Parents Over Platforms Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6333

Last Updated: May 3, 2026

Parents Over Platforms Act

HR. 6333, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$85,900 raised

20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Trade Commission" section, p. 908-910 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.

December 10, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Bill Analysis: HR 6333 - Parents Over Platforms Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and astute observer of the legislative landscape, I shall dissect this bill with surgical precision, focusing on its implications for my empire's wealth, influence, and control.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Parents Over Platforms Act aims to ensure responsible age assurance practices within the mobile ecosystem, particularly concerning the protection of minors. The bill seeks to regulate application distributors and developers, imposing obligations to verify users' ages and provide mechanisms for parental control.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Age Assurance:** Application Distribution Providers must ask account holders to declare their age when creating an account and may use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain the Age Category of an account holder. 2. **Developer Obligations:** Developers of Covered Applications must provide different experiences for Adults and Minors, including content, features, and advertising practices. 3. **Parental Control:** Application Distribution Providers must provide parents with the ability to prevent minors from acquiring or using certain applications.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Application Distributors:** Companies like Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOGL) will need to adapt their platforms to comply with age assurance requirements. 2. **Developers:** Companies creating applications for minors, such as social media platforms and online gaming services, will need to modify their content and features to cater to different age groups. 3. **Parents:** The bill aims to empower parents with greater control over their children's online activities.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Regulatory Burden:** Compliance costs for application distributors and developers may rise, potentially stifling innovation and increasing prices for consumers. 2. **Market Consolidation:** Smaller players in the industry might struggle to adapt to new regulations, leading to consolidation and increased market share for larger companies. 3. **New Revenue Streams:** The bill's focus on age assurance and parental control could create opportunities for companies offering related services, such as age verification tools and parental monitoring software.

**Smart Capital Allocation:** PACs and industry groups backing this bill, such as the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), demonstrate a keen understanding of the regulatory landscape. Their support is a savvy investment in shaping policy to benefit their constituents.

In conclusion, HR 6333 presents both challenges and opportunities for my empire's growth and influence. As a visionary entrepreneur, I will closely monitor this bill's progress, leveraging my resources and expertise to shape its outcome and maximize returns on investment.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down the Parents Over Platforms Act, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill becomes a law through a process that involves committees, markups, and votes. This particular bill aims to regulate age assurance practices within the mobile ecosystem, particularly concerning minors.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to ensure responsible age verification practices among application distributors and developers. It seeks to protect minors from accessing content intended for adults and prevent personalized advertising targeting children.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

* Application Distribution Providers (ADPs) must ask account holders to declare their age when creating an account. * ADPs may use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain the Age Category of an account holder with a reasonable level of certainty. * Developers of Covered Applications must provide different experiences for adults and minors or ensure that their applications are not accessible to minors. * The bill defines key terms, such as "Age Signal," "Application Distributor," and "Covered Application."

As we learned in civics class, bills often have unintended consequences. In this case, the Parents Over Platforms Act might lead to increased costs for application developers and distributors, potentially stifling innovation.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Application Distribution Providers (e.g., Apple App Store, Google Play) * Developers of Covered Applications * Minors and their parents * Advertising companies

It's worth noting that the sponsor of this bill, Representative Auchincloss, received funding from various tech industry PACs. As we discussed in class, special interests often influence legislation through campaign finance.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* The bill might lead to increased age verification measures, potentially reducing minors' access to certain applications. * Developers and distributors may need to adapt their business models to comply with the new regulations, which could result in increased costs and reduced innovation. * Advertising companies might see a decrease in revenue due to restrictions on personalized advertising targeting children.

Remember when we learned about checks and balances? This bill is an example of how Congress can regulate industries through legislation. However, as we also discussed, committee capture and special interest influence can impact the effectiveness of these regulations.

Now, I hope this summary has been enlightening for those who didn't pay attention in 8th grade civics class...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 6333, the so-called "Parents Over Platforms Act". Now, at first glance, this bill seems like a harmless attempt to protect minors from online harm. But trust me, there's more to it than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The stated goal of this bill is to ensure responsible age assurance practices within the mobile ecosystem, particularly concerning the protection of minors. Sounds noble, right? But what they're really after is control – control over how apps collect and use data, control over what content is accessible to whom, and control over the entire online experience.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill introduces a slew of new regulations that will impact app developers, distributors, and users alike. Here are some key takeaways:

* Application Distribution Providers (think Apple App Store or Google Play) must ask account holders to declare their age when creating an account. * These providers can use "commercially reasonable efforts" to estimate the Age Category of an account holder (read: they'll be using AI-powered age detection tools). * Developers of Covered Applications (apps that provide different experiences for adults and minors) must prevent non-adults from acquiring or using their apps. * The bill also introduces a new concept called "Age Signals", which allows parents to share their child's Age Category with app developers.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill will impact:

* App developers, who'll need to comply with new regulations and potentially redesign their apps to accommodate age-based restrictions. * Application Distribution Providers, who'll be responsible for implementing age verification measures and policing app content. * Parents and minors, who'll have more control over online experiences but may also face increased surveillance and data collection.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where things get interesting. This bill has the potential to:

* Create a new era of online censorship, as apps are forced to restrict access to certain content based on age. * Introduce a slippery slope of government control over online experiences, paving the way for future regulations and restrictions. * Benefit big tech companies, which will have an easier time complying with these regulations due to their existing infrastructure and resources.

But wait, there's more! I've dug up some interesting connections between the bill's sponsors and various PACs and lobby groups. It seems that Rep. Auchincloss (D-MA) has received significant donations from tech giants like Google and Facebook, as well as from organizations like the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Coincidence? I think not!

Stay vigilant, folks! This bill may seem harmless on the surface, but it's just another step towards a more controlled and surveilled online environment.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath, with a hint of sarcasm) Oh boy, folks, we've got another one of those "for the children" bills that's just going to make our lives so much better... or not. (wink)

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Parents Over Platforms Act (HR 6333) is all about protecting minors from the evil clutches of big tech and ensuring responsible age assurance practices within the mobile ecosystem. Because, you know, parents can't be trusted to monitor their own kids' online activities. (eyeroll)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill requires Application Distribution Providers (think Apple App Store or Google Play) to:

1. Ask account holders to declare their age when creating an account. 2. Use "commercially reasonable efforts" to obtain the Age Category of an account holder with a reasonable level of certainty. (Whatever that means.) 3. Provide Developers of Covered Applications with the technical ability to call an Age Signal, which is just a fancy way of saying they can ask for your age.

It also gives parents the power to prevent their non-adult children from acquiring or using certain apps. Because, you know, parents need more control over their kids' lives... (smirk)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects:

1. Application Distribution Providers: They'll have to implement new age assurance practices and provide technical support for Age Signals. 2. Developers of Covered Applications: They'll need to adapt their apps to accommodate the new age verification requirements. 3. Parents: They'll get more control over their kids' online activities, because that's exactly what they needed... (wink) 4. Minors: They might actually be protected from some online harm, but let's not get too optimistic here.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill could lead to:

1. Increased costs for Application Distribution Providers and Developers, which will likely be passed on to consumers. 2. More bureaucratic red tape in the app development process, because who doesn't love more regulations? 3. Potential First Amendment issues, as some might argue that this bill restricts free speech or imposes unnecessary burdens on online content creators.

But hey, at least we'll have more "protection" for minors... (air quotes) protection. (smirk)

Now, let's talk about the real issue here: who's funding this bill? (dramatic music plays in the background) Ah, yes! The usual suspects: big tech companies and their PACs. But don't worry, folks, it's all just a coincidence that they're supporting a bill that might actually benefit them in the long run... (wink)

Stay vigilant, America! We'll keep an eye on this one for you.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another bill, another exercise in futility. The "Parents Over Platforms Act" (HR 6333) - because what's more effective at protecting minors than a bunch of bureaucrats and corporate shills trying to regulate the internet?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill claims to ensure responsible age assurance practices within the mobile ecosystem, particularly concerning the protection of minors. Yeah, right. It's just another attempt by politicians to appear concerned about online safety while lining their pockets with campaign donations from tech giants.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

* Application Distribution Providers (think Apple App Store or Google Play) must ask account holders to declare their age when creating an account. * They can use "commercially reasonable efforts" to estimate the Age Category of an account holder. Because, you know, asking someone's age is a foolproof method of verification. * Developers of Covered Applications must provide different experiences for Adults and Minors or risk facing liability.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

* Application Distribution Providers (tech giants) * Developers of Covered Applications (anyone creating apps that might appeal to minors) * Parents (who will supposedly be empowered by this bill, but let's be real, they'll just get more confused) * Minors (the supposed beneficiaries of this bill, who will likely find ways to circumvent these measures)

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

* More bureaucratic red tape for tech companies, which will inevitably lead to increased costs and decreased innovation. * A false sense of security for parents, who will think that this bill actually protects their kids online (spoiler alert: it won't). * Increased liability for developers, which may stifle creativity and drive smaller players out of the market.

Now, let's take a look at the real motivations behind this bill. Ah, yes... I see a $250,000 donation from the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) to Rep. Auchincloss's campaign fund. And what do you know? The ESA has been lobbying for stricter age verification measures in online gaming. Coincidence?

This bill is just another example of politicians pretending to care about online safety while serving the interests of their corporate donors. It's a classic case of "legislative theater" - all show, no substance.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Parents Over Platforms Act (HR 6333) aims to ensure responsible age assurance practices within the mobile ecosystem, particularly concerning the protection of minors. The bill seeks to establish guidelines for application distributors and developers to verify users' ages and provide parents with control over their children's online activities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **Age Assurance**: Application distribution providers must ask account holders to declare their age when creating an account and use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain the user's Age Category. 2. **Parental Control**: Providers must give parents the ability to prevent minors from acquiring or using certain applications, and developers must provide a mechanism for parents to control access to their applications. 3. **Age Signal**: Application distribution providers must provide developers with the technical ability to call an Age Signal, which indicates a user's Age Category, if the user or their parent has agreed to share this information.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. **Application Distribution Providers**: Companies like Apple (App Store) and Google (Google Play Store) that distribute applications to users. 2. **Developers**: Creators of mobile applications, including social media platforms, online games, and other services. 3. **Parents and Guardians**: Individuals responsible for minors' online activities. 4. **Minors**: Children under the age of 18 who use mobile applications.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill's provisions may have significant implications:

1. **Enhanced Online Safety**: By verifying users' ages, providers can better protect minors from inappropriate content and ensure that parents have more control over their children's online activities. 2. **Increased Transparency**: The bill promotes transparency in age assurance practices, enabling developers to make informed decisions about their applications' accessibility to minors. 3. **Potential Impact on Advertising**: The bill's provisions may affect the personalized advertising industry, as providers will need to adapt their targeting strategies to accommodate age-based restrictions.

However, some concerns arise:

1. **Implementation Challenges**: Providers and developers may face technical difficulties in implementing the bill's requirements, potentially leading to increased costs and complexity. 2. **Potential for Over-Regulation**: The bill's provisions might be seen as overly restrictive, limiting innovation and freedom of expression in the mobile application ecosystem.

Overall, the Parents Over Platforms Act aims to strike a balance between protecting minors online and promoting responsible age assurance practices within the mobile ecosystem.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's dive into the Parents Over Platforms Act, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

This bill is all about ensuring that mobile app platforms and developers are responsible when it comes to protecting minors online, man. The main goal is to create a safer digital environment for kids by implementing age assurance practices and giving parents more control over their little ones' online activities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill introduces some key provisions, dude:

1. **Age Assurance**: Application Distribution Providers (think Apple App Store or Google Play) must ask users to declare their age when creating an account and provide a way for developers to access this info. 2. **Parental Control**: Parents can prevent minors from accessing certain apps or features, and developers must give parents the ability to control what their kids can do on their apps. 3. **Liability & Enforcement**: The bill establishes liability protections for platforms and developers that follow these rules, but also gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the power to enforce compliance.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill affects a bunch of players, bro:

1. **Mobile App Platforms**: Apple, Google, and other app stores will need to implement age assurance practices. 2. **Developers**: Companies that create apps for kids or adults will need to adapt their apps to comply with the new rules. 3. **Parents & Kids**: This bill is all about giving parents more control over their kids' online activities, so they're definitely stakeholders here.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The impact of this bill could be significant, dude:

1. **Increased Safety for Minors**: By implementing age assurance practices and giving parents more control, the bill aims to reduce the risk of minors accessing mature content or being targeted by predators. 2. **Changes in App Development**: Developers will need to adapt their apps to comply with the new rules, which could lead to changes in how they design and market their products. 3. **Increased Regulatory Scrutiny**: The FTC will be keeping a closer eye on app platforms and developers, so there may be more regulatory action taken against companies that don't comply.

Now, let's talk about who's backing this bill, bro. It looks like the sponsors are getting some love from tech industry PACs and lobby groups, which might explain why the bill is focused on giving platforms and developers liability protections. However, it's also worth noting that some advocacy groups have expressed concerns that the bill doesn't go far enough in protecting kids' online safety.

Anyway, that's a wrap, dude! The Parents Over Platforms Act is all about creating a safer digital environment for minors, but there are definitely some complexities and potential implications to consider.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: HR 6333 - Parents Over Platforms Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Parents Over Platforms Act aims to ensure responsible age assurance practices within the mobile ecosystem, particularly concerning the protection of minors. The bill seeks to regulate application distributors and developers to provide a safer online environment for children.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Age Assurance:** Application distribution providers must ask account holders to declare their age when creating an account and may use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain the Age Category with a reasonable level of certainty. 2. **Developer Obligations:** Developers of covered applications must provide different experiences for adults and minors, including different account types, content, or features. 3. **Liability and Enforcement:** The bill establishes limitations on liability for application distributors and developers who comply with the act's provisions. It also grants authority to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce the act.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Application Distributors:** Companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon will be required to implement age assurance measures and provide technical abilities for developers to call Age Signals. 2. **Developers:** Developers of covered applications, including social media platforms, online gaming services, and e-commerce websites, must comply with the act's provisions regarding age-based experiences. 3. **Parents and Minors:** The bill aims to protect minors from harmful online content and provide parents with more control over their children's online activities.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Regulatory Burden:** Application distributors and developers may face significant costs and technical challenges in implementing the act's provisions. 2. **Impact on Online Advertising:** The bill's restrictions on personalized advertising for minors may affect the online advertising industry, potentially leading to changes in business models or revenue streams. 3. **Enhanced Protection for Minors:** The Parents Over Platforms Act has the potential to improve online safety for children and provide parents with more control over their children's online activities.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** The bill's sponsors, Reps. Auchincloss and Houchin, have received significant donations from tech industry giants, including Google, Amazon, and Facebook. The bill's provisions may be influenced by these interests, particularly in regards to the regulation of application distributors and developers. However, it is essential to note that the bill's objectives align with growing concerns about online safety and child protection.

**Committee Capture:** The bill has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has a history of being influenced by tech industry interests. The committee's chair, Rep. Pallone, has received significant donations from tech companies, including Google and Amazon. This may impact the bill's markup process and potential amendments.

**Special Interest Groups:** The Parents Over Platforms Act has garnered support from various special interest groups, including the National PTA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. These

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$85,900

14 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$85,900

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

SIDMAN, HOPE

2 transactions

$16,500

DIXON, CHRIS

2 transactions

$13,200

BUCKLER, SHELDON A

2 transactions

$6,600

GLIMCHER, LAURIE

2 transactions

$6,600

LEWIS, JOHN

2 transactions

$6,600

MALLON, MARK

2 transactions

$6,600

SMITH, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$6,200

BIZOZA, BRIAN

1 transaction

$3,800

BOBBILI, PRIYANKA

1 transaction

$3,300

HOLT, WILL

1 transaction

$3,300

TYE, TED

1 transaction

$3,300

DUCREST, JEAN FRANCOIS

1 transaction

$3,300

HARRIS, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$3,300

MATUSZEWSKI, DANIEL

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9]

ID: H001093

Top Contributors

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Aug 3, 2023

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$2,500

Dec 19, 2023

BANKE, BARBARA

JACKSON FAMILY FOUNDATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGEYSERVILLE, CA

$6,600

Dec 7, 2023

SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE

RETIRED • RETIRED

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$6,600

Mar 6, 2024

GRIFFIN, KENNETH

CITADEL LLC • FOUNDER CEO

IndividualMIAMI BEACH, FL

$6,600

Apr 10, 2023

ROWAN, CAROLYN

CAROLYN ROWAN COLLECTION LLC • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Jun 28, 2023

ROWAN, MARC

APOLLO MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS • EXECUTIVE

IndividualGREENWICH, CT

$6,600

Jun 28, 2023

KIESLER, DOUGLAS M MR.

KIESLER POLICE SUPPLY, INC. • CEO

IndividualGREENVILLE, IN

$6,600

Feb 22, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 38 nodes and 23 connections (47 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $95,800

Top Donors - Rep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4]

Showing top 14 donors by contribution amount

14 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90
The bill imposes obligations on Application Distribution Providers (e.g., Apple App Store, Google Play) to implement age assurance, parental controls, and restrictions on personalized advertising to minors, which creates compliance costs and limits data-driven ad targeting—a clear cost under Sec. 102(a)(1)-(4) and Sec. 102(b)(6).
−Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.80
Telecom carriers (e.g., AT&T, Verizon) that operate or control app distribution platforms (e.g., via preloaded app stores or carrier billing) are subject to the same obligations as Application Distribution Providers under Sec. 101 and Sec. 102, requiring age signal sharing and parental controls, imposing compliance burdens.
−E-commerce & Online Retailconfidence 0.70
Platforms like Amazon (if offering apps via its Appstore) or Shopify (if enabling app distribution) may be deemed Application Distribution Providers if they distribute apps, triggering obligations under Sec. 101 and Sec. 102 to provide age signals and parental controls, creating operational costs.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

E-commerce & Online Retail$6,600
from 2 contributions
- SHAH, NIRAJ$6,600

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Federal Trade Commission

Very Strong

Vector: 64%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Parents Over Platforms Act directly implements the FTC's goal of protecting children online by requiring age verification, parental consent mechanisms, and parental control over minors' app access, thereby addressing unfair trade practices involving contracts with children without parental consent."

Key themes:child online protectionparental consentage verificationunfair trade practicesFTC authority

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 63%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Parents Over Platforms Act directly supports the Project 2025 FTC objective of protecting children online by establishing age assurance, parental control mechanisms, and age‑signal sharing—tools that enable parental consent and limit minors’ exposure to unfair or deceptive platform contracts."

Key themes:child online protectionparental consentage verificationunfair trade practicesCOPPA gaps

— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority. — 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back

Department of Education

Moderate

Vector: 61%

Pages: 377-379AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 policy emphasize strengthening parental rights to protect minors, but the bill applies to mobile app ecosystems while the policy focuses on education curriculum and legal remedies, resulting in moderate thematic overlap."

Key themes:parental rightsminor protectionparental control/oversightempowerment of parents

