But its fate now rests in the Senate, where some lawmakers fear it would undermine the Constitution by infringing on the free speech rights of millions of Americans and clearly targeting businesses operating in the United States. may violate
“Today we send a clear message that we will not tolerate our opponents weaponizing our freedoms against us,” said Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-Wash.), whose committee advanced the TikTok bill days ago. Raised, said before the vote.
Although TikTok is incorporated in the United States and headquartered in Los Angeles, its ties to Beijing-based tech company ByteDance have long raised fears that the app could be targeted by Chinese government officials in the US. But can be weaponized to spy or shape their political views. The company says it has never shared US user data with the Chinese government and would not do so if asked, and its critics have yet to produce evidence to the contrary. He has also disputed claims of any foreign intervention or influence.
Those assurances have failed to convince many lawmakers on Capitol Hill. TikTok has been unable to reach an agreement with national security officials to address their concerns — fueling efforts in Congress.
While the lawmakers leading the effort say they’re primarily pushing to disassociate the company from ByteDance, TikTok has called for a “foregone conclusion: a complete ban on TikTok in the United States.” The effort has been damaged.
“The government is trying to strip 170 million Americans of their constitutional right to free speech,” Co. said in a statement Previous Week.
Lawmakers unveiled several proposals last year aimed at giving the federal government more power to restrict TikTok and other apps believed to be linked to U.S. dissidents, including Some initiatives have bipartisan support. Last March, House lawmakers rounded up TikTok CEO Xu Zhiqiu for a contentious hearing as they ramped up action against the firm.
The push came amid blowback from liberal Democrats, who said it infringed on free speech rights, and Republicans, who argued it would require the federal government to ban or censor digital services. will get more power.
The dynamics suddenly changed last week after leaders of key House committees announced new legislation targeting TikTok.
Two of the jurisdictional committees have been examining TikTok’s perceived security risks for months but have yet to agree on a legislative response.
Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) and Raja Krishnamurthy (D-Ill.), chairmen of the Select Committee on China, first introduced another Bill targeting TikTok, which was shelved amid constitutional concerns A commerce panel led by Gallagher and Krishnamurthy defeated the bill 50-0 last week, advancing it just two days after it was introduced, an unheard-of speed for legislation targeting tech companies.
“This is my message to TikTok: break away from the Chinese Communist Party or lose access to your American users,” Gallagher said in a statement last week.
Lawmakers have tried and failed for years to pass legislation to crack down on tech companies’ privacy and content moderation practices and anti-competitive abuses, the strongest of an investigation spanning more than a year. With efforts.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers on the House Antitrust Committee spent more than two years researching and crafting legislation aimed at preventing competitors from big tech companies before any legislation is marked down in 2021. to stop.
Senate lawmakers, meanwhile, held several hearings on children’s online safety after a Facebook whistleblower stepped forward with allegations of wrongdoing by the company, and a key panel called for a couple to raise guardrails for children. It took until the following year for the proposals to be adopted.
The latest House salvo against TikTok has moved swiftly, and unlike past legislative efforts, it clearly targets a specific company.
Wednesday’s vote marks the first time either chamber of Congress has approved legislation that could lead to a nationwide ban on the platform.
TikTok made an aggressive push last week to thwart House consideration of the measure, urging US users to contact their representatives directly and oppose it in a pop-up message. The tactic flooded congressional offices with calls, sometimes forcing offices to turn off their phones. But it also angered House leaders, who accused the company of wielding its vast power in an attempt to end congressional debate over its future.
The bill lacks a companion measure in the Senate, where lawmakers have pushed for months for a competing approach to dealing with concerns over apps seen as security threats. The dynamics indicate a difficult and perhaps slow path to traverse.
Last March, a bipartisan group of senators unveiled the embargo act, which would have given the Commerce Department more authority to review and potentially block technology deals involving companies in countries deemed hostile to foreign investors. Ga, which is aimed at firms like Tik Tik. The White House’s National Security Council endorsed the measure and called on Congress to “take immediate action to send it to the President’s desk.”
Lawmakers have floated a number of other approaches, including a yet-to-be-released bill from Senate Commerce Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), but none have been approved by either chamber of Congress. There was no widespread support for the cleanup until House leaders released their latest statement. Proposal last week.
The House measure combines aspects of past bills, with a new move to ban apps from countries the federal government sees as foreign enemies, specifically targeting TikTok and its parent company. Provides procedures. If ByteDance refuses to shut down TikTok, the bill would require app store providers to stop carrying the platform, which could effectively shut down its US operations.
Biden and his campaign opponent, former President Donald Trump, have taken conflicting public positions on the issue, with Biden endorsing it and Trump speaking out against the possibility of a ban.
Key Senate negotiators have either expressed concern about the new bill’s methodology or have shown irresponsibility about taking up the measure.
Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the lead sponsor of the restrict act, said last week that he still has “concerns about the constitutionality of the approach that names certain companies.” Cantwell, whose panel will likely need to sign off on the new bill, has not yet indicated whether committee leaders plan to introduce and mark up the measure.