KIDS Act Age Checks Could Strip Online Anonymity

A congressional deal on the KIDS Act would push social platforms toward age verification, a change critics warn could expand government access to sensitive identity data—raising new risks for journalists and their sources who rely on anonymity.

On a normal day online, people can move across social platforms without having their identities tied to every click. Under the KIDS Act—an internet-safety bill backed by both Democrats and Republicans—that everyday expectation could be rewritten.

The bill. which supporters say is designed to keep children and teens safer online. could move to the House floor as soon as next week. If enacted, it would change how everyone accesses the internet, not just young users. The core mechanism is age verification: the KIDS Act strongly incentivizes it and, for some services, would require it.

That incentive pressure is likely to reshape platforms quickly. Companies including X and video-sharing services such as Vimeo could be pushed to verify users’ ages because they host a category of content the law defines as “sexual material harmful to minors.” The definition is broad—broad enough. critics argue. that more platforms would end up treating age checks as part of their risk management.

For people who depend on anonymity, the problem is blunt. Caitlin Vogus. a senior adviser to the Freedom of the Press Foundation and a First Amendment attorney. argues the conflict is structural: “there’s no way to reliably verify someone’s age without verifying who they are.” The practical effect. she says. is that age verification systems can’t just confirm a birthday without collecting—or creating—identity-linked information.

The stakes go beyond everyday privacy. The argument made by advocates for press freedom is that online anonymity is a lifeline for journalists and the confidential sources who talk to them. They warn that age verification creates a new pool of data the government can demand when it is pursuing information about people who may have spoken to reporters.

The fear is rooted in what critics describe as repeated attempts by the Trump administration to pressure or unmask the press. They point to the administration’s stated aims to destroy journalism that holds it to account. including by identifying sources and punishing them. This week. news broke that the Department of Justice had unsuccessfully subpoenaed reporters from the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. likely as part of a leak investigation. The concern. critics say. is that the government could move past subpoenas directed at journalists and instead compel tech companies to identify the users behind communications on those platforms.

Age verification would not be the first time a Trump administration sought access to information about journalists’ contacts. Critics cite abuse of authority to spy on journalists to figure out who they’re talking to, including online. They also point to the second Trump administration’s repeated efforts to unmask critics online and its actions against reporters. including a raid on a journalist’s home and the seizure of devices used to communicate with sources.

Advocates say secure communication tools can help—using services like Signal or SecureDrop, for instance. But they stress that not all sources reach reporters through those channels. When people still use social media to contact journalists. age verification laws could transform those interactions into something trackable and searchable.

How platforms would verify ages matters. The most common approach relies on collecting government IDs to verify a user’s date of birth with certainty. The KIDS Act says it won’t require platforms to collect government IDs. Even so. critics argue that at least some platforms may choose that method to comply with the law or as a fallback when other options fail.

And they say privacy-preserving alternatives may not fully solve the problem. Even “privacy-preserving” approaches. they warn. can still expose identities. undermine anonymity. and require platforms to collect. process. and retain more data across all users. That data expansion, they argue, increases the risks for anonymous sources who contact journalists through online platforms.

The pressure could also disrupt other forms of information gathering. Critics argue it would make it difficult or impossible for journalists to use anonymous social media accounts to investigate or report. including using “sock puppet accounts” that infiltrate and report on online extremist groups. or accounts used to avoid surveillance by Big Tech companies they are reporting on. Reporters outside the U.S. who publish anonymously on platforms like X or Facebook to avoid the wrath of autocratic regimes would also face a narrowing of those entry points.

To Vogus and other advocates, there is a clear alternative: requiring platforms to collect less data, not more.

They also raise what they call a “honey pot” risk. Pools of incredibly sensitive identity data. they argue. can attract malicious actors who could target. intimidate. and chill journalists—or anyone else—who might otherwise speak out. They point out that many age verification providers have already been breached. leaking users’ sensitive data and allowing others to link online activity to users’ offline identity. They add that age verification companies could grant access or sell the data they collect to others. including payment processors. creating another path for breaches.

Supporters of the KIDS Act say age verification is necessary to protect children. Critics respond that the same logic cuts too wide. They argue the harm isn’t limited to adults seeking convenience; it extends to children too. They question why people would trust platforms with even more personal information. including from kids. when companies already use that data to target ads or share materials with law enforcement agencies that users believed was private.

Rep. Frank Pallone. the ranking member of the House committee that reached the deal on the KIDS Act. has criticized the Federal Communications Commission for abusing its power in a way that threatens press freedom and free speech. Critics of the KIDS Act then ask a direct question: if journalism is already under threat from the Trump administration. why would Democrats back legislation that—by their reading—hands both Big Tech and the government “a skeleton key to the identities of every whistleblower. dissident. and investigative reporter” who uses online platforms. as well as everyone else.

The dispute is not about whether platforms should do more to protect children online. Critics say platforms should be required to do more. but argue comprehensive privacy legislation that protects everyone and requires platforms to collect less data would be a better direction than mandating age verification.

In their view, turning anonymity into an obstacle won’t make the internet safer. It will, instead, change who is willing to speak—and who feels safe enough to read the news without being identifiable to whoever might demand their data next.

KIDS Act age verification online anonymity journalists sources First Amendment privacy X Vimeo