Congress's Next Attempt at Kids' Online Safety Faces Same Problems

Earlier this week, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce plunged into the deep waters of children’s online safety. At this hearing, many familiar pieces of legislation will return for consideration: the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), an app store age verification mandate, a bill to ban children from social media, the privacy reform known as COPPA 2.0, and much more. “Here’s the House plan to protect kids online,” reads the headline from Punchbowl News, which broke the news of the hearing. It seems, however, lawmakers’ grasp of the proper means by which to protect children is less well-developed than Punchbowl suggests. The committee does not, in fact, have a definite plan. Lawmakers evidently feel that something must be done; but the very number of proposals to be considered—19 bills in all!—suggests nobody is quite certain about what ought to be done or how it ought to be done.

Consensus remains elusive, and for good reason. The regulation of the internet is shot through with difficulties. Despite their noble concern for children and sterling intentions, proponents of many of the committee’s proposals have fallen short of grasping the complexities of the technologies they seek to regulate. Nor have these heavy-handed proposals wrestled with the second- and third-order effects—dangers to the privacy and security of the children for whose benefit the hearing will be held—that invariably will follow. The familiar faces found among the committee’s list of proposals are not the friends of American children. Perhaps most typical of this uncertainty is KOSA. In the years since its first proposal, including myriad iterations, the bill has become the consummate fixer-upper legislation. Its cornerstone—a vague, poorly defined “duty of care,” requiring online platforms to withhold certain subjective categories of online content from underage users—would provide unscrupulous,
overzealous bureaucrats with statutory authority for digital censorship. Seeing the imprudence and constitutional vulnerabilities of the bill, its supporters have continuously trimmed and reshaped the legislation, each time declaring that this time—finally—the bill had been rid of its deficiencies. Each time, however, the amendments proved wanting, and further efforts to amend KOSA were undertaken. The committee’s latest version has excised the duty of care entirely. Although still constitutionally precarious and filled with far-from-feasible technical provisions, it has managed more than any previous draft to trim away KOSA’s endemic deficiencies. It has done so, it should be noted, by removing the bill’s central proposal. This, however, has not pleased everyone. KOSA enthusiast Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), intermingling collegiality with scathing criticism, voiced appreciation for the committee’s effort but declared that “the House’s version of KOSA would not ensure Big Tech companies
like Meta prioritize the safety of children over profit.” Once again, what to do and how to do it remain anything but clear.

Another proposed means of protecting children online comes in the form of mandatory age verification. However, this avenue remains similarly controversial. The insistence of certain advocates that age verification presents no dangers to the privacy and civil liberties of Americans on whom it would be foisted has failed to assuage many lawmakers’ misgivings. “Age verification requires robust data collection, making it exceedingly difficult to minimize the sensitive data collected from youth users,” argues Paul Lekas, executive vice president of the Software & Information Industry Association, and a witness at Wednesday’s hearing. “Websites or platforms holding a rich array of sensitive data are more attractive targets for malicious actors, dramatically increasing the likelihood that a data breach will harm young people.” Age verification, which has been proposed over the years in many forms, has not thus far managed to garner enough votes to become federal law—and for good reason. Attempts
to condition Americans’ access to everyday digital services on subjecting themselves—and their personal information—to a regime so dangerous to privacy merit no support at all. Privacy has become particularly important and precarious for American children. “[R]esearch by Experian suggests that 25 percent of children will be victims of identity fraud or theft by the time they are 18,” the R Street Institute reports. “More than half of minors who were victims of identity theft report being denied access to credit at least once because of it, and some deal with the consequences for a decade or more. Some have even acquired a lifelong criminal record for an offense committed by the thief that stole their identity.” Statutes requiring the collection of minors’ personal information and thereby rendering that information vulnerable to hackers will endanger, not protect, the very children whom age verification mandates are intended to benefit.

Lawmakers considering the regulation of new technologies invariably encounter new difficulties. Yet they must remain mindful that the same old knowledge problems and constitutional constraints that obtain in the physical world obtain just as much in the digital world. Only then will some commonsensical cures for online maladies emerge.


