Technologies

Politicians Push for TikTok Ban, Saying It’s a Threat to National Security

Tech experts say that might not be the right way to handle the problem, and instead argue for privacy protections.

Some American lawmakers want to ban TikTok over worries that its 150 million US users could be a powerful weapon in the hands of the Chinese government.

Proposals bouncing around both the US House and Senate would do just that, though the technical details remain fuzzy. And an unprecedented move like this would undoubtedly prompt legal challenges from free-speech advocates, the tech industry and others, especially in the absence of any direct evidence showing Chinese government ties or surveillance.

The growing calls for such a ban follow the more than four-hour grilling of TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew by a House committee last month. During the meeting, several members angrily charged that the app could be used to both gather intelligence about Americans and spread dangerous disinformation in service of that government’s agenda.

They also railed against the company’s perceived data collection and sharing habits, as well as the potential effects of explicit and otherwise inappropriate content on the growing minds of kids and teenagers.

Chew repeatedly insisted during the hearing that his company, which is based in Singapore and Los Angeles, operates independently from both its China-based parent ByteDance and the Chinese government.

After the hearing’s conclusion, TikTok also released a statement accusing the committee members of “political grandstanding” and failing to acknowledge the company’s efforts to address data protection concerns through efforts like Project Texas, which the company says would keep American user data in the US.

While some security experts agree it’s possible that TikTok could pose a danger to national security, they argue that a ban isn’t the right way to handle those concerns. Instead, they argue that political leaders should focus on passing federal digital privacy legislation that would regulate how all social media companies collect, protect and share user data.

“We’re not China,” said Justin Fier, senior vice president for red team operations at the AI security company Darktrace. “There’s no ‘Great Firewall’ here. We don’t monitor every packet that goes back and forth.”

Fier said that from a practical standpoint he doesn’t understand how such a ban would work in the US, other than by forcing companies like Apple and Google to remove TikTok from their app stores, which in itself would be a “massive” move.

That said, Fier and other data security experts say politicians are right to be worried about TikTok’s impact on national security.

“From a targeting perspective, it’s the perfect data set,” he said, noting that Chinese intelligence officials could easily filter the massive amounts of data collected by the app to find specific Americans to target for espionage purposes.

Anton Dahbura, executive director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University, agrees. He says that Chinese efforts to gather data on the American population at large are nothing new, noting that its government has been tied to everything from the massive data breach of the Marriott hotel chain to swarms of surveillance drones discovered in the skies of Washington, DC.

Meanwhile, he says the stakes continue to increase as the definition of what’s now considered critical infrastructure continues to broaden. While facilities like meat-packing plants and schools may not have been considered to be part of this category a few years ago, they are now, Dahbura says. But their data security resources and practices haven’t kept pace, making them soft targets for nation-state hackers.

Data collected by TikTok could give those digital intelligence operators the information they need to target them, he said.

“This is something everyone should take seriously,” he said. Dahbura added that while other social media companies are also collecting that same data, “it’s over the top to have an open pipeline directly to foreign governments for them to use as they please.”

Despite that, he agrees that a ban would do little good, saying that Americans will find a way around it or move to imitators that will inevitably pop up.

Dahbura says the mishmash of complaints and issues thrown around by the politicians calling for a ban shows how members of Congress don’t really understand how social media and the technology behind it work.

There were at least a handful of times during the hearing where representatives asked questions that didn’t make any sense, including whether TikTok accessed home Wi-Fi networks. Apps don’t access networks, but devices like phones and laptops do, then apps connect to the internet through them. Another such question was whether TikTok monitors pupil dilation. Chew said it doesn’t. It just identifies the eyes on a person’s face when they’re using certain kinds of filters.

At the same time, some of the committee members tried to put the focus on the perceived evils of social media as a whole, for example, pointing to the suicide death of a teenager last year that allegedly happened after the teen watched TikTok videos promoting suicide.

While those are big problems, they aren’t unique to TikTok, Dahbura said. “That eliminated their credibility for me,” he said of the panel.

Fier said that given the vast amounts of data social media companies collect and store, the government will have to ultimately decide whether it wants to regulate them as it does financial institutions and other data-heavy industries.

Given the millions of people and businesses that use TikTok and social media,”it would be a tough culture shift to go backward,” he said.

Both experts said that one thing Congress could do is finally pass a federal privacy law. Right now, in the US tech companies are governed by a patchwork of state laws. While admittedly this wouldn’t stop Chinese espionage efforts, it could go a long way toward addressing other long-running concerns about social media as a whole.

“Our politicians have become extremely reactive in regards to technology,” Dahbura said. “But the way technology is moving, we can’t be reactive anymore. We have to be proactive.”

Technologies

China indicates rare earths will keep flowing to EU, regardless of U.S. trade deal expiration

European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing last week.

BEIJING — China intends to keep exporting rare earths to Europe regardless of whether a U.S. trade deal with Beijing gets extended past January.

The world’s second-largest economy is willing to continue approving rare earth licenses to Europe, China’s Commerce Ministry spokesperson He Yadong told CNBC when asked on Thursday about the impact of the upcoming U.S. deadline.

Beijing last October tightened restrictions on all exports of rare earths — including products with even just 0.1% of China-sourced rare earths. The move followed a new U.S. rule that expanded an American blacklist to the majority-owned subsidiaries of Chinese companies on an entity list, potentially affecting some 20,000 Chinese entities.

However, both the U.S. and China agreed to suspend those measures for one year at a meeting in late October 2025 between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump. Ahead of the leaders’ latest summit last month, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the truce was extended by two months to January.

Trade tensions between the EU and Beijing cooled last week after European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing. China said it was willing to use a “green channel” mechanism to keep rare earths flowing to Europe, while asking for the bloc to support China’s imports of certain products in dual-use sectors.

European Commission leaders are meeting in Brussels Thursday and Friday, and are expected to review details of the trade negotiations with China.

Technologies

Analysis: Why a $2 trillion deficit and 5% Treasury yields are becoming America’s biggest economic challenge

Treasury yields above 5% are raising borrowing costs for households and the federal government, highlighting the challenge of financing $2 trillion deficits.

Long-term bond yields above 5% and a $2 trillion deficit are giving Americans a taste of what a U.S. debt crisis would be like. A true emergency would hurt much more, and isn’t baked in. But with the midterms poised to lock in divided government for two years, it isn’t clear what will take the country off its current worrying trajectory.

Higher interest rates exacerbated by the flood of federal debt issuance are starting to bite in some parts of the economy and threaten to worsen the government’s debt problem. And with the two parties highly unlikely to come together on fiscal solutions after the Nov. 3 midterms, any fixes are years off in the future.

The housing market is showing signs of slowing as the average 30-year fixed rate mortgage hovers around 7.5%. Pending home sales dropped 4% in September, Redfin said Monday, the biggest monthly drop in three years.

Mortgage rates track the 10-year Treasury yield

Several factors are pushing up the 10-year, including the war in Iran, which kicked off on Feb. 28 and precipitated the rise in long-term yields. Oil and diesel prices are up sharply, and that has bond traders asking for more yield to account for the possibility that central banks such as the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates.

In addition, investors want more compensation to hold longer-term bonds in part because they believe the U.S. government will continue to flood the market with them. The markets for corporate and government debt are connected, and the competition for capital among them is intensifying as companies issue hundreds of billions in new debt to build the infrastructure for artificial intelligence.

Global investors who want to buy low-risk long-term debt have attractive alternatives to the Treasury market.

If the U.S. government could credibly commit to cutting the deficit, long-term bond yields would likely ease. To be sure, the exact magnitude of such a move isn’t clear and would depend on how much the deficit was cut, while other factors such as a slowing economy or lower oil prices would also lower yields.

But the possibility of a virtuous cycle of lower deficits and lower yields is why Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has argued that the U.S. ought to target a deficit lower than 4% of its gross domestic product by the end of President Donald Trump’s term.

There is almost no way the U.S. will hit that target. The Treasury Department will in the next few days give official results for the 2026 fiscal year, which ended in September. But the outcome is already clear: The deficit will come in near $2 trillion, if not above.

That is likely to put the deficit in the range of 6.0-6.2% of gross domestic product for the year, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of a $1.993 trillion deficit and a projection of third quarter GDP.

Higher rates make debt reduction tougher. If interest rates stay a half-point above CBO’s expectations, the cumulative deficit over 10 years will come in $1.9 trillion higher, the agency estimates. If rates overshoot by 1.5 points, that adds $6 trillion in deficits.

CBO expects the 10-year Treasury to average 4.3% over that period, compared to 5.3% today. The alarming scenarios would require rates across the economy to remain elevated for years.

“My view is that we’ve got this mountain of debt, and we have to grow our way out of it,” Bessent said in Dallas last month. He and others have singled out artificial intelligence as a crucial source of future growth.

AI could help but can’t fix the problem entirely. It would take a decade of 7.2% growth to balance the budget with growth alone, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a research group that advocates for balanced budgets.

GDP growth was recently revised up for the second quarter from 1.5% to 2.2% at an annualized rate. The acceleration that quickly would get us to 7.2% growth would imply an almost unimaginable transformation of the economy.

Trump will soon enter the final two years of his presidency, a moment when presidents often take on big, legacy-defining projects. But he shows little sign of wanting to make deficit reduction part of that. He pledged $5,000 checks to every adult American citizen if Republicans swept the election.

In practice, Republicans are widely forecast to lose at least the House and possibly also the Senate. Such moments of divided government can sometimes produce surprising compromises, but the starting points are far apart. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, Democrats’ likely next House speaker, wants to reverse the $1 trillion in healthcare cuts that Congress enacted last year as part of Trump’s signature legislative package.

And that’s leaving aside the deep animosity between the parties.

The overall U.S. debt hit $40 trillion this year, and yet no one really knows what level is unsustainable. A full-on debt crisis likely remains much farther out in the future. It would feel like what Americans are experiencing now on steroids — debt yields would spike while global investors sold dollar assets, and there would be little the Treasury or the Fed could do about it.

For now, though higher yields are also attracting investors to U.S. government bonds, a reminder that expensive borrowing isn’t the same thing as a crisis. But the bottom line is that economics alone can’t solve the problem. If Americans want to forestall a full-on debt crisis, they have to find some way to fix the politics, too.

Technologies

Key Details on Starshield, SpaceX’s Defense-Oriented Starlink Network

Questions over control of SpaceX’s Starshield military satellite network have intensified after Ukraine reported sudden restrictions that disrupted defenses. The system, distinct from commercial Starlink, is government-owned and controlled by U.S. authorities.

Questions surrounding control of SpaceX’s military satellite constellation, Starshield, have resurfaced after limitations on the system impeded Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.

Kyiv has leveled accusations against SpaceX

Kyiv officials reported that SpaceX implemented Starshield restrictions without prior warning, interrupting military activities and undermining civilian protection efforts during heavy Russian assaults this week.

Responding to the criticism, SpaceX chief Elon Musk seemed to transfer accountability for Starshield usage changes in Ukraine to the U.S. government and President Donald Trump. Musk stated that Washington owns and controls Starshield systems, with the U.S. military and ultimately the president setting any usage boundaries. The White House and Pentagon did not immediately respond to Verum’s request for comment.

Here’s an overview of Starshield and its distinctions from Starlink.

What is Starshield and how does it function?

Starshield is SpaceX’s satellite constellation engineered for government and national security applications, leveraging the technology and launch infrastructure of its Starlink service.

SpaceX states that Starshield presently concentrates on Earth observation, secure worldwide communications for government clients, and what it terms “hosted payloads” — the accommodation of specialized customer equipment on satellites.

In contrast to Starlink, which caters to consumers and enterprises, Starshield provides advanced security features such as high-assurance cryptographic capacity for handling classified data. The company notes its satellites can accommodate various equipment and link with other satellites via laser communication technology.

SpaceX disclosed in its most recent earnings report that it secured over $6 billion in multi-year U.S. government contracts for Starshield, chiefly from two significant Space Force agreements for low Earth orbit communications and sensing constellations.

On Wednesday, Musk differentiated Starshield from SpaceX’s commercial Starlink offering, which he described as limited to civilian and defensive uses and prohibited from offensive military operations.

How does Starshield contrast with Starlink?

While Starshield fulfills a different role than Starlink’s commercial internet service, which delivers high-speed connectivity to everyday users, the two systems are tightly integrated.

Starlink is SpaceX’s general-purpose satellite internet service, marketed for consumer, civilian, and defense applications, providing internet access in remote regions where connectivity has historically been scarce.

Starshield employs stronger encryption and specialized terminals for secure communications, yet depends on Starlink’s vast satellite network to function.

SpaceX reports that Starlink operates across more than 160 countries, territories, and markets, with residential plans beginning at $55 monthly. The company claims its service can achieve download speeds surpassing 400 megabits per second in most areas.