What the $100K H-1B Visa Fee Means for Big Tech + TikTok Deal Details Emerge

Support for the show comes from Anthropic, the team behind Claude.

When you're analyzing market trends or trying to understand what's really driving economic shifts, you need more than surface level takes.

Meet Claude, the AI thinking partner that works through complexity with you.

Whether you're dissecting earnings reports or exploring the ripple effect of policy changes, Claude helps you dig deeper into the analysis that matters.

Try Claude for free at cloud.ai/slash propgmarkets and see why the world's best problem solvers choose Claude as their thinking partner.

Support for the show comes from Workday.

New people to develop, new products to launch, new goals to crush.

Workday Go is designed for smaller, mid-sized businesses because there's never a dull moment and it can be a lot to keep up with.

With HR Finance on one AI platform, you'll have everything you need to think big, go big, and grow big and go live in as little as 30 to 60 business days.

Simplify your SMB with Workday Go.

Find out what Workday Go can do for you.

Visit workday.com/slash go to learn more.

To remind you that 60% of sales on Amazon come from independent sellers, here's Scott from Stringjoy.

Hey, y'all, we make guitar strings right here in Nashville, Tennessee.

Scott grows his business through Amazon.

They pick up, store, and deliver his products all across the country.

I love how musicians everywhere can rock out with our guitar strings.

A one, two, three, four.

Rock on, Scott.

Shop Shop small business like mine.

On Amazon.

Today's number?

95.

That's how many dollars it costs to get a personalized video message from Nigel Farage on Cameo.

The British politician made $180,000 on Cameo last year.

That makes him the first politician in history to openly admit what his job actually is.

Specifically, saying anything for money.

Welcome to Property Markets.

I'm Ed Elson.

It is September 23rd.

Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals.

A tech-driven rally pushed the major indices to record closing highs.

NVIDIA led the way, climbing 4% on plans to invest $100 billion in OpenAI.

The dollar fell, breaking a three-day rally.

Meanwhile, gold reached another record.

And finally, BYD shares dropped 4% on news that Berkshire Hathaway has fully exited its stake in the Chinese electric vehicle maker.

Okay,

what else is happening?

President Trump announced a big change to the H-1B visa program, specifically an entry fee.

In order to attain an H-1B to live and work in America, you must now pay $100,000.

To put that into perspective, the fee to enter the H-1B lottery used to be $5,000.

That lottery will now be replaced by a, quote, weighted selection process that favors the highest paid positions.

In sum, we are about to see a huge decline in H-1B workers.

Now, a quick reminder, what is the H-1B visa?

Well, this is a program that goes back to the H.W.

Bush administration.

It was designed to attract highly skilled workers, people with specialty knowledge, engineers, software developers, computer scientists.

And the idea was to bring the world's best and brightest into the country and have them build value for American companies versus foreign companies.

And indeed, that is...

Exactly what happened.

Some of our greatest entrepreneurs, our greatest business people came to the U.S.

on the H-1B, people like Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft, or Sunda Pichai, the CEO of Google, Jeffrey Skull, the president of eBay, and most notably, Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla.

Yes, Elon was able to stay in America thanks to an H-1B.

Without it, we wouldn't have Tesla or SpaceX or Neuralink, or at least they wouldn't exist in the US.

And in fact, Elon has recognized this fact.

Just last year, he wrote, quote, the reason I'm in America, along with so many critical people who built SpaceX, Tesla, and hundreds of other companies that made America strong is because of the H-1B.

Quote, I will go to war on this issue, the likes of which you cannot possibly comprehend.

Well, I guess he did go to war.

He donated nearly $300 million to the Trump campaign, but it turned out to be more of a war against himself.

The H-1B hasn't been eliminated per se, but it has definitely been put way out of reach for many, many workers.

After this change, H-1B issuance is expected to plummet this year.

And that makes sense, considering the average H-1B worker earns about $94,000 a year, which is less than the entry fee you'd have to pay to even make that salary in the first place.

Now, why is Trump doing this?

Well, the idea is to encourage companies to hire American workers instead of foreign workers.

And that is fair enough.

But we should also note that this is quite a reversal from Trump's previous position on skilled immigration, which he promoted throughout the campaign.