Markets, not bureaucrats, should decide merits of green energy

Recently, the Trump administration has ruffled feathers with its termination of several major renewable energy projects on public lands. The list notably includes substantial solar projects, which have been blocked by the administration through a series of regulatory obstacles and funding delays. Many of these initiatives began under the more green-energy-friendly review of the Biden administration. One such project — Esmeralda 7 — would have used more than 63,000 acres of public land. Although Trump has done laudable work repealing former President Joe Biden’s pro-renewable mandates and subsidies, President Donald Trump seems too eager to institute his own mandates. The Trump administration’s version would tip the scales in favor of fossil fuels. Such an overreaction is unnecessary. In competitive markets — freed from mandates, subsidies and other kinds of distortions — the best energy sources will rise and fall on their own merits. Throughout its tenure, the Biden administration
encouraged the development of numerous clean-energy projects. These efforts included incentives for the production of batteries to power electric vehicles, the development of wind farms and the expansion of solar energy projects. Despite considerable efforts to boost these projects, they continue to be more costly and less efficient than other energy sources. The results of Biden-era policies demonstrate that attempts to dictate market outcomes often backfire and that political signaling comes at the expense of economic efficiency.

Today’s policymakers would do well to acknowledge these lessons. Although many Biden-era green energy subsidies have been rolled back, recent policies have veered toward the opposite extreme of establishing artificial barriers to the development of clean energy projects. These barriers include restricting permits for renewable energy projects and promoting regulatory limbo for projects. Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum expressed doubt that solar could provide a stable energy source. In addition to ending the advantages green-energy projects previously enjoyed, Secretary Burgum signed orders increasing oversight for procedural decisions for solar and wind projects. And while his assessment of clean-energy projects recognizes important technological limitations, it does not follow that clean energy should become the target of the Trump administration’s regulatory ire. Furthermore, while the current administration objects to subsidies for renewables, it happily intervenes to
prop up fossil fuel sources. Politico reports that Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright used the Federal Power Act to save a soon-to-be-closed coal plant in Michigan, even though shutting down the plant would have been cheaper for Michigan taxpayers.

Manipulation of the energy market produces economic distortions in both the short and long term. Although one might expect a decrease in the growth of renewable energy, analysts expect renewable energy projects to continue to grow in the short term as wind and solar firms rush to beat deadlines before federal tax credits expire. Major firms are pre-ordering materials they will need for projects. However, many smaller firms that cannot keep pace with the project rush are being forced to shut down. This shows the folly of favoritism through tax credits and demonstrates the need for the government to stop picking winners from losers. As the demand for energy grows, the ability to generate power is becoming increasingly critical. Biden-era green energy subsidies derailed progress and distorted markets. The Trump administration’s interference in the energy market will also prove misguided. Without stability, investment plummets and growth stalls. Central planning cannot match the efficiency of
the free market, and taxpayers pay the price when hubristic politicians attempt to manipulate the market. Policymakers must abandon efforts to dictate economic outcomes and allow the market to decide the merits of renewable energy.

Blogs:

Monday: Unions Are Fighting the Workers They Claim to Protect ([link removed])

Tuesday: Why Age Verification Mandates Could Put Children at Risk ([link removed])

Wednesday: Three Ideas to Reform Healthcare ([link removed])

Thursday: Profile in Courage: The World Health Organization’s Lone Dissenters ([link removed])

Friday: TPA Urges Senate Banking Committee to Reject the CFPB’s Unlawful Open Banking Rule ([link removed])
Media:

November 28, 2025: Morning Ag Clips and 4 other sources mentioned TPA in their story, "Farmer Aid Expected Within Weeks, Ag Secretary Says."
November 28, 2025: The Daily Times Leader and 5 other sources mentioned TPA in their story, "USDA Under Pressure to Tighten Trade Aid Standards Amidst Fiscal Scrutiny."
November 28, 2025: AlBoslaNews mentioned TPA in their story, "Experts at Good COP 2.0 ([link removed]) : "Absence of risk reduction policies deprives millions of innovative alternatives to reduce second-hand smoke."
November 30, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) interviewed me for their story on funding for the Baltimore Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement and non-profits receiving taxpayer money.
November 30, 2025: WFTV Central Florida Spotlight (Orlando, Fl.) interviewed David McGarry for their story on the complexity of Florida sales tax.
December 1, 2025: AP Planner mentioned TPA in their story, "Cato 'The Risks of Expanding FDIC Deposit Insurance’ event.'
December 1, 2025: I appeared on WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) to talk about DOGE ending.
December 1, 2025: RealClearMarkets ran TPA’s op-ed, “Congress's Next Attempt at Kids' Online Safety Faces Same Problems.”
December 1, 2025: The Detroit News (Detroit, Mich.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “Kriese: Tariff revenues are rising, but so are costs for families.”
December 1, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) quoted TPA in their story, "State audit shocker: $8.5 billion in spending with little oversight."
December 2, 2025: WMAL Radio (Washington, D.C.) mentioned me in their news segment on accountability for non-profits receiving taxpayers' money.
December 2, 2025: American Family News mentioned TPA in their story, "USPS move to electric trucks places burden on taxpayers."
December 2, 2025: CBS News and 4 other sources mentioned Dan Savickas and TPA in their story, "GOP Rep. Anna Paulina Luna moves to force vote on banning stock trading by members of Congress.”
December 2, 2025: I appeared on WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) to talk about Maryland’s financial audit which showed significant agency spending issues regarding SNAP and more.
December 2, 2025: WJLA (Washington, D.C.) and 57 other sources mentioned me in their story, "After string of audits reveal issues in agencies, Gov. Moore tells leaders: 'Fix them'."
December 3, 2025: Inside Sources (Washington, D.C.) ran TPA’s op-ed, “BEAD Reforms Finally Make Broadband Funding Accountable.”
December 3, 2025: WIOD Radio (Miami, Fl.) mentioned Dan Savickas and TPA in their news segment on congressional stock trading.
December 3, 2025: WCBM Radio (Baltimore, Md.) mentioned me in their news segment on Maryland’s SNAP costs rising due to payment errors.
December 3, 2025: Nyasa Times mentioned TPA in their story, "WHO’s Tobacco Control Strategy Challenged as Outdated and Restrictive.”
December 3, 2025: WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) and WJLA (Washington, D.C.) quoted TPA in their story, "Maryland’s SNAP benefit mistakes projected to cost taxpayers $240 Million a year."
December 3, 2025: ZNWS (Washington, D.C.) mentioned me in their news segment on Maryland’s SNAP costs rising due to payment errors.
December 3, 2025: KMJ-AM Radio (Fresno, Ca.) mentioned Dan Savickas and TPA in their news segment on congressional stock.
December 4, 2025: Zero Hedge and 3 other sources mentioned me in their story, "Billions Spent By One-Party-Rule Maryland Democrats With Little Oversight."
December 4, 2025: Baltic Legal Updates mentioned Dan Savickas and TPA in their story, "Legal Research Commentary: Trump Administration Banning stock trading by members of Congress.”
December 4, 2025: I appeared on WBOB 600 AM (Jacksonville, Fla.) to talk about tax policy.
December 4, 2025: KICD Radio (Sioux City, La.) quoted TPA in their news segment on USDA agricultural assistance programs.
December 4, 2025: I appeared on WBFF Fox45 (Baltimore, Md.) to talk about Baltimore's new proposed city tax plan.

Have a great weekend!

David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
1101 14^th Street, NW
Suite 500
Washington, D.C.
Office: (202) 930-1716
Mobile: (202) 258-6527
www.protectingtaxpayers.org

============================================================
** Like Us On Facebook ([link removed])
** Like Us On Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow Us On Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow Us On Twitter ([link removed])
Our mailing address is:
1101 14th Street NW
Suite 1120
Washington, DC xxxxxx

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])