
Texas Lawmakers Consider Legislation to Ban Minors From Social Media
Similar laws nationwide are being challenged and blocked by federal courts over potential First Amendment violations.
Texas is set to lead the nation in restrictive legislation. Under a proposed bill, minors would be banned from social media, while platforms would also be required to introduce age verification methods. While supporters say the change would make children safer, critics argue that such legislation may do the exact opposite.
Introduced in November, House Bill 186 would prevent minors from creating accounts on social media platforms like Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, and more. Platforms would be required to use 'public or private transactional data' to verify that account holders are at least 18 years old. In addition, parents could request the deletion of any of their child's existing accounts. Companies would have to cooperate with that request within 10 days.
Under the law, social media platforms are limited to public websites or applications that allow users to communicate with each other 'for the primary purpose of posting information, comments, messages, or images.' It wouldn't apply to e-mail, news, or gambling sties.
The bill's author, Rep. Jared Patterson, has consistently framed HB 186 as addressing a mental health crisis. In a March social media post, he wrote, 'I consider this to be the most important bill I will present to my House colleagues this session. After extensive research, it's clear: social media is the most harmful product our kids have legal access to in Texas.'
According to the Age Verification Providers Associate, 10 states have passed their own legislation restricting minors' social media access since June 2024. Many laws center around limiting access to porn, like Texas' pre-existing HB 1181, which requires age verification if at least a third of a website's content is 'sexual material harmful to minors.' (That law is now at the center of a Supreme Court case.) But per the Texas Tribune, Florida is the only other state with a similar outright ban on social media for minors. However, it only extends to those under 14.
HB 186 has already passed Texas' House with bipartisan support and, so far, it seems that members of the Senate are fans as well. Per the Texas Tribune, Sen. Adam Hinojosa, co-sponsor, told fellow lawmakers at a recent State Affairs Committee hearing, 'Like so many parents across our state, I've watched my children grow up in a world that feels less and less safe, not because of where they go physically, but because of where they go online, in spaces that my wife and I cannot possibly monitor at all times.'
'We have the ability and the power to act today,' Hinojosa also told lawmakers. 'With House Bill 186, we confront the evil before us and boldly say, 'You cannot have our children.''
It's true that social media harms youth (and adults, too). In 2023, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy warned that although social media's impacts aren't fully understood, 'There are ample indicators that [it] can also have a profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents.' Following Murthy's comments, the American Psychological Association released a health advisory on adolescent social media use. It also released a report with the American Federation for Teachers and several other organizations detailing social media's contribution to worsening mental health.
But strict bills like HB 186 don't necessarily address that problem. As Morgan McGuire, a 17-year-old Texas resident and TikTok creator, said, per the Texas Tribune, 'The harmful content that young people are exposed to online does not disappear when they turn 18. The bill throws young adults into a digital world at a time when they are living on their own for the first time, without the support systems that they had as minors, which can have serious harm on mental health.'
Age verification bills have also faced backlash for violating First Amendment rights. In a statement, Megan Stokes, state policy director for the Computer & Communications Industry Association, said, 'HB 186 conflicts with Texas contract law and undermines teens' rights to access information, express themselves, and participate in today's digital economy…[It] is a flawed proposal, one that censors speech rather than supporting families with tools and education.'
In a letter, trade association NetChoice's director of policy, Patrick Hedger, noted that age verification laws in several other states are already being challenged and blocked by courts, including in Arkansas, California, Mississippi, Texas, and Utah. Hedger also said that Texas' proposed legislation 'usurps parental decision making,' writing, 'Every family has different needs. Some parents may allow their child to use YouTube Kids for educational videos, and others may choose to let their teen join a moderated online community to discuss their hobbies or interests.'
'These are choices that parents and guardians should have the right to make depending on their own child's needs — rather than the government mandating how families in Texas use the internet,' Hedger continued.
Along with First Amendment concerns, age verification bills like HB 186 are privacy nightmares. Although the legislation says that social media platforms must delete personal data gathered for age verification, it doesn't explicitly state how soon nor does it provide social media platforms with guidance on how to prove their compliance. Per Hedger, this oversight incentivizes platforms to collect 'multiple forms of personally-identifiable information.'