One of his promises, for example, was to give a green card to every foreign student who graduates from an American college.

This is a clip from an interview on the All-In podcast.

We need high-skilled workers in this country.

Yes, we need to recruit the best and brightest from the world.

I agree.

Can you please promise us you will give us more ability to import the best and brightest around the world to America?

I do promise, but I happen to agree.

That's why I promise.

Otherwise, I wouldn't promise.

It's so sad when we lose people from Harvard, MIT, from the greatest schools, and lesser schools that are phenomenal schools also.

And what I wanted to do, and I would have done this, but then we had to solve the COVID problem because that came in and sort of dominated for a little while, as you perhaps know.

But what I want to do and what I will do is you graduate from a college.

I think you should get automatically, as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country.

And that includes junior colleges, too.

Anybody graduates from a college, you go in there for two years or four years.

If you graduate or you get a doctorate degree from a college, you should be able to stay in this country.

And you know more stories than I do, but I know of stories where people graduated from a top college or from a college, and they desperately wanted to stay here.

They had a plan for a company, a concept, and they can't.

They go back to India, they go back to China.

They do the same basic company in those places, and they become multi-billionaires, employing thousands and thousands of people.

And it could have been done here.

That was in June 2024, so before the election.

And here we are, a little over a year later.

Not only has that position been abandoned, it has also essentially been reversed with this H-1B move.

So what does this mean?

for our economy?

What does it mean for tech, which is of course highly reliant on foreign skilled work?

Well, here to help us answer that, we have Peter Harrell from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

He also served in the National Security Council and the National Economic Council under President Biden.

Okay, Peter Harrell, thank you for joining me on the program.

Ed, it's great to be on.

So Trump has issued this new entry fee.

If you want to get an H-1B, you got to pay $100,000.

A lot of implications for the economy, especially for big tech.

But first, I just want to get your initial reactions.

What are kind of your initial thoughts?

What are the implications of this move?

Yeah, so this is a big move out of the administration.

Obviously, the administration has taken a tough on immigration set of policies across the board, but this is really the first time they seem to be moving against sort of high-skill immigration as opposed to more blue-collar kind of immigration, people

crossing the border.

It is clearly going to have implications for the tech sector.

The tech sector is the biggest user of these visas, which basically let

people with higher skilled professional qualifications come to the U.S.

for between one and six years to work in specialty fields.

Clearly going to have implications for the tech sector, but that's not the only sector that this is going to hit.

Although we think about H-1Bs as being some of the big tech platform companies, as well as startups.

Elon Musk was famously an H-1B early in his career when he was getting some of his early companies started.

It is also used by doctors, hospitals to bring specialty doctors in.

It's used by universities and nonprofits to bring policy researchers and academic researchers into the United States.

Well, it's probably over half a tech story.

It's by no means only a tech story for employers here in the United States.

I just want to read you a quote from Reed Hastings, who's the,

of course, the founder of Netflix, who actually supported this move.

He said, quote, I've worked on H-1B politics for 30 years.

Trump's $100,000 per year tax is a great solution.

It will mean H-1B is used just for very high-value jobs, which will mean no lottery needed and more certainty for those jobs.

I want to get your reactions to his view that this is actually a good thing.

What is the economic argument as to why putting on this $100,000 entry fee would actually be good for companies, for tech companies, and for the economy?

Yeah, so I think there are a couple of arguments in favor of this move.

And I should begin by saying,

you know, watching the Trump administration over the last, what are we, eight months, nine months now, Ed, I think this is probably in some sense a move that was driven by, A, Trump being tough on immigration.

And B, this is a president who shows he wants to look for money wherever he can find it, right?

And this is a chance for him to get some additional revenue for the U.S.

government.

So that's probably what's driving this.

But what are the kind of positive policy rationales potentially for this move, or what are the potential upsides?

Well, the first is...

Although the H-1B program started back in the early 1990s, was intended to bring a diverse range of high-skilled workers to the United States, there is some evidence, and this is, I think, what Mr.

Hastings is talking about.

There is some evidence that over the last decade or so, a handful of relatively large tech companies has figured out how to run the system in a way that benefits them.

So if you look at the list of who the largest users of H1B visas are, you know, it is a couple of the big tech platform companies like Amazon, and then it's a couple of the Indian IT outsourcing companies that have used this to get workers to come to the U.S.

