Transistors, the building blocks of modern electronics, are typically made of silicon. Because it’s a semiconductor, this material can control the flow of electricity in a circuit. But silicon has fundamental physical limits that restrict how compact and energy-efficient a transistor can be.

MIT researchers have now replaced silicon with a magnetic semiconductor, creating a magnetic transistor that could enable smaller, faster, and more energy-efficient circuits. The material’s magnetism strongly influences its electronic behavior, leading to more efficient control of the flow of electricity. 

The team used a novel magnetic material and an optimization process that reduces the material’s defects, which boosts the transistor’s performance.

The material’s unique magnetic properties also allow for transistors with built-in memory, which would simplify circuit design and unlock new applications for high-performance electronics.

“People have known about magnets for thousands of years, but there are very limited ways to incorporate magnetism into electronics. We have shown a new way to efficiently utilize magnetism that opens up a lot of possibilities for future applications and research,” says Chung-Tao Chou, an MIT graduate student in the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and Physics, and co-lead author of a paper on this advance.

Chou is joined on the paper by co-lead author Eugene Park, a graduate student in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering (DMSE); Julian Klein, a DMSE research scientist; Josep Ingla-Aynes, a postdoc in the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center; Jagadeesh S. Moodera, a senior research scientist in the Department of Physics; and senior authors Frances Ross, TDK Professor in DMSE; and Luqiao Liu, an associate professor in EECS, and a member of the Research Laboratory of Electronics; as well as others at the University of Chemistry and Technology in Prague. The paper appears today in Physical Review Letters.

Overcoming the limits

In an electronic device, silicon semiconductor transistors act like tiny light switches that turn a circuit on and off, or amplify weak signals in a communication system. They do this using a small input voltage.

But a fundamental physical limit of silicon semiconductors prevents a transistor from operating below a certain voltage, which hinders its energy efficiency.

To make more efficient electronics, researchers have spent decades working toward magnetic transistors that utilize electron spin to control the flow of electricity. Electron spin is a fundamental property that enables electrons to behave like tiny magnets.

So far, scientists have mostly been limited to using certain magnetic materials. These lack the favorable electronic properties of semiconductors, constraining device performance.

“In this work, we combine magnetism and semiconductor physics to realize useful spintronic devices,” Liu says.

The researchers replace the silicon in the surface layer of a transistor with chromium sulfur bromide, a two-dimensional material that acts as a magnetic semiconductor.

Due to the material’s structure, researchers can switch between two magnetic states very cleanly. This makes it ideal for use in a transistor that smoothly switches between “on” and “off.”

“One of the biggest challenges we faced was finding the right material. We tried many other materials that didn’t work,” Chou says.

They discovered that changing these magnetic states modifies the material’s electronic properties, enabling low-energy operation. And unlike many other 2D materials, chromium sulfur bromide remains stable in air.

To make a transistor, the researchers pattern electrodes onto a silicon substrate, then carefully align and transfer the 2D material on top. They use tape to pick up a tiny piece of material, only a few tens of nanometers thick, and place it onto the substrate.

“A lot of researchers will use solvents or glue to do the transfer, but transistors require a very clean surface. We eliminate all those risks by simplifying this step,” Chou says.

Leveraging magnetism

This lack of contamination enables their device to outperform existing magnetic transistors. Most others can only create a weak magnetic effect, changing the flow of current by a few percent or less. Their new transistor can switch or amplify the electric current by a factor of 10.

They use an external magnetic field to change the magnetic state of the material, switching the transistor using significantly less energy than would usually be required.

The material also allows them to control the magnetic states with electric current. This is important because engineers cannot apply magnetic fields to individual transistors in an electronic device. They need to control each one electrically.

The material’s magnetic properties could also enable transistors with built-in memory, simplifying the design of logic or memory circuits.

A typical memory device has a magnetic cell to store information and a transistor to read it out. Their method can combine both into one magnetic transistor.

“Now, not only are transistors turning on and off, they are also remembering information. And because we can switch the transistor with greater magnitude, the signal is much stronger so we can read out the information faster, and in a much more reliable way,” Liu says.

Building on this demonstration, the researchers plan to further study the use of electrical current to control the device. They are also working to make their method scalable so they can fabricate arrays of transistors.

This research was supported, in part, by the Semiconductor Research Corporation, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Army Research Office, and the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports. The work was partially carried out at the MIT.nano facilities.

Eighteen months ago, it was plausible that artificial intelligence might take a different path than social media. Back then, AI’s development hadn’t consolidated under a small number of big tech firms. Nor had it capitalized on consumer attention, surveilling users and delivering ads.

Unfortunately, the AI industry is now taking a page from the social media playbook and has set its sights on monetizing consumer attention. When OpenAI launched its ChatGPT Search feature in late 2024 and its browser, ChatGPT Atlas, in October 2025, it kicked off a ...

The president’s move to withdraw from the U.N. framework convention is pushing the nation into a legal no-man’s land.

The administration’s arguments that offshore wind farms present a national security risk failed to convince judges in three separate courts.

Temperature goals aren't enough, some scientists say. Another metric could help highlight the real-world impacts of global warming.

Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern say their merger would decrease emissions-heavy truck traffic. Rail shippers argue the opposite.

A yearlong interruption at the main suppliers of battery parts could reduce production by more than 580,000 electric vehicles.

The CEO of the California Community Foundation spoke about the challenges facing survivors and the future of Los Angeles' recovery.

The weakening could change the big fishes’ status at the top of the ocean’s food chain, scientists wrote.

The fish threaten to decimate indigenous fish stocks, wreaking havoc on the livelihoods of the roughly 150 professional fishermen in Cyprus.

Over the years, passing spacecraft have observed mystifying weather patterns at the poles of Jupiter and Saturn. The two planets host very different types of polar vortices, which are huge atmospheric whirlpools that rotate over a planet’s polar region. On Saturn, a single massive polar vortex appears to cap the north pole in a curiously hexagonal shape, while on Jupiter, a central polar vortex is surrounded by eight smaller vortices, like a pan of swirling cinnamon rolls.

Given that both planets are similar in many ways — they are roughly the same size and made from the same gaseous elements — the stark difference in their polar weather patterns has been a longstanding mystery.

Now, MIT scientists have identified a possible explanation for how the two different systems may have evolved. Their findings could help scientists understand not only the planets’ surface weather patterns, but also what might lie beneath the clouds, deep within their interiors.

In a study appearing this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team simulates various ways in which well-organized vortex patterns may form out of random stimulations on a gas giant. A gas giant is a large planet that is made mostly of gaseous elements, such as Jupiter and Saturn. Among a wide range of plausible planetary configurations, the team found that, in some cases, the currents coalesced into a single large vortex, similar to Saturn’s pattern, whereas other simulations produced multiple large circulations, akin to Jupiter’s vortices.

After comparing simulations, the team found that vortex patterns, and whether a planet develops one or multiple polar vortices, comes down to one main property: the “softness” of a vortex’s base, which is related to the interior composition. The scientists liken an individual vortex to a whirling cylinder spinning through a planet’s many atmospheric layers. When the base of this swirling cylinder is made of softer, lighter materials, any vortex that evolves can only grow so large. The final pattern can then allow for multiple smaller vortices, similar to those on Jupiter. In contrast, if a vortex’s base is made of harder, denser stuff, it can grow much larger and subsequently engulf other vortices to form one single, massive vortex, akin to the monster cyclone on Saturn.

“Our study shows that, depending on the interior properties and the softness of the bottom of the vortex, this will influence the kind of fluid pattern you observe at the surface,” says study author Wanying Kang, assistant professor in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS). “I don’t think anyone’s made this connection between the surface fluid pattern and the interior properties of these planets. One possible scenario could be that Saturn has a harder bottom than Jupiter.”

The study’s first author is MIT graduate student Jiaru Shi.

