On its face, it seems like a major victory, though this is a far cry from what is needed to protect tens of millions of young Americans.

I’m one of the first Gen-Z Republican congressional nominees in the country. My generation was the last to experience a “play-based childhood” before the dawn of what Jonathan Haidt calls the “phone-based childhood.” I want to be the first generation to fix it.

Opinion: The Big Tobacco moment has finally arrived for Big Tech

I recall my gradual childhood transition from rambunctious bike rides, gaming consoles and community sports to endless scrolling, frequent photoshoots and personal brand management that came to feel like a part-time job. For millions of our young people, it is. In 2024, the American Psychological Association reported that teens spend, on average, nearly 5 hours daily on social media equating to roughly 35 hours weekly. This is a national crisis.

The reason courts had to act was because Congress failed to protect young Americans. This is unacceptable. This is why I propose a universal age-verification requirement at 16+ on all social media platforms — a policy already implemented in Australia last year.

Let’s break down the shortcomings of last month’s Meta settlement. It’s not just Meta that needs to implement controls, but YouTube, TikTok, X, Reddit, Snapchat and so many other platforms that are not bound by Meta’s settlement. Enforcement of these controls is also only temporary under the settlement and they are merely defaults that can be overridden. This isn’t enough; Congress needs to make protections permanent and universal for every child.

A question we should be asking ourselves is why an otherwise pugnacious and unapologetic company like Meta even settled in the first place? My hypothesis: They know what they’re peddling is deceptively harmful (executives at these companies don’t even let their own children use their products) and they know that the law could punish them further if they don’t set the terms themselves.

Opinion: Big Tech can protect kids online — now it needs to do more

In reality, they’re competing to maintain access to a valuable market — America’s young people — and hook users as early as possible for a lifetime of ad revenue. A 2023 Surgeon General’s report indicated that 95% of American 13-17-year olds (nearly 22 million kids) are on social media with one third reporting use “almost constantly.”

The fact is, I’m not willing to trade continued addiction for tens of millions of young Americans in the name of unfettered profits for a few social media giants, and nor should you. We restricted Big Tobacco in 1998 (the year I was born) because of consumer deception and forced marketing restrictions and payment of $206 billion from an entire industry. Last week’s settlement pales in financial comparison as $18 billion amounts to less than one-tenth of Meta’s 2025 revenue of $201 billion for a company worth $1.5 trillion — a rounding error and a slap on the wrist, at best.

Though it isn’t all bad, social media — the way it is currently designed — is a drug. It’s time we start treating it like one.

Why do I propose verification specifically at age 16? Because this is also about empowering parents and other guardians to raise their children on their terms and give them the chance to coach and teach our young people healthy social media use while they’re still at home instead of getting throttled by addictive algorithms at the same chaotic moment they begin adulthood in college, trade schools or entering the workforce. Young adulthood is hard enough.

Social media literacy should already be an arrow in the quiver of a young American navigating early adulthood.

Across most of the country, we keep our young people from driving alone on dangerous roadways until age 16 because we realize the attention, development and awareness required for the task. However, we send our young people on equally — if not more — dangerous social-media-cyberways unsupervised at far earlier ages to fend for themselves against finely tuned algorithms that introduce anxiety, depression, addiction, body dysmorphia, suicidal ideation and exposure to online predators. Not to mention naively creating digital footprints that will follow them for the rest of their lives.

It’s a modern David and Goliath story happening every hour of every day and night in the palms of every young American boy and girl. We — ordinary citizens and lawmakers alike — are the bystanders enabling the slow rot of American mental health, culture, community and the labor force and leadership of tomorrow. All the while, social media companies make billions keeping our eyeballs on their content for just one more second to push one more advertisement to make one more dollar. When is enough enough?

Australia struggling to enforce social media ban for children

It’s not just American kids that need help, but us adults are struggling too. American adults spend an average 2 hours and 39 minutes daily on social media platforms designed primarily to keep us online as much as possible. What most effectively keeps us glued to the screen? Outrage, fear, stimulation, shock, arousal, contention and surprise.