And so, you know, there are a number of these companies that are getting several thousand of these visas per year each.

And so I think there is an argument

that

for the tech users of this visa,

extracting a fee from them will probably force them to focus their hiring under H-1B on higher value employees rather than on kind of middle value employees.

And I see the argument there for that.

Now, that is not an argument for the NGO users, the small business users, the kind of non-big tech platform users who I think will find a $100,000 fee makes the difference between their ability to bring in talent that they want to bring in

and

their ability to bring that talent in or not.

I think the hospital, this is a major issue for them.

Maybe less of an issue for Amazon or Infosys, which may decide they eat some of the fee here.

We'll see.

Yeah, I mean, it goes back to why do we have the H-1B in the first place?

And the whole idea is it's to make us competitive, competitive in technology and engineering,

competitive in all of the highly skilled

work sectors.

But

we're in the middle of this AI race, especially with China.

And you compare this to Trump's stance basically just a year ago, where he seemed to be very pro-skilled immigration.

There was at one point he was saying that he wanted to give green cards to any foreign student who graduated from a U.S.

university.

It appeared that it was his view that in order to be competitive in technology, we need to do whatever we can to attract as much skilled talent as we can from abroad.

And it appears that this is going to reverse that, or at least that's how it appears on its face.

I'm just wondering what you think of that.

Is this going to hamper our ability to compete on AI and in technology at large?

Well, so it probably is and it isn't.

You know, it probably is not going to hamper meta platform's ability to bring in an engineer it wants to bring in.

Because, you know, we've seen the reports that Zuck is spending, what, $100 million to buy an engineer an extra 100K for the visa.

Probably isn't going to be dispositive to what Zuck wants to do.

But where I think it will be harmful will be on more of the, you know, upstart

AI companies, more, more companies that are trying to get their feet off the ground,

who already find this H-1B system to be extremely complicated to navigate, and who now are going to have to come up with $100,000 of cash on top of all that complexity and legal fees.

And so I think in a way, what you're going to see is a system that, you know, some of the existing big tech guys will be kind of, okay, fine.

We'll bring in a couple of people we really want to bring in.

We'll

eat the cost.

We may not bring in some of the mid-skill, lower, you know, mid-skill people we otherwise would have brought in.

But I do worry the real losers here are going to be the, you know, startups, the folks who were bringing in, you know, Elon when Elon was a kid, for whom this is real money.

And that, of course, has historically been a big part of American innovation.

And the administration's going to need to think about that part of the ecosystem if they don't want to cede our innovative edge to our competitors.

Yes.

One really interesting start here that I did not realize, but three quarters of H-1B workers are from India.

It used to be.

kind of more diverse, more balanced a while ago, but it's now 75%

will bring in people from India.

I'm just wondering, to what extent does this affect our relationship with India?

And given what we've seen in terms of these tensions, especially with tariffs over the past few weeks, I wonder if it's possible that this is really targeted at India in some way.

Does this affect our relationship with the nation?

So it certainly has affected our relationship in the sense that we saw Indian markets get a little bit rattled after this announcement.

We've seen obviously concern out of Indian political leadership.

You know, I'll be very interested to see whether this issue plays into

the U.S.-India trade negotiations.

Now, I have no inside information as to whether that's happening, but one thought I did have when I saw this news breaking on Friday and through the weekend was, you know, there's a provision buried in the executive order that basically says, yes, we're having this $100,000 cap or this $100,000 fee, but

the Secretary of Homeland Security can waive that fee for classes of immigrants or for individual immigrants or for firms if the Secretary decides that she wants to.

And one thought I had is, you know, would the Trump administration tell the Indians as part of the trade negotiations, you know, hey, we'll give you 20,000 free H-1Bs if we get to yes on the trade deals.

Again, I have have no inside information on that, but that is an option they seem to have legally given themselves, given this kind of broad exception they have created for the broad potential exception they've created for themselves.

But it is clearly going to be an issue in the US-India relationship.

Just want to get your view on the

impetus for this.

As I mentioned earlier, a year ago,

he seemed to have almost the opposite stance on this issue of skilled immigration.

And now it appears to be reversing.

I'm wondering,

what is the

reason for this?