Spinning up

Kang and Shi’s new work was inspired by images of Jupiter and Saturn that have been taken by the Juno and Cassini missions. NASA’s Juno spacecraft has been orbiting around Jupiter since 2016, and has captured stunning images of the planet’s north pole and its multiple swirling vortices. From these images, scientists have estimated that each of Jupiter’s vortices is immense, spanning about 3,000 miles across — almost half as wide as the Earth itself.

The Cassini spacecraft, prior to intentionally burning up in Saturn’s atmosphere in 2017, orbited the ringed planet for 13 years. Its observations of Saturn’s north pole recorded a single, hexagonal-shaped polar vortex, about 18,000 miles wide.

“People have spent a lot of time deciphering the differences between Jupiter and Saturn,” Shi says. “The planets are about the same size and are both made mostly of hydrogen and helium. It’s unclear why their polar vortices are so different.”

Shi and Kang set out to identify a physical mechanism that would explain why one planet might evolve a single vortex, while the other hosts multiple vortices. To do so, they worked with a two-dimensional model of surface fluid dynamics. While a polar vortex is three-dimensional in nature, the team reasoned that they could accurately represent vortex evolution in two dimensions, as the fast rotation of Jupiter and Saturn enforces uniform motion along the rotating axis.

“In a fast-rotating system, fluid motion tends to be uniform along the rotating axis,” Kang explains. “So, we were motivated by this idea that we can reduce a 3D dynamical problem to a 2D problem because the fluid pattern does not change in 3D. This makes the problem hundreds of times faster and cheaper to simulate and study.”

Getting to the bottom

Following this reasoning, the team developed a two-dimensional model of vortex evolution on a gas giant, based on an existing equation that describes how swirling fluid evolves over time.

“This equation has been used in many contexts, including to model midlatitude cyclones on Earth,” Kang says. “We adapted the equation to the polar regions of Jupiter and Saturn.”

The team applied their two-dimensional model to simulate how fluid would evolve over time on a gas giant under different scenarios. In each scenario, the team varied the planet’s size, its rate of rotation, its internal heating, and the softness or hardness of the rotating fluid, among other parameters. They then set a random “noise” condition, in which fluid initially flowed in random patterns across the planet’s surface. Finally, they observed how the fluid evolved over time given the scenario’s specific conditions.

Over multiple different simulations, they observed that some scenarios evolved to form a single large polar vortex, like Saturn, whereas others formed multiple smaller vortices, like Jupiter. After analyzing the combinations of parameters and variables in each scenario and how they related to the final outcome, they landed on a single mechanism to explain whether a single or multiple vortices evolve: As random fluid motions start to coalesce into individual vortices, the size to which a vortex can grow is limited by how soft the bottom of the vortex is. The softer, or lighter the gas is that is rotating at the bottom of a vortex, the smaller the vortex is in the end, allowing for multiple smaller-scale vortices to coexist at a planet’s pole, similar to those on Jupiter.

Conversely, the harder or denser a vortex bottom is, the larger the system can grow, to a size where eventually it can follow the planet’s curvature as a single, planetary-scale vortex, like the one on Saturn.

If this mechanism is indeed what is at play on both gas giants, it would suggest that Jupiter could be made of softer, lighter material, while Saturn may harbor heavier stuff in its interior.

“What we see from the surface, the fluid pattern on Jupiter and Saturn, may tell us something about the interior, like how soft the bottom is,” Shi says. “And that is important because maybe beneath Saturn’s surface, the interior is more metal-enriched and has more condensable material which allows it to provide stronger stratification than Jupiter. ”

"Because Jupiter and Saturn are otherwise so similar, their different polar weather has been a puzzle,” says Yohai Kaspi, a professor of geophysical fluid dynamics at the Weizmann Institute of Science, and a member of the Juno mission’s science team, who was not involved in the new study. “The work by Shi and Kang reveals a surprising link between these differences and the planets’ deep interior ‘softness’, offering a new way to map the key internal properties that shape their atmospheres."

This research was supported, in part, by a Mathworks Fellowship and endowed funding from MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.

