Tapping into similar concerns, Tucker Carlson and David Sacks argued that the bill could be used to restrict speech in the name of blocking supposed “election interference”. Many have also compared it to the Patriot Act, legislation billed as protecting Americans from foreign threats which in reality was used to spy on American citizens. 

The common thread in the attacks on the ban is that the bill is too broad and could be used to crack down on other companies which may or may not be foreign adversaries. As Tulsi Gabbard wrote on X: “The TikTok ban is not about TikTok. Don’t be fooled. It’s about politicians having the power to decide what thoughts, ideas, and information Americans are allowed to hear and see. It’s about freedom. It’s about destroying our democracy in the name of protecting it.”

Proponents of the legislation dispute claims that it could be used for censorship of American-owned apps. FCC commissioner Brendan Carr believes the bill narrowly targets apps controlled by designated adversary nations that pose a national security threat to the US. Apps like Rumble and X, this coalition argues, will not be affected. 

But perhaps none of the bill’s supporters have come out so forcefully as social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. “TikTok harms kids in so many ways, and has so much influence over what they believe,” he wrote on X. “It is insane that we let kids live on a platform that is legally bound to obey the CCP. @RepGallagher is right: Bytedance must sell it, or else America (or its parents) will need to ban it”.

Ben Shapiro also praised the ban, calling TikTok a “viral psyop” that the Chinese government uses to promote politically polarising content and LGBT identities among young users.

The bill passed in the house Wednesday and will now work its way through the Senate, where it will face a number of obstacles, including a Democratic majority leader who hasn’t committed to bringing it to a vote. The future of the legislation, and of TikTok itself, remains up in the air.