Why have they pursued this strategy?

What is it hoping to accomplish?

Who's in his ear?

Or perhaps he came up with this on his own.

But why do you think he is doing this when you get down to it?

Well, I think that this combines two things we know Trump is interested in.

One is a tough line on immigration, right?

This just lets him look tough on immigration,

where he can say previously it was free or not really free, but a few thousand dollars, now it's $100,000.

So I think he likes

the messaging of toughness, even if there are some policy downsides.

And second, I do think it's about the money.

You know, this is a guy we see, whether it is the NVIDIA RevShare deal for

chip sales to China.

China, or whether it is taking, you know, equity in Intel.

This is a guy who's looking for kind of odd sources of government revenue somewhere.

And I think this was kind of an issue that let him combine both those interests.

He can appear tough on immigration and he can claim he's getting money for the federal government.

And I don't think you have to overthink that with this particular president.

Yeah.

The other thing we saw is this rollout of the Trump, the gold card visa program.

You can now pay a million dollars to live in the U.S.

I'm just wondering if you had any reactions to that move and perhaps what the economic economic implications of that program will be.

I mean, we'll have to see the economic implications of that program, but I do the fact that he announced the Trump gold card and the H-1B reform or the H-1B fee on the same day reinforced in my mind that the money was a piece of this H-1B policy, right?

I mean, he's looking for ways to raise money through immigration.

So the gold card basically is

an expedited

visa green card for high net worth individuals coming to the U.S.

who are willing to pay a million dollars.

We've previously had

policies where immigrants who are investing a lot of money here in the U.S., so it's not

conceptually all that different from the past, except A, named after the president, B, the money is being paid to the government.

rather than being invested in communities in the United States.

And C,

you know, really just seems to be a visa for sale kind of system that we've often criticized other governments, other governments for adopting.

Whether it works, I think we'll just have to see what the demand is.

I mean, you know, Trump says we might do 80,000 of these a year, I think is what he said.

We'll have to see if there's demand for that out there.

All right, Peter Harrell, really appreciate your time.

Thank you for joining us on the show.

Thank you so much for having me on it.

After the break, an inside look at the latest developments at TikTok.

If you're enjoying the show, give Profit Markets a follow.

Support for the show comes from Groons.

An apple a day keeps a doctor away, yada, yada, yada.

The truth is that even if you enjoy fruits and vegetables, it can still be tedious to get all the nutrients your body needs.

So here's a tip: add groons to the mix.

Groons isn't a multivitamin, a green scummy, or a prebiotic.

it's all of those things and then some at a fraction of the price and bonus, it tastes great.

All Groons Daily Gummy Snack Packs are vegan, nut gluten dairy-free with no artificial flavors or colors and they're packed with more than 20 vitamins and minerals with more than 60 nutrient-dense ingredients and whole foods.

And for a limited time, you can try their Groonie Smith Apple flavor just in time for fall.

It's got the same snackable, packable, full-body benefits you've come to expect, but this time, these taste like you're walking through an apple orchard in a cable-knit sweater, warm apple cider in hand.

Grab your limited-edition Grunny Smith Apple Grunts available only through October.

Stock up because they will sell out.

Get up to 52% off when you go to gruns.co and use the code markets.

Support for the show comes from Anthropic, the team behind Claude.

When analyzing complex market movements or policy implications, the difference between surface-level commentary and real insight comes down to asking better questions about the data.

Cloud is for AI for minds that don't stop at good enough.

It's a collaborator that actually understands your entire workflow and thinks with you, not for you.

Whether you're strategizing your next business move or diving deep into economic analysis, Cloud extends your thinking to tackle the problems that matter.

For finance professionals exploring earnings reports or economic policy ripple effects, Cloud works through complexity rather than rushing to conclusions.

It helps spot connections across multiple sources, challenge assumptions, and develop insights that go beyond the obvious.

Try Claude for free at cloud.ai slash propgmarkets and see why the world's best problem solvers choose Claude as their thinking partner.

Tuesday on NBC, Jimmy Fallon and Bozema St.

John host the highly anticipated new competition show.

I hired 10 creatives from all walks of life.

They will be battling it out to see who can impress the world's biggest brands.

This is a huge opportunity.

This is the battle for the next big idea.