It all sounds pretty dystopian:

Inside a white stucco building in Southern California, video cameras compare faces of passersby against a facial recognition database. Behavioral analysis AI reviews the footage for signs of violent behavior. Behind a bathroom door, a smoke detector-shaped device captures audio, listening for sounds of distress. Outside, drones stand ready to be deployed and provide intel from above, and license plate readers from $8.5 billion surveillance behemoth Flock Safety ensure the cars entering and exiting the parking lot aren’t driven by criminals...

“I went into the military right after high school, mostly because I didn’t really see the value of academics,” says Air Force veteran and MIT sophomore Justin Cole.

His perspective on education shifted, however, after he experienced several natural disasters during his nine years of service. As a satellite systems operator in Colorado, Cole volunteered in the aftermath of the 2013 Black Forest fire, the state’s most destructive fire at the time. And in 2018, while he was leading a team in Okinawa conducting signal-monitoring work on communications satellites, two Category 5 typhoons barreled through the area within 26 days.

“I realized, this climate stuff is really a prerequisite to national security objectives in almost every sense, so I knew that school was going to be the thing that would help prepare me to make a difference,” he says. In 2023, after leaving the Air Force to work for climate-focused nonprofits and take engineering courses, Cole participated in an intense, weeklong STEM boot camp at MIT. “It definitely reaffirmed that I wanted to continue down the path of at least getting a bachelor’s, and it also inspired me to apply to MIT,” he says. He transferred in 2024 and is majoring in climate system science and engineering.

“It’s a lot like the MIT experience”

MIT runs the boot camp every summer as part of the nonprofit Warrior-Scholar Project (WSP), which started at Yale University in 2012. WSP offers a range of programming designed to help enlisted veterans and service members transition from the military to higher education. The academic boot camp program, which aims to simulate a week of undergraduate life, is offered at 19 schools nationwide in three areas: business, college readiness, and STEM.

MIT joined WSP in 2017 as one of the first three campuses to offer the STEM boot camp. “It was definitely rigorous,” Cole recalls, “not getting tons of sleep, grinding psets at night with friends … it’s a lot like the MIT experience.” In addition to problem sets, every day at MIT-WSP is packed with faculty lectures on math and physics, recitations, working on research projects, and tours of MIT campus labs. Scholars also attend daily college success workshops on topics such as note taking, time management, and applying to college. The schedule is meticulously mapped out — including travel times — from 0845 to 2200, Sunday through Friday.

Michael McDonald, an associate professor of physics at the Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, and Navy veteran Nelson Olivier MBA ’17 have run the MIT-WSP program since its inception. At the time, WSP wanted to expand its STEM boot camps to other universities, so a Yale astrophysicist colleague recruited McDonald. Meanwhile, Olivier’s former Navy SEAL Team THREE teammate — who happened to be the WSP CEO — convinced Olivier to help launch the program while he was at the MIT Sloan School of Management, along with classmate Bill Kindred MBA ’17.

Now in its 10th year, MIT-WSP has hosted over 120 scholars, 93 percent of whom have gone on to attend schools like Stanford University, Georgetown University, University of Notre Dame, Harvard University, and the University of California at Berkeley. MIT-WSP alumni who have graduated now work at employers such as Meta, Price Waterhouse Coopers, Boeing, and BAE Systems.

Translating helicopter repairs to Newton’s laws

McDonald has a lot of fun teaching WSP scholars every summer. “When I pose a question to my first-year physics class in September, no one wants to meet my eyes or raise their hand for fear of embarrassing themselves,” he says. “But I ask a question to this group of, say, 12 vets, and 12 hands shoot up, they are all answering over each other, and then asking questions to follow up on the question. They are just curious and hungry, and they couldn’t care less about how they come off. … As a professor, it’s like your dream class.”

Every year, McDonald witnesses a predictable transformation among the scholars. They start off eager enough, however “by Tuesday, they are miserable, they’re pretty beaten down. But by the end of the week, they’re like, ‘I could do another week,’” he says.

