– English Lyrics

Lyrics & Translation

[English]

The Democrats are back. They have forced

the shutdown of the federal government

in the United States. It is a very big

move. A big move politically. It puts

them in the spotlight once again. Are

they going to gain from it politically

or not? Welcome to American

[Music]

in the worldwide headquarters of

American, England. And it's Anthony in

the shutdown headquarters of America,

Washington DC.

Okay, two subjects today. We will get to

Tik Tok because it is hugely important,

it seems to me, who owns Tik Tok and how

the algorithm works. It's important

anyway because loads and loads of people

in the United States use it. But it's

important politically because there are

those who think it will have an outsized

influence on the next election and on

the way that people get information for

the next election. um because they don't

all listen to podcasts although of

course lots do that as well. So we will

get to Tik Tok but first let's start

with the Democrats and the shutdown and

Anthony

a big move from them a move that feels

to many of their supporters finally

finally like they're getting to grips

with Donald Trump. But it's it's not

without dangers.

Not without danger. And you know from

the beginning of this year the Democrats

really uh only had one play. I mean

they're out of power. They don't control

either chamber of the US Congress. They

don't control the presidency. They have

a tenuous hold on on the courts. The

Supreme Court is definitely

conservativeleaning. Uh so they didn't

have a lot of options. One option they

did have because of the rules of the US

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 uh

back then. And actually Chuck Schumer,

the the Senate Democratic leader and

other Democratic leaders uh 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 uh ground everything to a

halt. Uh and now we'll see how it it all

plays out. But they are the ones who are

are blocking essentially what uh

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. Uh but it is it is a

means to grind things to a halt. Where

it goes from here, however, as you

mentioned, is is fraught with political

risk.

Okay. and and to 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 uh

pretty well subsidized medicines at the

moment and 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 are acting as they are

and that they hope is hugely uh 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 uh left-wing

senator and Alexandria Kziocortez, the

congresswoman who may well be a

candidate. In fact, I think she's almost

certain to be a candidate uh in 2028

coming together to make this pitch to

the American people.

If you don't have the money to go to a

doctor and you're sick, you die. And

that's what that's what this clean bill

is about. Mhm. 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.

Right? So, let me just back that up.

Remember, right now, our healthcare

system is broken. Right now, we're the

only major country on earth not to

guarantee healthcare to all people. And

these guys want to make it even worse.

We're not going to let that happen.

No, we're not.

All right. So, what we're seeing there

is the Democrats essentially trying to

fight a battle they lost already this

year with the big beautiful bill. The

big beautiful bill, if you'll remember,

Justin, was uh the Trumpbacked

Republican budget proposal that slashed

a lot of spending uh on Medicaid, which

is the health insurance program for the

poor uh and is going to allow some

subsidies to help people buy health

insurance uh low-income people buy

health insurance uh 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 to make that

big beautiful bill debate about. Uh, and

that is healthcare spending. Because, as

as you mentioned, John 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,

uh, tens of millions of Americans lose

their health insurance, uh, they're

banking on the fact that there's going

to 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 were fighting for you and it

is the Republicans who are doing this

and they're the ones who bear the brunt

of the blame.

Got to say, at the moment, Donald Trump

doesn't look too worried by this, does

he? He he posted this photo on Truth

Social of a meeting that he'd had with

the Democratic congressional leadership

um in which there are uh Trump 2028

these red um hats, Trump 2028 hats

actually on the Oval Office desk during

the meeting. And I don't 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 I suppose what's

actually going on in it.

Uh in in this video, it was a press

conference that Chuck Schumer, the

Senate uh minority leader, Democratic

leader in the Senate, uh and Hakee Jeff,

the the minority leader in the House,

were holding outside the White House

after that meeting in the Oval Office

with the Trump hats and everything else.

Uh except that Trump or someone

affiliated with him used AI to change

what Chuck Schumer was saying. Uh, not

only that, but then also to change Hakee

Jeff to make it look like he was wearing

a sombrero and had like a a big Mexican

fake mustache and mariachi music in the

background. This was to drive home the

the point Trump was trying to make uh

the allegation he was making that

Democrats are not just trying to get uh

health insurance provided to low-income

people, but they want health insurance

to undocumented migrants. Uh here is the

clip so you can you can hear what he has

to say. It's obscenity laced. I don't

know. We're beeping it out, but it was a

a pretty coarse uh pretty uh demeaning

and and racially tinged video.

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. Look, 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.

Did that actually come from the White

House, Anthony?

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

so it's a bit like it's like that Gaza

video, isn't it? Similar in a way that

it's it's out there to shock. They see

it and they think, "What the heck? Let's

just put it out."

And and 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 a false allegation that that

Trump is making here. Uh while there is

some truth to the fact that legal

migrants, legal immigrants uh in this

country would benefit uh from these uh

from these subsidies, undocumented

migrants are prohibited. So you know

it's it's kind of a conflating of a

thing to try to make it more uh more

unpopular, more controversial, uh trying

to generate public anger, but it's doing

it. I mean, the basic premise of this is

wrong. uh and obviously it's doing it in

a kind of a racist way. So here's here's

Aheem Jeff responding to that video uh

in comments afterwards.

We are fighting to lower the high cost

of living and to protect the health care

of 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.

Okay. Is not amused. But then Donald

Trump responded then to that, didn't he?

So he posted Hakeim Jeff responding to

the video on Truth Social with the same

fake mustache, the same same sombrero

um and images of um Mariachi banned

characters as well. So it's fair to say

that um neither man is stepping down.

And as ever, support for the president

from the vice president, JD Vance.

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 some fun at the absurdity of the

Democrats themselves. I mean, I'll tell

Jeff right now, I make this solemn

promise to you that if you help us

reopen the government, the sombrero

memes will stop.

Somehow, I think the Democrats will not

be reassured by that assurance. Getting

getting back to the Oval Office photo of

the Trump 2028 uh hats. Uh Hakee Jeff,

according to reports, leaned over when

Trump tried to hand those hats to to

Schumer and Jeff looked at JD Vance and

said, "Well, what do you think of that?"

Because Vance obviously has 2028

presidential ambitions that would be

thwarted if if Trump found a way of

running again. And Vance kind of dead

face said, "I have no comment."

Yeah. So, actually, I mean, it's weird,

isn't it? because they do this and

Hacken 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 and from the White

House they seem to think that this is

just well as JD 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 hacking Jeff 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, etc., etc. Not really

suited to to living up to Donald Trump.

And so the Trump team kind of feel

they've got the upper hand, don't they?

Yeah. You know, obviously when Chuck

Schumer is the face of your party, uh

he's he's not the most charismatic, most

uh engaging personality. I you I was

actually kind of surprised Hakee Jeff

hasn't hasn't elevated his stature more.

In fact, I think one of my predictions

at the beginning of this year was that

Hakee Jeff would become the the face of

the Democratic party and be effective in

that. That that hasn't been the case.

And and part of the reason I think it

hasn't been the case is because

Democrats haven't had uh the ability to

do much in Congress in the the minority.

and and now finally this has given them

a bit of a platform. But uh uh the the

memes and the insults uh and and the

misrepresentations uh I mean that that

kind of is part for the course in

American politics now. And uh and so I

think you know maybe JD Vance is right

saying that the American public you can

differentiate between AI videos and and

what's real and we'll treat this as uh

as a joke. But uh but you 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 and

usually when shutdowns have happened in

the past, it's the the party that grinds

things to a halt, the party that's

making demands. Uh they're the ones that

that get the public's blame. And it's a

little too early to tell so far how

that's going to shake out. But uh but

Republicans don't seem all that

disappointed that there's a shutdown now

and don't seem all that concerned uh

about what it might do to Trump and the

Republicans's political standing.

Yeah, you do feel if they are going to

avoid getting the blame and indeed the

opposite actually make hay out of this,

the Democrats have got to have a kind of

forceful leadership and you know, never

mind the Democratic party, Anthony,

never mind 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've had another of those messages,

Anthony. It's 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 Kamla

Harris Sidar still the leader of the

party? And if so, where is she? Well,

she's on a book tour, isn't she?

She's on a book tour. And if you 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 party. It's it's

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 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 uh that is the face of the out of

power party. Uh it really kind of

depends on what levers of power your

party holds, who becomes elevated as

kind of the public face of that. because

the Democrats don't really have any

power in Washington. There's it's been

hard for any of these people, whether

it's Chuck Schumer or Hakee Jeff or even

uh Alexandria Casio 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.

