Anthony Zurcher (2:43)

And, you know, from the beginning of this year, the Democrats really only had one play. I mean, they're out of power. They don't control either chamber of the U.S. congress. They don't control the presidency. They have a tenuous hold on the courts. The Supreme Court is definitely conservative leaning. So they didn't have a lot of options. One option they did have because of the rules of the U.S. senate, is they can block things. Now, they haven't used that opportunity in the past. There was a budget negotiation in March, and they decided not to use their ability to block the budget from being approved and forcing a shutdown back then. And actually, Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, and other Democratic leaders were harshly criticized by their base for not trying to do more to stop Donald Trump and stop the Republicans in Congress. So this time around, when we came to another deadline for passing a budget, October 1st, the Democrats this time around hit that big red button in the middle of the table that ground everything to a halt. And now we'll see how it all plays out. But they are the ones who are blocking, essentially what Republicans are trying to do, which is to keep the government open at the existing funding levels, the ones that they passed earlier this year, which, you know, gives conservatives an advantage with their legislative agenda and their spending levels. But it is a means to grind things to a halt. Where it goes from here, however, as you mentioned, is fraught with political risk.

Justin Webb (4:08)

Okay. And to prevent the political risk getting out of hand and to focus everyone's minds on the message they want, what they've been saying is that we absolutely have one single thing that we are concerned about that has made us do this, and that is the cuts, essentially cuts to Obamacare, isn't it? Cuts to the Affordable Care act that mean that some people who are getting pretty well subsidized medicines at the moment and medicine more generally, will not get it in the future. And that, they say, is part of what the Republicans are doing. And that single thing, this is the message, isn't it? They want to get across. That single thing is the reason why they're acting as they are. And that they hope is hugely popular. And we got a video, this amazing video, actually, because they are quite a double act now, aren't they? Bernie Sanders, the veteran left wing senator, and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, the congresswoman, who may well be a candidate. In fact, I think she's almost certain to be a candidate in 2028, coming together to make this pitch to the American people.

Anthony Zurcher (5:16)

If you don't have the money to go to a doctor and you're sick, you die. And that's what we're looking at.

Justin Webb (5:22)

That's what this clean bill is about.

Asma Khalid (5:25)

And so Republicans want us to rubber stamp that. And we're saying, no, we need to stand up for the American people. We need to stand up for our health care system. And if they want our votes, they need to make sure that we're protecting every American and making sure that we can do what we can to continue to make health care accessible, affordable, as we work to make it a human right for all.

Anthony Zurcher (5:47)

So let me just back that up. Remember, right now, our health care system is broken. Right now we're the only major country.

Ezra Klein (5:55)

On earth not to guarantee health care to all people. And these guys want to make it even worse. We're not going to let that happen.

Asma Khalid (6:02)

No, we're not.

Anthony Zurcher (6:03)

All right, so what we're seeing there is the Democrats essentially trying to fight a battle they lost already this year with a big beautiful bill. The big beautiful bill, if you'll remember, Justin, was the Trump backed Republican budget proposal that slashed a lot of spending on Medicaid, which is the health insurance program for the poor, and is going to allow some subsidies to help people buy health insurance, low income people buy health insurance at the end of this year. So those things were already passed, but they were passed in a way that Democrats didn't have a chance to block it. A procedural thing in the Senate, but even with their minority, they weren't able to to gum it up this time around. They do have the ability to block funding for the government. And so they're trying to make this about what they weren't able to make that big beautiful bill debate about, and that is health care spending. Because as you mentioned, Justin, this is an issue that Democrats feel like they have the public on their side. And not only that, when these insurance rates start to go up, the subsidies go away, tens of millions of Americans lose their health insurance. They're banking on the fact that there's gonna be a lot of anger among the American public. And they are positioning themselves now to take advantage of that anger to say, see, I told you so. This is why we are fighting for you. And it is the Republicans who are doing this and they're the ones who bear the brunt of the blame.

Justin Webb (7:23)

Gotta say, at the moment, Donald Trump doesn't look too worried by this, does he? He posted this photo on Truth Social of a meeting that he'd had with the Democratic congressional leadership in which there are Trump 2028, these red hats, Trump 2028 hats actually on the Oval Office desk during the meeting. And I think it's fake, actually. I think they were genuinely there, but there's fakes as well. That is done. This weird AI video which we ought to listen to, I suppose. What's actually going on in it in this video.