Their confidence grows as they recognize that, while they may not have taken college courses, their military experience is invaluable. “It’s just a matter of convincing these guys that what they are already doing is what we are looking for. We have guys that say, ‘I don’t know if I can succeed in an engineering program,’ but then in the field, they are repairing helicopters. And I’m like, ‘Oh no, you can do this stuff!’ They just need to understand the background of why that helicopter that they are building works.”

Olivier agrees. “The enlisted veteran has a leg up because they’ve already done this before. They are just translating it from either fixing a radio or messing around with the components of a bomb to understanding Newton’s laws. That’s a thing of beauty, when you see that.”

Fostering a virtuous cycle

While just seeing themselves succeed at MIT-WSP helps instill confidence among scholars, meeting veterans who have made the leap into academia has a multiplier effect. To that end, the WSP organization provides each academic boot camp with alumni, called fellows, to teach college success workshops, provide support, and share their experiences in higher education.

“When I was at boot camp, we had two WSP fellows who were at Columbia, one at Princeton, and one who just got accepted to Harvard,” Cole recalls. “Just seeing people existing at these institutions made me realize, this is a thing that is doable.” The following summer, he became a fellow as well.

Former Marine Corps communications operator Aaron Kahler, who attended MIT-WSP in 2024, particularly recalls meeting a veteran PhD student while the group toured the neuroscience facility. “It was really cool seeing instances of successful vets doing their thing at MIT,” he says. “There were a lot more than we thought.”

Over the years, McDonald has made an effort to recruit more MIT veterans to staff the program. One of them is Andrea Henshall, a retired major in the Air Force and a PhD student in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. After joining the Ask Me Anything panel a few years ago, she’s become increasingly involved, presenting lectures, mentoring participants, offering tours of the motion capture lab where she conducts experiments, and informally mentoring scholars.

“It’s so inspiring to hear so many students at the end of the week say, ‘I never considered a place like MIT until the boot camp, or until somebody told me, hey, you can be here, too.’ Or they see examples of enlisted veterans, like Justin, who’ve transitioned to a place like MIT and shown that it’s possible,” says Henshall.

At the conclusion of MIT-WSP, scholars receive a tangible reminder of what’s possible: a challenge coin designed by Olivier and McDonald. “In the military, the challenge coin usually has the emblem of the unit and symbolizes the ethos of the unit,” Olivier explains. On one side of the MIT-WSP coin are Newton’s laws of motion, superimposed over the WSP logo. MIT's “mens et manus” (“mind and hand”) motto appears on the other side, beneath an image of the Great Dome inscribed with the scholar’s name.

“As you go into Killian Court you see all the names of Pasteur, Newton, et cetera, but Building 10 doesn’t have a name on it,” he says. “So we say, ‘earn your space there on these buildings. Do something significant that will impact the human experience.’ And that’s what we think each one of these guys and gals can do.”

Kahler keeps the coin displayed on his desk at MIT, where he’s now a first-year student, for inspiration. “I don’t think I would be here if it weren’t for the Warrior-Scholar Project,” he says.

Government invasion of a reporter’s home, and seizure of journalistic materials, is exactly the kind of abuse of power the First Amendment is designed to prevent. It represents the most extreme form of press intimidation. 

Yet, that’s what happened on Wednesday morning to Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, when the FBI searched her Virginia home and took her phone, two laptops, and a Garmin watch. 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has joined 30 other press freedom and civil liberties organizations in condemning the FBI’s actions against Natanson. The First Amendment exists precisely to prevent the government from using its powers to punish or deter reporting on matters of public interest—including coverage of leaked or sensitive information. Searches like this threaten not only journalists, but the public’s right to know what its government is doing.

In the statement published yesterday, we call on Congress: 

To exercise oversight of the DOJ by calling Attorney General Pam Bondi before Congress to answer questions about the FBI’s actions; 

To reintroduce and pass the PRESS Act, which would limit government surveillance of journalists, and its ability to compel journalists to reveal sources; 

To reform the 108-year-old Espionage Act so it can no longer be used to intimidate and attack journalists. 

And to pass a resolution confirming that the recording of law enforcement activity is protected by the First Amendment. 

