Here Are the 13 Republicans Backing the Dangerous Restrict Act


The Restrict Act proposes to ban TikTok, a China app that should be banned, but The Restrict Act doesn’t stop there. This Act gives the Feds access to all your data.

The Restrict Act (S.686), dubbed the Ban TikTok Act, is not only about banning TikTok as much as controlling American free speech. It was introduced by a Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner, and a Republican, Sen. John Thune. It was then referred to the commerce committee. However, the politicians are trying to sneak it into the NDAA.

The Restrict Act would allow the Feds access to all the data on our devices, including Ring and home security apps…and it’ll be a crime to use a privacy device. If you use a VPN, you could get 20 years in prison and a million-dollar fine on the say-so of the Secretary of Commerce.

All Internet users would lose their right to privacy. The government could freely, and without your permission, review, prosecute, and take possession of your personal information. They can ban any game, application, or anything.

The law is vague, and with this kind of power, the federal government could silence free speech with little effort.

Without any input from Congress, the Secretary of Commerce and DNI decide if your transaction involves a foreign adversary, and you could end up in prison.
Tulsi Gabbard warned Americans about it:

“It gives power, unfettered power, to un-elected bureaucrats in the Commerce Department to tell us what social media apps we are or are not allowed to use,” Ms. Gabbard said.

She continues, “It gives them unfettered access to our data, our browsing histories, how we’re using different apps on our phones, and it basically criminalizes the use of [virtual private networks] VPNs, with some pretty serious consequences. And they’re doing all this in the name of “national security.”

I’m the canary in the coal mine
Thirteen Republican senators cosponsored The Restrict Act:
Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]*
Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]*
Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]*
Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV]*
Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]*
Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]*
Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]*
Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]*
Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]*
Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]*
Sen. Romney, Mitt [R-UT]*
Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]*
Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM]
Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]
Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]
Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]
Sen. Hickenlooper, John W. [D-CO]
Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]
Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]
Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]
Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME]
Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]
Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]
Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]
Tucker explains the dangers:
“The bill is ostensibly a protecting American National security and ending foreign adversaries from interfering in our election through apps like TikTok. Because, of course, election interference by Twitter and Facebook is no problem at all…”

“This bill isn’t really about banning TikTok. It’s never about what they say it is. Instead, this bill would give enormous and terrifying new powers to the federal government to punish American citizens and regulate how they communicate with one another.

The Secretary of Commerce gets to define all the terms!

“For example, the bill would regulate ‘certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries.’ Now what’s a foreign adversary, and who gets to decide? Who? Well, the secretary of commerce and the department of the DNI, not Congress, get to decide what foreign adversaries are.

“… the transactions with foreign adversaries would include ‘any acquisition importation, transfer, installation dealing in or use of any information communications technology product or service, including ongoing activities such as mandated services, data transmission, software updates, repairs, or the provision of data hosting services.

“Well, that’s pretty broad under this bill. If you engage in any of that with a so-called foreign adversary as determined by – in this case, the Biden administration – that would allow the Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo and the Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to decide whether you’re acting in the ‘interest of a foreign adversary.’ Again, that’s another term that the executive branch, the secretary of commerce, gets to define without the interference of Congress.

The enforcement measure is 20 years in prison:

“So if the Biden administration decides that you’re doing this, then the secretary of commerce can then enforce ‘any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction with any person or with respect to any property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’ These covered transactions can involve ‘ current past or potential future transactions, and the mitigation member measures include but are not limited to throwing American citizens in prison for 20 years.’

“So, you would be allowing the executive branch, the Biden administration, to regulate speech on the Internet, and if you were somehow involved with the ’foreign adversary,’ let’s say you oppose the war against Russia, you go to prison for 20 years.

“So this isn’t about banning TikTok. This is about introducing flat-out totalitarianism into our system. Now, just because TikTok is so unappealing because it’s a creepy low IQ Chinese plot designed to make our kids trans, and it is, that does not mean that the people trying to ban TikTok have your interests in mind. ..

They aren’t against China!

“These are exactly the same people who drained our strategic petroleum reserve and, in fact, promote China at every turn. Now they’re telling you they’re against China. They’re not. This is not an effort to push back against China. It’s part of a strategy to make America much more like China, with the government in charge of what you read and see and with terrifying punitive powers at their fingertips.

“And we’ve seen this before from the national security state again and again confronted with the foreign adversary. For example, after 911, the federal government used the opportunity to expand its police powers over the American population, and they do it under false pretexts, and they do it quickly by whipping people into a panic. Usually, that’s rooted in some truth.”

It’s totalitarianism on the move.




  1. By the very description, the bill would be crushed by the Constitution. I however don’t trust those in Government who claim to know and understand what the Constitution says.

  2. This is the next big step after the Patriot Act to spy on citizens. With the 2020 coup complete, the escalations continue. Notice that Mitch’s corrupt gang always finds enough RINOs to overcome filibuster. This time Mitch has the luxury of avoiding to commit on it though he favors every action by the surveillance state.

  3. This should be an easy case for SCOTUS to strike down but, unfortunately, SCOTUS has proved time and time again allowing the worst of government actions to be upheld. Many aspects of the Patriot Act should have been struck down, yet it wasn’t. Even if a case is favorable to the public, it is done in such a vague way to be meaningless, which allows a continuation of the past violations. One thing is for certain; all of government is in the business of protecting itself to the detriment of the public notwithstanding.

    • The SC has made incredibly dangerous and improper decisions. A dark cloud has descended on the USA. The spooks are in charge, dissenters are driven off.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here