The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The goal of this bill is simple: to force TikTok to divest from ByteDance — its Beijing-based parent corporation that exists under the full control of the Chinese Communist Party — or be banned in the United States.
This is the latest chapter in the battle to expose TikTok’s obvious threats to our national security, with multiple governments both across the country and the world moving to ban TikTok from government-issued devices and networks. Consider TikTok’s data-based and ideological threats: News continues to break regarding the Chinese-backed social media network’s ability to collect private data (such as biometric identifiers including voiceprints and faceprints), indoctrinate American users, and provide the CCP with direct access to supposedly private information while bypassing Apple and Google’s security systems.
With a clear majority of 352 votes in favor, this bill is a targeted, bipartisan effort to address the obvious: that Communist China is a threat to American interests.
Ironic complaints from China’s own foreign ministry are perhaps the ultimate (and literal) red flag, given that the CCP blocks most U.S. social media platforms, including Google, YouTube, X, Instagram, and Facebook. Despite this, protests have erupted within our own conservative and libertarian political class. Dubbing this legislation the “TikTok ban,” critics display the sort of fearmongering slippery slope propaganda that would make Xi Jinping proud.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) called the bill a “trojan horse” that would give the president the power to ban websites. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called the bill a violation of the First and Fifth Amendments and said the claim TikTok is owned by China is a lie. Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard argued that the bill has nothing to do with TikTok and is instead “about politicians having the power to decide what thoughts, ideas, and information Americans are allowed to hear and see.”
Here’s the real issue: For anyone who bothers to read the bill, rather than copy-pasting highlighted snippets of the text to support an absurd narrative, the proposed legislation is demonstrably clear and specific, limited to the prohibition of “foreign adversary controlled applications.” “Foreign adversary” is defined as a country “specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code.”
What does this mean? This legislation applies only to North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran. That’s it.
Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable to debate whether or not Congress should act to prevent these countries from accessing our consumer market in the world of social media and internet services. But to argue that we should refuse to address the demonstrable threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party because of a flimsy, terror-inducing slippery slope argument is both dangerous and absurd.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
If the federal government, either through this legislation or future efforts, tries to impede on the American right to free speech via attacks on American platforms, our response should be relentless and unyielding. But we cannot allow ignorance or propaganda to hold the door open for nations that don’t share a single one of our values.
Whether you like it or not, this bill clearly targets China, along with North Korea, Iran, and Russia. The people trying to say otherwise are blindly ignoring the real threat posed by these countries in favor of their naive principles.
Ian Haworth is a columnist, speaker, and host of “Off Limits.” You can follow him on X at @ighaworth. You can also find him on Substack.