This is not play play.

We're spending millions of dollars.

I'm so excited to embark on this adventure with all of you.

May the best idea win!

On brand with Jimmy Fallon, series premiere Tuesday on NBC.

We're back with Prof G Markets.

The White House has unveiled new details on the TikTok deal.

The deal is completely finalized, according to White House press secretary Caroline Levitt.

Oracle will oversee the retraining of the app's algorithm, which it will lease from ByteDance.

Meanwhile, over the weekend, Trump said that Michael Dell and the Murdoch family could take part in the deal.

And as we covered previously, a group of American investors will own roughly 80% of the new entity, as well as hold six out of seven of the board seats.

That leaves ByteDance with less than 20% of the equity in the new business.

Okay.

For an inside look at these developments, our producer Claire Miller spoke with Dan Primack, business editor at Axios and author of the daily Axios Pro Rata newsletter.

He has been in touch with a senior White House official, and he's also been in touch with someone who was personally involved in this deal.

Let's start with the core issue of the algorithm.

Last week, there was talk of licensing it from ByteDance.

Now there's talk of leasing a copy of it.

and that Oracle will secure it somehow.

Seems like a lot of semantics.

What is going on with the algorithm from your understanding?

Yeah, so there's going to be what they're calling a lease.

So basically, a copy of the TikTok algorithm will get made.

Byte dance will retain the original algorithm.

That copy will go to what they're calling TikTok US, which is going to be controlled by Silverlake and Oracle and Andreessen Horowitz and other U.S.

investors.

And at that point, that copy, they're going to be able to retrain and also continue to modify it.

And the best way I can kind of describe this is: imagine someone made a drawing and made a photocopy for you.

They would hold on to the original drawing, but you could do whatever you wanted with the photocopy.

You could draw additional things.

You could fold it.

You could change the color, et cetera.

And that would be yours.

And the reason for this arrangement is basically that ByteDance is going to continue to operate TikTok in countries outside of the U.S.

So it still needs access to the algorithm as well.

So what is Oracle's role here?

Oracle is basically the tech partner.

And this isn't new.

You know, Trump tried to ban TikTok during, at the end of his first term, at which point Oracle popped up as the tech partner.

And even after that, the beginning of the Biden administration, Oracle was working with TikTok on something called Project Texas.

Oracle basically is two things.

It's the tech partner.

It's the one that's going to retrain the algorithm.

It's the one that provides the data security.

You basically sit on Oracle Cloud.

And then also, Oracle is going to be an equity investor in TikTok US, one of the three managing partners, I guess you could say, of this new company.

All of this new information has been coming from the White House.

Has Beijing weighed in here?

Because last week, it seemed like China was basically saying ByteDance would hold on to the algorithm and license it.

It seems like they were not on the same page going into that phone call with Trump.

I don't know how much distinction between the term license and lease there really is.

I think it's a similar sort of

thing.

The official readout from the Chinese government was a lot more vague or at least a little bit more circumspect.

And what's unknown is, is that because there actually is some daylight between the two?

Or was that a bit of an attempt to save face by the Chinese government?

The White House, you know, granted, they have made promises in the past on things that haven't come to fruition, but they've been pretty consistent on this for the past several days.

The China, during the meeting in Madrid, approved of this during a call with Trump and Xi.

They signed off and that there's going to be actual paperwork signed shortly.

I wanted to ask about that.

Is this really a framework or is there a deal?

Your sense is there is actual paperwork and a signature is incoming?

I think there's probably two parts.

There's probably some sort of memorandum of understanding, which would be the framework.

And then the actual, all the details have to get finalized.

As of this morning, a senior White House official was acknowledging that the final price isn't necessarily determined yet.

The final cap table for TikTok U.S., i.e.

who all the investors are and what stake they'll all own, that's not entirely determined yet.

And even potentially, the U.S.

government is not going to take equity.

They're not going to have a board seat or have a so-called golden share, but they are going to get the equivalent of kind of a banker fee for this, a finder's fee.

And that doesn't seem to even be determined yet.

So I think memorandum of understanding, but then Trump is signing a new executive order to kind of kick the can another four months.

There's a bunch of time to actually paper over the final deal.

And it's possible nothing official will be signed until the final closing paperwork.

