Washington lawmakers have also launched two separate bills aimed at allowing the president to ban apps like TikTok on grounds they pose a risk to U.S. national security. But the bills, one in the House of Representatives and the other in the Senate, still need companion bills in the other chamber, as well as enough support to pass both houses and then President Joe Biden's signature. The White House supports the Senate bill, known as the RESTRICT Act. Considered the most likely to succeed, the Act would still likely take at least several months before it could garner enough support for a successful vote and the president's signature. It could also be weakened before it reaches Biden. Even if the RESTRICT Act is passed this year, the Commerce Department has up to six months to begin reviewing transactions with the new authorities, and up to six additional months to complete the reviews and take action.
TikTok is likely to challenge any attempt to ban the app. The company was ultimately successful in quashing Trump's effort to ban the app in the U.S. “The First Amendment protects Americans' right to access social media platforms of their choice," said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. "To justify a TikTok ban, the government would have to demonstrate that privacy and security concerns can't be addressed in narrower ways. The government hasn't demonstrated this, and we doubt it could. Restricting access to a speech platform that is used by millions of Americans every day would set a dangerous precedent for regulating our digital public sphere more broadly,"
TikTok is likely to challenge any attempt to ban the app. The company was ultimately successful in quashing Trump's effort to ban the app in the U.S. “The First Amendment protects Americans' right to access social media platforms of their choice," said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. "To justify a TikTok ban, the government would have to demonstrate that privacy and security concerns can't be addressed in narrower ways. The government hasn't demonstrated this, and we doubt it could. Restricting access to a speech platform that is used by millions of Americans every day would set a dangerous precedent for regulating our digital public sphere more broadly,"