Combine the grim reality of human psychology with Section 230 legal protections that treat social media platforms like “distributors” instead of “publishers.” This removes their liability to verify the factuality of its content and misinformation gets to run free. Yet we sit back and wonder how our society came to be so deeply polarized and divided.

Some of my conservative colleagues have criticized my age verification approach as “big government stifling industry” and creating more regulation. A valid concern, though is it not the role of the federal government to protect consumers and their privacy?

National concern has flared about technology like Flock cameras, yet we willingly give social media companies far more personal data than Flock could ever amass every day that we carry and use our smartphones. Meanwhile, age requirements exist for gambling, alcohol consumption, recreational marijuana use, military service, voting, even driving a car — common-sense protections few Americans would disagree with.

The worst outcome from last month’s settlement would be Americans feeling as though we’ve effectively bridled social media. We haven’t, not even in the slightest, and Congress must act now to enforce universal social media age verification.

This problem was first forced upon my generation. I want us to be the ones that fix it.

However, as a Navy Reserve officer, an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Republican congressional nominee in Utah’s newly drawn 1st District, I have concerns with how this was done. Any opinions expressed are my own and do not represent the Department of the Navy or Department of Defense.

Last weekend, I was on my monthly drill weekend when I heard the news. Upon reading the new list of recognized religions, naturally, I searched first for my faith to be listed. I then noticed that a hefty 21 of the 31 religions listed are preceded by a “Christian” label, but my faith was not among them. It weighed on me as I served.

Pentagon rethinks policy omitting Latter-day Saints as Christian. Here’s how Utah lawmakers got involved

According to Pew Research, 62% of Americans identify as Christian. As such, it is entirely logical to me that two-thirds of this list reflects Christian denominations. However, only Christianity received a denominational breakdown. For example, no delineation was made between Shiite and Sunni Muslims or between Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist Jews.

Most people, especially here in Utah, are already aware of the perennial theological food fight surrounding the inclusion or exclusion of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a “Christian” faith. While I consider myself a believer and follower of Christ, I don’t mind being in a category of our own as non-creedal Christians. Religious debate aside, the real goal is unity in our Armed Forces and keeping the government out of religion.

My greater concern is the appearance that the government is wading into the theological arena and implicitly publishing an unspoken encyclical of its own. Not only is Christianity given a uniquely comprehensive treatment, but the government has also fenced off the denominational boundaries.

This sets a dangerous precedent and falls deeply outside the purview of the government’s constitutional powers. I’m not saying there’s not a time and place to delineate and defend what it means to be a disciple of your faith, but I do know that should never be the role of government.

Making sense of the Pentagon’s religious code controversy

The concept of “separation of church and state” actually never appears in the Constitution, though the principle is enshrined in the First Amendment. The phrase comes from an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Connecticut Baptist congregation. Rather than emphasizing that the principle would shield the government from religious influence, Jefferson reassured congregants that it would protect religion from the state.

When I put on my uniform, I become part of something much larger than myself. My personal characteristics — religious or otherwise — stay personal as I fulfill my duties to create a more ready, unified and lethal fighting force to defend America and its interests. I am grateful that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth boldly and frequently asserts that unity is our true strength. Coincidentally, that same principle has been taught for decades by President Dallin H. Oaks, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Every American, especially those who answer the call to serve our country, deserves the right to worship without government interference. It’s one of the many reasons why I’m running for Congress: To ensure that we live in a fair, free and prosperous society that works for everyone.

Midnight phone call: Why Glenn Beck asked Trump to change Pentagon Latter-day Saint label

This week, I’m grateful to see the Department of Defense quickly amended this list by dropping categorical prefixes to the names of recognized religions. I could not agree more with their statement, “The Pentagon’s job is not to adjudicate theological debates, but instead to ensure sincerely-held faith is respected and encouraged in our ranks.”

How grateful I am to serve in the world’s finest military and live in a country where I am free to worship (or not) according to the dictates of my conscience.