> only very few rich people can mobilize financial and political capital to pull off tiktok purchase

Why do you assume only a natural person can buy TikTok? Why do you assume you need political capital?

The law doesn’t provide that much executive deference in enforcement.

Elon musk is an example of acquisition of global social network. Political capital is needed because the tiktok question is politicized heavily (national security as a reason).

Plus FTC will review the acquisition process as well.

Do you have a counter example?

> FTC will review the acquisition process as well

Why?

> Political capital is needed because the tiktok question is politicized heavily (national security as a reason)

This is entirely meaningless. You don’t need political capital to maintain the status quo.

> Do you have a counter example?

To your hypothetical? My example is the law. FACA is tightly defined. Bytedance needs to divest to a non-FAC to return to the status quo. Trump could do something else to fuck with them. But that’s true of anyone anywhere.

Hart-Scott-Rodino Improvements Act requires FTC to approve all large M&A deals + DoJ needs to do antitrust review

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

HSR is incredibly routine and politically insulated. It’s closer to a filing than actual review.

except when the government decides to intervene and reject the transaction. See, this seems like routine, but ultimately it gives the government an option to cancel transaction they dont like and they can always cite some bogus reason like "national security" and use racist pretext like ethnicity of the CEO or whatever

> it gives the government an option to cancel transaction they dont like

Delay. It’s not a deferential review.