Sen. Rand Paul Warns RESTRICT Act Would Allow Feds to Nullify First Amendment

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been a major critic of the RESTRICT Act, which has been sold to Congress and the public as a ban on TikTok.

He warned that it would authorize the federal government to censor any online communications it deems subversive and would nullify the First Amendment.

The popular social media app, which is controlled by a Chinese company with ties to the Chinese Communist Party, has more than 150 million monthly users in the United States alone and is used mainly by people under 30.

The app has been controversial for years, as concerns over security have led to several statewide bans of the app on government devices.

Legislation Faces More Opposition Former President Donald Trump failed in his attempt to ban TikTok in the United States during his presidency, but momentum has been building ever since.

In April, President Joe Biden demanded that TikTok’s owners divest their stakes in the company or face a nationwide ban.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) co-sponsored the RESTRICT Act, which now has the support of over 20 senators, to give the Commerce Department the power to impose restrictions—up to and including outright bans—on TikTok and other technologies that may pose a national security risk.

It would mainly apply to foreign apps and software from countries deemed hostile to the United States, like China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba.

The legislation also empowers the Secretary of Commerce to unilaterally add any other country to the list.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said the House would draw up a bill to address the Chinese app, but the timeline is unclear.

On May 5, Paul published a column on conservative news website Townhall, warning that the bill “bestows an astonishing amount of power to the Executive branch in a manner that the Chinese Communist Party would approve of.”

Possible Trojan Horse for Political Abuses The senator from Kentucky blocked an attempt to fast-track the legislation on March 29, citing concerns about free speech and expanding the power of the surveillance state.

His fellow Republican, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, had sought unanimous consent for a TikTok ban in the Senate.

A growing number of Democrats and Republicans have raised concerns agreeing with Paul’s assessment and have objected to the anti-TikTok legislation as being too broad.

Critics are concerned that certain sections of the act would vastly increase the federal government’s ability to spy on Americans online and punish them for sharing information that opposes the official narrative.

Paul has gone against many of his colleagues in his party, warning on the Senate floor in March, “I think we should beware of those who use fear to coax Americans to relinquish our liberties.”

“Every accusation of data gathering that has been attributed to TikTok could also be attributed to domestic big tech companies,” he said.

Section 3 of the act would provide the authorities legal cover to pursue anyone deemed to have “undermine[d] democratic processes” in favor of the “strategic objectives of a foreign adversary.”

Paul said the act gives the executive branch wide ranging powers that would basically provide “limitless authority for the president to ban speech.”

“The RESTRICT Act eschews almost all notions of checks and balances by granting a vast amount of power to the Executive branch to intervene in all kinds of economic transactions. It would effectively allow the Secretary of Commerce to become the Commissar of Commerce,” he said in the column.

According to the legislation, the White House would be granted the power to enforce any measures to “address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that the Secretary determines…”

Paul said that the legislation goes far beyond banning TikTok, as the bill would also enable the government to target any business falling under the jurisdiction of a foreign adversary, an unacceptable risk to national security.

White House Could Censor Political Enemies The new powers would allow the surveillance of those suspected of “interfering in, or altering the result or reported result of a Federal election.”

If broadly interpreted, the law would allow the federal government to spy on local elections in the name of mitigating any supposed threat, dangerously giving Washington enormous control over the electoral process.

“The amount of power invested in the government is so broad, that all the Secretary of State would have to do is assert that any undesirable comment furthers a foreign adversary’s interest that could influence a federal election,” Paul wrote.

“In other words, to rid social media of any disagreeable voices, the RESTRICT Act allows the Executive Branch to dissolve the First Amendment so long as it utters the magic words of ‘national security,’” Paul added.

He warned that federal officials could prevent the media from publishing critically important information in the name of combating foreign disinformation in an election.

Paul also referred to the allegations that federal officials working on behalf of the Democrats and the Biden administration had falsely insinuated that the Hunter Biden laptop story was part of a Russian disinformation campaign to affect the 2020 election.

“We already know how these powers could be abused by our government to further the political agenda of the political class,” he said.

The act further declares that anyone who disobeys an order given by the secretary of commerce under the act could go to prison for 20 years.

“A company that publicly disagreed with the President could find themselves on an official enemies list, censored, and imprisoned,” Paul warned.

Reuters contributed to this report.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases