“`html

Fact Check: TikTok Ban, President-elect Trump, and Alleged Backroom Deals

One of our subscribers recently submitted this article for a fact check, and we’re diving deep into its claims. If you, too, have a news story or claim you’d like reviewed, you can submit it to us for free—just like they did—and we’ll handle the rest. Now, let’s break this down.

The article, published by the NY Post on January 15, 2025, explores the ongoing saga of TikTok’s impending ban in the United States and alleges a potential intervention by President-elect Donald Trump. The title hints at major developments, but does the content of the story hold up under scrutiny? Let’s find out.

Key Claim 1: President-elect Trump is considering an executive order to delay the TikTok ban

Analysis: The article attributes this claim to a Washington Post report but fails to dive deeper into how Trump’s executive authority would legally apply here. The Washington Post report itself, which DBUNK reviewed, remains speculative; no official documentation or leaks substantiate the suggestion Trump plans to use an executive order. Furthermore, the timeframe of Trump’s intervention—being merely days before his inauguration—would make such an action unprecedented and legally questionable. Put simply, this remains a hypothetical and is presented without the critical missing context that Trump’s ability to act is constrained until his presidency officially begins.

Verdict: Misleading without critical legal context. The language used in the article suggests a likelihood of action without clarifying how improbable such a move would be at this stage.

Key Claim 2: TikTok “vowed to go dark” and plans to pull the plug on the app

Analysis: The article states TikTok “vowed” to disable its app for U.S. users if the ban is enforced, citing The Information. Upon further investigation, DBUNK found no formal statement from TikTok confirming such a decision. Instead, reports indicate that TikTok has been in active legal battles to prevent the ban and has made no definitive public declarations about shuttering operations. Additionally, the claim that TikTok users would see a pop-up message with the option to download their data is partially misleading; no concrete source originating from TikTok corroborates this information. This appears to be speculative reporting rather than verifiable news.

Verdict: Misrepresentation. The article amplifies rumors as facts and omits TikTok’s ongoing legal opposition to the ban.

Key Claim 3: Chinese officials are considering selling TikTok to Elon Musk

Analysis: The article dismisses this as “pure fiction” per TikTok representatives, while simultaneously mentioning Bloomberg as the source. DBUNK’s review of the Bloomberg report confirms it was a speculative piece largely based on hearsay and unnamed sources, rather than substantiated reporting. The NY Post article further fails to distinguish between unfounded conjecture and an actual possibility, leaving readers confused.

Verdict: Unverified speculation presented without clarity. It would have been more responsible to clearly label this information as uncorroborated rumor.

Key Claim 4: Trump’s newfound opposition to the ban after years of criticism

Analysis: The article speculates that Trump’s apparent shift in position—from a vocal critic of TikTok to reportedly opposing the ban—might stem from a “political solution.” However, the author provides no evidence supporting this claim, nor explores potential motives such as political strategy for appealing to young voters or tech industry interests. The lack of depth into why Trump’s stance might have evolved invites readers to draw their own conclusions, which could lead to misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the broader context.

Verdict: Missing context. This is a critical gap left unaddressed, leaving readers asking, “What’s really behind Trump’s change of heart?”

User-Purpose Question Answer: Why would Trump suddenly want to stop the TikTok ban after being against it for so long?

Trump’s evolving position may be indicative of strategic considerations. Multiple factors could be at play, such as a desire to diffuse political tension during his transition to the presidency or a broader realignment of focus away from hardline policies on Chinese tech companies. Without more concrete information, any explanation remains speculative. It’s possible that private negotiations, including TikTok’s outreach or lobbying efforts, have influenced this apparent shift.

Final DBUNK Verdict:

This article, while informative, contains multiple instances of speculative claims, missing context, and unverified information. Phrases such as “vowed to go dark,” “Trump considering an executive order,” and “Chinese officials selling to Elon Musk” are not supported by solid evidence or primary sources. The lack of critical analysis weakens its credibility. Readers should treat the reporting with caution.

As misinformation continues to erode trust in journalism, DBUNK remains your trusted tool for cutting through the noise. Read the original article here.

“`