Congress
Before TikTok, the U.S. took action over national security concerns with Grindr
House voted to pass TikTok ban on Wednesday
In a bipartisan vote of 352-65 on Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives cleared a bill that would force a divestiture of TikTok by its Chinese parent company ByteDance or ban the video sharing platform’s use in the U.S.
While the legislation faces an uncertain path to passage in the U.S. Senate, Wednesday’s vote provided additional evidence of the extent to which lawmakers are concerned about U.S. national security risks that could stem from TikTok.
More specifically, as recent years have seen relations between the U.S. and China become more fraught than they have been since the two countries first established diplomatic ties in 1979, questions have been raised about the access government leaders in Beijing might have to data from America’s 150 million TikTok users who are active on the platform each month.
Concerns have also been raised about whether and how the platform’s content moderation policies, algorithmic recommendation engine or other features might be manipulated to advance Chinese interests ā including, potentially, by sowing political strife in the U.S. or manipulating or undermining American elections.
Many of these claims are speculative, lacking the type of evidence that might be required if they were presented in a court of law. Nevertheless, for purposes of forcing a divestiture through an act of Congress or a decision by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, they are sufficient.
CFIUS is a nine-member interagency panel that adjudicates questions of whether business transactions between foreign buyers and U.S. targets may raise national security concerns. Since 2020, the committee has investigated TikTok because the platform was created by ByteDance’s 2017 purchase of U.S. startup Musical.ly.
The probe led to negotiations over a deal in which American user data from TikTok would be sold to U.S. based multinational computer technology company Oracle, which would vet and monitor the platform’s algorithms and content moderation practices ā but Axios reported on Monday that talks between TikTok and CFIUS have stalled for months.
Parallels to Grindr case
As directed by CFIUS, in 2020, Grindr, the location-based app used primarily by gay and bisexual men and transgender or gender diverse communities, was sold by the Chinese-based Beijing Kunlun Tech to San Vicente Acquisition, a firm that was incorporated in Delaware.
According to Reuters, Kunlun’s failure to notify CFIUS when the company purchased Grindr in 2018 was likely one of the reasons the committee decided to force the divestiture and thereby unwind an acquisition that, by that point, had been consummated for two years.
While CFIUS does not share details about the specific nature of national security risks identified with transactions under its review, reporting at the time suggested concerns with Grindr had to do with the Chinese government’s potential to blackmail Americans, potentially including American officials, with data from the app.
Cooley LLP, an international law firm with attorneys who practice in the CFIUS space, notes that the committee uses a “three-part conceptual framework” to assess national security threats:
- What is the threat presented by the foreign personās intent and capabilities to harm U.S. national security?
- What aspects of the U.S. business present vulnerabilities to national security?
- What would the consequences for U.S. national security be if the foreign person were to exploit the identified vulnerabilities?
The firm writes that “issues that have raised perceived national security risks range from the obvious (e.g., foreign acquisitions of U.S. businesses with federal defense contracts) to the seemingly benign (e.g., foreign minority investments in offshore wind farm projects or online dating apps.)
Cooley additionally notes that CFIUS considers vulnerabilities such as “whether the U.S. business deals in ‘critical technology,’ ‘critical infrastructure’ or ‘sensitive personal data'” and threats such as “the foreign buyerās/investorās track record of complying with U.S. and international laws (e.g., export controls, sanctions and anti-corruption regimes.)”
Some critics argue CFIUS has been overzealous in enforcing investment restrictions against Chinese buyers, but assuming this may be true ā and putting aside questions of whether U.S. national security concerns are best served by this approach ā China’s foreign direct investment has “declined considerably,” according to another global law firm with a substantial CFIUS practice, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.
The firm notes heightened scrutiny has been applied particularly in cases of “Chinese investment in the U.S. biotechnology industry,” while Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld highlighted CFIUS’s expanded jurisdiction over Chinese investments in U.S. real estate ā noting, however, that the committee’s increased authority is “unlikely to satisfy members of Congress and state legislators who want to prohibit investments in agricultural and other land by investors from ‘countries of concern’ such as China.”
Two years after the finalization of Grindr’s divestiture in 2020, the company went public on the New York Stock Exchange and enjoyed a 400 percent rise in its stock price. Its current value is $1.75 billion.
TikTok is privately owned, but Angelo Zino, a vice president and senior equity analyst at CFRA Research, told CNBC that the platform’s U.S.-only business ācould fetch a valuation north of $60 billionā if Congress passes the bill to force its divestiture from ByteDance.
