WASHINGTON—A civil rights group this week reached a sweeping settlement with the federal government, which will stop agencies from pressuring social media companies to remove or suppress lawful speech.
The New Civil Liberties Alliance announced Tuesday that it had reached a consent decree on behalf of its clients in the case Missouri v. Biden, a long-running case in which the plaintiffs alleged the Biden administration worked with big tech platforms to censor users with opinions it viewed as disagreeable — largely conservatives who deviated from the accepted orthodoxy on the COVID-19 pandemic.
Under the consent decree, federal entities, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and the Office of the Surgeon General, are prohibited from threatening or coercing platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and YouTube over content moderation decisions. The agreement also bars officials from directing or vetoing those decisions. 
The settlement is awaiting final approval from U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty. 
The case centers on claims that federal officials coordinated with social media companies to suppress viewpoints that conflicted with government messaging on COVID-19 and other politically sensitive topics. Plaintiffs, including Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and activist Jill Hines, argued that such actions amounted to unconstitutional government censorship carried out through private intermediaries.
NCLA attorneys said discovery in the case revealed what they described as a broad effort spanning multiple agencies and senior officials.
 “This case began with a suspicion that blossomed into fact,” said John Vecchione, a senior litigation counsel with the group. “Freedom of speech has been powerfully preserved by our clients.”
The legal fight has taken multiple turns over the past several years. <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/">In 2024</a>, the Supreme Court vacated a lower court injunction that had restricted government contacts with social media companies, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing at that stage of the case. Despite that setback, the lawsuit continued in district court, ultimately leading to the current agreement.
The settlement also reflects a broader policy shift under the Trump administration, which had previously condemned federal involvement in content moderation. In an early executive order, President Donald Trump criticized what he described as government infringement on Americans’ speech rights. As part of the agreement, the administration acknowledges that labeling speech as “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “malinformation” does not remove First Amendment protections.
NCLA President Mark Chenoweth said the outcome reinforces a core constitutional principle.
“Federal officials may police the line between lawful and unlawful speech,” Chenoweth said, “but they have no role in deciding if speech is true or false.” The plaintiffs are granted authority to enforce the consent decree if violations occur, giving the agreement ongoing legal weight beyond the initial ruling.
The settlement marks one of the most significant legal developments to date in the ongoing debate over the government’s role in moderating online speech, an issue that has drawn increasing scrutiny from courts, lawmakers, and the public as social media platforms have become central to political discourse.
NCLA said related lawsuits targeting federal agencies and officials over similar allegations remain ongoing.

President Biden Holds NATO Summit News Conference As Questions Surround His Candidacy

Biden’s Social Media Censorship Campaign Is Finally Dead

Biden Administration

COVID-19

Free Speech

Surgeon General

A shocking new report from the House Oversight Committee says the Biden administration broke the law in its crusade against the alcohol industry.
Last year, the Biden administration released a report that claimed there was “a very direct link between alcohol consumption and increased cancer risk.” Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for putting this warning on all alcohol products and called for a reassessment of the guideline limits for alcohol consumption to account for cancer risk.
As The Daily Wire reported at the time, this was the culmination of the Biden administration’s quiet efforts to redo America’s dietary restrictions to recommend Americans never drink alcohol. The relatively secret effort, which flaunted years of precedent and drew on the recommendations of Canadian citizens, largely flew under the radar.
The congressional investigation found the Biden administration’s alcohol study was both biased and unlawful. The report comes just hours before Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins hold a press conference in the White House Briefing Room, where they&#8217;re expected to unveil new guidelines.
The <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/report/a-study-fraught-with-bias-how-the-biden-administrations-alcohol-intake-and-health-study-tried-to-undermine-the-2025-2030-dietary-guidelines-for-americans/">report</a>, titled “‘A Study Fraught With Bias: How the Biden administration’s Alcohol Intake and Health Study Tried To Undermine the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines For Americans,” details a yearlong congressional investigation into the alcohol and health study authorized by the Biden administration in 2022. Biden’s study found a link between cancer and alcohol.
According to the report, the Biden administration directed the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking to conduct an alcohol intake and health study intended to influence the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. House Republicans argue the effort violated federal law.
Congress had already authorized the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) and appropriated $1.3 million to conduct the sole alcohol related study meant to inform the next round of dietary guidelines. Lawmakers say the Biden administration&#8217;s parallel effort was not only duplicative but also designed to reach a predetermined conclusion.
House investigators found that all six members selected for Biden’s study were &#8220;anti-alcohol advocates who had conducted previous research linking negative health outcomes with alcohol.&#8221; Three of the six experts in Biden’s study reside in Canada and were involved in developing Canada’s controversial 2023 alcohol guidance, which concluded that no amount of alcohol consumption is safe.
House investigators found that all six members selected for Biden’s study were &#8220;anti-alcohol advocates who had conducted previous research linking negative health outcomes with alcohol.&#8221;

President Trump Toasts The 2025 Kennedy Center Honorees

House Republicans Expose Biden’s Biased Efforts To Ban Alcohol

Alcohol

Donald Trump

Joe Biden

Republican Party

The new United States dietary guidelines, which are expected to be released this month, will remove the daily recommended limit for alcohol consumption.
The new guidelines, drafted by the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services,  “are expected to include a brief statement encouraging Americans to drink in moderation or limit alcohol intake due to associated health risks,” sources told <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-drop-guidance-limit-alcohol-one-or-two-drinks-per-day-sources-say-2025-06-18/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reuters</a>.
This marks a shift for the guidelines. Since 1990, the daily recommended limits have been no more than one drink for women and up to two drinks for men. It also signals a rebuke of the Biden administration, which took steps to drastically limit the amount of alcohol Americans consume.
In the last month of his term, Biden’s surgeon general expressed a desire to place cancer risk warnings on all alcohol products. Biden had also tapped a secretive board called the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking to revise the alcohol portion of the dietary guidelines.
Sources close to the committee — which contained multiple Canadian citizens —warned it was “close to adopting the World Health Organization’s 2023 <a href="https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health" target="_blank" rel="noopener">declaration</a>: &#8216;No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health,&#8217;” as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/no-donald-trump-isnt-coming-for-your-tequila-but-kamala-might-be" target="_blank" rel="noopener">previously reported</a> by The Daily Wire.
Dietary guidelines are published every five years. The current revision is being led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The intention behind making the change is “to ensure the guidelines reflect only the most robust evidence.”
“The scientific basis for recommending specific daily limits is limited,” one source commented.
The debate surrounding the potential benefits and harms of alcohol is still unsettled. Though some studies indicate an increased risk of <a href="https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/the-link-between-alcohol-and-cancer/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cancer</a>, others show that those who consume alcohol in moderation may have a <a href="https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2024/12/new-report-reviews-evidence-on-moderate-alcohol-consumption-and-health-impacts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lower mortality rate</a>, and possess a lower risk of heart attack and stroke.
Authors of a Harvard <a href="https://harvardpublichealth.org/policy-practice/is-alcohol-bad-for-you-or-is-alcohol-good-for-you-yes/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">meta-study</a> concluded that “the data do not justify sweeping statements about the [negative] effects of moderate alcohol consumption on human health.”
&#8220;The hospitality industry has consistently maintained the view that the Dietary Guidelines for Americans should be determined based on a preponderance of sound scientific evidence, free from bias and conflicts of interest,&#8221; Science Over Bias, a coalition of groups involved in the alcohol industry, said in a statement. &#8220;Information on responsible alcohol consumption has been part of the Dietary Guidelines for decades and has provided useful guidance for consumers who choose to consume alcohol and their health care providers.&#8221;

Full Frame Shot Of Alcohol Bottles In Shelf

U.S. Dietary Guidelines Will Scrap Daily Alcohol Limit

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

USDA

President Donald Trump on Wednesday dumped Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, his nominee for U.S. Surgeon General, and instead tapped <a href="https://open.spotify.com/episode/3mQJu3RG3penNJv8JlcvIR?go=1&amp;sp_cid=a65dddc861279b2428e278f372d63d9f&amp;utm_source=embed_player_p&amp;utm_medium=desktop&amp;nd=1&amp;dlsi=766026185a4d4922" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. Casey Means</a>, a leader in the &#8220;Make America Healthy Again&#8221; movement.
Means, author of &#8220;Good Energy,&#8221; is a Stanford University-trained physician who pivoted to pursue public health from a radically different perspective than the current medical establishment.
&#8220;I am pleased to announce that Dr. Casey Means will be nominated as our next Surgeon General of the United States of America,&#8221; the president posted to Truth Social. &#8220;Casey has impeccable &#8216;MAHA&#8217; credentials, and will work closely with our wonderful Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to ensure a successful implementation of our Agenda in order to reverse the Chronic Disease Epidemic, and ensure Great Health, in the future, for ALL Americans.&#8221;
Trump lauded Means&#8217; &#8220;academic achievements&#8221; and her &#8220;life&#8217;s work&#8221; in the wellness sphere. &#8220;Dr. Casey Means has the potential to be one of the finest Surgeon Generals in United States History,&#8221; he wrote.
The president also addressed the Nesheiwat withdrawal, writing that Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. &#8220;looks forward to working with Dr. Janette Nesheiwat in another capacity at HHS.&#8221;
It&#8217;s unclear why Nesheiwat&#8217;s nomination was pulled, or where she&#8217;ll end up at HHS.
The nomination of Means, who routinely focuses on the massive spike in chronic disease, unsurprisingly sparked cheers from the MAHA crowd.
&#8220;President Trump just nominated Dr. Casey Means as Surgeon General! This is a HUGE win for MAHA,&#8221; Holden Culotta posted on X, captioning video of Means at a Senate roundtable, last year. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
President Trump just nominated Dr. Casey Means as Surgeon General! 🔥
This is a HUGE win for MAHA.
Watch Dr. Means EXPOSE the corruption of our healthcare system last year:
“I took zero nutrition courses in medical school.”
“I learned virtually nothing at Stanford Medical… <a href="https://t.co/EmyrlWvZlF">pic.twitter.com/EmyrlWvZlF</a>
— Holden Culotta (@Holden_Culotta) <a href="https://twitter.com/Holden_Culotta/status/1920230564977659965?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
Conservative Isabel Brown reacted, &#8220;Sitting on my sofa holding my 1 week old daughter in tears over this news &#8211; Dr. Casey Means has been nominated to be our next Surgeon General.&#8221; 
&#8220;[President Trump and Secretary Kennedy] have declared war on our system of chronic disease, fake food, &amp; big pharma, and our kids will forever thank us for it,&#8221; Brown added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sitting on my sofa holding my 1 week old daughter in tears over this news &#8211; Dr. Casey Means has been nominated to be our next Surgeon General.<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RobertKennedyJr</a> have declared war on our system of chronic disease, fake food, &amp; big pharma, and our kids will… <a href="https://t.co/BtGeNDsUr4">pic.twitter.com/BtGeNDsUr4</a>
— Isabel Brown (@theisabelb) <a href="https://twitter.com/theisabelb/status/1920233401124036668?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
<div class="css-175oi2r">
<div class="css-175oi2r r-1s2bzr4">
&#8220;The best news for this country. Chills and never screamed so loud in my life! Congrats [Dr. Casey Means],&#8221; author Vani Hari, a.k.a. Food Babe, posted. 
</div>
</div>
<div id="id__98t64y5631c" class="css-175oi2r r-9aw3ui r-1s2bzr4" aria-labelledby="id__8bj7cvieucg id__8zi8chnvl33">
<div class="css-175oi2r r-9aw3ui">
<div class="css-175oi2r">
<div class="css-175oi2r r-k200y">
<div class="css-175oi2r r-1ets6dv r-1phboty r-rs99b7 r-1867qdf r-1udh08x r-o7ynqc r-6416eg r-1ny4l3l">
<div class="css-175oi2r">
<div class="css-175oi2r r-16y2uox r-1pi2tsx r-13qz1uu">
<div class="css-175oi2r r-1adg3ll r-1udh08x">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The best news for this country. Chills and never screamed so loud in my life! Congrats <a href="https://twitter.com/CaseyMeansMD?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CaseyMeansMD</a> <a href="https://t.co/tmuzX4D5da">pic.twitter.com/tmuzX4D5da</a>
— Vani Hari (@thefoodbabe) <a href="https://twitter.com/thefoodbabe/status/1920220841926639642?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Means thanked President Trump for the nomination on her X account.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/major-food-companies-accelerate-maha-changes-to-recipes?author=Amanda+Prestigiacomo&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Major+Food+Companies+Accelerate+MAHA+Changes+To+Recipes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Major Food Companies Accelerate MAHA Changes To Recipes</a>