We’re joined on this letter by Free Press Action, the American Civil Liberties Union, PEN America, the NewsGuild-CWA, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and many other press freedom and civil liberties groups.

Further Reading:

•   Joint Statement of Press Freedom Groups Condemning FBI Actions

EFF asked a California appeals court to uphold a lower court’s decision to strike a tech CEO’s lawsuit against a journalist that sought to silence reporting the CEO, Maury Blackman, didn’t like.

The journalist, Jack Poulson, reported on Maury Blackman’s arrest for felony domestic violence after receiving a copy of the arrest report from a confidential source. Blackman didn’t like that. So, he sued Poulson—along with Substack, Amazon Web Services, and Poulson’s non-profit, Tech Inquiry—to try and force Poulson to take his articles down from the internet.

Fortunately, the trial court saw this case for what it was: a classic SLAPP, or a strategic lawsuit against public participation. The court dismissed the entire complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which provides a way for defendants to swiftly defeat baseless claims designed to chill their free speech.

The appeals court should affirm the trial court’s correct decision.  

Poulson’s reporting is just the kind of activity that the state’s anti-SLAPP law was designed to protect: truthful speech about a matter of public interest. The felony domestic violence arrest of the CEO of a controversial surveillance company with U.S. military contracts is undoubtedly a matter of public interest. As we explained to the court, “the public has a clear interest in knowing about the people their government is doing business with.”

Blackman’s claims are totally meritless, because they are barred by the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects Poulson’s right to publish and report on the incident report. Blackman argues that a court order sealing the arrest overrides Poulson’s right to report the news—despite decades of Supreme Court and California Court of Appeals precedent to the contrary. The trial correctly rejected this argument and found that the First Amendment defeats all of Blackman’s claims. As the trial court explained, “the First Amendment’s protections for the publication of truthful speech concerning matters of public interest vitiate Blackman’s merits showing.”

The court of appeals should reach the same conclusion.

Related Cases: Blackman v. Substack, et al.

The Baton Rouge Police Department announced this week that it will begin using a drone designed by military equipment manufacturer Lockheed Martin and Edge Autonomy, making it one of the first local police departments to use an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with a history of primary use in foreign war zones. Baton Rouge is now one of the first local police departments in the United States to deploy an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with such extensive surveillance capabilities — a dangerous escalation in the militarization of local law enforcement.

This is a troubling development in an already long history of local law enforcement acquiring and utilizing military-grade surveillance equipment. It should be a cautionary tale that prods  communities across the country to be proactive in ensuring that drones can only be acquired and used in ways that are well-documented, transparent, and subject to public feedback. 

Baton Rouge bought the Stalker VXE30 from Edge Autonomy, which partners with Lockheed Martin and began operating under the brand Redwire this week. According to reporting from WBRZ ABC2 in Louisiana, the drone, training, and batteries, cost about $1 million. 

Baton Rouge Police Department with Stalker VXE30 drone Baton Rouge Police Department officers stand with the Stalker VXE30 drone in a photo shared by the BRPD via Facebook.

All of the regular concerns surrounding drones apply to this new one in use by Baton Rouge:

• Drones can access and view spaces that are otherwise off-limits to law enforcement, including backyards, decks, and other areas of personal property.
• Footage captured by camera-enabled drones may be stored and shared in ways that go far beyond the initial flight.
• Additional camera-based surveillance can be installed on the drone, including automated license plate readers and the retroactive application of biometric analysis, such as face recognition.

However, the use of a military-grade drone hypercharges these concerns. Stalker VXE30's surveillance capabilities extend for dozens of miles, and it can fly faster and longer than standard police drones already in use. 

“It can be miles away, but we can still have a camera looking at your face, so we can use it for surveillance operations," BRPD Police Chief TJ Morse told reporters.

Drone models similar to the Stalker VXE30 have been used in military operations around the world and are currently being used by the U.S. Army and other branches for long-range reconnaissance. Typically, police departments deploy drone models similar to those commercially available from companies like DJI, which until recently was the subject of a proposed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ban, or devices provided by police technology companies like Skydio, in partnership with Axon and Flock Safety. 

