as it does do everything i want and facebook is really mean. i don't want them to make money. that means you owe chinese access to all of our data and manipulate the minds of americans? i don't think so. this is a very specific bill. very specifically tailored. it does not harm american companies or individuals. you know t you got to read it.w.

host: at our table this morning is the former trump administration former u.s. assistant secretary of commerce here to talk about this debate in washington over what to do about tiktok. the hoaplegislation 352-65, oveg bipartisan support. is this significant? guest: given the scope of tiktok users and how debated this issue has been over the last several years, it is really heartwarming and really encouraging to see the government come together on a bipartisan basis about the threats posed to u.s. national securities, absolutely. host: you said heartwarming, why? guest: in today's era, we tend to over-politicize issues and it is really nice when in instances where people can put

partisanship aside and really come together to address national security threats. your second question is this a threat, absolutely. director wray, director haynes, the director of intelligence has been incredibly vocal about the threat that tiktok poses. when you look at how much they have been issuing a warning, it is really unprecedented. we don't see anything like that normally. we really need to heed those warnings and understand that these apps posted by foreign adversary nations need to pose a threat. host: dig into the threat because it is interesting, our viewers were saying they were surprised that lawmakers would move quickly in that it passed the committee last week, and that you saw this overwhelming bipartisan support. 352.

and they can't support other legislation but they can come together behind this. what is going on, what is behind this? host: guestthnefarious behind i. what director wray has been doing quite effectively is he has kept his foot on the gas pedal. the threat of tiktok is emblematic of the apps hosted by foreign adversary nations. he has kept his foot on the pedal to the extent that congress can no longer ignore. it is literally impossible for the americanucated on every sin. that is why they have elected representatives to make those difficult decisions for them. the u.s. government, the executive branch, director haynes have emphasized the issue so much that it is impossible to ignore. host: what are the national security threats? guest: it's incredible the

capability that technology unleashes. if you use an app hosted by a foreign adversary. the media, the fbi director has talked about surveillance capabilities. we know about the app can drop code into your phone. if your microphone looks like it is off, he could actually be on. to everything you're doing, monitor all of your keystrokes. then there is the risk of pushing out algorithms that push out content that is destructive. destructive to children. europe has actually had cases where they fined tiktok for pushing out content the children that was inappropriate. but even more so, in addition to all that, because i think the average user is going to say i am consenting to all this. i am consenting to tiktok to have this. i know they might be listening,

but i'm not really saying anything important. how do these apps connect software to metallic indications infrastructure? communicating with the telecommunications infrastr code is also able to be transferred into the tele-indications infrastructure. so you've got individual risk to individual people, risks to the population, collecting massive amounts of data on populations in the united states. demographics, regions, etc. and also risk to the tele-communications infrastructure which we depend on. host: is this effectively a ban? because we read from david singer's news analysis in the new york times that algorithm. our says it is like a u.s. company buying a ferrari without

the engine, you wouldn't get the algorithm. guest: that is the point. bytedance has repeatedly said. remember, bytedance is the parent company. a thorough review of the national security risk. bytedance has said over and over again publicly that it will not buy back tiktok. the legislators know that. they know that bytedance isn't going to have that space. that legislation has built in suspenders that says you are supposed to buy it back because your ownership of tiktok is a significant national security risk and if you do not divest, we can prohibit the provider web hosting services from providing your app ande are also requiring that users prior to the prohibition, users need to obtain their information from you, you're supposed to get that

back to the users what you've been collecting on them. host: what is the likelihood that this company would give that user data back? guest: nothing. they would do it in a very insignificant way. of course, they don't want problematic, they don't want problematic conference on anything. ■[with the web hosting services, prohibit them from offering any upgrades or any provision of the app. >> getting three was involved in the conversation. leonard, democratic caller. >> hello, good morning. i just want to say to the lady that is talking, i just want to let you know, you guys in congress, senate, white house, you don't have any credibility left. we don't believe nothing you say. we already know that we've been attacked by american companies,

foreign companies, everybody stealing our data. bring you guys to try to ban tiktok to control what we think and what we know, we have exactly what you guys are doing. so if you want to go ahead and ban tiktok, you are going to greet situations where the democrats are not going to get reelected at all because everyone will turn on them. we don't believe in you guys. all you guys do is lie and more lies and more lies. host: let's take that point, distrust. guest: our government, american people this is no good. it is an argument we heard in the first hour. i think it is a fair comment to say we distrust the government. things have been politicized far too much, and i agree with that. that's why i think it is remarkable here again that the country has come together on a

bipartisan basis. i get that the color doesn't distrust the government and at the end of the day we are not going to have the trust. the u.s. government is not going to have the trust of every single american citizen, and that's ok. the u.s. government needs to make important decisions that not everybody is going to agree with, but that is ok. they've taken over to represent this country and they are going to do everything humanly possible to address the national security risk. the caller is right. the threats to u.s. national security are far more important that we have to start somewhere. aunt tiktok is the one area with the acquisition of musically, we actually have the legal authority to intervene, and that is why tiktok has become the issue that people are focused on, because it is one of those areas where the u.s. government has obvious jurisdiction to go and regulate. host: but the courts said what

when the trump administration, which you are part of, tried to ban this? guest: the department of justice didn't defend the ban. there's really important grounds to defend the ban. this is not overreach, this is not restriction free speech, and that is important to unpack for free speech is the content of the videos. that content is free to migrate anywhere it wants to go. what the u.s. government is essentially regulating as a digital platform hosted by a foreign adversary. let's get rid of that. r]but as video content, that is free to go anywhere. and the final thing i want to mention goes to the caller's point is that the u.s. government wants to control what we think and what we see. i would much rather the u.s. government control -- that is fundamentally not true, but even assuming some people believe

that, i would much rather the u.s. government control what i see and what i think than a country, the chinese government ruled by the chinese communist party who had people in internment camps and control its own significant -- citizens so significantly that they can't do anything that defies the communist party agenda. social credit scores would go down. i would much rather the u.s. government control what i see rather than anybody else. host: nazak nikakhtar is our guest this morning. she served during the trump administration from 2018 for 2021. she'sng to give us her insight on this idea of regulating tiktok or ethics legislation that passed in the house would do, possiblydemocra.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. remember, you can also text us your thoughts. mike in aurora colorado, you are next. caller: good morning. i'm calling in because leonard was right. you both know lobbying is just another word for bribery so i'm pretty sure what happened was younger people learned about the genocide happening in palestine and the 100 years war that has been happening on palestine and the state of israel so they went and bribed all the politicians to ban tiktok so they can learn about this information. host: let's talk about the history of trying to regulate this app, because it goes back

to when? guest:s before the israel war. it preceded that. i know there is temptation for people to bring in their concern into this broader national security debate, but i really encourage everybody, the nation is under significant risk by foreign adversaries, primarily china in terms of its infiltration into our tele-communications network. the list goes on. so let's stay focused on the national security threats that right have to do with china, have to do with apps, and the u.s. government is trying its very best to regulate. it knows it is going to make a love people upset, but think about this. the politicians are being lobbied much more to advocate for tiktok rather than ban it. there is no lobbying dollars and

banning it. and the fact that the politicis have overwhelmingly stepped up and said this is the right thing to do underscore the fact that there isn't lobbying involved, it is actually people stepping in, stepping away from lobbying dollars and saying i'm going to ban this because it is a u.s. national security interest and informs a blueprint of further actions to come to better protect american interests. host: is that the interest of that this happens? the former president is now saying he's not so sure against this legislation because he's worried a company like meta would take over and get even bigger. guest: i don't even want to ge into that aspect of the comp -- conversation because bytedance is not going to divest. this is software, it is all integrated. bytedance is not going to give that up and certainly not for

any amount that any u.s. company is going to pay. so i really want to just move away from that conversation because it is just moot, it is irrelevant, and really focus on the national security risk. the fact that i dance also will not divest is a really important signal that what is so critical about the u.s. user data that bytedance that is controlled by the chinese communist party will not let go of this. host: since 2019 tiktok has been under review by government panels. the committee on foreign investment in the united states. you worked with them. tell us about this panel, and what are they reviewing? >> this panel has in some form or way been in effect since 1988. it is interagency body shared by department of defense, the white house, the department of energy,

department of state. and the committee reviewscertaie united states for national security risks. and if the u.s. government decides there is a risk to national security, it has the legal authority to ban -- to either block the proposed investments or the divestiture if it has already happened, or mitigate if there is a national security risk. u.s. government would use those laws or reach a mitigation agreement with the parties to mitigate the national security risk. if the u.s. government decides there is no risk at all, most of these transactions, the vast majority are confidential. this interagency government body is not prone to lobbying at all because nobody knows the transactions to come in and lobby.

tiktok somehow made it in the public space, there are legal processes involved to insulate them from the lobbying activity so the committee can actually look at the facts on the basis of what exists in reality. host: have they ever fork the sale of a different chinese company? guest: absolutely. prohibitions. the vast majority of them have happened in the last 12 years, and those have all been chinese companies. we are a country that welcomes investment, that welcomes participation by our friends and allies, but the u.s. government has spoken and spoken consistently and frankly, not enough to regulate chinese investments in the united states that really do significantly

pose national early risk. there is a lot of information out there publicly available about how much u.s. assets the chinese companies governed by the chinese communist party. they own quite a bit of assets in the united states and that is really becoming a big risk. host: baltimore, republican. caller: yes, good morning. thank you for taking my call. for your guest and then a follow-up comment. my question is google, facebook, youtube, where do they store international user data? guest: so i actually frankly don't know where companies store their data. i will tell you that american companies are subject to the extent that they are in

jurisdiction, subject to american law, and they are obligated to privacy laws through the fact that the government doesn't interfere with activities very much. they generally take a very good effort to protect the data. we saw the debate with apple, u.s. government, but u.s. companies generally, as a general matter to a very good job. european companies, japanese companies to a very good job. i will tell you this is a national security professional, protecting user data. china is a completely different story. the chinese government has a series of national security laws and anti-foreign sanctions laws they give the chinese government unfettereds the chinese company data and frankly, any

company chinese or not that operates in china, but also demands that those companies violate foreign laws, violate u.s. privacy laws. china makes itn different calculus and different dynamic. that, combined with -- and they really want to draw distinctions between china and the united states and other democratic nations -- china has one million to 3 million people in internment camps and monitoring every activity of its citizens daily lives through a social credit score which essentially requires that if you do not behave in the way that advances the communist party, your credit score goes down, you can't get a car, you can't send children to school, you can't travel. that kind of control over a population is terrifying and that is not how we operate host: connecticut, democratic caller. caller: three separate questions here.

one is from the way i read the law, we don't ban foreign ownership, it is adversarial tions owning tiktok. that is one. the way i read it, france could be the country even though china is probably not going to sell it. that is one question. the other question, i think the just came across nai law -- an ai law protecting its users. is ai connected in any way with this action that congress took yesterday? and is this the same district that banned the sale of the united states shipyards? that might have been in the bush

administration. is this the same committee that has taken actions like that in the past? thank you so much for your time. guest: icts of late. you are absolutely right, the law deals with foreign adversary nations. foreign adversary nations being china, the people's republic of china, the russian federation, iran, north korea, cuba. a small subset of countries. you are right, it is not any of those with any foreign ownership. this is an adversary problem. i do want to address the shipyard. you're absolutely right about that. in terms of the ai.

it depends how you define ai. based on its algorithm, you could argue that yes, it does use a little bit of ai to kind of give you more content that you want or a different type of content. but fundamentally, the ai regulation is scoped a little bit differently. i worry that it may not be comprehensive enough, at least to address the threat posed by apps hosted by foreign adversary nations. host: you are listening and watching this morning to nazak nikakhtar who is former trump administration u.s. assistant secretary of commerce and also now a partner at wiley rein llp national security practice chair as well.>$ sydney in florida, democratic caller. caller: yes.

recognize is that we do have an administration of professionals and the people that are learning from individuals who are actually involved in a lot of the processes to protect the american people as a whole, everybody. they are involved. one problem is that we have the house and the senate who are supposed to receive information from this administration and for some reason, they fight as though this administration is against the people. so we've got stuff going on where individuals are not beholden to really sound judgment. they are just making any type of assessments and all kinds of stuff, buty have just enough information to think they are right, but not enough to know they are wrong.

really, they should at least come with some type of sound information. instead of just pretending. gu maybe that is worth commenting on with the house and the senate w hrepeatedly by thef national intelligence, they have the information they need, congress can ask the executive branch. i think really sue there has been adequate briefing such that that is where you see the alignment between congress and the executive branch. president biden has said he wil. the biden administration and congress have done a really good jobhost: chuck schumer has not d this will come to the floor, he

has said he will look at it, so it stayed is uncertain in the upper chamber. if it does not get a floor vote or it does but it does not pass, some other legal actions that can be taken? guest: i'm still hoping for the best, still hoping senator schumer will really consider the national security risk, the strong bipartisan consensus from the house of representatives that this is an issue. this is an issue that is important enough to take on. that at the end of the day, even if it doesn't go to the senate for a vote, there is an authority the commerce department has. many will recall what we did with respect to huawei. we put it on the entity list which basically prohibits exports of goods, software,

technology without a license from the u.s. government, and that really got the china threat conversationto the ecosystem and then got our allies to move away from huawei. the same thing can be done with respect to bytedance. if the u.s. government, and this is solely within the executive branch's legal authority, if they decide right and on the entity list, and i should really say the legal standard of getting on it is so low that it is rarely if ever adjudicated, if they put bytedance on the entity list, users cannot update the app because the update requires an export of the software which then allows the app to be updated. and that allows e app to be manipulated over time. and what a great way to also use that opportunity to tell the kids at school listen, you can't

update your app anymore and let me explain why. there are national security risks. there's also the amount of communication that the u.s. has been doing to the american public. does the biden: ministration have a separate legal authority to get this donely. with see if they are actually going to pull that lever. host: pennsylvania, independent. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. to find out where weto the past. if you remember the bipartisan bill that sent all of our jobs over to china with the republican house and senate, the chinese were not our enemies at that time, i guess. we built china up to what it is

now there is a frankenstein that we created. it is all about the money. they don't need us now because they got all about technology. all of a sudden, there is a problem. the problem is we are the monster maker of frankenstein and now we don't like it. guest: that's also an excellent point. i think in the 1990's, early 2000's, there's two schools of thought in the u.s. government about what china was ultimately going to become. the chinese formed a communist country into a market economy, two legitimate debates on it. i had my own views, but even at the same time, one can't fault the u.s. are being naive, one can't fault the u.s. for being hopeful. we were absolutely naive and blindly hopeful.

the financial crisis happened. shortly thereafter, china look at the u.s. model and said i do not want my economy to be a market economy because look at the disaster that happened with the financial crisis, the global disaster. i'm going to double down on my government controls with every single level of the government. and it is because the government shifted and really doubled down on that direction which is completely opposite of what the u.s. government had anticipated. that is when president xi and china came into power about 2012 and really decided we are going to do everything possible to get the technology from the rest of the world to be the global manufacturing superpower, to become the global technology power. and at that time, we still didn't recognize what china was up to. and until 2015i think, this is

when the obama administration was in the white house, i think it was a bad point the administration decided i don't think china is going to be a friend, let's quickly reverse course. that is why we have the narrative we have now. host: what have other countries done about tiktok? guest: excellent question. europe is actually launched a formal investigation into tiktok's mishandling of children's data which is keeping children'sng children's data who are under 13 who shouldn't be on the app and then also how long they are keeping the data. in ireland,, they've actually fined tiktok based on the findings that tiktok has misused children's data. but i also want to say you can

say that we have got to do better at controls. the other thing i want to stress is just because we haven't found one nefarious ring, that is completely out of line. but other things that people are saying, we haven't found evidence of any other bad actors on tiktok, i would argue that china is lying in wait. china has a lot of leverage in control of the u.s. economy. make nocise it. if you have somebody, for example, lingering around your house in a very suspicious way, that should give you reason to be concerned, much like the fact that tiktok hasn't done anything yet. but it is centralizing it in china, analyzing it, looking for malicious ways to lerthat shouln

to worry. host: west virginia, republican. caller: how are you all ladies doing this morning? all right now. i would definitely have to agree that tiktok has been intrusive and is also pushing out content our youth. we already see it every day. we also see people committing crimes, posting it to tiktok thinking it is funny. and then on top of that, china is behind this. this is 100% commies and we do not 100% need this in their country at all. that is all i have to say, thank you. guest: that is a really key point to emphasize. we do not need apps hosted by countries that we've already deemed to be foreign adversaries

to control content and build content toow discord in our society. they have long held in their doctrine that someone discord into the enemies countries is a key strategic lever, and we've got to make sure that we have the courage to step up and defend ourselves from that. host: here's one of our viewers in the text. if tiktok is removed from the app store, can it be side-loaded? guest: i'm not sure what side-loaded is. host: i'm not, either. guest: but i will answer that question in a simple way. any availability of tiktok controlled by bytedance that allows the chinese government to control the algorithm, the software, what people see, what people do, that is going to be off limits to the u.s. government. host: i want to have you respond

the tiktok ceo who has been on capitol hill testifying before lawmakers and according to news reports, he was even up there yesterday while this debate was happening the house. here is what he had to say back in january. >> tiktok is owned by bytedance which is majority owned by global investors and we have three americans on the board. you are right in pointing out that over the last three years we have spent millionsf dollars which is unprecedented in our industry to firewall protected u.s. data from staff. >> i'm asking about all of the data that you collected prior to that event. >> yes, senator. we started a plan i talked about a year we finished the first phase of data deletion so our data centers are tied off. we will not only delete from the data centers, we will hire a third party to verify that work and then we will go into, for example, employees working laptops to delete that as well.

>> was all of the data collected by tiktok prior to project texas shared with e government pursuae national intelligent laws about country? >> senator, we have not been asked for any data by the chinese government and we have never provided. host: your reaction to what he told lawmakers there? guest: that's adorable but i am not persuaded by. the global investors aspect of it, that doesn't mean that bytedance cannot selysoftware al apps. and while i commend oracle and i commend the notion of project texas, what oracle doesn't know, what the third-party independent auditors do not know will actually prevent them fma that o be secured. bytedance is not going to be forthcoming. i'm not convinced that it is the robust mechanism, and global

investors are not going to be. bytedance is not going to level in a forthcoming manner anyway. host: bob in washington state, independent. caller: i just wanted to make a comment. i am older and i've got a degree in computer science. people don't seem to understand you pick up yo and use it, that that information, many people have access to it. and they sell it back and forth. and i guess my question to you is -- or, what i would like you to educate people on is i was upset when they put caller

id on the phone and this is much farther than caller id. guest: for sure, underscoring privacy. government contractors from having tiktok on any devices that they used, we were looking at sort of best practices for government contracting companies. and the advice was even if you have tictac on your phone and you go near a computer that is on, there is potential for your phone that has the app to with that computer and transfer spyware and malicious code the same way that i just inscribed about having malicious apps on your phone and communicating with telecommunication infrastructure, which is also why states have gone berserk about tiktok. its not just tiktok, it is emblematic of this broader

debate. but absolutely the interconnectedness of things beyond what we actually rationally, the average person thinks, the capability of your phone to now disrupt tele-communications infrastructure, to disrupt other devices, it is pretty significant. i think the caller is absolutely right. and on that note, i commend senators and congressmen crenshaw, gallagher and mccall for consistently hounding the drumbeat on national security efforts because if it wasn't a concerted effort this could have died down and conversation in e mainstream and give them the cover they need to move forward to protect americans. host: instead of this legislation that passed the house yesterday, some senators are looking at the restrict act by senator markey warner which has bipartisan support and would

allow the commerce department to further regulate foreign social media apps. what do you make of this legislation? is it enough? guest: that legislation is certainly broader than what we have here. the scope is such that it would absolutely take a sizable chunk out of at least the national security threat posed by things in the telecommunications space. i also understand the debate on the which to this legislation as it stands now is the executive ranch, to designate what is problematic. host:legislation does that? guest: it may give the executive branch too much discretion. i understand that, but at the end of the day, we have to have some trust in our government to exercise discretion. the committee we weres enormous discretion to determine what is

a national security risk. so i personally don't have a problem. if we feel confident we've elected the right people in office, i don't have any problem with giving discretion the people who we feel are responsible and are going to take responsible action. but that is the debate. it will take a bite out of the problem, but some say that it is may be too broad and could be abused. host: georgia, democratic caller. caller: yes. i don't want to be rude or anything but this woman here is from the trump administration and her former boss spewedmore n propaganda and sometimes chinese propaganda than anyone. fox news, facebook, twitter have brainwashed my family and the

majority of my friends. i'm not an apologist for china but she keeps talking about how they have all these people in interment hands. we have way more people in prison. congress can't come together to get weaponry to ukraine? they can't go together? this is what they come together on, two tiktok? i just think we should have our own house and restart the talking about tiktok. guest: that's fair. let me underscore i am not president trump, i don't look like president trump hopefully and i certainly don't -- but i am an american, i served because i was an american. i was born at a time when the country i was born in underwent revolution. i've seen what these things do,

so i spent my career in national six. so i'm speaking as an american and what i have tried to relate today are simply facts. internment camp is a false comparison. internment camps are horrific. you have torture, rape of a religious group that could be expanded beyond that religious group based on what the chinese communist party typically does and the way that they punish people for doing things that don't align with the communist party agenda including -- and to your point about all of these other things happening in the world and why are we focusing on tiktok, absolutely i agree with you, we need to do more. but we should be fighting the national security front on a multitude of levels. if we are in a state where congress is focusing on one

issue at a time, so be it, but let's move forward. let's not say that because we have other problems we are not going to address one problem. host: