Technically, the executive can retaliate, including through the WTO. No need for Congress, that would be only necessary once it escalates, and then it wouldn't be a big tech only issue anywhere. Beyond that, there would probably be retaliation next Congress anyways.
China did not ban Google and Facebook. They both had the opportunity to comply with extremely restrictive local laws and both decided not to bother (especially Facebook for which it would likely have been too expensive).It offered both to obey the same laws and controls as local companies, and they refused. Famously, Google had Project Dragonfly to make their own TikTok/Douyin split, until political and employee pressure stopped that.
This is very much precedented (and is done by many more countries for many more industries), in a way that banning TikTok just isn't.
> the executive can retaliate, including through the WTO
Trump tried this. It was blocked by the courts [1]. Retaliatory tariffs aren't something the executive can magic up.
> China did not ban Google and Facebook. They both had the opportunity to comply with extremely restrictive local laws
Restrictive and immoral. Even withint this framework, this bill's response is incredibly forgiving. Because, again, the point is not to ban TikTok. It's to rehome it.
> in a way that banning TikTok just isn't
If anything, banning TikTok (which, again, this bill doesn't aim to do) is deeply internationally precedented [2].
> Trump tried this. It was blocked by the courts [1]. Retaliatory tariffs aren't something the executive can magic up.
The link you sent is not relevant to the claim - just because a specific kind of executive tarrif was found illegal doesn't mean that there aren't executive tarrifs. The executive has the right to impose tarrifs - the 1974 Trade Act allows the president to impose 15% tarrifs for 150 days for broad national security reasons and the 1962 Trade Expansion Act allows the president to direct the Department of Commerce to investigate and recommend any kind of tarrif or trade measures for broad reasons including general welfare. Both of these laws have been tested by the Trump administration and in most cases the tarrifs survived challenges (*1)
> Restrictive and immoral. Even withint this framework, this bill's response is incredibly forgiving. Because, again, the point is not to ban TikTok. It's to rehome it.
International trade doesn't work on the basis of freedom and morality. It works on the basis of reciprocity. The idea, and the norm, being that foreign businesses should be allowed to operate as a local business would. Restrictive and immoral laws are completely consistent with this so long as they are applied to local and foreign businesses alike. Forcing a sale to a domestic entity however is completely different and is not precedented.
> If anything, banning TikTok (which, again, this bill doesn't aim to do) is deeply internationally precedented [2].
Read the list carefully. Every one of those bans were either temporary (Bangladesh, first Indian ban, Indonesia, Jordan, Senegal, Pakistan) because TikTok chose not to comply with local laws (Iran, Russia, Afghanistan) or the result of a military conflict (Second Indian ban, Taiwan).
After this, 4 countries remain : Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nepal, and Kyrgyzstan. It turns out that, as of today, Tiktok is not banned in any of those countries. In Armenia and Azerbaijan, the ban turned out to be temporary after border flashpoints led to media suppression (*2). In Nepal, the ban is being challenged in court and meanwhile the ban is not implemented by many ISPs (*3). In Kyrgyzstan, there simply isn't actually a ban (*2)
That is to say, no, there is no precedent. Every other ban was either temporary, due to TikTok deciding local laws - applied to everyone - weren't worth compliance, or as a result of a direct military conflict with China. These are all fair, accepted, and preceded scenarios. A Tiktok ban purely based on foreign ownership just isn't precedented.
China did not ban Google and Facebook. They both had the opportunity to comply with extremely restrictive local laws and both decided not to bother (especially Facebook for which it would likely have been too expensive).It offered both to obey the same laws and controls as local companies, and they refused. Famously, Google had Project Dragonfly to make their own TikTok/Douyin split, until political and employee pressure stopped that.
This is very much precedented (and is done by many more countries for many more industries), in a way that banning TikTok just isn't.