the TikTok probe, including Trump's loud involvement, is unprecedented in the history of the nearly 50-year-old panel.

Image: Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto via Getty Images

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States is a notoriously secretive government panel focused on assessing the national security risks around business deals between U.S. businesses and foreign entities. By law, everyone who works with CFIUS is bound by confidentiality requirements that prevent them from speaking publicly, or even privately, about what its members discuss and investigate.

"CFIUS, to an outsider, is very much like looking at an iceberg, recognizing that 90% of it happens below the surface," Charles Schott, who oversaw CFIUS from 2003 to 2007, told Protocol.

That's why it has been so jarring for former CFIUS officials and other experts to watch President Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin speak so openly, and so politically, about the CFIUS investigation into TikTok.

"It is unusual for a case to go to the president," said one former CFIUS official, "and further, it's unusual for an administration to say anything in particular prior to the order issued by the president."

Chris Griner, a former attorney adviser with the Department of Defense and the head of the CFIUS compliance group at the law firm Stroock, said it's rare for top-level presidential advisers to opine about a confidential investigation in the public eye. "I'm sure the [CFIUS] staff are apoplectic because they don't talk about these things," he said.

Former government officials told Protocol that the chaos surrounding the TikTok probe, including Trump's loud involvement, is unprecedented in the history of the nearly 50-year-old panel, which has already been criticized for promoting a protectionist approach to international relations. The politicization of a CFIUS investigation alarmed several experts, who said the Trump administration is dragging the national security process into uncharted territory and stepping outside the bounds of what is legally possible.

"I'm a China hawk, but this has been botched over the past five days or so," said Derek Scissors, a resident scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

CFIUS did not respond to a request for comment. White House spokesperson Judd Deere denied that Trump has politicized the CFIUS process. "This is not a political matter, it's a matter of national security, and the president has no higher priority than the safety and security of the American people," Deere said.

In particular, former officials have been alarmed by Trump's insistence that the U.S. government should make money off of the transaction if TikTok is acquired by an American company. CFIUS last week decided to order Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest TikTok, and the company has started negotiating with Microsoft over a potential sale.

Sometimes, the companies involved in a CFIUS negotiation do have to pay a "filing fee" of up to $300,000, meant to offset some of the costs of the committee's work, thanks to a reform law passed in 2018. But there's no precedent for the Treasury Department to take a cut from a deal — let alone a "very substantial" portion, as Trump has called for.

"CFIUS never actually charges a fee for this, so the whole idea of the Treasury Department getting a contribution is basically like Tony Soprano — [the administration] extorting money out of Microsoft," said Paul Rosenzweig, who worked with CFIUS while working at the Department of Homeland Security between 2005 and 2009. "It's wacky, is what it is." Rosenzweig is now a senior fellow focused on technology and cybersecurity with the R Street Institute.

CFIUS' structure gives the president broad authority to force a divestiture if the panel decides there is a pressing national security threat. For instance, Trump in 2018 blocked microchip maker Broadcom's proposed takeover of Qualcomm over concerns that it would benefit China.

But there have only been six transactions in the history of CFIUS that have resulted in a presidential decision. And there have been none that resulted in a total ban of the company in question, as Trump proposed last week and has since rolled back.

The former CFIUS official said there is little law or precedent around what happens when a president gets personally involved in a CFIUS decision. "CFIUS can refer a case to the president for blocking or forced divestment, but then [the statute] says the president's decision is not subject to judicial review," he said. "That's important because it means that there's not a lot to prevent the president from doing whatever the president wants."

So far, it seems more likely that TikTok U.S. will be acquired by an American company such as Microsoft. But even Microsoft's involvement has set off alarm bells, as Trump has specifically endorsed the company as a potential buyer, and Microsoft made it clear that the acquisition will be contingent on Trump's approval.

"Following a conversation between Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and President Donald J. Trump, Microsoft is prepared to continue discussions to explore a purchase of TikTok in the United States," Microsoft said in a blog post.

"Microsoft looks forward to continuing dialogue with the United States government, including with the president," the post continued.

Scissors said Microsoft's announcement "should not have happened."

"It should have happened this way: Microsoft doesn't say anything other than it's negotiating with TikTok to do some vague 'remediation,'" Scissors said. "But this got turned into a loud conversation featuring Microsoft, which was not normal. You don't bias the process for or against a particular company."

The Trump administration has made it clear that TikTok will only be the first chapter in a much larger, sweeping anti-Chinese app policy. And CFIUS will only become more and more relevant as the U.S. ratchets up its efforts against Chinese business on U.S. soil.

"CFIUS has always been viewed skeptically by everyone else around the world as a quasi-protectionist American thing," said Rosenzweig. "This will play into that."

Climate

This carbon capture startup wants to clean up the worst polluters

The founder and CEO of point-source carbon capture company Carbon Clean discusses what the startup has learned, the future of carbon capture technology, as well as the role of companies like his in battling the climate crisis.

Carbon Clean CEO Aniruddha Sharma told Protocol that fossil fuels are necessary, at least in the near term, to lift the living standards of those who don’t have access to cars and electricity.

Photo: Carbon Clean

Carbon capture and storage has taken on increasing importance as companies with stubborn emissions look for new ways to meet their net zero goals. For hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel production, it’s one of the few options that exist to help them get there.

Yet it’s proven incredibly challenging to scale the technology, which captures carbon pollution at the source. U.K.-based company Carbon Clean is leading the charge to bring down costs. This year, it raised a $150 million series C round, which the startup said is the largest-ever funding round for a point-source carbon capture company.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Workplace

Why companies cut staff after raising millions

Are tech firms blowing millions in funding just weeks after getting it? Experts say it's more complicated than that.

Bolt, Trade Republic, HomeLight, and Stord all drew attention from funding announcements that happened just weeks or days before layoffs.

Photo: Pulp Photography/Getty Images

Fintech startup Bolt was one of the first tech companies to slash jobs, cutting 250 employees, or a third of its staff, in May. For some workers, the pain of layoffs was a shock not only because they were the first, but also because the cuts came just four months after Bolt had announced a $355 million series E funding round and achieved a peak valuation of $11 billion.

“Bolt employees were blind sided because the CEO was saying just weeks ago how everything is fine,” an anonymous user wrote on the message board Blind. “It has been an extremely rough day for 1/3 of Bolt employees,” another user posted. “Sadly, I was one of them who was let go after getting a pay-raise just a couple of weeks ago.”

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

Climate

The fight to define the carbon offset market's future

The world’s largest carbon offset issuer is fighting a voluntary effort to standardize the industry. And the fate of the climate could hang in the balance.

It has become increasingly clear that scaling the credit market will first require clear standards and transparency.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

There’s a major fight brewing over what kind of standards will govern the carbon offset market.

A group of independent experts looking to clean up the market’s checkered record and the biggest carbon credit issuer on the voluntary market is trying to influence efforts to define what counts as a quality credit. The outcome could make or break an industry increasingly central to tech companies meeting their net zero goals.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Policy

White House AI Bill of Rights lacks specific guidance for AI rules

The document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is long on tech guidance, but short on restrictions for AI.

While the document provides extensive suggestions for how to incorporate AI rights in technical design, it does not include any recommendations for restrictions on the use of controversial forms of AI.

Photo: Ana Lanza/Unsplash

It was a year in the making, but people eagerly anticipating the White House Bill of Rights for AI will have to continue waiting for concrete recommendations for future AI policy or restrictions.

Instead, the document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is legally non-binding and intended to be used as a handbook and a “guide for society” that could someday inform government AI legislation or regulations.

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights features a list of five guidelines for protecting people in relation to AI use:

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins