WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS, W.Va. — Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Wednesday said the House will “apply every amount of pressure” on the Senate to approve a bill that could ban TikTok, hours after the lower chamber approved the legislation in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote.
The comment from Johnson — made during the House GOP retreat in West Virginia — followed comments from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) that were non-committal on bringing the House-passed bill to the floor for a vote.
“We’re gonna apply every amount of pressure that we can because we think that that’s the right thing,” Johnson told New York Post reporter Josh Christenson during a conversation at the retreat when asked about the TikTok bill.
The House approved the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act in a 352-65 vote on Wednesday, which would force ByteDance — the China-based company that owns TikTok — to divest in the app or be banned from U.S. app stores and web hosting services. The company would have to divest within roughly five months of the bill going into effect.
But despite the overwhelming House vote, the bill’s odds in the Senate remain unknown. In a statement on Wednesday, shortly after the House approved the bill, Schumer said: “The Senate will review the legislation when it comes over from the House.”
He had a similar message on Tuesday, telling reporters, “Let’s see what the House does.”
“I’ll have to consult and intend to consult with my relevant committee chairmen to see what their views would be,” he added at the time.
President Biden has said that he would sign the bill if it landed on his desk.
The push to ban TikTok has sparked an intense debate on Capitol Hill, with proponents raising national security concerns and opponents shooting back with issues related to free speech.
Johnson, who voted for the bill, addressed the latter on Wednesday, rejecting the argument that banning TikTok infringes on First Amendment rights.
“There were some arguments made on the floor today by a few people who are opposed to it suggested that it [is] somehow a violation of the First Amendment. I mean, I’m a constitutional lawyer, this is not about the content, it’s about the conduct and I think it’s a serious and direct threat for our national security. And I think it merited being handled in that way,” Johnson said.
