COURTING VOTES: Biden ripped for TikTok debut

And the Biden campaign now up and running on TikTok, even though the Biden administration ordered the Chinese-owned social media platform banned from federal devices over national security concerns. The decision causing quite a fuss among both sides of the aisle. Joining us now is Republican Congressman Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin. He's chairman of the House Select Committee on China. China must have loved this news. Congressman. Every single Biden national security official, from the director of national intelligence to the CIA director, to the DIA director, to the head of cyber command, has warned that TikTok is a national security threat. The head of the FBI, Chris Wray, just testified before my committee and said that the parent company that owns TikTok is beholden to the Chinese government, and therefore it is a very significant threat. So here you have Biden's handpicked advisors telling him that this is effectively a CCP tool or weapon, and yet he's ignoring that. Why? To court the votes of anti-Semitic 18-year-olds? To get progressive clicks in a campaign season? It's not a serious move. It's not serious leadership. It's not the move of a serious country. If we continue to go down this road, we are going to effectively cede control of our news media to a hostile foreign country. That's unacceptable. I urge the president's Gen Z TikTok-addled campaign staffers to reverse course in the interest of national security. You wonder if it's a message of desperation inside the campaign. Mark Warner, Democrat from Virginia, said this, I think that we still need to find a way to follow India, which has prohibited TikTok. I'm a little worried about a mixed message. You think? Yeah, and by the way, India banned TikTok, and it wasn't the apocalypse inside of India. They have a flourishing tech and social media ecosystem there, and I think we must do the same. Either a ban or a forced sale or separation makes the most sense. Those who have invested in ByteDance, if they ever want TikTok to go public in the U.S., there's no way that's going to happen under the current ownership structure. We have to have a complete separation going forward to alleviate the national security concerns. I'm eager to work with Senator Warner to ensure that that happens, and I hope that all of my colleagues, Democrats, Republicans, because this should not be a partisan issue, can find a way forward on this issue before it's too late. Congressman, this is the first interview you've done since you announced over the weekend that you will not seek re-election, and I think that came as a surprise to many and a disappointment to a lot of people as well, because you, of course, you're a young man. You have a lot of ambition, and you're chairing this China committee, but you have decided not to go forward. And just for the viewers at home who have come to know you a little bit, what was your breaking point? Why did you decide that this was the straw that broke the camel's back and you were out? Well, there was no single breaking point. This is something my wife and I have been talking about for a while. That is the most important reason. We have a young family now. We'd like to grow that family, and I'll be honest, this lifestyle is not well-suited to that. So that was a big reason. But also, since I ran, I always said that Congress shouldn't be a career. I think that the fact that we have so many lifers and careers in this institution is why it's so dysfunctional, and that the framers, when they created the Constitution and this country, had in mind that you would embark on a season of service and then return to private life. And quite frankly, I want to make that transition back while I'm still young, and so I don't spend the next 20, 30 years in public life. So I think it was the best decision for my family. I'm going to miss it. I hope you guys will still be nice to me and invite me on your show, because I genuinely love talking with both of you. You've been incredible to me. You're kind to say that. Your district is pretty red. It's probably staying in Republican hands, but you have shown a commitment to go after and to recognize and to publicize what's going on with the Chinese Communist Party. And for you to back away from that now, who will fill that void? One thing I don't intend to back away from that. That's going to remain my mission. The mission that I've set for myself is to prevent World War III, restore conventional deterrence in order to prevent World War III with China. And I intend to keep attacking that mission just from a different title or platform. And so that's not going to change. That's my life's work. But we have a lot of talented young members in Congress who get the Chinese Communist Party threat. I intend to make sure that the select committee is left in good hands when I leave. And I think because of the work we've done on a bipartisan basis, a lot of people are waking up to that threat. But I intend to continue that work regardless of where I go next. Last week, you were one of three no votes when the House took up the impeachment vote against Secretary Mayorkas. There's another vote coming up again today. You'll still be a no. And why? I'm a no for at least two reasons. One, I don't think maladministration or incompetence—and make no mistake, Mayorkas is incompetent—is grounds for impeachment. James Madison specifically rejected that standard. And even if I granted that this is beyond maladministration and therefore approximating a high crime or misdemeanor, I just don't understand how you impeach a cabinet secretary for implementing the express policy of the President of the United States. And the final thing is, just as I argued when I opposed both Trump impeachments, if we lower the bar for impeachment, I'm worried that it opens up a Pandora's box. And we know for certain that the Democrats will take every opportunity to weaponize that new standard against a Trump administration, which seems likely to happen in the near future. They might do it anyway. That's true. But I don't think the argument that turnabout is fair play or they did a bad thing, therefore we get to do the same thing. You wouldn't use that logic with your kids, right? So I don't see how you can use it when it comes to the great problems of politics, particularly when you're setting a precedent that will resonate through the ages. And the fact that we're still debating precedent going back to the 1800s suggests that this is a meaningful vote that future Congresses will use to determine what they do. Well, there is still time for us to talk. So we hope you continue to accept our invitation. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. You guys are the best. Appreciate your time. Thank you, Congressman.