Anthony Zurcher (7:57)

It was a press conference that Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, Democratic leader in the Senate, and Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader in the House, were holding outside House after that meeting in the Oval Office with the Trump hats and everything else except that Trump or someone affiliated with him used AI to change what Chuck Schumer was saying. Not only that, but then also to change Hakeem Jeffries to make it look like he was wearing a sombrero and had like a big Mexican fake mustache and mariachi music in the background. This was to drive home the point Trump was trying to make. The allegation he was making that Democrats are not just trying to get health insurance provided to low income people, but they want health insurance to undocumented migrants. Here is the clip so you can hear what he has to say. It's obscenity laced. I don't know if we're beeping it out, but it was a pretty coarse, pretty demeaning and racially tinged video.

Justin Webb (8:57)

Okay, let's listen to it. Just to be clear, Anthony, as you've made clear, but let's absolutely underline it. Chuck Schumer did not actually say any of this, but let's listen to it.

Hakeem Jeffries (9:06)

But guys, there's no way to sugarcoat it. Nobody likes Democrats anymore. We have no voters left because of all of our woke trans. Not even black people want to vote for us anymore. Even Latinos hate us. So we need new voters. And if we give all these illegal aliens free health care, we might be able to get them on our side so they can vote for us. They can't even speak English, so they won't realize we're just a bunch of woke pieces of, you know, at least for a while until they, they learn English and they realize they hate us too.

Justin Webb (9:39)

Did that actually come from the White House, Anthony?

Anthony Zurcher (9:42)

You know, it was one of these things that Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social account. It probably was generated by someone else, a supporter, but. But Trump amplified it. I'm not sure exactly the, the origins of it, but the White House.

Justin Webb (9:55)

So it's a bit like. It's like that Gaza video isn't it with a similar, in a way that it's, it's out there to they see it and they think, what the heck, let's just put it out.

Anthony Zurcher (10:04)

And I should also emphasize the point that federal law prohibits these insurance subsidies, Medicaid benefits from going to undocumented migrants. So this is a false allegation that Trump is making here. While there is some truth to the fact that legal migrants, legal immigrants in this country would benefit from these subsidies, undocumented migrants are prohibited. So, you know, it's kind of a conflating of a thing to try to make it more unpopular, more controversial, trying to generate public anger, but it's doing it. I mean, the basic premise of this is wrong, and obviously it's doing it in a kind of a racist way. So here's Hakeem Jeffries responding to that video in comments afterwards.

Hakeem Jeffries (10:50)

We are fighting to lower the high cost of living and to protect the health care everyday Americans. And Mr. President, the next time you have something to say about me, don't cop out through a racist and fake AI video when I'm back in the Oval Office. Say it to my face. Say it to my face.

Justin Webb (11:22)

Okay? He's not amused. But then Donald Trump responded then to that, didn't he? So he posted Hakeem Jeffries responding to the video on Truth Social with the same fake moustache, the same, same sombrero, and images of mariachi band characters as well. So it's fair to say that neither man is stepping down. And as ever, support for the president from the vice president. J.D. vance.

Ezra Klein (11:50)

Oh, I think it's funny. The president's joking and we're having a good time. You can negotiate in good faith while also poking a little bit of fun at some of the absurdities of the Democrats positions and even, you know, poking some fun at the absurdity of the Democrats themselves. I mean, I'll tell Hakeem Jeffries right now, I make this solemn promise to you that if you help us reopen the government, the sombrero memes will stop somehow.

Anthony Zurcher (12:11)

I think the Democrats will not be reassured by that assurance. Getting back to the Oval Office photo of the Trump 2020 hats. Hakeem Jeffries, according to reports, leaned over when Trump tried to hand those hats to Schumer. And Jeffries looked at J.D. vance and said, well, what do you think of that? Because vance obviously has 2028 presidential ambitions that would be thwarted if Trump found a way of running again. And Vance, kind of dead face said, I have no comment.