'Platforms may utilize and delete one piece of 'transactional data' for age verification, while collecting and retaining other personal data for purposes of legal defense,' Hedger wrote. 'This means websites would need to collect and store sensitive information, creating massive databases that will inevitable become targets for hackers.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement allowing schools to directly pay college athletes
A federal judge granted final approval on Friday to the $2.8 billion settlement that will allow colleges and universities to begin paying athletes directly. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the settlement on Friday that will allow schools to pay their athletes next month. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. Payouts will be determined based on the sport and the length of athletic career, with most football and men's basketball players able to receive nearly $135,000 each. However, the highest estimated payout is expected to be nearly $2 million, thanks to "Lost NIL Opportunities," according to the law firm. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The deal covers three antitrust cases — including the class-action lawsuit known as House vs. the NCAA — that challenged NCAA compensation rules dating back to 2016. The plaintiffs claimed that NCAA rules denied thousands of athletes the opportunity to earn millions of dollars off the use of their names, images and likenesses. The NCAA lifted its ban on athletes earning money through endorsement and sponsorship deals in 2021. At one point, President Donald Trump was considering an executive order to regulate name, image and likeness in college sports after meeting with legendary Alabama Crimson Tide coach Nick Saban, the Wall Street Journal reported. On Fox News last year, Saban urged Congress to step in and make NIL "equal across the board." "And I think that should still exist for all players, but not just a pay-for-play system like we have now where whoever raises the most money in their collective can pay the most for the players, which is not a level playing field. I think in any competitive venue, you want to have some guidelines that gives everyone an equal opportunity to have a chance to be successful," he said. The settlement also called for a clearinghouse to make sure any NIL deal worth more than $600 is pegged at fair market value in an attempt to thwart supposed pay-for-play deals. Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What the Trump-Musk Feud Means for SpaceX and NASA
The U.S. government relies on SpaceX to support NASA and other agencies, and the company has received more $20 billion in federal contracts for it. As Musk and Trump threaten to cut ties, here's what that would mean for the U.S.'s space ambitions.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
DHS wants National Guard to search for and transport unaccompanied migrant children
A Department of Homeland Security request for 21,000 National Guard troops to support "expansive interior immigration enforcement operations" includes a call for troops to search for unaccompanied children in some cases and transport them between states, three sources briefed on the plan tell NBC News. Having National Guard troops perform such tasks, which are not explained in detail in the DHS request, has prompted concern among Democrats in Congress and some military and law enforcement officials. The tasks are laid out in a May 9th Request for Assistance from the Department of Homeland Security to the Pentagon. The document states that, 'this represents the first formal request by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the deployment of National Guard personnel in support of interior immigration enforcement operations.' The request calls for National Guard troops to be used for 'Search and Rescue for UACs [Unaccompanied Alien Children] in remote or hostile terrain,' and 'Intra- and inter-state transport of detainees/ unaccompanied alien children (UACs)," without clearly explaining what that would entail. Most of the troops, about 10,000, would be used for transporting detained individuals, the DHS said. Roughly 2,500 troops would be used for detention support but the document does not specify where. Another 1,000 troops would be assigned to administrative support, such as processing detainees. The request also asks for up to 3,500 troops to 'Attempt to Locate — Fugitives' and to conduct 'surveillance and canvassing missions,' as well as 'night operations and rural interdictions.' It also asks for support for ICE in 'joint task force operations for absconder/fugitive tracking,' according to the three sources familiar with the plans. NPR first reported the details of the DHS request. Democrats in Congress and military and law enforcement officials have expressed concern about the use of National Guard troops to perform what they say are civilian law enforcement duties. One characterized the plan as the Trump administration 'finding a way to get the National Guard into the streets and into American homes,' saying, 'I fear it's going to look like a police state.' A second source said, 'Trump has said he wants to use the National Guard for law enforcement, and the Pentagon and other entities have always said, 'Oh, don't worry, it will never come to that.' But this is it.' Defense officials say the request has not been approved and is being evaluated by Pentagon policy officials, the General Counsel's office, and other Pentagon leadership. The officials say the most likely course of action would be for some parts of the request to be approved and others rejected. But one source briefed on the plans said that Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth is close to approving some elements of the request and considering which state governors to approach first regarding National Guard units. 'We are so much closer to this being real,' said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. DHS is requesting the National Guard troops under Title 32 status, which means they would remain on state active duty under the command of their governor but would be federally funded. Title 32 status generally allows National Guard troops to conduct law enforcement activities without violating the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that bars the use of federal troops in law enforcement operations. A National Guard member who opposes troops performing such tasks told NBC News, 'I plan to leave the National Guard soon over this.' The Pentagon is also being asked by DHS to pay the full cost of deploying the 21,000 National Guard troops. That comes amid growing tension between the Pentagon and DHS over the cost of border and other immigrant-related operations. The DHS request for National Guard troops arrives when the Pentagon is already footing a $23-million-a-month bill to hold as many as 2,500 undocumented immigrants in a military facility in Texas. Defense officials say they are frustrated that the camp is holding far fewer individuals than they were told to expect and they would like a reprieve. The Defense Department is in a contract with the DHS to help support DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, officers who are under pressure from Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to arrest 3,000 undocumented immigrants a day. But it has been slow going for ICE agents, resulting in fewer arrests of undocumented immigrants across the country. That has resulted in many empty beds at facilities like the one in El Paso, owned and operated by the Defense Department. Military officials say the facility has been holding an average of 150 undocumented immigrants each day over the last several weeks — a fraction of its 2,500 beds. On one recent day, they said, the facility housed fewer than 80 people. Pentagon officials are asking to cut the number of beds in the facility from 2,500 to about 1,000, which they say would save $12 million per month. It is not clear if the DHS request for National Guard troops will increase the need for beds in the El Paso facility. The DHS request also comes as the Pentagon is struggling to fund critical projects to support U.S. troops. 'Congress is aware that the department is redirecting funds from existing military construction projects like barracks improvements for lower enlisted personnel and longstanding infrastructure projects elsewhere in the world in favor of southwest border missions,' a Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity told NBC News. 'They are pretty frustrated with the way that the department is ordering them to support DHS out of their own pockets for a grossly disproportionate cost compared to what ICE facilities would cost the government,' added the aide, referring to military officials. Last month, the Pentagon notified Congress that it planned to transfer more than $1.74 million in the current DOD budget to the southwest border mission, as step that will take money away from renovating barracks and base facilities. Service member advocacy groups have criticized the move. Rob Evans, the founder of Hots&Cots, where services members can post reviews of barracks, dining areas and other facilities, says he sees evidence daily of barracks with sewage leaks, mold, failing HVAC systems, and more. 'When funding is pulled from this line, troops pay the price in real ways: delayed repairs, worsening conditions, and a growing sense that their well-being comes second to optics and operations,' Evans said. 'Service members deserve clean, safe, and dignified living conditions. They've earned at least that much.' This article was originally published on