You can’t claim to protect children by locking them out of the future.
That’s exactly what Congress is poised to do with a new bipartisan proposal that sounds like a “child safety” win but looks a lot more like the next step toward a national digital ID system.
The Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act of 2025 (GUARD Act), introduced by Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) and co-sponsored by Democrats and Republicans alike, would make it illegal for anyone under 18 to use popular AI chatbots, including ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, and Meta AI.
It would also require every American, adult or child, to upload a government ID or biometric data just to log in. No guest mode, no parental consent option, no educational exemption.
On paper, it’s about protecting kids from AI harm. But in practice, it’s about surrendering digital freedom to the government.
A Well-Meaning Overreach
In Hawley’s press release, the bill is framed as a “child protection” measure to stop predatory chatbots that mimic human relationships and push sexual or harmful content.
Those risks are very real. Senate hearings earlier this year highlighted devastating stories of teens groomed or manipulated by unregulated AI platforms like Character.AI. Parents testified about bots that encouraged self-harm and suicide.
But the solution offered in the GUARD Act, a total ban for anyone under 18 and mandatory government ID verification for everyone else, goes far beyond the problem.
Here’s what the text actually does:
| Section | Mandate | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Sec. 3(1)-(2) | Defines “AI companion” as any chatbot simulating friendship, therapy, or emotional interaction | Sweeps up ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, Meta AI, and Snapchat’s “My AI” — not just explicit bots |
| Sec. 5(b) | Requires verified accounts via government ID or “commercially reasonable” method (like Yoti or ID.me) | No anonymity; self-reported age becomes illegal |
| Sec. 6 | Prohibits minors from accessing any AI companion | Total under-18 ban — no parental override |
| Sec. 4 | Criminal penalties for AI that solicits sexual content or promotes self-harm | Up to $100,000 per violation |
Violations can be prosecuted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or state attorneys general.
Essentially this bill hands sweeping new enforcement powers to government bureaucrats, all in the name of “protecting children.”
The Parallel Push: App Store Accountability Act
If this framework sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve seen it before. Last week, we shared a detailed report of the App Store Accountability Act.
The GUARD Act mirrors the App Store Accountability Act (ASAA), sponsored by Rep. John James (R-MI) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT). The press release from James’s office describes it as a way to “hold Big Tech accountable” and “give parents more control.”
But like GUARD, the ASAA would require identity-linked verification for every user, adults and minors alike, and allow only those with verified parental accounts to download age-restricted apps.
Both bills claim to empower parents. Both end up empowering the state.
And both pave the way for a digital identity system that would make anonymous online activity, including political speech, practically impossible.
A Collision Course with Trump’s AI Vision
Here’s where it gets even more confusing.
Just six months ago, President Trump signed an executive order calling for AI in every classroom. His April 23, 2025 Executive Order on Advancing AI Education (note: official link pending public archive) directs federal agencies to integrate AI tutoring tools into K-12 schools, fund teacher training, and “prepare students for an AI-driven workforce.”
Trump’s goal is simple: make American students competitive in a world where AI is as fundamental as reading and writing.
But if the GUARD Act passes, a 10th-grader using ChatGPT for a history paper could be breaking federal law. A teacher using an adaptive AI tool like Khanmigo could risk penalties for “enabling minor access.”
So which is it? Is AI the future of education — or a digital danger zone off-limits to every student under 18?
The Digital ID Endgame
Beyond the AI question, the GUARD Act and ASAA share a deeper, structural problem: they normalize identity as the price of access.
Both bills rely on third-party “verifiers” like ID.me, Yoti, or AU10TIX to scan, store, and re-verify user data. That means millions of government IDs, facial scans, and birthdates sitting in centralized databases, ripe for abuse, hacking, or mission creep.
Today, the target is chatbots and app stores. Tomorrow, it could be social media, online banking, health care or even voting.
Groups across the political spectrum, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU, warn that these kinds of mandates amount to a backdoor national ID system.
We’ve already seen these concerns play out in Texas, where a state-level clone of the ASAA (SB 2420) is being challenged in court for violating free speech and privacy rights. The GUARD Act will face the same battle and the same constitutional flaws.
The Conservative Paradox
As conservatives, we believe in protecting children and restoring accountability to Big Tech. But these bills take that righteous cause and wrap it in government control.
Parents don’t gain tools, they get gatekeepers.
Safety becomes surveillance.
And “protection” comes with a permission slip from Washington.
The irony? Both Trump’s AI order and Hawley’s AI ban require the same thing: your government ID. Different goals, same infrastructure.
What We Should Be Asking
Before Congress locks in a federal digital ID framework, parents and citizens need to ask some hard questions:
- Who stores the ID data — and what happens when it’s hacked?
- Why is there no educational exception for supervised AI use?
- How does banning minors from AI help prepare them for the AI economy?
If lawmakers truly want to protect kids, there are smarter, liberty-minded alternatives:
- Zero-knowledge age verification — verify age, not identity.
- Opt-in parental dashboards like Google’s Family Link, giving parents visibility without federal tracking.
- Supervised AI modes for schools, where educators, not Washington DC, set the boundaries.
The Bottom Line
The GUARD Act and ASAA promise safety but deliver control. They replace parental choice with government mandates and trade privacy for performative protection.
And at a time when the White House is calling for AI literacy in every classroom, these bills would make it illegal for students to touch the very tools they’re supposed to learn from.
Let’s demand policies that empower families with freedom, not fear…before the gate to digital liberty closes for good.
Julie Barrett is the founder and president of Conservative Ladies of America, an organization dedicated to educating, equipping, and empowering citizens to engage in policy and advocacy that defends faith, family, and freedom.
Help Us Defend Faith, Family & Freedom
Conservative Ladies of America is a grassroots movement powered by citizens and families who believe in faith, freedom, and the Constitution. We don’t answer to big donors or party machines — we answer to YOU.
If you believe parents — not politicians — should decide what’s best for their kids, will you stand with us?
Your gift helps us educate citizens, track legislation, and hold elected officials accountable so we can keep building a movement that’s fearless, informed, and free.