Justin Webb (12:41)

Yeah, so actually, I mean, it's weird, isn't it, because they do this and hacking Jeff is. Has openly said it's racist. And yet they are going to meet again. Almost certainly they'll have to meet again if they're going to bring all this to an end. And from the White House, they seem to think that this is just. Well, as J.D. vance was saying, it's all part and parcel of everything. I just wonder if they feel they slightly got the upper hand, because there is something a bit wooden, to put it bluntly, in the minds of many Democrats about their congressional leadership. They think Hakeem Jeffries is not quite as energetic as he should be, as forceful as he should be. And Chuck Schumer definitely, you know, the feeling, isn't it, behind the scenes with a lot of Democrats, is it really seen better days? He's not suited to this era when it comes to communications, et cetera, et cetera. Not really suited to living up to Donald Trump. And so the Trump team kind of feel they've got the upper hand, don't they?

Anthony Zurcher (13:39)

Yeah. You know, obviously, when Chuck Schumer is the face of your party, he's not the most charismatic, most engaging personality. I was actually kind of surprised Hakeem Jeffries hasn't elevated his stature more. In fact, I think one of my predictions at the beginning of this year was that Hakeem Jeffries would become the face of the Democratic Party and be effective in that. That hasn't been the case. And part of the reason I think it hasn't been the case is because Democrats haven't had the ability to do much in Congress in the minority. And now, finally, this has given them a bit of a platform. But the memes and the insults and the misrepresentations, I mean, that kind of is par for the course in American politics now. And so I think maybe J.D. vance is right saying that the American public can differentiate between AI videos and what's real and will treat this as a joke. But you're also, I think, right, that the Republicans feel like they have the upper hand here, that they're the ones who are just trying to keep the government open. It's Democrats that are trying to block things. And usually when shutdowns have happened in the past, it's the party that grinds things to a halt, the party that's making demands. They're the ones that get the public's blame. And it's a little too early to tell so far how that's gonna shake out. But Republicans don't seem all that disappointed that there's a shutdown now and don't seem all that concerned about what it might do to Trump and the Republicans political standing.

Justin Webb (15:09)

Yeah, you do feel if they are gonna avoid getting the blame and indeed the opposite, actually make hay out of this. The Democrats have gotta have a kind of forceful leadership. And you know, never mind the Democratic Party, Anthony. Nevermind people in the United States right around the world, I think it's fair to say there are people saying, come on, get your act together. And we hear regularly, don't we, really? Regularly from people saying, who's in charge of the Democrats? We've had another Sid in West Sussex who's been in charge saying, I'd like to know if the Democrats actually have a leader at the moment. It seems there is nobody to counter the constant stream of Trump administration nonsense. It would also surely be advantageous to use the classic opposition party tactic to constantly criticize everything the party in power do and blame them for every problem while giving nothing away about their own policies. Is Kamala Harris Siddharth still the leader of the party? And if so, where is she? Well, she's on a book tour, isn't she?

Anthony Zurcher (16:02)

She's on a book tour. And if you look at her book, I mean, it's not the kind of thing that you would come out with if you're positioning yourself to be the leader of the. It's pretty frank and pretty critical, honestly, of some of her fellow Democrats. I don't think she seems interested. I mean, maybe when 2028 rolls around, she might jump back in. But at least the moment she isn't trying to present herself as the face of the Democratic Party. And that's kind of a reflection of how the American system works, how the American political party system works. There's no shadow government, there's no leader in waiting. That is the face of the out of power party. It really kind of depends on what levers of power your party holds, who becomes elevated as kind of the public face of that. And because the Democrats don't really have any power in Washington, it's been hard for any of these people, whether it's Chuck Schumer or Hakeem Jeffries or even Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or Bernie Sanders to break through and be that one face of the party, particularly when there are a lot of people who want to be the face of the party and they're all kind of trying and scrambling around.