Yeah. And you wonder whether Zoran

Mandani is going to become the face of

the party even if the wider party ne

doesn't necessarily want that to be the

case if he's elected mayor of of New

York and if he becomes a kind of great

star of the Democrats in a way that

further discomforts them. But just 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 Kamela

Harris book as well, in case people

haven't seen it or seen reviews of it.

It's it's quite backwardlooking, isn't

it? I mean, you said it doesn't seem to

be a kind of program for her to stand on

for for for 2028. It is it's very much

about the things that happened. I mean,

even the title, isn't it? It's it's all

about the campaign and and the way she

was let down by there was a long list of

people who let her down, wasn't there?

In fact, pretty much everyone, it seems

to me, did the book possibly accepting

herself. But it doesn't it doesn't have

a kind of program for where America

needs to be in in a decade's time, does

it? In any way, shape, or form.

No. No. It's it's not a campaign book.

You know, a lot of politicians when

they're thinking about running for for

national office come out with these, you

know, vision for America type books and

and oftentimes they're ghostwritten or

co-written with with with someone behind

the scenes to make sure that it is dry

uh and non-controversial uh and and can

can kind of get the points that the

campaign, the naent campaign may want. I

mean, Christy Gnome is the one exception

to that, the the governor of uh of who

who, you know, talked about killing dogs

in her books. That was that was a bit of

a mistake. But generally these things

are are pretty uh pretty safe reads. Uh

and that's not as you mentioned that's

not what Kla Harris's book is which

makes it interesting and I think you

know makes it worthwhile to kind of see

in you know peel back the curtain and

see what was going on behind the scenes

and some of the some of the strategies

and and some of the obstacles she feels

she has. But uh but yeah a uh a platform

on which to run it it's not. And you

know, you talk about who's benefiting

who's who's kind of been emerged as a

face of the Democratic party right now.

I would I would uh suggest that it's

it's the Democratic governors more than

anything in Washington that have

benefited the most from from this this

year. And that's Gavin Newsome in

California and JB Pritsker uh 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 to

offer more robust resistance to what

Trump is trying to do. Okay, so those

are the names. What then are the

policies potentially? Because because

this is the next question that that

people ask and in fact again we've had

we get these questions all the time but

uh for instance uh Anthony Barry Gibson

in New York City says um 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. Um, 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, uh, 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 to change too or

whether they can sort of just sort of

sneak back in because everything will

sort of reser revert to normal once

Trump is off the scene. It's it's those

big things. I suppose that's that's the

thing. Are they addressing them or are

they hiding from them?

Yeah. And I think you have a hundred

different groups that have a hundred

different plans and if you have a 100

plans then you don't have any plan I

suppose. uh and that's kind of

reflection of of where the Democratic

party is where there is no kind of

central uh cohesive organization or

leader to to unite the party around and

that was what was unique about Donald

Trump and what happened after after 2020

is that you know Trump from very early

on it seemed planned on running again.

uh 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. Uh and and it also became very

clear within the first year or so uh

that Donald Trump was the frontr runner

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 to take power and and project 2025

was part of it but but there were also

plans within Trump's closest circle uh

to to on what to do. Uh and then when

Trump got reelected it was uh it was

just you know flip the switch and and

we've seen what's happened this year

with the with the velocity with which

these plans have been been implemented.

And I just think it's it's it's

impossible for Democrats to have

something similar because there just too

many people vying for that leadership

position with too many different

priorities and you see uh the party

being pulled in a bunch of different

ways.

I 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 uh in the Democrats in the

direction of Ezra Klene. 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 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 any one 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 um argue with them

as 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 Klene on why the

Democrats should avoid the politics of

hate. 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. And he also said the Democrats were

continuing to reject Trump voters, uh,

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. I do think this politics of

deplorables was very real. There is

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, one

sec. 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

going to trust 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 will

take them into consideration.

Okay. A couple of critiques of that.

First of all, do you think that

Democratic voters feel that Donald Trump

likes them? Uh, you know, I mean, the

door swings both ways, right? And and it

almost seems like Ezra Klein is

endorsing the the Michelle Obama

strategy from 2016, which is uh 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 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 with Donald Trump more. Uh and

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 uh is how we got into this

mess to begin with.

