But its fate now rests in the Senate, where some lawmakers have expressed concern it may run afoul of the Constitution by infringing on millions of Americans’ rights to free expression and by explicitly targeting a business operating in the United States.
“Today we send a clear message that we will not tolerate our adversaries weaponizing our freedoms against us,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), whose committee advanced the TikTok bill just days prior, said ahead of the vote.
Though TikTok is incorporated in the United States and has headquarters in Los Angeles, its ties to Beijing-based tech giant ByteDance have long triggered fears the app could be weaponized by Chinese government officials to snoop on Americans or shape their political views. The company says it has never shared U.S. user data with the Chinese government and would not do so if asked, and its critics have yet to present evidence to the contrary. It has also disputed claims of any foreign interference or influence.
Those assurances have failed to assuage many lawmakers on Capitol Hill. TikTok has been unable to reach a deal with national security officials to quell their concerns — fueling efforts in Congress.
While the lawmakers leading the effort say they are primarily pushing for the company to divest from ByteDance, TikTok has hammered the effort for having a “predetermined outcome: a total ban of TikTok in the United States.”
“The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their Constitutional right to free expression,” the company said in a statement last week.
Lawmakers unveiled several proposals last year aimed at granting the federal government more power to restrict TikTok and other apps believed to be linked to U.S. adversaries, with some of the measures garnering bipartisan support. Last March, House lawmakers hauled in TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew for a contentious hearing as they looked to build momentum for action against the firm.
The push appeared to fizzle amid blowback from liberal Democrats, who said it flouted free-speech rights, and Republicans, who argued it would grant the federal government excessive power to prohibit or censor digital services.
The dynamics suddenly shifted last week after the leaders of key House committees announced the new legislation targeting TikTok.
Two of the committees with jurisdiction have been scrutinizing TikTok’s perceived security threats for months but had yet to agree on a legislative response until now.
Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), leaders of the select committee on China, previously introduced another bill targeting TikTok, which was stymied amid constitutional concerns. The Commerce panel greenlit the bill led by Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi 50-0 last week, advancing it just two days after its introduction, an unheard of pace for legislation targeting tech companies.
“This is my message to TikTok: break up with 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 alleged anti-competitive abuses, with the strongest efforts spawning investigations that spanned over a year.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers on the House antitrust committee spent more than two years investigating and crafting legislation aimed at barring major tech companies from squelching competitors before marking up any legislation in 2021.
Senate lawmakers, meanwhile, held numerous hearings on child online safety after a Facebook whistleblower stepped forward with allegations of company wrongdoing, and it took till the next year for a key panel to adopt a pair of proposals aimed at expanding guardrails for kids.
The latest House salvo against TikTok has moved much faster, and unlike those past legislative efforts, it expressly targets a specific company.
Wednesday’s vote is the first time a chamber of Congress has approved legislation that could lead to the platform’s prohibition throughout the country.
TikTok mounted an aggressive push to thwart the House’s consideration of the measure over the past week, directly urging U.S. users to contact their representatives and oppose it in a pop-up message. The tactic inundated congressional offices with calls, at times forcing offices to shut off their phones. But it also riled up House leaders, who accused the company of wielding its vast power in a bid to upend the congressional debate over its future.
The bill lacks a companion measure in the Senate, where lawmakers have pushed for competing approaches for months to tackle concerns over apps viewed as security threats. The dynamics signal a tougher and probably slower path to passage.
Last March, a bipartisan group of senators unveiled the Restrict Act, which would give the Commerce Department more authority to assess and potentially block technology deals involving companies from countries deemed to be foreign adversaries, a measure tacitly aimed at firms like TikTok. The White House’s National Security Council endorsed the measure and called on Congress “to act quickly to send it to the President’s desk.”
Lawmakers have floated numerous other approaches, including a yet-to-be-unveiled bill from Senate Commerce Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), but none appeared to gain broad enough support to clear either chamber of Congress until House leaders released their latest proposal last week.
The House measure combines aspects of past bills, explicitly targeting TikTok and its parent company while giving the federal government a new mechanism to ban apps with ties to nations viewed as foreign adversaries. If ByteDance declined to spin off TikTok, the bill would require app store providers to stop carrying the platform, which could effectively shutter its U.S. operations.
Biden and his campaign opponent, former president Donald Trump, have taken conflicting public stances on the matter, with Biden endorsing it and Trump speaking out against the prospect of a ban.
Key Senate negotiators have either expressed concern about the new bill’s approach or been noncommittal about taking up the measure.
Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), lead sponsor of the Restrict Act, said last week that he still has “concerns about the constitutionality of an approach that names specific companies.” Cantwell, whose panel would probably need to sign off on the new bill, has yet to indicate whether committee leaders plan to introduce and mark up the measure.