Justin Webb (17:07)

Yeah. And you wonder whether Zoran Mandani is going to become the face of the party, even if the wider party doesn't necessarily want that to be the case. If he's elected mayor of New York and if he becomes a kind of great star of the Democrats in a way that further discomforts them. But just before we get to the kind of wider thinking about whether there is a sort of proper preparation going on, a proper debate, a constructive debate going on about where the party wants to be, it's just worth saying about the Kamala Harris book as well, in case people haven't seen it or seen reviews of it, of it. It's, it's quite backward looking, isn't it? I mean, you said it doesn't seem to be a kind of program for her to stand for, for 2028. It is very much about the things that happened. I mean even the title, isn't it? It's all about the campaign and, and the way she was let down by. It was a long list of people who let her down, wasn't it? In fact, pretty much everyone, it seems to me, did from the book, possibly excepting herself. But it doesn't, it doesn't have a kind of program for where America needs to be in a decade's time, does it? In any way, shape or form?

Anthony Zurcher (18:09)

No, no, it's not a campaign book. You know, a lot of politicians, when they're thinking about running for national office, come out with these Vision for America type books and oftentimes they're ghostwritten or co written with someone behind the scenes to make sure that it is dry and non controversial and can kind of get the points that the campaign, the nascent campaign may want. I mean, Kristi Noem is the one exception to that. The governor of the dog who talked about killing dogs in her books. That was a bit of a mistake. But generally these things are pretty safe reads. And that's not, as you mentioned, that's not what Kamala Harris book is, which makes it interesting and I think makes it worthwhile to kind of see, peel back the curtain and see what was going on behind the scenes and some of the strategies and some of the obstacles she feels she has. But yeah, a platform on which to run. It's not. And you talk about who's benefiting, who's kind of been emerged as a face of the Democratic Party right now. I would suggest that it's the Democratic governors more than anything in Washington that have benefited the most from this year, and that's Gavin Newsom in California and J.B. pritzker in Illinois in particular. They're the ones who have had the real platform and the real power because they're governors and they have control in their states to offer more robust resistance to what Trump is trying to do.

Justin Webb (19:39)

Okay, so those are the names. What then are the policies potentially? Because this is the next question that people ask. And in fact, again, we've had. I mean, we get these questions all the time. But for instance, Anthony Barry Gibson in New York City says has written us a text, actually. So after leaving office, Donald Trump and his team clearly spent four years planning and preparing for a second term. He's thinking about Project 2025, which wasn't necessarily, I suppose, Trump himself and his team, but it was certainly people who wanted him to win, wasn't it? So does the team, our team, see any sign of preparation or planning by the Democrats for 2028? I think that's a really interesting question, Anthony, because that goes to the heart of whether they're addressing with real honesty the reasons why they lost last time and the big kind of overarching question about whether everything has changed in American politics because of Trump and whether they've got a change, too, or whether they can sort of just sort of sneak back in because everything will sort of revert to normal once Trump is off the scene. It's those big things, I suppose, that's the thing. Are they addressing them or are they hiding from them?

Anthony Zurcher (20:50)

Them. Yeah. And I think you have 100 different groups that have 100 different plans. And if you have 100 plans, then you don't have any plan, I suppose. And that's kind of a reflection of where the Democratic Party is, where there is no kind of central cohesive organization or leader to unite the party around. That was what was unique about Donald Trump. And what happened after 2020 is that Trump, from very early on, it seemed, planned on running again. He had a team around him who had experience managing, operating within the federal government for four years and a lot of thoughts on what their obstacles were and what the challenges were and how to get around them the next time around. It also became very clear within the first year or so that Donald Trump was the frontrunner to be the nominee. So you had this kind of a unique set of circumstances where there was one person and one team all making the same plan, all getting ready to take power. And Project 2025 was part of it. But there were also plans within Trump's closest circle on what to do. And then when Trump got reelected, it was just flip the switch. And we've seen what's happened this year with the velocity with which these plans have been implemented. And I just think it's impossible for Democrats to have something similar because there are just too many people vying for that leadership position with too many different priorities. And you see the party being pulled in a bunch of different ways.