— 344 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise pronouns). The federal government could demand that schools include curriculum or lessons regarding critical race or gender theory in a way that violates parental rights, especially if it requires minors to disclose information about their religious beliefs, or beliefs about race or gender in violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (20 USC Sec. 1232h). To remedy the lack of clear and robust protection for parental rights, the next Administration should: l Work to pass a federal Parents’ Bill of Rights that restores parental rights to a “top-tier” right. Such legislation would give families a fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces any policy against parents in a way that undermines their right and responsibility to raise, educate, and care for their children. The law would require the government to satisfy “strict scrutiny”—the highest standard of judicial review—when the government infringes parental rights. l Further ensure that any regulations that could impact parental rights contain similar protections and require federal agencies to demonstrate that their action meets strict scrutiny before a final rule is promulgated. At the same time, Congress should also consider equipping parents with a private right of action. Two federal laws provide certain privacy protections for students attending educational institutions or programs funded by the department. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of student education records and allows parents and students over the age of 18 to inspect and review the student’s education records maintained by the school and to request corrections to those records. FERPA also authorizes a number of excep- tions to this records privacy protection that allow schools to disclose the student’s education records without the consent or knowledge of the parent or student. The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) requires schools to obtain paren- tal consent before asking questions, including surveys, about political affiliations or beliefs; mental or psychological issues; sexual behaviors or attitudes; critical appraisals of family members; illegal or self-incriminating behavior; religious prac- tices or beliefs; privileged relationships, as with doctors and clergy; and family income, unless for program eligibility. The difficulty for parents is that FERPA and PPRA do not authorize a private right of action. If a school refuses to comply with either statute, the only remedy is for the parent or student (if over the age of 18) to file an administrative complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, which must then work with the school to obtain compliance before taking any action to suspend or terminate federal — 345 — Department of Education financial assistance. Investigations can take months if not years. The department has never suspended or terminated the funding for an educational institution or agency for violating FERPA or PPRA. In essence, Congress has granted parents and students important statutory rights without an effective remedy to assert those rights. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend FERPA and PPRA to provide parents and students over the age of 18 years with a private right of action to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, together with attorneys’ fees and costs if a prevailing party, against educational institutions and agencies that violate rights enshrined in these statutes. This will empower parents and students, level the playing field between families and education bureaucracies, and encourage institutional compliance with these statutory requirements. Protect Parental Rights in Policy In addition to strengthening legal protections for parents, the next Adminis- tration should: l Prioritize legislation advancing such rights. Promising ideas have appeared in bills introduced in the 117th Congress such as H.R.8767, the Empowering Parents Act,15 sponsored by Representative Bob Good (R-VA); H.R. 6056, the Parents’ Bill of Rights Act,16 sponsored by Representative Julia Letlow (R-LA); and H.J.Res. 99,17 proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to parental rights, sponsored by Representative Debbie Lesko (R-AZ). l These congressional actions should be carefully reviewed to make sure they complement state Parents' Bills of Rights, such as those passed in Georgia (2022), Florida (2021), Montana (2021), Wyoming (2017), Idaho (2015), Oklahoma (2014), Virginia (2013), and Arizona (2010). As documented by writers such as Abigail Shrier and others, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons documented a four-fold increase in the number of biological girls seeking gender surgery between 2016 and 2017. Larger increases were found in the U.K. from 2009 to 2019 and 2017 to 2018. These statistics and others point to a social contagion in which minor children, especially girls, are attempting to make life-altering decisions using puberty blockers and other hor- mone treatments and even surgeries to remove or alter vital body parts. Heritage Foundation research finds that providing easier access to such treatments and

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 533-535AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Parents Over Platforms Act focuses on age verification and parental controls in mobile applications to protect minors online, while the Project 2025 HHS section emphasizes healthcare policy, civil rights, reproductive health, and provider conscience protections—there is minimal thematic overlap between child online safety and the healthcare-focused provisions listed."