Dr. Casey Means

‘Huge Win For MAHA’: Trump Dumps Surgeon General Nominee, Taps Top MAHA Leader

Health Care

Canada is a cold place, and to get around my home of Ontario comfortably during the winter I’m lucky to have a top-shelf pair of American premium leather cowboy boots by Durango. They’re perfect, except for the part where they supposedly can increase my risk of cancer.
Yes, because my boots comply with California’s Proposition 65, they came with a Cancer and Reproductive Harm <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-07-23/prop-65-product-warnings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warning label</a> in the event I were to excessively lick or dine upon my footwear. Everything from DVD players to couches now carry these labels if they’re sold in California, in case a consumer were to ingest them instead of watch a movie or take a nap. Considering the earth’s sun is a well-known carcinogen, it’s a wonder California hasn’t legislated some kind of labeling on the menacing gaseous ball elevating the cancer risk of everyone beneath its rays.
Perhaps the U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy will take action after he’s done frightening consumers about alcohol. Murthy’s latest <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/alcohol-cancer/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">advisory report</a> on “the causal link between alcohol consumption and increased risk for at least seven different types of cancer” <a href="https://www.today.com/health/diet-fitness/alcohol-cancer-risk-rcna186367" target="_blank" rel="noopener">has America spooked</a>. We experienced the same tactics in Canada.
The political collapse of Prime Minster Justin Trudeau in Canada temporarily killed a <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-canada-alcohol-problem-health-warning-labels-1.6850180" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bill</a> that would have had Canada <a href="https://www.medcentral.com/biz-policy/should-alcohol-labels-have-a-cancer-warning" target="_blank" rel="noopener">follow Ireland</a> in slapping cancer warnings on all alcoholic beverages. It’s part of a movement within the public health establishment via the <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/alcohol">World Health Organization</a>, to shift world governments away from the message of “drink responsibly” and toward “<a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-canada-alcohol-problem-health-warning-labels-1.6850180" target="_blank" rel="noopener">no amount is safe</a>”.
Consumers should know the risks associated with alcohol consumption, but what exactly are those risks?
First, Dr. Murthy’s report is what’s known as an observational study, which means conclusions are drawn without experiments featuring variables and controls. These reports study large pre-existing data sets and can show correlation, not causation, of illness associated with certain products like alcohol. It is literally not possible for observational studies to demonstrate cause and effect.
Second, the data sets informing the research are biased toward <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24825591/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">respondents underreporting</a> their level of drinking. It is to be expected then that the data for moderate drinkers is systematically enmeshed with that of heavy drinkers who underestimate their weekly intake.
The result is that moderate drinking ends up looking more risky than it might otherwise be on a chart illustrating a correlation between alcohol consumption and certain cancers.
The Canadian Centre for Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA) <a href="https://www.ccsa.ca/canadas-guidance-alcohol-and-health" target="_blank" rel="noopener">led</a> the charge for warning labels in Canada, and their own findings illustrated the same kind of disproportionate response being mimicked by Dr. Murthy in the US. The CCSA’s report argued that a male who consumes 2 drinks per day may increase their <a href="https://financialpost.com/opinion/david-clement-happy-festivus-earful-for-you" target="_blank" rel="noopener">absolute</a> colorectal cancer risk by 0.0028 percent. If you add the increased risk for all cancers measured by the CCSA (liver, colorectal, esophagus, larynx, and oral/pharynx) related to alcohol consumption, the total absolute increase in cancer risk for a male drinking 2 drinks per day is 0.0099, or 9.9 one-hundredths of a percent.
These are not the kind of numbers you’d take seriously if they were on the warning label, and it’s not especially helpful to slap tobacco-style cancer warnings on products that are exponentially less harmful. The <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/lung-cancer/risk-factors/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CDC</a> estimates that smoking increases cancer risk by 15-30 times when compared to non-smokers.
Smoking comes with an increased cancer risk that is more than 1,000%. Two alcoholic drinks per day, however, is only an increase of 0.0099% in risk. These things are not the same.
A <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2839311">2016 paper</a> from Harvard Kennedy School laid out the best case against an overzealous warning label regime like California’s Prop 65 and the movement to associate alcohol with the hazards of cigarettes. Harvard said of Prop 65 that it “fails miserably at distinguishing between large and small risks; that is to say between wolves and puppies.” The cancer warning label movement “cries wolf” over statistically insignificant risks and deters consumers from taking labels seriously when a genuinely dangerous product comes to market in the future.
It is not good for consumers when warning labels are a <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/lvkiys/proposition_65_should_i_worry/">punchline</a>, but that’s precisely what happens when cancer warnings are on cigarettes and <a href="https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GettyImages-171179611.jpg">Starbucks self-serve</a> sugar stations.
The connection between heavy drinking and certain cancers of the mouth and throat is generally accepted by researchers, including the most recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) about the health impacts of alcohol. NASEM <a href="https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/28582/review-of-evidence-on-alcohol-and-health">showed the same</a> uptick in the risk for breast cancer with moderate drinking but did not replicate a connection between moderate drinking and the rest of the other afflictions.
Any consumer should scratch their head when the Surgeon General’s alcohol warning is that “evidence shows that this risk may start to increase around one or fewer drinks per day.”
May start? Fewer than one drink per day? This barely clever wording means Dr. Murthy cannot demonstrate total sobriety as having a 0.0 correlation with developing cancer.
This strategic uncertainty should tell you something about the claims being made by Vivek Murthy and public health authorities in places like Canada. The conclusions don’t make that much sense. For example, Dr. Joseph Sparano, deputy director of the Tisch Cancer Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, <a href="https://www.today.com/health/diet-fitness/alcohol-cancer-risk-rcna186367">told NBC’s Today</a> “Drinking may explain some of the increased cancer risk we are seeing in young people – Cancers in people under the age of 50 have been increasing at a rate of 1-2% per year over the last 15 years.”
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JOIN THE MOVEMENT IN &#8217;25 WITH 25% OFF DAILYWIRE+ ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS WITH CODE DW25</a></h3>
But nothing is said about the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/claraludmir/2023/06/27/why-genz-is-drinking-less-and-what-this-means-for-the-alcohol-industry/">years</a> of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220920-why-gen-zers-are-growing-up-sober-curious">coverage</a> on reliable trendlines <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/509690/young-adults-drinking-less-prior-decades.aspx">showing</a> adults under 35 drink less frequently and in lower quantities than any prior generation. Older cohorts are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/30/health/seniors-alcohol-consumption.html">driving</a> the majority of alcohol consumption, and recent Center for Disease Control <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db374.htm">data</a> shows us that 5.1% of American adults are heavy drinkers, meaning a man who consumes more than 14 drinks per week and a woman who has more than seven. That slim cohort represents 75% of the cancer cases related to alcohol consumption.
If public health authorities are going to increase their focus on alcohol, it should be on heavy drinkers and tested messages of moderation and responsible drinking. 
Comparing the risks of moderate drinking to smoking is statistically false and misleading for consumers. The U.S. Surgeon General’s words carry incredible weight throughout the world, and like with California’s overzealous risk labeling system, Murthy risks squandering even more public trust in a public health advisory that can’t prove its own claims.
* * *
David Clement is the North American Affairs Director for the Consumer Choice Center. Follow him on X: <a href="https://x.com/ClementLiberty">@ClementLiberty</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Close up of young Asian woman walking through supermarket aisle and choosing a bottle of red wine from the shelf in a supermarket

Why Cancer Warnings On Alcohol Dilute The Meaning Of Risk

California

Canada

Cancer

Health

Tobacco

Vivek Murthy

a wall rack of wine bottles.

Public Health ‘Experts’ Set The Stage For A New Prohibition

Public Health 'Experts' Set The Stage For A New Prohibition

Marijuana

Matt Walsh

Opinion

As Americans greeted their New Year’s Day hangovers with pledges to lay off the sauce, the Biden administration took a major step towards making every month Dry January.
Last week, Biden&#8217;s Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2025/01/03/us-surgeon-general-issues-new-advisory-link-alcohol-cancer-risk.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">advisory</a> “outlining the direct link between alcohol consumption and increased cancer risk.” Murthy wants health warnings on all alcohol products that mention cancer risk, as well as “a reassessment of the guideline limits for alcohol consumption to account for cancer risk.”
It may sound like benign bureaucratic jargon. But it’s far worse than that.
As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/no-donald-trump-isnt-coming-for-your-tequila-but-kamala-might-be" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> in October, a secret committee working deep behind the scenes of the Biden administration is working to revise federal dietary guidelines regarding alcohol. The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD) is a six-person panel working within the Department of Health and Human Services. But instead of just trying to keep kids from drinking, this panel <a href="https://tomwark.substack.com/p/no-amount-alcohol-healthy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> wants the United States to adopt the World Health Organization’s <a href="https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health" target="_blank" rel="noopener">position</a> that “no level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health.”
Now, I love an “I told you so” moment as much as the next keyboard warrior. But this is no reason to gloat. The bureaucracy’s push to stop Americans from drinking is a dangerous development, and not just because it’s profoundly lame. It’s the latest sign of how leftists want to use the government to meddle in Americans’ daily lives. And it’s not even based on real science.
Murthy notes that “alcohol is a well-established, preventable cause of cancer responsible for about 100,000 cases of cancer and 20,000 cancer deaths annually in the United States.” He further notes that “for breast cancer specifically, 16.4% of total breast cancer cases are attributable to alcohol consumption.”
Much like Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/im-not-a-biologist-supreme-court-nominee-says-she-cant-define-the-word-woman" target="_blank" rel="noopener">I’m not a biologist.</a> So I have no reason to doubt these statistics. But whenever a government official starts calling for a total ban on anything for my own good, I get suspicious. Banning things that can be unhealthy when consumed in excess is the first step towards nanny statism and universal health care. It’s downright European.
Or, in this case, Canadian. As we previously reported, three of the ICCPUD’s six members are Canadians who helped slash the number of recommended drinks in their frozen homeland back in 2013. That recommendation didn’t even play well in Canada, a country that has basically thrown its hands up and accepted euthanasia and leaders like Justin Trudeau as inevitabilities.
The mere presence of Canadian health bureaucrats should be enough to disqualify whatever the ICCPUD recommends. But there’s also a <a href="https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2024/12/new-report-reviews-evidence-on-moderate-alcohol-consumption-and-health-impacts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new study</a> from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Math, which found that “compared with never consuming alcohol, moderate alcohol consumption is associated with lower all-cause mortality.”
That study is hardly biased towards alcohol. In fact, it includes the same cancer statistics that Murthy cites in his advisory. But it also looks at other areas, and finds that moderate alcohol consumption is associated with a lower risk of both heart attack and stroke, compared to never drinking at all.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JOIN THE MOVEMENT IN ’25 WITH 25% OFF DAILYWIRE+ ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS WITH CODE DW25</a>
There’s also a recent <a href="https://harvardpublichealth.org/policy-practice/is-alcohol-bad-for-you-or-is-alcohol-good-for-you-yes/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Harvard study</a> that found moderate drinking lowered blood sugar and was associated with lower rates of diabetes as well as lower rates of “thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and renal cell carcinoma.” Looking at the whole board, the authors conclude that “the data do not justify sweeping statements about the [negative] effects of moderate alcohol consumption on human health.”
Murthy probably won’t get his warning labels. Such a change would require congressional approval, and if the <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/03/surgeon-general-alcohol-cancer-congress-00196399" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bipartisan opposition</a> to the new drinking guidelines is any indication, it seems unlikely that Congress would vote to slap cancer warnings on liquor bottles.
But Murthy’s advisory is telling nonetheless. Biden is packing up the Oval Office, and his Surgeon General is trying to bring back Prohibition. That would be shocking, if his boss wasn’t spending this time trying to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-biden-races-to-sell-off-border-wall-parts-before-trump-takes-office" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sell off pieces</a> of the border wall, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/disgraceful-decision-trump-press-secretary-blasts-bidens-move-to-block-more-offshore-drilling?topStoryPosition=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stop offshore drilling</a>, and smuggle in all sorts of policies that would hamstring the incoming Trump administration.
It’s a troubling reminder of how Democrats act when they have power, and of what their priorities will be the next time they take the White House. Fortunately, we won’t have to deal with that for at least the next four years.
I’ll drink to that.

Conference Of Mayors Held In Washington, DC

The Biden Surgeon General’s Alcohol Warning Is Just The Tip Of The Prohibition Iceberg

President-elect <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donald-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Donald Trump</a> announced late this week that he has selected Dr. Janette Nesheiwat to serve as the next U.S. Surgeon General in his upcoming administration.
&#8220;Dr. Nesheiwat is a double board-certified Medical Doctor with an unwavering commitment to saving and treating thousands of American lives,&#8221; Trump said in a statement.
Trump said that Nesheiwat &#8220;is a fierce advocate and strong communicator for preventive medicine and public health&#8221; who &#8220;is committed to ensuring that Americans have access to affordable, quality healthcare, and believes in empowering individuals to take charge of their health to live longer, healthier lives.&#8221;
The 44-year-old was raised by a widowed immigrant mother who worked as a nurse, the Trump transition team said.
Born in New York, she graduated from South Florida in 2000 with a Biology degree. After completing U.S. Army Reserve Officer Training Corps, she pursued medical school in the Caribbean before completing her residency at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.
&#8220;Her expertise and leadership have been pivotal during some of the most challenging Healthcare crises of our time,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;Dr. Janette provided on-the-ground medical treatment to Americans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the Joplin tornadoes. She is also a member of Samaritan&#8217;s Purse Disaster Assistance, Relief Team, and has provided lifesaving care during crises in Morocco, Haiti, and Poland.&#8221;
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a>
Nesheiwat responded by saying that she was &#8220;deeply honored and humbled&#8221; to be nominated for the position.
&#8220;Thank you, Mr. President, for your trust,&#8221; she said. &#8220;I pledge to work tirelessly to promote health, inspire hope, and serve our nation with dedication and compassion.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I am deeply honored and humbled by this nomination to serve as Surgeon General of the United States. Thank you, Mr. President, for your trust. I pledge to work tirelessly to promote health, inspire hope, and serve our nation with dedication and compassion <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MAHA?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MAHA</a> <a href="https://t.co/anKuzkYNcz">pic.twitter.com/anKuzkYNcz</a>
— Dr Janette Nesheiwat (@DoctorJanette) <a href="https://twitter.com/DoctorJanette/status/1860172388761240025?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2024</a></blockquote>

2023 FOX Nation Patriot Awards – Arrivals

Trump Taps Dr. Janette Nesheiwat For U.S. Surgeon General

Executive

Politics

Trump Administration

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy is calling for a mandatory warning label on social media, warning users about the mental health risks for teenagers.
In an opinion <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/17/opinion/social-media-health-warning.html">article</a> for The New York Times published Monday, Murthy said he wants a surgeon general’s warning on social media platforms similar to the warning labels that appear on tobacco and alcohol products. The tobacco warnings have been shown to &#8220;increase awareness and change behavior,&#8221; Murthy said.
“The mental health crisis among young people is an emergency — and social media has emerged as an important contributor,” Murthy wrote.
“It is time to require a surgeon general’s warning label on social media platforms, stating that social media is associated with significant mental health harms for adolescents,” he said. “A surgeon general’s warning label, which requires congressional action, would regularly remind parents and adolescents that social media has not been proved safe.”
The mental health crisis among teenagers has been partly driven by social media’s explosion over the last decade or so, during which the <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/teen-mental-health-cdc-girls-sadness-violence-rcna69964">rates</a> of teenage depression have skyrocketed, especially among girls.
Murthy noted that adolescents who spend more than three hours on social media a day have twice the risk of anxiety and depression, and teens, on average, spend longer than this, about 4.8 hours a day on such platforms. Nearly half of teens say &#8220;social media makes them feel worse about their bodies,&#8221; he added.
Murthy also called on Congress to pass legislation to protect young people from online abuse, exposure to “extreme violence” and sexual content, and to bar social media companies from collecting “sensitive data” from children and require them to limit features like push notifications, autoplay, and infinite scroll. He also said social media platforms must be required to share their data on health effects with the public and submit them to independent safety audits.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1717170739895000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1Ps3XbgPF2rL6bDpL8t5Cu">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“While the platforms claim they are making their products safer, Americans need more than words. We need proof,” Murthy said.
Murthy also placed some of the responsibility on parents to protect their children from the negative effects of social media, calling on them to wait until after middle school to allow their kids to use social media and not allow phones at meals and social gatherings.
Murthy added that schools should also keep classrooms free of phones.
“Why is it that we have failed to respond to the harms of social media when they are no less urgent or widespread than those posed by unsafe cars, planes or food?” Murthy wrote. “These harms are not a failure of willpower and parenting; they are the consequence of unleashing powerful technology without adequate safety measures, transparency or accountability.”
“The moral test of any society is how well it protects its children,” he said.