Justin Webb (22:22)

Yeah, I agree with that. But I do think. I think Barry and others who ask us this question deserve an answer that at least points in the direction of a kind of fundamental debate that really genuinely is now taking place in the party. And I would point him and everyone else who's interested in the Democrats in the direction of EZ Klein. I mentioned him before on the pop, because he is. He's a New York Times journalist and he's an author, very popular author. His books do incredibly well on the sort of mainstream left. And he's a great critic of the left, though he is of the left himself. But he has really gone for it in the wake of the killing of Charlie Kirk. He wrote this piece, didn't he, Anthony? Saying that the assassination was an awful thing, which lots of people thought, but also going further than that, praising Charlie Kirk, praising him, practicing politics the right way. That's what Ezra Klein said, Practicing politics the right way. And asking the question, do we have anyone in the Democrats who's willing to practice politics the right way, in other words, to go to our opponents and talk to them and lecture them and argue with them, as Charlie Kurt did? And my goodness, there was quite a reaction to it on the left. And here he is speaking to the New Yorker. So this is Ezra Klein on why the Democrats should avoid the politics of hate.

Ezra Klein (23:51)

I think we should not engage in oppositional mirroring where whatever the other side does, we do. Right? You hate me. Oh, well, you know what? I hate you.

Justin Webb (24:01)

And he also said the Democrats were continuing to reject Trump voters, which was a hangover from 2016, when Hillary Clinton, of course, characterized at least some of those who voted for Trump or were planning to at that stage, as a basket of deplorables. Here he is.

Ezra Klein (24:17)

I do think this politics of deplorables was very real. There are certainly people, right, who don't agree with the things I believe in the world. Right? They began to feel that the Democratic Party genuinely didn't like them. And one of my strongest, most strongly held views about politics. Woods, one of the most strongly held views about politics is that the most important question for a voter is not whether they like you, but whether you like them. If they're gonna entrust you with power, the first thing is not whether they agree with you. The first thing is just whether or not they feel you like them, and we'll take them into consideration.

Anthony Zurcher (24:51)

Okay, a couple of critiques of that. First of all, do you think that Democratic voters feel that Donald Trump likes them? You know, I mean, the door swings both ways, right? And it almost seems like Ezra Klein is endorsing the Michelle Obama strategy from 2016, which is, when they go low, we go high. And I think there are a lot of Democrats who felt, well, we tried that and we got kicked in the face. And it almost seems like the reaction to that was we need to be more pugnacious, we need to fight harder, we need to get down and mix it up with Donald Trump more. And just ignoring him and trying to take the high road and be friendly and be nice to his voters and understand their concerns is how we got into this message to begin with.

Justin Webb (25:37)

Yeah, I think what Ezra Klein would say to that is, hang on a second. Donald Trump won, so there are enough people who think he likes them, if that is important in politics. And I sort of get his point that it is important in politics. As a voter, you have got to feel that the person you're voting for does kind of like you, or at least accept your right to think the things that you think. And there is this sense, isn't there? God, we've talked about it so much on the pod, haven't we, down the years now, actually, that the Democrats tend to have this kind of sniffy attitude to the voters and their concerns that just sort of exudes a feeling that people are using language they shouldn't, thinking thoughts that they shouldn't, behaving in ways that they shouldn't, you know, when it comes to climate change, et cetera, et cetera. And that kind of overall thing, I think, is the point that Ezra Klein is making. They need to manage to shuffle that off if they're going to win the voters back. But there's a wider point he also makes, which I think is a fascinating one, that if you say that some people are out of bounds, beyond the pale, you can't talk to them, they're racists, they're misogynists, they're whatever, they're deniers of climate change. If you say that, does that mean you don't talk to them at all? And if they're maybe, I don't know, 20, 30% of the population, do you just abandon them? And it's an interesting question for the Democrats to kind of grapple with now, isn't it, Anthony? And it's one they're gonna have to think about. And he had this discussion the other day with Ta Nehisi Coates, the big figure on the left, and they had a sort of to and fro because Ta Nehisi Coates thought that Ezra Klein had lost his mind, basically didn't like at all what he'd been saying about Charlie Kirk. But Ezra Klein came back to him and said, well, look, what do you want to do with these people? They do exist. They exist among us. Are we, as a party, as a move, just going to say we're not having anything to do with you?