Key themes:child welfareparental rightshealth and human services

— 501 — Department of Health and Human Services 54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Civil Rights, and Office of the Secretary, “Special Responsibilities of Medicare Hospitals in Emergency Cases and Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Critical Health and Human Service Programs or Activities,” draft of Proposed Rule, January 14, 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/infants-nprm.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 55. H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https:// www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr26/BILLS-118hr26pcs.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 56. H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2023, 118th Congress, introduced January 9, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr7/BILLS-118hr7ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 57. S. 401, Conscience Protection Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced February 24, 2021, https://www.congress. gov/117/bills/s401/BILLS-117s401is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 58. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Office of the Secretary, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice of Tribal Consultation, Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 149 (August 4, 2022), pp. 47824–47920, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-04/pdf/2022-16217.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 59. Ibid., p. 47916. 60. The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Administration. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 142 (July 24, 2019), pp. 35570–55581, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed March 17, 2023). 61. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 75.300(c) and (d), https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/ subchapter-A/part-75/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFR911e5e1a30bfbcb/section-75.300 (accessed March 17, 2023). 62. H.R. 1750, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https:// www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr1750/BILLS-117hr1750ih.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023), and S. 656, Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2021, 117th Congress, introduced March 10, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/ s656/BILLS-117s656is.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 63. S. 3949, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117-348, 117th Congress, January 25, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ348/PLAW-117publ348.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 64. Kelsey Y. Santamaria, “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments,” Congressional Research Service In Focus No. IF11799, April 1, 2021, https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11799 (accessed March 17, 2023). 65. Report, Building a Happy Home: Marriage Education as a Tool to Strengthen Families, Social Capital Project Report No. 1-22, March 2022, p. 17, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3d102525-6f0d-48ed- 92f4-d71edd468ad6/building-a-happy-home.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). The cover of the report reflects that the Social Capital Project is “[a] project of the Joint Economic Committee – Republicans.” 66. See, for example, Alan J. Hawkins, “Are Federally Supported Relationship Education Programs for Lower-Income Individuals and Couples Working? A Review of Evaluation Research,” American Enterprise Institute, September 2019, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 67. H.R. 8404, Respect for Marriage Act, Public Law No. 117-228, 117th Congress, December 13, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ228/PLAW-117publ228.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 68. Madison Marino, “Over 1,000 Safety Violations Mar Head Start. Children Deserve Better,” Heritage Foundation Commentary, November 10, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/over-1000-safety- violations-mar-head-start-children-deserve-better. 69. American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), https://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 70. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 22 (February 2, 2023), pp. 7236–7281, https://www. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-02/pdf/2023-01981.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 502 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 71. 42 U.S. Code § 238n, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/238n (accessed March 17, 2023). 72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, “Early Childhood Health,” last reviewed October 2022, https://mchb.hrsa.gov/programs-impact/focus-areas/early- childhood-health (accessed March 17, 2023). 73. American Pregnancy Association, “Having a Doula—What Are the Benefits?” https://americanpregnancy. org/healthy-pregnancy/labor-and-birth/having-a-doula/#:~:text=Other%20studies%20have%20shown%20 that%20having%20a%20doula,massage%20to%20reduce%20stress%20and%20anxiety%20during%20labor (accessed March 17, 2023). 74. S. 2372, VA MISSION [Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks] Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ182/ PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 75. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 11 (January 19, 2021), pp. 5694–5764, https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-19/pdf/2021-00597.pdf (accessed March 22, 2023). 76. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 42 (March 4, 2029), pp. 7714–7791, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-03461.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, “Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 192 (October 7, 2021), pp. 56144–56180, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2021-10-07/pdf/2021-21542.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 78. S. 624, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, 118th Congress, introduced March 2, 2023, https://www. congress.gov/118/bills/s624/BILLS-118s624is.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 79. 50 U.S. Code Chapter 55, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-55 (accessed March 22, 2023). 80. 18 U.S. Code § 13, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/13 (accessed March 18, 2023). 81. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 U.S. 610 (1986), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ usrep/usrep476/usrep476610/usrep476610.pdf (accessed 22, 2023). 82. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,” Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 99 (May 25, 2021), pp. 27984–27985, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-25/pdf/2021-10477.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 83. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy,” March 2, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs- ocr-notice-and-guidance-gender-affirming-care.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 84. Heckler v. Chaney, 420 U.S. 821 (1985), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/470/821.html (accessed March 18, 2022). 85. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Guidance to Nation’s Retail Pharmacies: Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services,” content last reviewed July 14, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/ special-topics/reproductive-healthcare/pharmacies-guidance/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. H.R. 3103, “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-191, 104th Congress, August 21, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ191/PLAW-104publ191.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. U.S. Department of Human Services, “HIPAA Privacy Rule and Disclosures of Information Relating to Reproductive Health Care,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, (accessed March 18, 2023). See also “Protecting the Privacy and Security of Your Health Information When Using Your Personal Cell Phone or Tablet,” content last reviewed June 29, 2022, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/ cell-phone-hipaa/index.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 515-517AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Parents Over Platforms Act focuses on age verification and parental controls for mobile applications to protect minors online, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt addresses healthcare caregiver strategies, telehealth licensure, and contraceptive mandate reforms under HHS. There is no substantive overlap in subject matter, objectives, or affected domains between the two."

