Business
Report: Chinese government considering sale of TikTok to Elon Musk, possible X merger

From LifeSiteNews
“A potential high-profile deal with one of (returning President Donald) Trump’s closest allies holds some appeal for the Chinese government, which is expected to have some say over whether TikTok is ultimately sold”
Chinese government officials are considering the possibility of allowing TikTok to be sold to X owner Elon Musk ahead of a deadline to sever the social video platform from its Chinese government-linked ownership, according to a report published Monday by Bloomberg.
Last April, a law signed by President Joe Biden and supported by many in both parties, required TikTok to be sold by January 19 or shut down due to Chinese parent company ByteDance’s links to the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its military and surveillance operations, sparking national security concerns over the Chinese regime’s access to the personal data of TikTok’s American users.
ByteDance challenged the law, but last week, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled in oral arguments that it would not block the law, although no ruling has yet been issued, with the deadline for divestment just days away.
On Monday, Bloomberg reported that “people familiar with the matter” said several options are now being considered on a preliminary basis, one of which would involve Musk purchasing TikTok and possibly merging it with X. That could drastically grow the latter platform’s user base and give Musk vast troves of data with which to improve his artificial intelligence project xAI.
“A potential high-profile deal with one of (returning President Donald) Trump’s closest allies holds some appeal for the Chinese government, which is expected to have some say over whether TikTok is ultimately sold,” according to the report. Musk vocally and financially supported Trump in the 2024 election and will be advising the new administration on spending cuts.
Musk, who opposed banning TikTok, has not commented on the report. ByteDance dismissed it as “pure fiction,” but Bloomberg said that “It’s not clear how much ByteDance knows about the Chinese government discussions.”
While at first glance it appears unlikely that the Chinese government would be willing to give a new owner outside its control the opportunity to examine TikTok’s collection and sharing of user data, the report suggests the regime may see it as a “potential area for reconciliation” ahead of negotiations with the Trump administration over issues such as trade and tariffs.
American politicians on both sides have inconsistent records on support for the video app. Last February, Biden’s reelection campaign joined the app despite his own administration labeling it a national security threat. White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby admitted at the time that “there are still national security concerns about the use of TikTok on government devices and there’s been no change to our policy not to allow that,” but declined to comment on the propriety of his boss using the app.
In the final year of Trump’s first term, meanwhile, he levied sanctions against TikTok and supported banning it as well, but during his 2024 campaign reversed his position days after meeting with GOP megadonor and TikTok shareholder Jeff Yass. In December, Trump asked the Supreme Court to delay the divestment deadline until after he took office, arguing that he “alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the government.”
2025 Federal Election
Next federal government should end corporate welfare for forced EV transition

From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill and Jake Fuss
Corporate welfare simply shifts jobs and investment away from other firms and industries—which are more productive, as they don’t require government funding to be economically viable—to the governments’ preferred industries and firms, circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. And since politicians spend other people’s money, they have little incentive to be careful investors.
General Motors recently announced the temporary closure of its electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing plant in Ontario, laying off 500 people because its new EV isn’t selling. The plant will shut down for six months despite hundreds of millions in government subsides financed by taxpayers. This is just one more example of corporate welfare—when governments subsidize favoured industries and companies—and it’s time for the provinces and the next federal government to eliminate it.
Between the federal government and Ontario government, GM received about $500 million to help fund its EV transition. But this is just one example of corporate welfare in the auto sector. Stellantis and Volkswagen will receive about $28 billion in government subsidies while Honda is promised $5 billion.
More broadly, from 2007 to 2019, the last pre-COVID year of data, the federal government spent an estimated $84.6 billion (adjusted for inflation) on corporate welfare while provincial and local governments spent another $302.9 billion. And crucially, these numbers exclude other forms of government support such as loan guarantees, direct investments and regulatory privileges, so the actual cost of corporate welfare during this period was much higher.
Of course, politicians claim that corporate welfare benefits workers. Yet according to a significant body of research, corporate welfare fails to generate widespread economic benefit. Think of it this way—if the businesses that received subsidies were viable to begin with, they wouldn’t need government support. So unprofitable companies are kept in business through governments’ support, which can prevent resources, including investment and workers, from moving to profitable companies, hurting overall economic growth.
Put differently, rather than fuelling economic growth, corporate welfare simply shifts jobs and investment away from other firms and industries—which are more productive, as they don’t require government funding to be economically viable—to the governments’ preferred industries and firms, circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. And since politicians spend other people’s money, they have little incentive to be careful investors.
Governments also must impose higher tax rates on everyone else to pay for corporate welfare. In turn, higher tax rates discourage entrepreneurship and business investment—again, which fuels economic growth. And the higher the tax rates, the more economic activity they discourage.
GM’s EV plant shut down once again proves that when governments try to engineer the economy with corporate welfare, workers will ultimately lose. It’s time for the provinces and the next federal government—whoever it may be—to finally put an end to this costly and ineffective policy approach.
Business
Hudson’s Bay Bid Raises Red Flags Over Foreign Influence