Anthony Zurcher (27:34)

Right. And politics is about. And winning elections is about building coalitions. And clearly the coalition that the Democratic Party has had in two of the three last elections wasn't enough. The idea of suburban women voters, college educated voters, certain minority voters, which Donald Trump did a very good job of chipping away at this last time around, that wasn't a winning majority. And I think you do touch on something that is a valid criticism. When your coalition relies on the intellectuals and college educated. And college educated, the percentage of them in this country is certainly not a majority. I think maybe 30% have college degrees. It's not a huge number. The risk is that you make your arguments in an intellectual sort of way and that that can be demeaning or insulting or alienating to the vast majority of this country that maybe doesn't read the New York Times every morning and doesn't. Hasn't gone to a liberal arts college and does not communicate politically in the same sort of way.

Justin Webb (28:46)

Okay, Anthony, that's the Democrats. They are back in the spotlight that much at least. We're saying what they're going to do with their time in the spotlight, we aren't yet quite sure. Okay, let's talk a bit about TikTok, Anthony, which, I mean, plenty of people get all their information about the world from TikTok. Plenty of Americans do, too. It really does matter. It's hugely controversial because of the algorithm, which in a way is such an amazing algorithm because it seems so successful and it gives people what they want. Donald Trump, it is fair to say, did not think much of TikTok in the past. And now he thinks he's found a way of thinking a lot of it, and it seems to be because he can control it. What's going on behind the scenes, what's actually been arranged, what do we know about what's being arranged? And where does it leave TikTok in America?

Anthony Zurcher (29:32)

Right. As you'll recall, Congress passed a law last year that mandated the sale of TikTok, the divestiture of TikTok from its Chinese owners, and it mandated it to happen in January. But Donald Trump has essentially kicked the can down the road throughout the course of this year trying to arrange some sort of a deal to have new ownership of TikTok. And what he did in the last week was announced that a deal is in the offing. Here he is in the Oval Office explaining what this new deal is and in particular, how TikTok is going to be owned in part by Larry Ellison, the Oracle founder and a close ally of his.

Donald Trump (30:09)

We got record votes with the young voter, as you know, for the election. So I was a little bit prejudiced in that way toward TikTok. It was very good and very meaningful. But we have American investors taking it over, running it, highly sophisticated, including Larry Ellison. And Oracle, I guess, is going to be a very. Play a very big role in terms of security, safety and everything else. So we have very good controls. And literally, I would get a call from friends of mine who were fathers of young people saying, could you do me a favor? Could you get it approved, please? My son is driving me crazy.

Justin Webb (30:46)

Yeah, but it's not just that, is it, Anthony? So, to an extent, he's rescued TikTok and done this deal because he knows it's popular, and as he says, he managed to use it. But actually, behind the scenes, it's a little more sophisticated than that, and in a sense to some will be a bit more sinister because it is the way that a lot of people get their news, particularly young people. And the suspicion is going to be that the algorithm can be tweaked next time round, possibly next year, but certainly in 2028, in a way that de Emphasizes those who the White House wants to de. Emphasize their kind of salience on TikTok, people's ability to see them, and emphasizes hugely those messages that the White House once emphasized. I mean, I'm putting it too baldly, probably, but that's the fear, isn't it?

Anthony Zurcher (31:39)

That is the fear. I mean, control of the algorithm is power, and it's power over information, information that tens of millions of Americans get. And as you rightly point out, tens of millions of Americans get this information when they're not consuming news elsewhere. So it is a remarkably powerful, potentially dangerous thing to have in a limited number of people's hands. And that's why people look at Larry Ellison being in control of this, as well as some other close donors of Donald Trump's and even one capital management group that has ties to a Middle Eastern, a Persian Gulf investment fund. And the opaqueness with which this deal has been done, we don't know what kind of a bidding process went in behind it. We know that there were some other interested parties. Donald Trump has mentioned some other interested parties. But we don't know why Trump and the administration, J.D. vance and this cross departmental government committee that determined who was going to take control of TikTok, how they made those decisions and what kind of safeguards there are in order to prevent this from being shaped to benefit conservatives and Donald Trump. Even though Trump himself in public comments disavowed any kind of political influence on this, his word for many people is not sufficient for this.