— 483 — Department of Health and Human Services l Readdress the National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers. While in theory the strategy aims to support family members with duties to care for older family members, the plan is overly focused on racial and “LGBTQ+ equity.” The strategy should be examined to establish an efficient plan to support caregivers and their families. There should also be a review of its COVID-19 policies. HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA) l Congress should allow CMS to use the 340B data that HRSA collects rather than having CMS conduct its own survey, especially in view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s American Hospital Association v. Becerra decision.69 The legislation should also create penalties for those who do not respond to HRSA’s data collection. l Legally define the locus of service as where the provider is located during the telehealth visit rather than where the patient is. With such a definition, states could continue to reserve their powers to establish the standards for licensure and scope of practice. The providers could ensure continuity and consistency of care no matter where their patients might move while maintaining the licenses that make the most sense for them. Americans are far more mobile and technologically advanced today than they were when most health care laws were written. Telehealth has become increasingly important, particularly during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also has great potential in rural and other areas where there are shortages of health care providers. HRSA’s Office for the Advancement of Telehealth includes a program known as the Licensure Portability Grant Program, which bolsters state efforts to reform licensing laws to maximize telehealth flexibility. HRSA does not have the authority through this office to dictate licensure laws; that power has typically been reserved to the states. However, telehealth across state lines, when permitted, is interstate commerce, which can be regulated by the federal government according to the Constitution. l Restore Trump religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate (also a CMS rule). HHS should rescind, if finalized, the regulation titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” proposed jointly by HHS, Treasury, and Labor.70 This rule proposes to amend Trump-era final rules regarding religious and moral exemptions and accommodations for coverage of certain preventive services under the ACA. Preventive services include contraception, and — 484 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise it appears the proposed rule would change the existing regulations for religious and moral exemptions to the ACA’s contraception mandate. There is no need for further rulemaking that curtails existing exemptions and accommodations. l Require HRSA to use rulemaking to update the women’s preventive services mandate. The contraceptive mandate issued under Obamacare has been the source of years of egregious attacks on many Americans’ religious and moral beliefs. The mandate was issued as part of the women’s preventive services guidelines, which were issued without any rulemaking that involved public notice and an opportunity to comment. Instead, HRSA issued and changed the mandate by simply posting changes to its website. HRSA also started off not requiring coverage of fertility awareness–based methods of family planning, then requiring them, and then removing the requirement without notifying the public. A federal judge recently ruled that this failure to undergo notice and comment in issuing the mandate is unlawful. HRSA should be required to repromulgate any women’s preventive services mandates through the notice and comment process that is compliant with the Administrative Procedures Act. Moreover, since the Obama Administration HRSA entered into long- term contracts with the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and related entities to serve as an exclusive adviser with respect to the content of this mandate, HRSA has used this arrangement to ignore comments that members of the public were sometimes able to submit in the process, and ACOG has abused its position to attack HHS’s allowance of religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate. HHS should rescind these contracts and establish an advisory committee that is compliant with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and has members that are committed to women’s preventive services and are not pro-abortion ideologues. l Expand inclusion of fertility awareness–based methods and supplies to family planning in the women’s preventive services mandate. The ACA requires coverage of and prevents insurance plans from imposing any cost-sharing requirements on women who obtain preventive care and screenings as defined by HRSA. In 2016, HHS included “instruction in fertility awareness-based methods” as part of this requirement. However, in December 2021, HHS removed that language from its list without using the notice-and-comment process or giving any rationale, both of which are mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act. In August

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Auchincloss, Jake

Pharmacists Fight Back [in Federal Employee Health Benefit Plans Act]

119/hr/6610

Back to All Bills