Additionally troubling is the capacity to add additional equipment to these drones: so-called “payloads” that could include other types of surveillance equipment and even weapons. 

The Baton Rouge community must put policies in place that restrict and provide oversight of any possible uses of this drone, as well as any potential additions law enforcement might make. 

EFF has filed a public records request to learn more about the conditions of this acquisition and gaps in oversight policies. We've been tracking the expansion of police drone surveillance for years, and this acquisition represents a dangerous new frontier. We'll continue investigating and supporting communities fighting back against the militarization of local police and mass surveillance. To learn more about the surveillance technologies being used in your city, please check out the Atlas of Surveillance.

Lawmakers in Washington are once again focusing on kids, screens, and mental health. But according to Congress, Big Tech is somehow both the problem and the solution. The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing today on “examining the effect of technology on America’s youth.” Witnesses warned about “addictive” online content, mental health, and kids spending too much time buried in screen. At the center of the debate is a bill from Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) called the Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA), which they say will protect children and “empower parents.” 

That’s a reasonable goal, especially at a time when many parents feel overwhelmed and nervous about how much time their kids spend on screens. But while the bill’s press release contains soothing language, KOSMA doesn’t actually give parents more control. 

Instead of respecting how most parents guide their kids towards healthy and educational content, KOSMA hands the control panel to Big Tech. That’s right—this bill would take power away from parents, and hand it over to the companies that lawmakers say are the problem.  

Kids Under 13 Are Already Banned From Social Media

One of the main promises of KOSMA is simple and dramatic: it would ban kids under 13 from social media. Based on the language of bill sponsors, one might think that’s a big change, and that today’s rules let kids wander freely into social media sites. But that’s not the case.   

Every major platform already draws the same line: kids under 13 cannot have an account. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Discord, Spotify, and even blogging platforms like WordPress all say essentially the same thing—if you’re under 13, you’re not allowed. That age line has been there for many years, mostly because of how online services comply with a federal privacy law called COPPA. 

Of course, everyone knows many kids under 13 are on these sites anyways. The real question is how and why they get access. 

Most Social Media Use By Younger Kids Is Family-Mediated 

If lawmakers picture under-13 social media use as a bunch of kids lying about their age and sneaking onto apps behind their parents’ backs, they’ve got it wrong. Serious studies that have looked at this all find the opposite: most under-13 use is out in the open, with parents’ knowledge, and often with their direct help. 

A large national study published last year in Academic Pediatrics found that 63.8% of under-13s have a social media account, but only 5.4% of them said they were keeping one secret from their parents. That means roughly 90% of kids under 13 who are on social media aren’t hiding it at all. Their parents know. (For kids aged thirteen and over, the “secret account” number is almost as low, at 6.9%.) 

Earlier research in the U.S. found the same pattern. In a well-known study of Facebook use by 10-to-14-year-olds, researchers found that about 70% of parents said they actually helped create their child’s account, and between 82% and 95% knew the account existed. Again, this wasn’t kids sneaking around. It was families making a decision together.

A 2022 study by the UK’s media regulator Ofcom points in the same direction, finding that up to two-thirds of social media users below the age of thirteen had direct help from a parent or guardian getting onto the platform. 

The typical under-13 social media user is not a sneaky kid. It’s a family making a decision together. 

KOSMA Forces Platforms To Override Families 

This bill doesn’t just set an age rule. It creates a legal duty for platforms to police families.

Section 103(b) of the bill is blunt: if a platform knows a user is under 13, it “shall terminate any existing account or profile” belonging to that user. And “knows” doesn’t just mean someone admits their age. The bill defines knowledge to include what is “fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances”—in other words, what a reasonable person would conclude from how the account is being used. The reality of how services would comply with KOSMA is clear: rather than risk liability for how they should have known a user was under 13, they will require all users to prove their age to ensure that they block anyone under 13. 

