TikTok(and PRC) would likely have been fine with some sort of 51% US owned + controlled JV arrangement. But US wanted 0% PRC ownership, which frankly is retarded tier hubris only US law makers can conjure, and only delulu people think reasonable. The entire crux of drama is US wants denationalize a PRC company from PRC... PRC was never going to let that happen simply due to the precedence it would have set. They'd rather TikTok pull out of US completely (and TBH the legislators who drafted the divestment requirement probably want this as well). It's non-financial in the sense that only a categorically retarded country would allow US this level of control over their corporations. Now that Trump is propositioning essentially PRC JV arrangement - at least 50% US ownership, i.e. not 0% PRC ownership, a deal can probably be worked out, with TikTok US subsumed by US national security interests.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/05/29/tiktok-...
TikTok(and PRC) would likely have been fine with some sort of 51% US owned + controlled JV arrangement. But US wanted 0% PRC ownership, which frankly is retarded tier hubris only US law makers can conjure, and only delulu people think reasonable. The entire crux of drama is US wants denationalize a PRC company from PRC... PRC was never going to let that happen simply due to the precedence it would have set. They'd rather TikTok pull out of US completely (and TBH the legislators who drafted the divestment requirement probably want this as well). It's non-financial in the sense that only a categorically retarded country would allow US this level of control over their corporations. Now that Trump is propositioning essentially PRC JV arrangement - at least 50% US ownership, i.e. not 0% PRC ownership, a deal can probably be worked out, with TikTok US subsumed by US national security interests.