Do you have any sense of what these deal terms might look like, what the pricing could be?

Honestly, I don't.

You know, we've the talk has been all over the place.

What complicates this is a couple of things.

For starters, ByteDance is valued at kind of over, I believe, $300 billion in the private market or maybe $250 or something like that.

But TikTok is a relatively small part of its business.

On the other hand, this isn't just a pure, okay, it makes this much money and thus you put a multiple on it.

There's so much political leverage here on both sides of this, right?

You kind of have a distressed seller to a certain extent because if a deal doesn't happen, TikTok gets shut down.

On the other hand, China obviously doesn't want to let it go for peanuts because that makes them look bad.

So I think that the numbers are a little bit complicated to figure out.

The only thing we really know for sure is that ByteDance and its investors will own just under 20% of TikTok U.S.

if this goes through.

You used the phrase save face that ByteDance wanted to save face or China wanted to save face by calling it a licensing deal.

Do you see this deal as a loss for China?

I mean, it's a loss for China in the sense that one of its giant tech companies has been getting pushed around, sure.

I think it's a loss in that.

Now, look, if it turns out that it's a for a trillion dollar valuation, then I'll reconsider.

But right now, sure, it's a loss, right?

You know, this is not not the sort of thing that China wants to see one of its companies have to do.

Byte dance originally had no interest in selling TikTok.

Again, it's not the main part of its business, but it's a nice crown jewel in its portfolio.

Over the weekend, Trump said that the Murdochs and Michael Dell are involved.

Do you have any intel on that?

It's true and it's kind of shorthand.

In terms of Michael Dell, his family office a couple of years ago merged with an investment bank slash private equity firm called BDT.

So there's now this firm.

You can Google it.

It's called BDT plus MSD Capital, I think, or something like that.

That's the one who's working on this.

So it's partially Michael Dell's money.

There's also other money.

And then when it comes to the Murdochs, Lachlan and Rupert, and this is, of course, ironic because Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch as part of a lawsuit with the Wall Street Journal, but that's going to get done apparently via Fox Corp, the actual company.

So it's not Lachlan and Rupert reaching into their personal checkbooks.

This is being done through the company.

Would you say that's the same

structure applies for Oracle and Larry Ellison, or do you have any sense of whether Larry will be personally involved in this deal?

Unclear right now.

Oracle, again, is interesting because they've been involved with TikTok and ByteDance for so long.

And back in 2019, when there was first talk of divestiture, Oracle considered being an equity partner, then didn't want to be, then it was, then it wasn't.

And now it seems like it's going to be an equity partner yet again.

It's unclear right now if this will just be Oracle money or if Larry Ellison will put some of his own in.

Although he could also contribute some Oracle shares, which is kind of the same thing.

When I think about where it seems like this app is headed into the hands of investors, including the Murdochs and the Ellisons, I think about what happened with X or Twitter when Elon took over.

Advertisers fled, users fled, users dropped off.

Do you see TikTok going in the same direction?

Like, will

Americans stay on this app?

Well, Americans have been told for the past five years that the Chinese government controls this and that they're watching everywhere everywhere you go.

And Americans keep flocking to the app.

So I'm not sure Americans necessarily really care.

I think so long as the performance of the app continues to be good, I think that was a bigger issue with X slash Twitter.

Remember, with X slash Twitter, Elon Musk came in and he fired everybody and he wanted to change it.

That was the point, right?

He wanted to buy it, not just to control it, but to make significant changes.

There's no indication here that's what Silverlake or Oracle or Andreessen Horwitz want to do.

I think they think it's a decent business that they could make better, perhaps, and that this is a good opportunity for them.

You know, Elon talked so much about, you know, bots were ruining Twitter, et cetera.

No one's suggesting that the underlying algorithm has any problems with it.

In fact, I believe the buyers feel that it is a more addictive algorithm than Instagrams or X's.

So I don't believe you're going to see the same thing.

We don't know necessarily who would run TikTok US, but that will be up, Tandrees and Oracle, et cetera.

I wouldn't be surprised if the current management of that company, which is based in the United States, continues to manage it, at least for the most part.

I think it's worth noting there's still some people who are kind of who are involved in the deal on both sides who are still a little bit in the dark.

