The TikTok Bill Targets China’s Cultural Influence. That’s a Big Shift from the Tech War.

Congress’ new swing at social-media app TikTok might seem like more of the same old U.S.-China tech war that’s been running for several years—just that now it has come for dancing teens.

But what leading advocates of the new TikTok bill want would significantly expand the scope of the U.S. government’s interventions into the economy in the name of national security. The law would effectively ban TikTok if it didn’t change owners out of Chinese hands. The hallmark of China-focused regulation in recent years has been to keep American stuff—advanced technology, data, and intellectual property—out of the hands of the Chinese military. The TikTok bill would attempt to do something different: regulate companies’ ability to wield cultural power over Americans.

U.S.-China competition has already been hugely consequential for both countries’ economies and the world. Flows of trade, capital, information, and people between the two have fallen by 28% over the past decade, a report out today on the state of globalisation by logistics company DHL finds. The rise of industrial policy and other political interventions in markets are helping keep inflation high worldwide. Any expansion of regulation into new areas could add to that pressure.

To be sure, the bill is still far from becoming law. It passed the House today with overwhelming margins, but it must still pass the Senate and be signed into law by the president. Its advocates make a strong case that something really is new when it comes to TikTok. But given the stakes, it’s worth understanding exactly what that new thing is.

The bill’s leading advocates want it for two reasons . One, they argue TikTok is effectively a vast data-collection tool that can hand information about Americans directly to the Chinese Communist Party, whose requests TikTok’s management can’t refuse. This is a familiar issue in tech regulation. It is also why U.S. government employees aren’t allowed to keep the app on their phones.

The other issue is more novel. This is the idea that TikTok can be used “to mobilise public opinion,” as one of the bill’s lead sponsors, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D., Ill.), put it in a hearing with the leaders of the U.S. intelligence community on Tuesday.

Many TikTok users saw a pop-up last week urging them to contact Congress about the pending legislation, and quite a few did. Doesn’t that show exactly how the Chinese Communist Party could manipulate Americans, Krishnamoorthi asked? “While I can’t speak to the specific example,” responded FBI Director Christopher Wray, “I can tell you that the kind of thing you’re describing illustrates why this is such a concern.”

Avril Haines, U.S. director of national intelligence said that she couldn’t rule out that the CCP would use TikTok just like that to intervene in the 2024 election, something the intelligence community warned about in a new public threat assessment issued this week.

The TikTok legislation would resolve that worry not by taking away TikTok’s ability to influence Americans—only a full ban would do that. Instead, it would give the government leverage to force ByteDance, the app’s parent company, to hand ownership to an American company. Americans could still be influenced— Meta , X, and other social-media companies have been the target of other foreign-influence campaigns—but they could at least be more confident U.S. enemies aren’t secretly try to push them ideas.

TikTok’s leadership doesn’t see the issues this way. It believes the legislation is intended to ban the app, not just force divestment, and says it doesn’t take orders from the Chinese Communist Party in any case. Its CEO is from Singapore, not China, and the company is working with U.S. tech company Oracle to keep its data local to the U.S.

What no one seems to dispute is that TikTok really is wildly influential. Its 170 million users care deeply about what happens on the platform.

The question Congress is raising is whether some of TikTok’s users have been manipulated. This is a version of the argument Democrats made when it became apparent that Russia tried to intervene in the 2016 election to favour President Trump. The problem with that logic, as Republicans pointed out at the time, is that it’s not clear where it leads. If a bunch of Americans vote for the wrong reasons, does that mean the election is illegitimate? That’s a dangerous road to go down.

The point of the TikTok bill is to essentially head the debate off at the pass. Let there be no questions about the legitimacy of voting, because there wasn’t any illegitimate foreign influence behind it in the first place.

As Chris Fenton, a former Hollywood executive-turned-China critic who advised the bill’s sponsors, points out in an essay for RealClearPolitics , there is some precedent here. The Federal Communications Commission prohibits control of U.S. broadcasters by hostile governments. “Why should TikTok be an exception?,” he asks.

That’s the question the Senate will have to answer, while considering the costs of a major expansion of the U.S.-China fight and the risk that calling into question the political judgment of millions of U.S. social-media users will backfire in unexpected ways.

This decision will matter for much longer than the next dance craze.

Happy is the family whose members—parents, grandparents and grown children—trust each other enough to cooperate on shared goals, especially financial ones. When that is truly the case, Uncle Sam’s tax rules can help as well.

This matters especially now that mortgage rates are above 7%, and many families are looking for ways to help younger members. If the elders have resources and are confident younger ones can cooperate, a family loan could make homeownership possible while providing the elders with a useful income stream.

Other strategies can actually lower taxes, such as when funding 529 plans or Roth IRAs, or when someone inherits a traditional IRA with required withdrawals larger than they will need.

