Are national security arguments not legal? My understanding was that Chinese Tech companies are required by law to serve as (willing or unwilling) arms of the domestic spy agency in China.
A blanket ban on "Chinese tech" is immeasurably broad, and would harm legitimate business interests. Should Microsoft, Cisco and Oracle stop doing business in the country if they're selling products and services to Chinese tech firms?
Correspondingly, Tencent has holdings in many American companies, Reddit and Twitter being two. Should Reddit be forced to buy out their holdings?
I mean, yeah maybe. If there's a real national security risk it would make sense. Not that I think either of those companies are in any way trustworthy, but let's not compound the dangers to the public with CCP interference.
Precisely. But as it stands, they even haven't made a case against Tiktok, let alone private investments by Chinese companies.
There's nothing stopping the DOJ from laying charges against Tiktok US (the corporation) if there's evidence of contravening US law. But there is plenty of political hay to be made by suspecting that there might be. What laws, you ask? That too hasn't been clear, which helps explain why these bills fail again and again.
If you decide that "no Chinese social network is allowed", you can create a law for that. But the TikTok ban is not like this.
Impact to the country's critical infrastructure and digital economy,
"Sabotage or subversion" of ICTS in the United States
Interference and manipulation of federal elections
Undermining the democratic process to "steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States".
Arguments aren't a source of law, and what's permissible in legislation is defined by the constitution.
Oh, sweet, summer child.
Reading the full text of the constitution won't do much but put you a toe past the starting line in understanding what is and is not "constitutional" in the US.