There's a lot to still be determined.

And what I'd say is, I wrote a column about this today in the Access Pro Rata newsletter, and at the very end of it, it basically said the deal's not done until it's done.

And somebody who was pretty heavily involved in the deal wrote back and said that, from their perspective, that's probably the most accurate statement that could be made about the situation right now.

So, there's a lot of kind of trust but verify here.

There is a framework, but really, this has been so complicated.

And it's honestly kind of of gone on for five years or six years until it's really done and all the paperwork is signed and everyone gets to walk away with their cash.

There isn't yet a TikTok deal.

I mean, there's been a flurry of news on this in the past week.

Do you think we're still four months out, you know, based on that extended deadline?

I think we could be.

I mean, look, these kinds of transactions, this is basically a corporate carve out, right?

And these sorts of transactions, even with no controversy or political overtones, just take a bunch of time to get done.

There's just a lot of paperwork and things that need to get done.

The only, by the way, the only kind of caveat I would say to all this, or not even a caveat, but like thing to watch is this has been used, TikTok has been used as a trade bargaining chip by both the US and by Beijing.

That deal between the two countries still isn't signed.

We're talking here about a lease of an algorithm.

A lease can be canceled.

potentially, even if the deal closes, right?

You know,

they could cancel the contract or maybe it's not in perpetuity.

So there's still some kind of outstanding things there that could become, you know, monkeys in the wrench.

All right.

Dan, thank you so much for joining us.

Thanks for having me.

That was Dan Primack, business editor at Axios and author of the daily Axios Pro Ratter newsletter.

Well, on Monday's episode, we discussed the rise of the Ellison family, their takeover of media from Paramount to Warner Brothers and potentially TikTok.

We discussed how this is becoming a trend, how billionaires and in many cases, pro-Trump billionaires are spending their billions to buy up and control the largest media assets in the world.

And this news essentially just re-emphasizes what we already said.

It won't just be Larry Ellison and Jeff Yass, two of Trump's closest associates controlling TikTok.

It will also be, perhaps, Rupert Murdoch, the mastermind behind Fox News.

Those are the people who will own the most ascendant social media asset in the world.

Those are the people who will own the app from which one third of young Americans get their news.

Those are the people who will have a direct impact on the minds of 170 million Americans, basically the largest audience in the country.

But this also highlights something larger.

And that is this question of who owns the media?

I mean, for a long time, it was thought that the left owned the media.

The liberal media, the establishment left, the leftist mainstream.

These are ideas, these are terms that have been thrown around a lot and that still are thrown around a lot.

Many people still say and believe that the mainstream media is captured by the left.

But let's just be clear.

If ever that was true, there is no longer any doubt.

The right controls the media.

Whether it is TV,

where Fox News commands three times the viewership of MSNBC, or podcasts, where all the biggest shows are pro-Trump, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Megan Kelly, Joe Rogan, or tech, where the most influential social media platforms are controlled by people who are friends with the president or who have donated to the president.

X, Instagram, Facebook, and now potentially TikTok, to be owned by the Ellisons and, yes, the Murdochs.

There is not one corner of American media that isn't captured or controlled by the right at this point.

Now, that isn't to say that the same wasn't true at one point of the left.

The left certainly has had its fair share of media control.

But it is to say that that is no longer true.

This idea, this complaint that the left controls the media, it's just no longer a valid complaint.

It does not compute with reality.

That isn't a value judgment.

That isn't a stance stance on what's right or what's wrong.

It is simply a statement of what is.

The right controls the government.

The right controls the law.

And in 2025, the right controls the media.

So this story of the underdog or the silenced or the suppressed, I'm sorry,

it doesn't work anymore.

This is a story of the powerful.

This is a story of the dominant.

And ultimately, this is a story of total and complete control.

Okay, that's it for today.

This episode was produced by Claire Miller, edited by Joel Patterson, and engineered by Benjamin Spencer.

Our associate producer is Alison Weiss.

Our research team is Dan Shallan, Isabella Kinsell, Kristen O'Donoghue, and Mia Silverio.

And our technical director is Drew Burroughs.

Thank you for listening to Profit Markets from Profit G Media.

If you liked what you heard, give us a follow.

I'm Ed Elson.

I'll see you tomorrow.