Surgeon General Calls For Warning Label On Social Media For Young People

Children

Mental Health

Social Media

Teenagers

On Monday, Politico ran a long <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/18/surgeon-general-tools-loneliness-00131734" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview</a> with Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. Murthy is apparently “worried about our sad social lives.” 
According to Politico, “Americans are burned out, disconnected, isolated and starved for time. Maybe it’s post-pandemic blues. Maybe it’s our smartphone addiction. Whatever the cause, it’s serious enough that Murthy has issued a formal advisory to the nation calling for action to address this ‘epidemic.’”
What are Murthy’s solutions? He is hosting events trying to put people in proximity with one another and speaking about the “power of friendship.” At these events, as Politico describes, “People dressed as dancing unicorns handed out prescriptions for five minutes of social connection. (Quantity: Endless. Refills: Daily.)” Murthy then encouraged people to spend 45 seconds writing a text to a loved one. He asks people to engage in what he calls “the connection exercise.” He says that such exercises can be “supplemented by investments in social infrastructure, which is where policymakers come in.”
Or, alternatively, it’s precisely where policymakers should butt out.
There is a reason for our loneliness epidemic. Sure, it has to do with smartphones and the internet and the increasing atomization of our lives as we hunker down with our screens. But screens are just a tool to be used for good or ill. The real problem is that our social institutions have been summarily destroyed over the course of decades by government.
Those social institutions used to begin with and center around church.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1872-go-to-church-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
Historically, churches fulfilled three interwoven functions. First, they provided common orientation around a higher goal, complete with rules and regulations that required skin in the game in order to be accepted into the group. Second, they provided economic benefits and social reinforcement, ranging from charity to the helping hands of neighbors. Finally, emerging from the first two functions, they created a feeling of community. 
That feeling of community, as sociologist Émile Durkheim wrote, could only be attained with reference to the sacred: a series of beliefs so worthwhile that they were not to be questioned. As Robert Nisbet <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Quest-Community-Background-Essential-Conservative/dp/1935191500" target="_blank" rel="noopener">writes</a>, “It is community that gives to the sacred its most vital expressions everywhere: birth, marriage, death, and other moments in the human drama.”
The sacred, then, undergirded the community.
And the community provided the support structure necessary for the flourishing of the family.
And then government tried to replace church and destroyed community.
The first step was the substitution of government benefits for the earned membership of a church. People no longer had to have skin in the game of a community in order to be given charity — now they had “entitlements” by dint of breathing. According to a National Bureau of Economic Research <a href="https://www.loc.gov/item/2005618486/#:~:text=Crowd%2Dout%20was%20small%20as,church%20activity%20observed%20between%201933" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a>, New Deal policies crowded out 30% of all charitable spending by churches. Government benefits were made exponentially greater. Family structure itself was dramatically undermined by government spending since you were no longer responsible for your kids or your parents. Government was. Your call on your neighbor no longer required you to sacrifice for the community. Instead, you could point the government gun at him and steal his wallet.
Able to reap the rewards without the costs, many people stopped going to church. And over the course of decades, churches began to adjust to that reality not by reinforcing common orientation around a higher goal — sanctity — but by trying to get rid of “judgment” so as to include more people. Churches began to try to mirror government: no skin in the game, plenty of benefits. As Gertrude Himmelfarb <a href="https://www.amazon.com/New-History-Old-Critical-Reappraisals/dp/0674013840/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2ETD1GRVXJLI2&amp;keywords=the+new+history+and+the+old&amp;qid=1703025694&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=the+new+history+and+the+old%2Cstripbooks%2C87&amp;sr=1-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> two decades ago, “This process of [religious] accommodation has since gone on apace, so that today many mainline churches offer little or no resistance to the prevailing culture. On the contrary, some are very much part of it, priding themselves on being cosmopolitan and sophisticated, undogmatic and uncensorious.”
Thus the sacred has been wiped away, leaving us all alone with our subjective senses of self, catered to by a broad welfare state. Are we happier? Will that problem be cured by government?
Of course not.
It can only be cured by a return to community. Historically, that community means religious community, which is why it continues to be so sad to see religious leaders playing around the edges of conciliation with value systems that undermine sacredness at every turn.
On Monday, according to the vast majority of the legacy media, Pope Francis apparently decided that it was fine for priests to bless same-sex couples. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/18/briefing/texas-border-law-vatican-same-sex-relationships.html#:~:text=The%20Vatican%20announced%20today%20that,pastoral%20and%20less%20rigid%20church." target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York Times</a> said this move was “his most definitive step yet to make the Roman Catholic Church more welcoming to LGBTQ Catholics and more reflective of his vision of a more pastoral and less rigid church.”
If true, of course, that would mark a massive shift for the Catholic Church, which has held fast to the traditional teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman and that sexual union within marriage is the only morally permissible form of sexual union. The Church has held fast for thousands of years not only to the sanctity of marriage but also to the natural law philosophy inherent in that sanctity — a philosophy that says the world of God’s creation carries within it certain obvious rights and wrongs, teleological ends. Man and woman were created to become one flesh, this philosophy says, and creation is designed to end in the creation of new human life. 
Catholic philosopher Robert George has <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/08/what-marriage-isand-what-it-isnt" target="_blank" rel="noopener">explained</a> this point further: “What is unique about marriage is that it truly is a comprehensive sharing of life, a sharing founded on the bodily union made uniquely possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman— a complementarity that makes it possible for two human beings to become, in the language of the Bible, one flesh, and thus possible for this one-flesh union to be the foundation of a relationship in which it is intelligible for two persons to bind themselves to each other in pledges of permanence, monogamy, and fidelity.”
It would certainly be a massive surrender for the Catholic Church to reject that teaching on behalf of a broader teaching that morality now encompasses sexual relationships of other sorts — particularly sexual relationships without any potential whatsoever for the creation of human life.
So, what did the Pope actually say?
His defenders say that he changed nothing. According to Catholic publication <a href="https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/did-the-pope-just-permit-gay-marriage" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Pillar</a>, “Fiducia supplicans says clearly that that the Vatican does not intend to permit same-sex marriage, or anything that resembles it — and says that the Church does not actually have the power or authority to do that. While the text does create a framework for blessing gay couples, it says that those blessings should not be confused with marriage, or even with approval of same-sex unions, or homosexual activity.”
Fiducia suppplicans says blessings are a “pastoral resource to be valued rather than a risk or a problem” and they may be bestowed upon those persons who “although in a union that cannot be compared in any way to a marriage, desire to entrust themselves to the Lord and his mercy, to invoke his help, and to be guided to a greater understanding of his plan of love and truth.” Such blessings ought not be given in any circumstance resembling a sanctification of same-sex unions, says the Pope, and “there is no intention to legitimize anything.” Furthermore, says the document, the blessing ought to descend on those who “do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit.”
But there is reason for the controversy. The document itself suggests that blessings should not be “subjected to too many moral prerequisites” and that priests ought not to “lose pastoral charity, which should permeate all our decisions and attitudes” and to avoid being “judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.” Furthermore, it is not clear whether the Church will crack down on liturgical blessings it does not approve in the document. 
The Pope, in other words, is being vague, and others are supposed to clean up for him. My friend Larry O’Connor has <a href="https://twitter.com/LarryOConnor/status/1736823331616121325" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a good rundown</a> of his interpretation of the latest missive. Here is what he writes: &#8220;I am not in full communion with the Church. As such, I am required to abstain from partaking in the Eucharist at Mass. I walk up to the altar with my arms crossed on my chest and the presiding priest offers me a blessing. He is not blessing the situation that I am in that keeps me from being in communion with the Church. He is offering me a priestly blessing so that I can continue my faith journey and move forward closer to Christ despite my situation. This is exactly what the Vatican has confirmed the pastors may do for individuals who have same sex attraction and are also not in full communion with the Church because of their situation.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Some thoughts on the hysteria and lies surrounding the Vatican&#39;s statement on blessings today. 
First&#8230; Read <a href="https://twitter.com/EdMorrissey?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EdMorrissey</a>.
Done? Good. Now&#8230;
If you are a Christian but not Catholic, then your religion might not have formal &quot;blessings&quot; as part of your rites, liturgy or faith…
&mdash; L A R R Y (@LarryOConnor) <a href="https://twitter.com/LarryOConnor/status/1736823331616121325?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 18, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
But is that all the Pope is doing? Because Larry isn’t approaching the altar as a member of a same-sex couple. He is approaching individually. Of course religions should bless the sinner but hate the sin. But when a same-sex couple approaches a priest for a blessing as a same-sex couple, the distinction falls away. The Pope here is not allowing blessing for individuals who participate in same-sex unions — every traditional religion allows sinners to receive blessings individually, so far as I’m aware. He is apparently, instead, greenlighting blessing same-sex couples as couples, then pretending it doesn’t mean anything so long as the blessing isn’t an outright sanctification of the same-sex relationship.
Clearly that’s how the Left is reading it. Rep. James Martin, a radical Left-wing Catholic, <a href="https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1736752056688373983" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says</a>, “The new declaration opens the door to nonliturgical blessings for same-sex couples, something that had been previously off-limits for bishops, priests and deacons. Along with many priests, I will now <a href="https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1736752058055770141" target="_blank" rel="noopener">be delighted</a> to bless my friends in same-sex unions.”
So, why ought we to care? We ought to care because when historical pillars of Western tradition including natural law begin to carve away at those pillars in the name of tolerance and diversity, the entire edifice begins to crumble. That is a problem for religious believers of all traditional stripes.
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
It’s not unique to Catholicism. On the same day the Pope issued his statement, celebrated by the New York Times, the Times issued a piece about the collapse of the United Methodist Church, riven by controversy over LGBTQ issues. As the Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/18/us/the-united-methodist-church-schism.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">describes</a>, “At issue for Methodists is the question of ordaining and marrying L.G.B.T.Q. people, a topic that has splintered many other Protestant denominations and which Methodists have been debating for years. … There were eight million Methodists in the United States in 2020, according to the U.S. Religion Census. Between large-scale departures and the broader trend of decline, Dr. Burge said, that number could drop by half in a decade. The exodus marks a calamitous decline for the broader tradition of mainline Protestantism, which once dominated the American religious, social and cultural landscape.”
And herein lies the problem: There is no substitute for traditional religion in the American landscape. And traditional religion requires skin in the game. The minute religion becomes merely a nonjudgmental “blessing” dumped on top of subjective self-glorification, religion loses its value.
And when religion loses its value, social society crumbles. We’re relegated to Vivek Murthy lecturing us with dancing unicorns who hand out prescriptions for social connection.

