Congress Defiant as Australia Leads: The Social Media Child Protection Showdown

Paul Riverbank, 12/13/2025Australia’s social media age limit reignites a fierce U.S. debate: Should lawmakers or parents protect kids online? Congress weighs tech industry power, mental health risks, and constitutional freedoms—yet consensus on action remains elusive.

The reaction on Capitol Hill wasn’t exactly unifying. If anything, it revealed an enduring anxiety about what social media is doing to today’s kids — and, perhaps more urgently, about the country’s ability to act in the face of those concerns.

Rep. Ritchie Torres, who’s carved out a reputation as a candid voice on this matter, didn’t hedge. “I see social media as a catastrophe for the mental health of the next generation,” he said, cutting to the chase. He’s spoken in interviews of feeling as if America’s youth, in some ways, are subjects of a vast and uncontrolled experiment. But Torres, a lawmaker mindful of constitutional nuance, drops the key caveat: “It is a complicated area in light of the First Amendment.”

The notion of “complicated” pops up a lot when you start poking around this debate. Sure, Congress has managed to pass data privacy laws for children, but when it comes to drawing a line in the digital sand — setting an age threshold or making platforms overhaul their features for minors — no agreement has taken hold. There’s plenty of noise, no orchestra.

“I get it,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson, who’s fond of reminding his colleagues and reporters alike that “freedom” is more than a campaign slogan in the US. “A lot of people feel that would be power better exercised by the state, or power better exercised by parents.” Yet, press him, and he concedes that can’t be the end of it. Johnson has insisted, sometimes with an air of exasperation, that the platforms themselves aren’t helpless — “They could very easily use tools to keep kids safe. But they just don’t.”

Some of the most improbable bedfellows have started to rally around a call for bolder action since Australia made its move. Former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, a name seldom seen on bipartisan banners, has surfaced. So have Republican senators like Katie Britt and John Cornyn, joined by Hawaii’s Brian Schatz. If you see them in the same headline, you know something has rattled Congress’s nerves.

But consensus, so far, is elusive. For every voice pleading urgency, there’s another, like Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado. She’s remained unpersuaded by calls for outright bans or sweeping rules from Congress, anchoring her stance in capitalism and federalism. “We have a lot of good legislation for solutions, but, unfortunately, leadership prioritizes things that the American people don’t,” she told Fox News Digital. Her advice: “Read the room of America.”

And then, the debate pivots to a familiar American crossroads: does responsibility start in Washington, or at the kitchen table? Some lawmakers insist it’s parents who should navigate these waters. But critics say Big Tech won’t fundamentally change unless forced, and that entrusting children’s mental health to the profit motives of Silicon Valley is a gamble.

Rep. Ralph Norman, less inclined toward diplomatic phrasing, boiled it down: “Got to have an age and got to track down something that is destroying our children.” Yet Norman acknowledged that “a lot of people don’t know” — or perhaps don’t fully see — the risks at play.

For now, Australia’s move has thrown a spotlight across the Pacific, igniting a debate that feels both urgent and unsettled. How do you protect children — and who gets to decide where that line falls? Even lawmakers agree that answers are overdue. But as policymakers try to reconcile liberty with responsibility in a world that never seems to stand still, one thing is clear: the next move, however uncertain, will be scrutinized by Americans well beyond the capital’s marble halls.

One recent Thursday morning, you could almost feel a ripple of unease move through Washington’s corridors. News broke from Australia: the government there had drawn a hard line, barring anyone under 16 from social media. As American lawmakers watched, some wondered — are they seeing a glimpse of a path the US might soon travel?The reaction on Capitol Hill wasn’t exactly unifying. If anything, it revealed an enduring anxiety about what social media is doing to today’s kids — and, perhaps more urgently, about the country’s ability to act in the face of those concerns.Rep. Ritchie Torres, who’s carved out a reputation as a candid voice on this matter, didn’t hedge. “I see social media as a catastrophe for the mental health of the next generation,” he said, cutting to the chase. He’s spoken in interviews of feeling as if America’s youth, in some ways, are subjects of a vast and uncontrolled experiment. But Torres, a lawmaker mindful of constitutional nuance, drops the key caveat: “It is a complicated area in light of the First Amendment.”The notion of “complicated” pops up a lot when you start poking around this debate. Sure, Congress has managed to pass data privacy laws for children, but when it comes to drawing a line in the digital sand — setting an age threshold or making platforms overhaul their features for minors — no agreement has taken hold. There’s plenty of noise, no orchestra.“I get it,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson, who’s fond of reminding his colleagues and reporters alike that “freedom” is more than a campaign slogan in the US. “A lot of people feel that would be power better exercised by the state, or power better exercised by parents.” Yet, press him, and he concedes that can’t be the end of it. Johnson has insisted, sometimes with an air of exasperation, that the platforms themselves aren’t helpless — “They could very easily use tools to keep kids safe. But they just don’t.”Some of the most improbable bedfellows have started to rally around a call for bolder action since Australia made its move. Former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, a name seldom seen on bipartisan banners, has surfaced. So have Republican senators like Katie Britt and John Cornyn, joined by Hawaii’s Brian Schatz. If you see them in the same headline, you know something has rattled Congress’s nerves.But consensus, so far, is elusive. For every voice pleading urgency, there’s another, like Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado. She’s remained unpersuaded by calls for outright bans or sweeping rules from Congress, anchoring her stance in capitalism and federalism. “We have a lot of good legislation for solutions, but, unfortunately, leadership prioritizes things that the American people don’t,” she told Fox News Digital. Her advice: “Read the room of America.”And then, the debate pivots to a familiar American crossroads: does responsibility start in Washington, or at the kitchen table? Some lawmakers insist it’s parents who should navigate these waters. But critics say Big Tech won’t fundamentally change unless forced, and that entrusting children’s mental health to the profit motives of Silicon Valley is a gamble.Rep. Ralph Norman, less inclined toward diplomatic phrasing, boiled it down: “Got to have an age and got to track down something that is destroying our children.” Yet Norman acknowledged that “a lot of people don’t know” — or perhaps don’t fully see — the risks at play.For now, Australia’s move has thrown a spotlight across the Pacific, igniting a debate that feels both urgent and unsettled. How do you protect children — and who gets to decide where that line falls? Even lawmakers agree that answers are overdue. But as policymakers try to reconcile liberty with responsibility in a world that never seems to stand still, one thing is clear: the next move, however uncertain, will be scrutinized by Americans well beyond the capital’s marble halls.