Sources: Tucker Carlson was on WH's list of potential TikTok investors, with JD Vance pushing for his inclusion, along with others like a16z and Blackstone
Vice-president JD Vance pushed for right-wing media star's inclusion in a deal for video app — Alex Rogers in Washington … Bluesky: @evelyndouek , @justinhendrix , @paleofuture , @ebakerwhite , and @karlbode.com . X: @tcberenson Bluesky: Evelyn Douek / @evelyndouek : Oh but it's just a divestment order, not a direct speech regulation that might skew the marketplace of ideas or anything [embedded post] Justin Hendrix / @justinhendrix : “The White House put Tucker Carlson on its list of potential investors in TikTok as it raced to find buyers for the app earlier this year... Other potential investors on the list included venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and private equity giant Blackstone.” via @techmeme.com Matt Novak / @paleofuture : “Carlson told the Financial Times last month that he was unaware that he was on the White House's list of potential TikTok investors.” [embedded post] Emily Baker-White / @ebakerwhite : why would an autocrat ban a propaganda machine when he could instead make it spread *his* propaganda [embedded post] Karl Bode / @karlbode.com : Dems supporting this TikTok ban during an election season when they desperately needed young voter turnout remains one of the biggest political own goals in a long while — it's always been clear the goal for the GOP was to turn TikTok into another right wing propaganda mill [embedded post] X: Tessa Berenson Rogers / @tcberenson : .@arogDC scoop! Tucker Carlson was on the White House's list of potential TikTok investors — and JD Vance advocated for him: https://www.ft.com/... Expand More For Next Unexpand More For Next
Financial Times
Context & Ripple Effects
The reported investor list sits within a broader TikTok divestment process that had already drawn financial sponsors: a16z had been approached about joining an Oracle-led bid, alongside Blackstone and other asset managers. The account adds a distinctly political dimension to the search for US investors.
Later coverage said the eventual US investor group would center on Oracle, Silver Lake and MGX, while separate reporting described concerns that control of the app could be used to influence its political speech environment.
First-order effects
Tucker Carlson, a16z and Blackstone were reportedly elevated as potential participants in the White House-backed investor search, widening the field beyond conventional technology and private-equity bidders.
JD Vance's reported intervention makes the selection of TikTok investors appear not solely commercial, increasing scrutiny of the administration's role in a transaction involving a major distribution platform.
Second-order effects
Potential bidders face a more political diligence process: their perceived alignment, governance role and influence over the platform may matter alongside financing capacity.
If investor selection for strategically sensitive platforms is repeatedly shaped by political access, ownership remedies may increasingly become a channel for contesting control over online distribution rather than a narrowly corporate transaction.
That would raise durable governance questions over how divestment conditions separate national-security goals from influence over moderation and recommendation systems; the later reported investor outcome suggests the question remains relevant even when individual names change.
The trend: TikTok's ownership fight is part of a broader shift toward treating control of major consumer platforms as both a national-security asset and a political-governance lever.
“The White House put Tucker Carlson on its list of potential investors in TikTok as it raced to find buyers for the app earlier this year... Other potential investors on the list included venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and private equity giant Blackstone.” via @techmeme…
Dems supporting this TikTok ban during an election season when they desperately needed young voter turnout remains one of the biggest political own goals in a long while — it's always been clear the goal for the GOP was to turn TikTok into another right wing propaganda mill [em…
I spoke with the WSJ about the president's ongoing refusal to do his constitutional duty to enforce the TikTok ban, a law passed by Congress, signed by a president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. — www.wsj.com/politics/pol...
I spoke with the WSJ about the president's ongoing refusal to do his constitutional duty and enforce the “TikTok ban”, a law passed by Congress, signed by a president, and upheld by the Supreme Court. https://www.wsj.com/...
There is no authority in the statute for this action. It is invented from whole cloth. The president took an oath to execute the law, and he is violating it by refusing to do so.
The Act permits one 90-day extension on condition the president make certifications to Congress. We are on our 3rd extension and no certifications have been made. Glad we blew a big hole in the First Amendment to address this “urgent” national security issue.
it's not the people didn't notice, it's that they think the law is bad and they like TikTok and don't want it to go away, so they're fine with this. When the government refuses to enforce a law that they do like and need, they'll be outraged and it will be too late.
This is clearly illegal. The statute allows the president to grant only one 90-day extension. However, the owners of TikTok have announced that they are purchasing $300 million worth of Trump Coin, which Trump creates out of thin air at no cost. We've learned that nothing is i…
In August 2020, Trump issued an EO order for TikTok divest itself of its US operations in 90 days or shut down. In 2024 congress wrote PAFACA to ban the app. It is now June 2025... starting to think TikTok might actually survive
The idea that protecting TikTok revenue is a material lever in the trade talks is for the birds, it's tiny in comparison to what is on the table. Ironically it's actually a more useful influence tool for China now the trade war is on than it was when it was originally banned.
From now on, laws passed by Congress & signed into law by a sitting POTUS (and given a 9-0 pass by SCOTUS) will be held in abeyance by the successor POTUS if he really doesn't want it going into effect. (The gears of self-government in this country are grinding.)
Btw — The Chinese are buying our land, their companies list on our exchanges, our elite colleges educate the CCP brass. I can go on and on. For the record, I'm no fan of @tiktok_us but if we're really worried about the Chinese surveillance state, isn't TikTok really small
Shot: An unconstitutional ban on an entire platform upheld in a rushed, flimsy Supreme Court decision ... Chaser: ... only to be lawlessly ignored by the President, a failure somehow excused by Congress. This is ridiculous.
Every time Trump moves the goal posts on a fake TikTok “deadline,” he signals weakness to the CCP. The President must follow the law passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. If ByteDance won't divest, ban the app. The longer we wait, the more data they steal.
“If he cannot find an American buyer for the social media platform in three weeks, then he has no choice,” our editors write. “He has to ban TikTok. This is not a discussion. It's the law.” Read our editor's editorial on the necessity of a TikTok ban.
This is an abdication of presidential responsibility. The law says there must be divestment. It was unanimously held. Trump's job is to enforce the law. It doesn't matter what his reason for not doing so is. It's not his call.
Fully recognizing that this isn't Trump's motivation, but the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what's unconstitutional— not what's constitutional. The President has an independent duty not to enforce unconstitutional laws. Therefore, he's bound not to enforce the TikTok Ban.
Congress does its job, works feverishly to overcome the filibuster, deliberates with strong bipartisan majorities on a matter of national security interest, tailors the law to survive First Amendment scrutiny with unanimous support at the Supreme Court. Then....
Congress passed the law. The Supreme Court upheld it 9-0. If ByteDance doesn't divest, TikTok must be banned. Failing to act is a gift to the CCP. [image]
This is blatantly illegal. Open defiance of the law to keep a CCP data collection app on millions upon millions of American phones. There's nothing America First about that.
...One caveat is that if Trump sees a strategic advantage in crafting a deal by letting it go dark, and that could happen, said a Wall Street exec who was working on the deal to move it into US hands. White House spox had no immediate comment. Story developing