TODAY – Season 72

The Government Wants You To Listen To Dancing Unicorns

Ben Shapiro

Christianity

Church

Federal Government

Readers Pass

Synagogue

Welfare

U.S. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/surgeon-general" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Surgeon General</a> Vivek Murthy issued an <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/health" target="_blank" rel="noopener">advisory</a> on Tuesday warning that <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/social-media" target="_blank" rel="noopener">social media</a> use among minors can severely damage <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/mental-health" target="_blank" rel="noopener">mental health</a>.
The <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/sg-youth-mental-health-social-media-advisory.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">advisory</a>, which noted that social media use is “nearly universal” for young people, noted that there has never been a robust safety analysis for the technology among minors, a reality which comes as mental health declines considerably among the demographic. Murthy prompted lawmakers, technology companies, and families to take action.
“The most common question parents ask me is, ‘is social media safe for my kids.’ The answer is that we don&#8217;t have enough evidence to say it&#8217;s safe, and in fact, there is growing evidence that social media use is associated with harm to young people’s mental health,” Murthy said in a <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/05/23/surgeon-general-issues-new-advisory-about-effects-social-media-use-has-youth-mental-health.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a>. “Children are exposed to harmful content on social media, ranging from violent and sexual content, to bullying and harassment. And for too many children, social media use is compromising their sleep and valuable in-person time with family and friends.”
Some 95% of minors between 13 years old and 17 years old report using social media, while 40% of children between 8 years old and 12 years old said the same despite the minimum age requirements for the platforms. The advisory added that frequent use of the technology is associated with changes in the development of the amygdala, the region of the brain responsible for emotional learning and behavior, as well as the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for impulse control and the moderation of social behavior.
Murthy said in an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/u-s-surgeon-general-warns-13-years-old-is-too-young-to-join-social-media" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview</a> earlier this year that children younger than 13 years old should not be able to join social media platforms. “You have some of the best designers and product developers in the world who have designed these products to make sure people are maximizing the amount of time they spend on these platforms,” he commented. “And if we tell a child, ‘Use the force of your willpower to control how much time you’re spending,’ you’re pitting a child against the world’s greatest product designers.”
Members of Congress have indeed noted the addictive properties of social media services and their deleterious effects on mental health. One lawmaker <a href="https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2022/12/rubio-gallagher-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-to-ban-tiktok" target="_blank" rel="noopener">described</a> TikTok, presently the most popular social media network for young people, as “digital fentanyl,” a reference to the addictive characteristics of the limitless stream of vertical videos offered by the platform.
Children and teenagers spent an average of 99 minutes per day on TikTok as of two years ago, far exceeding the amount of time spent on other rivals, according to <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/13/kids-and-teens-watch-more-tiktok-than-youtube-tiktok-91-minutes-in-2021-youtube-56/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data</a> from Qustodio.
TikTok, which currently faces additional regulatory <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/extraordinary-and-unprecedented-tiktok-sues-montana-over-statewide-ban" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pressure</a> due to the company’s ownership by a Chinese technology firm, recently <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tiktok-creates-new-default-time-limit-for-users-under-18" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> measures that will prompt young users to create a daily screen time limit if they spend more than 100 minutes on the platform each day. Parents and guardians will be permitted to more easily view screen time on a dashboard and customize limits for their children based on school schedules, holidays, and other commitments.
American officials have also noted that Chinese authorities seem to <a href="https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/zp43DhzwanDApoPCIgCvJQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">understand</a> the effects of TikTok: children under 14 years old who use Douyin, the version of TikTok available in China, are only permitted 40 minutes of screen time each day and cannot access the platform at night.

TikTok

U.S. Surgeon General Issues Advisory About Kids’ Use Of Social Media

U.S. Government Issues Advisory About Kids’ Use Of Social Media

U.S.

U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy believes children 13 years old are too young to join social media platforms, citing kids are still &#8220;developing their identity,&#8221; and such engagement can create a distorted sense of themselves.
Murthy, who has served as surgeon general under the Obama and the Biden administrations, signaled the warning in an interview with <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/29/health/surgeon-general-social-media/index.html">CNN</a>, noting adolescents should only be allowed to access the platforms until they were 16 years old at the earliest.
&#8220;It&#8217;s a time, you know, early adolescence, where kids are developing their identity, their sense of self,&#8221; Murthy said. &#8220;It&#8217;s a time where it&#8217;s really important for us to be thoughtful about what&#8217;s going into how they think about their own self-worth and their relationships, and the skewed and often distorted environment of social media often does a disservice to many of those children.&#8221;
Social media giant platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter require a minimum age of 13 to join.
Murthy further noted the issue with addictive algorithms, which pits youth against Big Tech.
&#8220;You have some of the best designers and product developers in the world who have designed these products to make sure people are maximizing the amount of time they spend on these platforms,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And if we tell a child, use the force of your willpower to control how much time you&#8217;re spending, you&#8217;re pitting a child against the world&#8217;s greatest product designers.&#8221;
&#8220;And that&#8217;s just not a fair fight,&#8221; he added. &#8220;And so that&#8217;s why I think our kids need help.&#8221;
The Journal of the American Medical Association published a <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2799812?guestAccessKey=7fedb432-3c46-496d-be6b-e9b7394a71f2&amp;utm_source=For_The_Media&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=ftm_links&amp;utm_content=tfl&amp;utm_term=010323">study</a> earlier this month which sampled 178 12-year-olds from three public middle schools in North Carolina and reviewed how often the minors check social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat.
Researchers found individuals with habitual checking behaviors showed initial hypoactivation but increasing sensitivity to potential social cues over time. Nonhabitual individuals, however, showed initial hyperactivation and decreasing sensitivity.
&#8220;Our findings suggest that checking behaviors on social media in early adolescence may tune the brain&#8217;s sensitivity to potential social rewards and punishments,&#8221; Dr. Eva Telzer, co-author of the study and a professor in developmental psychology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said.
Dr. Adriana Stacey told CNN using social media releases a &#8220;dopamine dump&#8221; and compared the addictiveness of smartphones to cocaine.
&#8220;It tells our brains to keep using that,&#8221; Stacey said. &#8220;For teenagers in particular, this part of their brain is actually hyperactive compared to adults. They can&#8217;t get motivated to do anything else.&#8221;
Surgeon General Murthy called on parents to band together to prevent their children from logging on to social media platforms until they&#8217;re at least 16 years old.
&#8220;That&#8217;s a much more effective strategy in making sure your kids don&#8217;t get exposed to harm early,&#8221; he said.
Seattle Public School District officials filed a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/seattle-public-school-district-sues-big-tech-over-mental-health-crisis-among-youth">lawsuit</a> earlier this month against several social media platform owners, including Facebook and TikTok, for allegedly intentionally cultivating and creating a mental health crisis among the youth and have caused a public nuisance affecting Seattle Public Schools.
President Joe Biden drew attention to social media platforms in his 2022 State of the Union Address, alleging the harm social media has wrought on American youth should implore all to &#8220;hold social media platforms accountable for the national experiment they&#8217;re conducting on our children for profit.&#8221;

Internet Addiction

U.S. Surgeon General Warns 13-Years-Old Is Too Young To Join Social Media

13-Years-Old Is Too Young To Join Social Media, U.S. Surgeon General Warns

Children's Health

Menu