Justin Webb (33:01)

Because at the moment it's worth saying, isn't it, that there is a fear that it is ultimately controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, and that's not a great thing. And there are those who say, aren't there, that TikTok has been one of the things that has injected into American public life all sorts of attitudes that weren't there before. The power of TikTok is something that until recently, at least a lot of Republicans were worried about, I mean, genuinely worried about. And it seemed to many, with some reason, and now suddenly they're gone. Quiet.

Anthony Zurcher (33:34)

Yeah, it was a bipartisan issue. I mean, this Donald Trump in his first term tried to unilaterally ban TikTok, and that was overturned by the courts. The Biden administration moved away from those efforts. But Biden did support and sign a law passed with bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate, forcing that divestiture of TikTok because of national security concerns, an effort that was also upheld by the Supreme Court in a decision at the beginning of this year. And it appeared like there was a consensus that having this algorithm controlled by a Chinese company that may have to answer to the Chinese government is dangerous. And all this information on American users, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of American users, having that in the hands potentially of the Chinese government also was dangerous. So, you know, it was a bipartisan effort. But now, because Trump has used this law and in many ways, according to critics, you know, stretched the boundaries of what this law allowed by extending the deadline and taking all of this control over who gets it kind of under his own ambit, so that they could pick who won that bidding process without a lot of public disclosures. I mean, that is where this has now become a partisan issue. Although, you know, Carolyn Levitt, the White House Press Secretary. She was asked about who controls the algorithms and concerns about who controls the algorithms. And this was her response.

White House Press Secretary (Caroline Levitt) (35:06)

Under the terms of this deal, TikTok will be owned by a majority of American investors and controlled by a board of directors with a extensive national security and cybersecurity credentials in partnership with the US government. Oracle will serve as TikTok's trusted security provider and they will independently monitor the safety and data security of all US user data on TikTok's platform. Americans data will be stored securely in the United States without access from China. All US User data will be stored on servers operated by Oracle in the United States, protected from surveillance or interference by foreign adversaries and the algorithm. I know this is a question many of you have had, will be secured, retrained and operated in the United States outside of bytedance's control.

Justin Webb (35:51)

Yeah, but that's the point, isn't it? Outside bytedance's control. Bytedance with this ultimate link with the Chinese Communist Party. But in whose control and how? Transparently, as well.

Anthony Zurcher (36:02)

Right. The important role that TikTok, the powerful role that TikTok plays in American society at this point and who controls it and what kind of supervision there is. It's not just a social media question. It's not just a technology issue. It's an issue of American politics and American national security. And that's why there has been so much concern over this and concern about, well, what if ByteDance comes out with a new version of the algorithm, an updated version, because technology moves and develops and changes over time and gets perfected or adjusted and tweaked? How is that going to be rolled out into the American version of TikTok, or is it not going to be? And in that case, is an American TikTok just going to kind of become a dumber, slower, more outdated version of what is an exceedingly popular global application right now?

Justin Webb (36:58)

Okay, Anthony, that's gotta be it for now. We'll be back soon.

Anthony Zurcher (37:00)

Bye bye, y'. All.

Ezra Klein (37:04)

AmericasT, AmericasT from BBC News.

Podcast Host/Producer (37:08)

Well done for getting all the way to the end of another AmericasT episode that makes you officially an AmericasT. It's not easy navigating your way through the news in America, particularly at the moment, but you did it. And we're delighted to have you with us. So if you do have a comment or a question about any of the stories we've talked about or anything you'd like us to talk about, do please get in touch. You can email us americastbc.co.uk you can WhatsApp us a message on 033-01-2390. And we do answer your questions every single week on the podcast. You can always join the discussion in our online community on Discord. The link is in our podcast description in your app, and we'll be back with another episode very soon. Till then, see you later.

Anthony Zurcher (37:50)

Bye bye.

Asma Khalid (38:04)

America is changing, and so is the world.

Justin Webb (38:08)

But what's happening in America isn't just the cause of global upheaval. It's also a symptom of disruption that's happening everywhere.

Asma Khalid (38:16)

I'm Asma Khalid in Washington, D.C. i'm.

Anthony Zurcher (38:19)

Tristan Redman in London, and this is the Global story.

Asma Khalid (38:23)

Every weekday, we'll bring you a story from this intersection where the world and America meet.

Anthony Zurcher (38:28)

Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.