Congress
Senate Dems object to House GOP’s anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion approps riders
45 senators signed a letter issued to leadership on Thursday
A group of 45 Senate Democrats sent a letter Thursday urging leadership to reject the 55+ anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ measures that Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives have attached to must-pass FY25 spending bills, while also arguing that the “poison pill” policy riders must be kept out of the appropriations process moving forward.
The letter was addressed to the Senate’s Democratic and Republican leaders, Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Mitch McConnell (Ky.), along with the chair and vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). Among the signatories are 11 of the committee’s 14 Democratic members ā including Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), and Cory Booker (N.J.), who led the effort.
The House, meanwhile, voted on Wednesday to approve the major annual defense funding bill, with a provision that would prohibit the children of U.S. service members from accessing gender-affirming health treatments under the Pentagonās TRICARE program.
From here, the National Defense Authorization Act will face two major roadblocks that, for the past two years, have doomed other appropriations bills that were packed with partisan policy riders and passed by the House under the Republican leadership: first, the Senate’s Democratic majority, and second, President Joe Biden and his promise to veto legislation that would undermine reproductive rights or target trans and LGBTQ communities.
Of course, a path forward for these bills will become far clearer and easier next month when President-elect Donald Trump returns to the White House and the 119th Congress is seated with Republicans reclaiming control of the upper chamber.
In their letter, the senators explained that appropriations funding in recent years has typically been passed by the Senate in committee, usually with wide bipartisan margins, but the process is undermined when their conservative counterparts in the lower chamber pack the bills with right-wing policy riders.
Relative to concerns about harms to the legislative process, however, the authors placed a greater emphasis on the case for rejecting these measures because they are “partisan, discriminatory, and harmful.”
For instance, the letter notes that as House Republicans seeking to use the appropriations process as a vehicle for opening the door to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, or to ban access to transgender medical care, LGBTQ Americans are facing an unprecedented onslaught of legislative attacks, with 42 state legislatures introducing more than 574 anti-LGBTQ bills this year alone.
Additionally, the senators wrote, policy riders that would further restrict access to reproductive healthcare come as Americans are reeling from the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs, which overturned protections that were first established when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1933. As a result, the letter notes, total abortion bans are now enforced in 13 states with a handful of others setting early gestational limits.
Congress
House passes defense spending bill with anti-trans rider targeting military families
‘Not since DOMA’ has ‘an anti-LGBTQ+ policy been enshrined into federal law’
The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday voted to pass the annual military appropriations bill with a rider that would prohibit the children of U.S. service members from accessing gender-affirming health treatments under the Pentagon’s TRICARE program.
After clearing the floor vote with a comfortable margin of 281-140, the bill’s future is uncertain provided that Senate Democrats are unlikely to move on a National Defense Authorization Act that contains a discriminatory, partisan policy advanced by House Republican leadership and President Joe Biden promising to veto any legislation that targets transgender rights.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) reportedly insisted on amending the NDAA to add the anti-trans policy after a final version of the bill had already been negotiated by the chairs and ranking members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees over the weekend, earning a sharply worded rebuke from the later committee’s top Democrat, U.S. Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.).
“Blanketly denying health care to people who clearly need it, just because of a biased notion against transgender people, is wrong,” the congressman wrote. Johnson is “pandering to the most extreme elements o this party to ensure that he retains his speakership,” he said, and in the process the GOP leader has upended “what had been a bipartisan process.”
Just after the NDAA was passed, Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson shared a statement with the Washington Blade.
āMilitary servicemembers and their families wake up every day and sacrifice more than most of us will ever understand. Those families protect our right to live freely and with dignity ā they deserve that same right, and the freedom to access the care their children need.
Today, politicians in the House betrayed our nationās promise to those who serve. Not since the āDefense of Marriage Actā passed almost 30 years ago has an anti-LGBTQ+ policy been enshrined into federal law.
For the thousands of families impacted, this isnāt about politics. Itās about young people who deserve our support. Those who have courageously stepped up to serve this country should never have their families used as bargaining chips.
Now, the Senate has the opportunity to reject this and any bill that includes these dangerous anti-trans, anti-military family provisions, and remember the fundamental promise of our democracy: That everyone deserves dignity, respect, and the right to healthcare.ā
Congress
House moves to block gender-affirming care for children of service members
Rules Committee approved NDAA on Monday
House Republicans added a provision to the annual must-pass military spending bill, filed over the weekend, that would prohibit the children of U.S. service members from accessing gender-affirming healthcare interventions.
President Joe Biden has promised to veto legislation that discriminates against the trans community, and the likelihood that the bill would pass through the U.S. Senate is uncertain with Democrats controlling the upper chamber until the 119th Congress is convened on Jan. 3.
Nevertheless, the GOP’s National Defense Authorization Act was passed along party lines by the U.S. House Rules Committee on Monday night, and a floor vote could come as early as Tuesday.
During the hearing yesterday, the committee’s top Democrat, U.S. Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.) said the NDAA negotiated by the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees did not include this provision barring gender-affirming care and it was House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) who insisted that it be added after the fact.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is urging House Republicans to attach the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which is aimed at college campuses, to the NDAA, but Johnson reportedly wants the Democratic leader to put the bill to a floor vote on its own ā a move that would inhibit his party’s ability to confirm as many judicial nominees as possible before control of the upper chamber changes hands.
Smith’s office published a statement objecting to the anti-transgender language added by the Republican leader:
āFor the 64th consecutive year, House and Senate Armed Services Committee Democrats and Republicans worked across the aisle to craft a defense bill that invests in the greatest sources of Americaās strength: Service members and their families, science and technology, modernization, and a commitment to allies and partners.
Rooted in the work of the bipartisan Quality of Life Panel, the bill delivers a 14.5 percent pay raise for junior enlisted service members and 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It includes improvements for housing, health care, childcare, and spousal support.
House Armed Services Democrats were successful in blocking many harmful provisions that attacked DEI programs, the LGBTQ community, and womenās access to reproductive health care. It also included provisions that required bipartisan compromise. And had it remained as such, it would easily pass both chambers in a bipartisan vote.
However, the final text includes a provision prohibiting medical treatment for military dependents under the age of 18 who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Blanketly denying health care to people who clearly need it, just because of a biased notion against transgender people, is wrong. This provision injected a level of partisanship not traditionally seen in defense bills. Speaker Johnson is pandering to the most extreme elements of his party to ensure that he retains his speakership. In doing so, he has upended what had been a bipartisan process.
I urge the speaker to abandon this current effort and let the House bring forward a bill ā reflective of the traditional bipartisan process ā that supports our troops and their families, invests in innovation and modernization, and doesnāt attack the transgender community.ā
The Congressional Equality Caucus spoke out against the Republican NDAA with a statement by the chair, openly-gay U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), who said “In the last 72 hours, brave Americans who serve our nation in uniform woke up to the news that Republicans in Congress are trying to ban healthcare for their transgender children.”
Pocan continued, āFor a party whose members constantly decry ābig government,ā nothing is more hypocritical than hijacking the NDAA to override servicemembersā decisions, in consultation with medical professionals and their children, about what medical care is best for their transgender kids. The Congressional Equality Caucus opposes passage of this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to vote no on it.ā
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson also issued a statement, arguing that āThis legislation has been hijacked by Speaker Mike Johnson and anti-LGBTQ+ lawmakers, who have chosen to put our national security and military readiness at risk for no other reason than to harm the transgender kids of military families.ā
āThe decisions that families and doctors make for the wellbeing of their transgender kids are important and complex, especially so for military families, and the last thing they need is politicians stepping in and taking away their right to make those decisions,” she said.
“When this comes up in the full House, lawmakers need to vote down this damaging and dehumanizing legislation,” Robinson added.
āThis is a dangerous affront to the dignity and well-being of young people whose parents have dedicated their lives to this countryās armed forces,ā said Mike Zamore, national director of policy and government affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union.
āMedical care should stay between families and their doctors but this provision would baselessly and recklessly inject politics into the health care military families receive,” he said. “Nobody should have to choose between serving the country and ensuring their child has the health care they need to live and thrive. Members of Congress must vote against the defense bill because of the inclusion of this deeply harmful, unconstitutional provision.ā
-
Rehoboth Beach4 days ago
Rehoboth Beachās iconic Purple Parrot is sold
-
District of Columbia2 days ago
D.C. gay bar Uproar issues GoFundMe appeal
-
Opinions4 days ago
Navigating the holidays while estranged from ultra-religious, abusive parents
-
Books5 days ago
Mother wages fight for trans daughter in new book