While I agree with you about the overall purpose of the TikTok ban. . . I'm not sure this is a great reading of the statute. The section you cite refers to a "determination of the President. . . pursuant to paragraph 3(B)". That paragraph is on page 10, and allows the President to determine that a "covered company" that is "controlled by a foreign adversary" poses a national security risk. The definition of "foreign adversary" is defined in paragraph 4 by referring to 10 U.S.C. 4872(d)(2).
So, basically, North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.
It's a way of allowing the President to ban new apps as they're rolled out without having to pass a new statute every damned time.
I definitely believe that the real motivation for doing this is that the USIC would prefer that it, not China, have control over US internet content. But the text of the law doesn't support as extensive an application as you imply.
While I agree with you about the overall purpose of the TikTok ban. . . I'm not sure this is a great reading of the statute. The section you cite refers to a "determination of the President. . . pursuant to paragraph 3(B)". That paragraph is on page 10, and allows the President to determine that a "covered company" that is "controlled by a foreign adversary" poses a national security risk. The definition of "foreign adversary" is defined in paragraph 4 by referring to 10 U.S.C. 4872(d)(2).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872
So, basically, North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran.
It's a way of allowing the President to ban new apps as they're rolled out without having to pass a new statute every damned time.
I definitely believe that the real motivation for doing this is that the USIC would prefer that it, not China, have control over US internet content. But the text of the law doesn't support as extensive an application as you imply.