Yeah. I think what Ezra Klein would say

to that is hang on a second. Donald

Trump won. Uh 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 the person you're voting

for does kind of like you or at least

accept your right to think the things

that you think. Um, 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 that 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, etc.,

etc. And that kind of overall thing, I

think, is the point that Ezra Klein is

making. they need to manage to shuffle

that off uh if they're going to to to

win the voters back. But there's a wider

point he also makes which I think is a

fascinating one that 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 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 do you

do you just abandon them? I mean, that

and it's an interesting question for the

Democrats to to kind of grapple with

now, isn't it, Anthony? And it's one

they're going to have to to think about.

And he had this discussion the other day

with Tanahesi Coats, the big public

intellectual African-American, been a

really big figure on the on the left.

And they had a sort of two and fro

because Tanihi Coats thought 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 what

do you want to do with these people?

They do exist. They exist among us. Are

we as a party, as a movement, just going

to say we're not having anything to do

with you?"

Right? And and you know, 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 the idea of suburban

women voters, college educated voters,

uh you know, certain 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. I think you do touch on

something that uh that is a valid

criticism when your coalition relies on

uh the intellectuals and college

educated and college educated the

percentage of of them in this country is

certainly not a majority. I think maybe

30% have have college degrees. It's not

a it's not a huge number. You know, 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 uh maybe doesn't read the

New York Times uh every morning and

doesn't uh hasn't gone to a liberal arts

college and and and does not communicate

politically in the same sort of way.

Okay, Anthony, that's the Democrats.

They are back in the spotlight that

much. At least we're saying they're 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 Tik Tok,

uh, Anthony, which um, I mean, plenty of

people get all their information about

the world from Tik Tok and plenty of

Americans do, too. It really does

matter. It's hugely controversial

because of the algorithm, which in a way

is is such an amazing algorithm because

it seems so successful and gives people

what they want. Donald Trump, it is fair

to say, did not think much of Tik Tok in

the past and now he thinks he's found a

way of thinking a lot of it now. And it

seems to be because he can control it.

What What's going on behind the scenes?

What's actually being arranged? What do

we know about what's being arranged and

where does it leave Tik Tok in America?

Right. As as you'll recall, Congress

passed a law last year that mandated the

sale of Tik Tok, the divevestature uh of

Tik Tok from its Chinese owners. And it

mandated it to happen in January. But

Donald Trump has uh essentially kicked

the can down the road uh throughout the

course of this year trying to arrange

some sort of a deal uh to have new

ownership of Tik Tok. And what he did uh

in the last week was announce that a

deal is in the offing. So, here he is in

the Oval Office explaining what this new

deal is a and in particular how Tik Tok

is going to be owned in part by Larry

Ellison uh the Oracle founder and a

close ally of his

very meaningful but we have American

investors taking it over running it

highly sophisticated

uh 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

yeah but it's not just that is it

Anthony? So I mean all right to an

extent he's rescued Tik Tok and done

this deal because he knows it's popular

and as he says he managed to use it but

actually behind the scenes is 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 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 um emphasizes

those who the White House wants to

deemphasize their kind of salience on

TikTok, people's ability to see them and

emphasizes hugely those messages that

the White House wants emphasized that I

mean that I'm putting too boldly

probably. But that's that's the fear,

isn't it?

That is the fear. I mean, control of the

algorithm is power. Uh, 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 when

they're not consuming news elsewhere.

So, it is a uh uh it is a remarkably

powerful, potentially dangerous thing to

have uh in in a a limited number of

people's hands. And that's why people

look at Larry Ellison being in control

of this as well as uh some other close

donors of Donald Trump's and even some

uh one uh one capital management group

that has ties to uh a Middle Eastern to

Persian Gulf investment fund and uh and

the opakeness with which this deal has

been done. I mean we don't know what

kind of a a bidding process went in

behind it. We know that there were some

other interested parties. Donald Trump

has has mentioned some other interested

parties, but we don't know why Trump and

the administration JD Vance and this uh

cross departmental uh government

committee that that determined who was

going to take control of Tik Tok, how

they made those decisions, and what kind

of safeguards there are in order to

prevent this from being shaped to

benefit uh conservatives and and Donald

Trump. Even though Trump himself in

public comments disavowed any kind of

political influence on this, his word,

you know, for many people is not not

sufficient for this. 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 Tik Tok has been one

of the things that has injected into

American public life all sorts of

attitudes that weren't there before. In

other words, it's it's the the power of

Tik Tok 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 gone

quiet.

