Rob Sand has spent a great deal of time telling Iowans that government should stay out of their lives. He has criticized unnecessary regulation, argued for individual freedom, and presented himself as someone who trusts citizens to make their own decisions.

Apparently that trust ends when the discussion turns to raising children.

His newly announced technology plan calls for government to ban social media accounts for anyone under 16, regardless of what that child’s parents believe is appropriate. Teenagers who are 16 and 17 would still need parental consent under a new state-regulated system with age verification requirements and legal mandates. 

I am sorry, Rob.

That is not limited government.

That is government stepping directly into the family and telling parents, “We know better than you.”

I thought conservatives were the party accused of wanting government in our bedrooms. Now we have a Democratic candidate proposing government in our living rooms, deciding which websites our children may access and at what age.

That is an extraordinary expansion of state authority.

Parents already possess an incredible tool called parenting.

Parents can say yes.

Parents can say no.

Parents can set screen-time limits.

Parents can monitor accounts.

Parents can confiscate phones.

Parents can delete apps.

Parents can ground their children.

Those are family decisions, not government decisions.

Do I think social media presents real risks for young people? Absolutely. Anxiety, cyberbullying, exploitation, misinformation, and unrealistic social comparisons are genuine concerns supported by substantial research. Those concerns deserve attention.

What I do not support is replacing parental judgment with state mandates.

Government has a habit of expanding. Once politicians become comfortable deciding what websites a 15-year-old may access, what comes next? Which AI tools? Which news sites? Which video platforms? Which books? Which online communities?

Freedom rarely disappears in one dramatic moment. It usually arrives wrapped in the language of protection.

The inconsistency is what disappoints me most.

You cannot campaign on keeping government out of people’s lives while simultaneously proposing new laws that tell parents how they must raise their own children.

Pick one philosophy.

Either parents are capable of making decisions for their families, or government is.

You cannot credibly argue both positions depending upon the issue of the week.

This proposal feels less like empowering parents and more like replacing them.

That is an epic fail.

I expected better.

I expected a candidate who trusted Iowa families as much as he says he does.

Instead, I see another politician convinced that government knows best.

For me, that is a bridge too far.