Here are three strategies useful for functional families.

Intrafamily loans

It is perfectly legal for families to lend money to a relative for a down payment or even a private mortgage.

But it is important not to cut corners, says Ryan McKeown, a CPA with Modern Wealth Enhancement in Minnesota. If the loan is for a down payment, be honest with the mortgage provider and have a formal agreement. The lender owes tax on the interest payments received.

If the loan is for a private mortgage, both sides should have legal representation with a formal written agreement, including payment terms. The lender owes tax on the interest, and the borrower often can deduct it if he or she itemizes.

To avoid IRS trouble, the interest rate shouldn’t be lower than the agency’s Applicable Federal Rate at the time of the loan. Currently that is about 5% for loans longer than nine years; about 4.5% for loans three to nine years; and about 4% for loans three years or less. Currently, traditional mortgage rates are generally above 7%.

In addition, the lender could use the $19,000 annual gift-tax exemption (described below) to forgive some or all of the interest or principal annually. If both lenders and borrowers are married, that is up to $76,000 a year. There is no tax for the borrower on such forgiveness, because it is from a gift.

If you’re going this route, McKeown advises against having a fixed plan to forgive the debt. Instead, do it in one-off letters specifying the amount—and keep careful records. Otherwise the IRS might try to treat the loan as a taxable gift.

Asset gifts

Powerful tax-saving moves for families often use gift-tax provisions. Under current law, anyone can give anyone else up to $19,000 of assets annually, free of gift tax. That means a married couple with three grandchildren could give them a total of $114,000 in 2026.

The gifts can be cash or other assets, like stock. For noncash gifts, the cost basis—which is the starting point for measuring taxable gain after a sale—“carries over” to the recipient. So if someone buys $1,000 of stock and gives it away when it is worth $5,000, the recipient’s cost basis is $1,000. If the recipient later sells the shares for $8,000, the taxable gain is $7,000.

Here’s an example showing how gifts could save a family taxes. Grandma is a widow of modest means, while her child and spouse have prospered. The couple has two children, and they want to contribute $5,000 to a 529 college-savings plan for each—but they need to sell stock to do it. Their tax rate on the sale would be 18.8%, and they would need to sell about $11,000 of stock.

However, Grandma’s federal tax rate on the stock sale is 0%. If the couple gives $10,000 of shares to Grandma, she could sell them, pay no tax, and fund the grandchildren’s 529 plans. This saves about $1,000 of tax.

These moves are legal, and they could be used in other ways, such as to help a young person fund a Roth IRA.

But trust among family members is essential: Under the law, givers can’t put conditions on a gift. Grandma could use her stock proceeds to take a cruise, but she makes 529 contributions instead.

Mark Sellner, a retired tax attorney and CPA living in Sarasota, Fla., uses this strategy. His children sell stock he gives them and fund 529 plans for his grandchildren.

The family’s tax savings aren’t huge, but he likes other benefits. The sales by his children don’t boost his adjusted gross income, which in turn could raise his Medicare Irmaa premiums or his 3.8% surtax on net investment income.

Sellner doesn’t worry about his children using the funds for another purpose.

“There can’t be any strings attached to gifts. Of course, it is up to us to decide whether to make them in the future,” he says.

Two caveats: The “kiddie tax” applies to most children under age 24, and it is levied at the parents’ rate on investment income above $2,700 in 2026. Consider this before making gifts to a young person.

Investors who give away stock also forgo the step-up, an important provision that exempts assets held at death from capital-gains tax.

Sellner knows he’s losing a step-up, but says, “The children could use a little more now. Why should they wait 20 years to get it?”

Disclaimers

A disclaimer is a highly useful strategy in which one heir renounces an inheritance in favor of another heir. Assuming family members cooperate, this can save taxes.

Here’s one example. Dad died and had a large traditional IRA that he left to Mom. She has enough assets and income to cover her expenses, and she lives in a state with a stiff estate tax. The inherited IRA would put her estate over the threshold.

Also surviving are three young-adult children. If Mom disclaims all or part of Dad’s IRA within nine months of his death, that amount could go directly to the children. They will have 10 years to empty the account, and the family as a whole will likely save estate and income taxes.

Disclaimers have many key details, especially regarding beneficiary documents. Although heirs have great freedom in choosing what assets to disclaim, the rules about who gets disclaimed property are rigid. It is best if the original owner names tiers of heirs so that if one disclaims, the next recipient is clear.

The TikTok Bill Targets China’s Cultural Influence. That’s a Big Shift from the Tech War.

Strong family financial planning can help reduce taxes and support younger generations. From intrafamily loans and asset gifts to inheritance disclaimers, strategic cooperation can create meaningful financial benefits—when families have the trust and structure to make it work.

Intrafamily loans

Asset gifts

Disclaimers