KOSMA contains no exceptions for parental consent, for family accounts, or for educational or supervised use. The vast majority of people policed by this bill won’t be kids sneaking around—it will be minors who are following their parents’ guidance, and the parents themselves. 

Imagine a child using their parent’s YouTube account to watch science videos about how a volcano works. If they were to leave a comment saying, “Cool video—I’ll show this to my 6th grade teacher!” and YouTube becomes aware of the comment, the platform now has clear signals that a child is using that account. It doesn’t matter whether the parent gave permission. Under KOSMA, the company is legally required to act. To avoid violating KOSMA, it would likely  lock, suspend, or terminate the account, or demand proof it belongs to an adult. That proof would likely mean asking for a scan of a government ID, biometric data, or some other form of intrusive verification, all to keep what is essentially a “family” account from being shut down.

Violations of KOSMA are enforced by the FTC and state attorneys general. That’s more than enough legal risk to make platforms err on the side of cutting people off.

Platforms have no way to remove “just the kid” from a shared account. Their tools are blunt: freeze it, verify it, or delete it. Which means that even when a parent has explicitly approved and supervised their child’s use, KOSMA forces Big Tech to override that family decision.

Your Family, Their Algorithms

KOSMA doesn’t appoint a neutral referee. Under the law, companies like Google (YouTube), Meta (Facebook and Instagram), TikTok, Spotify, X, and Discord will become the ones who decide whose account survives, whose account gets locked, who has to upload ID, and whose family loses access altogether. They won’t be doing this because they want to—but because Congress is threatening them with legal liability if they don’t. 

These companies don’t know your family or your rules. They only know what their algorithms infer. Under KOSMA, those inferences carry the force of law. Rather than parents or teachers, decisions about who can be online, and for what purpose, will be made by corporate compliance teams and automated detection systems. 

What Families Lose 

This debate isn’t really about TikTok trends or doomscrolling. It’s about all the ordinary, boring, parent-guided uses of the modern internet. It’s about a kid watching “How volcanoes work” on regular YouTube, instead of the stripped-down YouTube Kids. It’s about using a shared Spotify account to listen to music a parent already approves. It’s about piano lessons from a teacher who makes her living from YouTube ads.

These aren’t loopholes. They’re how parenting works in the digital age. Parents increasingly filter, supervise, and, usually, decide together with their kids. KOSMA will lead to more locked accounts, and more parents submitting to face scans and ID checks. It will also lead to more power concentrated in the hands of the companies Congress claims to distrust. 

What Can Be Done Instead

KOSMA also includes separate restrictions on how platforms can use algorithms for users aged 13 to 17. Those raise their own serious questions about speech, privacy, and how online services work, and need debate and scrutiny as well. But they don’t change the core problem here: this bill hands control over children’s online lives to Big Tech.

If Congress really wants to help families, it should start with something much simpler and much more effective: strong privacy protections for everyone. Limits on data collection, restrictions on behavioral tracking, and rules that apply to adults as well as kids would do far more to reduce harmful incentives than deputizing companies to guess how old your child is and shut them out.

But if lawmakers aren’t ready to do that, they should at least drop KOSMA and start over. A law that treats ordinary parenting as a compliance problem is not protecting families—it’s undermining them.

Parents don’t need Big Tech to replace them. They need laws that respect how families actually work.

More than a decade after Aaron Swartz’s death, the United States is still living inside the contradiction that destroyed him.

Swartz believed that knowledge, especially publicly funded knowledge, should be freely accessible. Acting on that, he downloaded thousands of academic articles from the JSTOR archive with the intention of making them publicly available. For this, the federal government charged him with a felony and threatened decades in prison. After two years of prosecutorial pressure, Swartz died by suicide on Jan. 11, 2013.

The still-unresolved questions raised by his case have resurfaced in today’s debates over artificial intelligence, copyright and the ultimate control of knowledge...

The agency is close to finalizing its rollback of the endangerment finding. Legal experts say its success could hinge on these details.

But a return to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative could give Republicans an opportunity to attack Democrats’ affordability message.