The TikTok legislation, which would force the company’s Chinese owners to sell the popular social media app or face a U.S. ban, drew widespread bipartisan support. But there is little consensus in the House over whether to extend the panel’s mandate past this year, or pursue more of its policy recommendations beyond the TikTok bill — like ending China’s privileged trade status with the U.S.

The disagreements over the future of the committee — even among its members — show the deep divides within Congress over how aggressive to be in handling the economic and security threats from China — and who should take the lead in addressing them. It’s just a taste of what’s to come if Donald Trump is elected president in November and moves unilaterally to impose much higher tariffs on China, as he’s threatened on the campaign trail.

Already, lawmakers and staff from both sides of the aisle are engaged in a game of tug-of-war over reauthorization of the headline-grabbing committee after its current mandate expires at the end of 2024. The high-profile chair of the committee — Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.) — is also retiring from Congress at the end of the year, leaving the panel without an obvious leader.

“The China committee should and must continue because it is the only committee that can comprehensively cover every dimension of US-China strategic competition, which will remain the central challenge confronting the world for decades to come,” said Rep. Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), a Democrat on the panel. “We cannot afford a siloed, segmented approach to the strategic challenge of the [Chinese Communist Party].”

Not everyone feels that way. Some committee members say that if the committee can build on the momentum from its TikTok bill and pass more of the economic recommendations included in the panel’s policy report last year, its work could be largely accomplished.

“In general, I think it’s best to have a select committee like ours be a short-term project,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson (S.D.), a Republican committee member. “We’ve put into law a number of our Taiwan-related policy recommendations and just had a big win with our TikTok bill. If we can make similar progress this year on enacting our economic recommendations, it won’t be imperative for the Select Committee to continue.”

The uncertainty over the committee’s future highlights the difficulty both parties have experienced in shaping China policy since Trump took a more adversarial approach to Beijing. Biden has continued or strengthened many of Trump’s anti-China policies, from higher tariffs to tech restrictions, largely leaving Congress out of the conversation. The establishment of the committee was seen as a way for lawmakers to regain some control over China policymaking and exert more influence over the trade and defense relationship.

“One of the explicit goals of the committee was to set policy on China that didn’t swing like a pendulum from one administration to the next,” said a person familiar with the establishment of the China Committee. “That by definition cannot be done in one Congress or two.”

But not everyone has been happy with the committee’s central role in China policymaking over the last year. While the China Select Committee has no power to make law, it has held dozens of high-profile hearings on China policy over the last year — many of them in prime time. That’s rubbed some members and staff from standing committees the wrong way, who feel like the China committee is stealing their spotlight.

In the wake of the TikTok triumph, Oversight Chair James Comer notably announced his own “government-wide investigation into the Chinese Communist Party’s ongoing efforts to target, influence, and infiltrate every sector and community in the United States.”

Other senior lawmakers are expected to push back on continuing the China Committee next Congress, regardless of which party wins the majority.

The China Select Committee has “no power” but “moonlights in stealing our jurisdiction,” said a staffer for a member on a House standing committee, who said their office would not endorse the renewal of the Select Committee but asked to remain anonymous to detail internal deliberations.

Tensions have been building for months. When the China panel compiled its major report earlier this year, several other senior Republicans were surprised to find out about key recommendations in the report from K Street lobbyists, instead of the Select Committee leaders, said one person familiar with the matter, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations.

In particular, the committee’s decision to endorse ending China’s normal trade status caused uproar around Capitol Hill after POLITICO reported that the panel was considering including the recommendation in its year-end report. Though that recommendation was softened after backlash from both parties, it left a bad taste in many lawmakers’ mouths.

“It’s more about sharing and communicating before doing something,” said the person familiar with the matter. Otherwise, they added, it causes “a lot of ruckus when folks are surprised.”

Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy tried to head off those concerns when he set up the committee, said another person familiar with the establishment of the panel. That involved bringing senior House lawmakers into the fold before the decision was made to form the panel.

“There were conversations with all the relevant committees whose jurisdiction or interests might be impacted by the creation of the committee,” said the person familiar with the process, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “At the end of the day, the trump card is really held by the standing committee in terms of the most important function: legislating. And the China committee in its current iteration, they have a bully pulpit, they have subpoena power. But they have to persuade other committees to work with them to legislate.”

“That’s by design,” the person added, and it’s “the result of a lot of conversations” with many top House Republicans, including current House Foreign Affairs Chair Michael McCaul (R-Tex.) and Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.).

McCaul said in a statement that he is “glad” that the committee worked in a bipartisan fashion to “complement” legislation passed by his own committee, but did not weigh in on whether the Select Committee should be reauthorized.

For now, leaders of the House and the China committee are all keeping their cards close about the future of the panel. Gallagher said he hasn’t had any conversations about reupping the panel, and ranking member Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) said the question was premature. Speaker Mike Johnson’s office declined to comment, and Democratic Majority Leader Hakeem Jeffries did not respond to requests for comment. If Democrats win the majority in November, Jeffries will also need to balance demands for other select committees.

The debate over the committee’s future is just starting to ramp up, but among members of the panel, two different schools of thought are emerging, said a staffer for a Republican on the committee.

“The first is that [the panel] has been bipartisan from its inception and it has been respected as such throughout its time of operation, so … there’s a case to be made for continuing the committee’s work,” said the staff member, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “The other perspective would be that you know, to the new Congress, we’ll be in a different context. And yes, strategic competition with the CCP is an enduring challenge, but that Congress will be able to set its own priorities.”

Allies of the committee argue it would be especially difficult for Jeffries to disband the committee, should Democrats retake the House in November, given the broad buy-in Democrats have given the panel during this Congress.

“It would be an extraordinary first act for a new Democrat majority to abolish a committee like this, that was created in a bipartisan way and has functioned in a bipartisan way,” said the person familiar with its creation. “And it’s produced ideas and legislation that’s passed in a bipartisan way.”

“It would be sheer lunacy and political malpractice for the Democrats to disband the committee,” a GOP lawmaker added.

And of course, the occupant of the White House could influence House leadership’s decision on whether to reauthorize the committee. Should Trump return to the White House, some staff members say a speaker from either party would benefit from serious, bipartisan policymaking of the committee to stand up to Trump’s erratic China policies, while others underscore members may be unable to function in a bipartisan manner under Trump’s thumb.

“So much of this just is dependent on who is in the White House,” said a staff member for a Democrat on the committee.

Staffers for other committee Democrats are less optimistic that a Republican-controlled House would be willing to maintain the committee under a Trump presidency.

“Republican members … no matter how moderate they claim to be, I think, all live in fear of him,” another said, referring to Trump. The staffer pointed to the exit of Gallagher and said those leaving “are Republicans that are not going to have to answer the Trump question for the next two years, should he win.”