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
A billionaire’s retail ambition might also serve Beijing’s global influence strategy. Canada must look beyond the storefront
When B.C. billionaire Weihong Liu publicly declared interest in acquiring Hudson’s Bay stores, it wasn’t just a retail story—it was a signal flare in an era where foreign investment increasingly doubles as geopolitical strategy.
The Hudson’s Bay Company, founded in 1670, remains an enduring symbol of Canadian heritage. While its commercial relevance has waned in recent years, its brand is deeply etched into the national identity. That’s precisely why any potential acquisition, particularly by an investor with strong ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), deserves thoughtful, measured scrutiny.
Liu, a prominent figure in Vancouver’s Chinese-Canadian business community, announced her interest in acquiring several Hudson’s Bay stores on Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (RedNote), expressing a desire to “make the Bay great again.” Though revitalizing a Canadian retail icon may seem commendable, the timing and context of this bid suggest a broader strategic positioning—one that aligns with the People’s Republic of China’s increasingly nuanced approach to economic diplomacy, especially in countries like Canada that sit at the crossroads of American and Chinese spheres of influence.
This fits a familiar pattern. In recent years, we’ve seen examples of Chinese corporate involvement in Canadian cultural and commercial institutions, such as Huawei’s past sponsorship of Hockey Night in Canada. Even as national security concerns were raised by allies and intelligence agencies, Huawei’s logo remained a visible presence during one of the country’s most cherished broadcasts. These engagements, though often framed as commercially justified, serve another purpose: to normalize Chinese brand and state-linked presence within the fabric of Canadian identity and daily life.
What we may be witnessing is part of a broader PRC strategy to deepen economic and cultural ties with Canada at a time when U.S.-China relations remain strained. As American tariffs on Canadian goods—particularly in aluminum, lumber and dairy—have tested cross-border loyalties, Beijing has positioned itself as an alternative economic partner. Investments into cultural and heritage-linked assets like Hudson’s Bay could be seen as a symbolic extension of this effort to draw Canada further into its orbit of influence, subtly decoupling the country from the gravitational pull of its traditional allies.
From my perspective, as a professional with experience in threat finance, economic subversion and political leveraging, this does not necessarily imply nefarious intent in each case. However, it does demand a conscious awareness of how soft power is exercised through commercial influence, particularly by state-aligned actors. As I continue my research in international business law, I see how investment vehicles, trade deals and brand acquisitions can function as instruments of foreign policy—tools for shaping narratives, building alliances and shifting influence over time.
Canada must neither overreact nor overlook these developments. Open markets and cultural exchange are vital to our prosperity and pluralism. But so too is the responsibility to preserve our sovereignty—not only in the physical sense, but in the cultural and institutional dimensions that shape our national identity.
Strategic investment review processes, cultural asset protections and greater transparency around foreign corporate ownership can help strike this balance. We should be cautious not to allow historically Canadian institutions to become conduits, however unintentionally, for geopolitical leverage.
In a world where power is increasingly exercised through influence rather than force, safeguarding our heritage means understanding who is buying—and why.
Scott McGregor is the managing partner and CEO of Close Hold Intelligence Consulting.
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
How Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
-
2025 Federal Election22 hours ago
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Real Homes vs. Modular Shoeboxes: The Housing Battle Between Poilievre and Carney
-
2025 Federal Election22 hours ago
CHINESE ELECTION THREAT WARNING: Conservative Candidate Joe Tay Paused Public Campaign
-
COVID-191 day ago
Nearly Half of “COVID-19 Deaths” Were Not Due to COVID-19 – Scientific Reports Journal
-
John Stossel1 day ago
Climate Change Myths Part 2: Wildfires, Drought, Rising Sea Level, and Coral Reefs
-
Business20 hours ago
‘Great Reset’ champion Klaus Schwab resigns from WEF