Yeah. It was a bipartisan issue. I mean

this Donald Trump in his first term

tried to unilaterally ban Tik Tok. Uh

and that was overturned by the courts.

Uh 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 devestature

of Tik Tok because of national security

concerns, an effort that was also upheld

by the Supreme Court in a decision at

the beginning of this year. uh and 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 uh is

is dangerous and all this information on

American users, tens of millions,

hundreds of millions of American users.

Uh having that in the hands uh

potentially of the Chinese government

also was dangerous. So, you know, it was

a bipartisan effort. But now, because

Trump has has used this this law, uh,

and in in many ways, according to

criticis, you know, stretch the

boundaries of what this law allowed by

extending the deadline and, uh, and

taking all of this control over who gets

it into his own uh, kind of under his

own ambit so that they could uh, 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. Uh although you know

Carolyn Levit the uh the White House

press secretary she was asked about uh

about who controls the algorithms and

concerns about who controls the

algorithms and and this was her

response.

Under the terms of this deal, Tik Tok

will be owned by a majority of American

investors and controlled by a board of

directors with extensive national

security and cyber security credentials.

In partnership with the US government,

Oracle will serve as Tik Tok's trusted

security provider and they will

independently monitor the safety and

data security of all US user data on Tik

Tok's platform. Americans data will be

stored uh 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, retrained, and operated in

the United States outside of Bite

Dance's control.

Yeah, but that's the point, isn't it?

Outside Bite Dance's control. Bite Dance

with this ultimate uh um link with the

Chinese Communist Party, but in whose

control? And and how transparently as

well? That's that's the question,

right? the the important role that Tik

Tok the powerful role that Tik Tok plays

uh in American society at this point and

who controls it and what kind of

supervision there is 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 that's why there has

been so much concern over this and

concerned about well what if by bite

dance comes out with a new version of

the algorithm you know an updated

version because you know te technology

moves and develops and changes over time

and gets perfected or adjusted and

tweaked. uh how is that going to be

rolled out into the American uh version

of Tik Tok or is it not going to be? And

in that case, is an American Tik Tok

just going to kind of become a dumber,

slower, more outdated version of what is

a an exceedingly popular global

application right now. Okay, Anthony,

that's got to be it for now. We'll be

back soon. Bye

bye y'all.

If you want to find our other episodes,

you can. They are all available wherever

you get your podcasts. for now though.

Bye-bye.

[Music]

Key Vocabulary

Vocabulary	Meanings
back /bæk/ A1	adverb - in the direction from which one has come verb - to support or help someone
move /muːv/ A1	verb - to change position or location noun - an act of changing position or location
big /bɪɡ/ A1	adjective - of considerable size or importance
gain /ɡeɪn/ A2	verb - to obtain or achieve something noun - an increase in something
headquarters /ˌhedˈkwɔːrtərz/ B1	noun - the main office or building of an organization
subject /ˈsʌbdʒɪkt/ A2	noun - a topic or matter of discussion
algorithm /ˈælɡərɪðəm/ B2	noun - a set of instructions for solving a problem or completing a task
people /ˈpiːpl/ A1	noun - human beings in general or considered collectively
election /ɪˈlekʃən/ A2	noun - a formal process of selecting a person for a political office or other position
danger /ˈdeɪndʒər/ A2	noun - the possibility of suffering harm or injury
power /ˈpaʊər/ A2	noun - the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.
court /kɔːrt/ B1	noun - a place where trials are held and justice is administered
leader /ˈliːdər/ A2	noun - a person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country.
risk /rɪsk/ B1	noun - a situation involving exposure to danger
message /ˈmesɪdʒ/ A2	noun - a communication containing some information, news, advice, etc.
video /ˈvɪdioʊ/ A1	noun - a recording of moving visual images made digitally or on videotape.
candidate /ˈkændɪdeɪt/ B1	noun - a person who applies for a job or is nominated for election.
government /ˈɡʌvərnmənt/ A2	noun - the governing body of a nation, state, or community.
party /ˈpɑːrti/ A1	noun - a social gathering of invited guests, typically involving eating, drinking, and entertainment. noun - a political organization.