![\"The](\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/AP26141666241116_5c21d0.jpg?fit=3600%2C2401\")
![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Screenshot-2026-06-26-at-2.36.52-PM-1.png?w=440&h=440&crop=1\")
<\/p>\nCaitlin Vogus is a senior adviser to the Freedom of the Press Foundation and a First Amendment attorney.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Aliya Bhatia is a senior policy analyst with the Center for Democracy & Technology\u2019s Free Expression Project.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Democrats and Republicans<\/span> in Congress have struck a deal<\/a> on a bill they say will help keep children and teens safe online. The KIDS Act could pass on the House floor as soon as next week<\/a>; if enacted, it would fundamentally change the way everyone \u2014 not just kids \u2014 accesses the internet.<\/p>\n At stake is your ability to use many social media platforms without revealing your identity.\u00a0<\/p>\n That\u2019s because the KIDS Act at least strongly incentivizes<\/a> \u2014 and, for some services, outright requires \u2014 age verification. Many platforms will turn to age verification to avoid potential liability under the law. Companies like X, video-sharing services like Vimeo, and others with a history of users\u2019 populating social feeds with edgy content<\/a> may be required<\/em> to verify users\u2019 ages because they host a certain amount of content deemed \u201csexual material harmful to minors,\u201d a term that the KIDS Act defines broadly.\u00a0<\/p>\n That\u2019s a big problem for people who need to be able to use the internet anonymously, since, as Taylor Lorenz has previously written<\/a> about in The Intercept, \u201cthere\u2019s no way to reliably verify someone\u2019s age without verifying who they are.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Threats to online anonymity harm everyone, but one group is often overlooked: journalists and the sources who talk to them. Age verification requirements will help the Trump administration carry out its vendetta against the press by creating new avenues to identify journalists\u2019 confidential sources.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Age verification laws will create a new pool of data that the government can demand when it\u2019s hunting for information about the people who may have spoken to the press.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Trump\u2019s administration has made no secret of the fact that it wants to destroy journalism<\/a> that holds it to account, including by unmasking<\/a> sources and punishing<\/a> them. This week, for instance, news broke that the Department of Justice had unsuccessfully subpoenaed reporters<\/a> from the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, likely as part of a leak investigation.<\/p>\n But what if it could skip the journalists and simply demand that tech companies identify sources who may have spoken to reporters using their platforms?<\/p>\n The risk isn\u2019t hypothetical. The first Trump administration abused its authority to spy on journalists<\/a> to figure out who they\u2019re talking to, including online. The second Trump administration has already repeatedly<\/a> attempted to unmask<\/a> its critics<\/a> online and raided<\/a> a journalist\u2019s home and seized<\/a> the devices she used to communicate with her sources.\u00a0<\/p>\n In the face of these risks, using secure communication methods, like Signal<\/a> or SecureDrop<\/a>, can help. But some sources may still reach out to reporters through social media. As a result, age verification laws will create a new pool of data that the government can demand when it\u2019s hunting for information about the people who may have spoken to the press.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The most common methods of age verification rely on the collection of government IDs to verify a user\u2019s date of birth with certainty. The KIDS Act says it won\u2019t require platforms to collect government IDs, but at least some platforms will likely choose this route to comply with the law or offer it as a fallback approach when other methods inevitably fail<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n But online anonymity isn\u2019t assured even if platforms use other ways to verify users\u2019 ages. Even so-called \u201cprivacy-preserving\u201d approaches risk exposing<\/a> users\u2019 identities and undermine anonymity. All of the methods ultimately require platforms to collect, process, and retain more data on all users, raising the risks for anonymous sources who use online platforms to contact reporters.<\/p>\n Age verification laws will also make it difficult or impossible for journalists to use anonymous social media accounts to gather information, like sock puppet<\/a> accounts used to infiltrate and report on online extremist groups<\/a>, or to avoid surveillance<\/a> by the very Big Tech companies they\u2019re reporting on. Reporters outside the U.S. who publish anonymously<\/a> on platforms like X or Facebook to avoid the wrath of autocratic regimes will also find those entry points vanish.<\/p>\n Requiring platforms to collect less data, not more, is a better approach.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n Pools of incredibly sensitive identity data also creates an enticing \u201choney pot\u201d of information that malicious actors could use to target, intimidate, and chill<\/a> journalists from pursuing certain stories or sources from speaking to them. Already, many age verification providers have been breached<\/a>, leaking users\u2019 sensitive data and allowing others to link online activity to users\u2019 offline identity<\/a>. Age verification companies may also grant access<\/a> or sell the data they collect to others, like payment processors, creating another avenue for data breaches.<\/p>\n Many Democratic lawmakers recognize that journalism is under threat from the Trump administration. Rep. Frank Pallone, the ranking member of the House committee that reached the deal on the KIDS Act, has rightfully blasted<\/a> the Federal Communications Commission for abusing its power<\/a> to destroy press freedom and free speech<\/a>, for instance. So why would he and other Democrats now support legislation that serves the same anti-press agenda?\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Screenshot-2026-06-26-at-2.39.13-PM.png?w=440&h=440&crop=1\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n