News
How to give kids autonomy? 'Anxious Generation' author says a license to roam helps
The author’s 8-year-old daughter Rosy has a ‘kids’ license,’ showing she has her parents’ permission to ride her bike around her Texas hometown.
Michaeleen Doucleff
hide caption
toggle caption
Michaeleen Doucleff
The author’s 8-year-old daughter Rosy has a ‘kids’ license,’ showing she has her parents’ permission to ride her bike around her Texas hometown.
Michaeleen Doucleff
American kids are being walloped by a hurtful combination, says social psychologist Jonathan Haidt: too much screen time and too little autonomy.
In his new book, The Anxious Generation, Haidt argues that these two key factors have combined to cause the mental health crisis now facing America’s teenagers. A study by the health policy research organization KFF shows that 1 in 5 adolescents reports symptoms of anxiety and depression. Haidt’s book offers a series of recommendations for flipping both of these factors around.
For example, Haidt gives this advice to parents of children ages 6 to 13: “Practice letting your kids out of your sight without them having a way to reach you. While you cook dinner for your friends, send your kids out with theirs to the grocery store to pick up more garlic — even if you don’t need it.”
But as many parents know, granting kids more autonomy while delaying access to smartphones can be way tougher than it sounds.
Parents confront resistance from many directions: school policies, neighbors, other parents and even the law. Some parents have even faced prosecution. So I wanted to talk with Haidt, who is a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, about the details of implementing some of his recommendations.
I started our conversation by telling him a story about my daughter, who was 7 at the time:
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Last summer, my husband and I taught our daughter to walk or ride her bike to the local market on her own. Within a few months, police had stopped her not once, but twice. The first time, they brought her home in the back of the police car, which scared her quite a lot.
How do you give children more independence when our law enforcement, our neighborhood and our communities aren’t used to it?
Parents need to act collectively:
Step 1: We need to change laws in states to make it explicit that giving your kids independence cannot be taken as evidence of neglect on its own. We’ve already passed that law in eight states [Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois and Montana]. It’s being considered in many others.
Step 2: We then have to change group-level norms. And we can do that with what’s called the Let Grow Experience. You encourage your elementary school administrators to download the materials from Let Grow [a nonprofit organization that Haidt co-founded to foster childhood independence]. That material gives teachers instructions for assigning kids a specific type of homework. Teachers tell children, “Go home, talk with your parents and find something that you think you can do, but you’ve never been allowed to do before. Something you think you can do by yourself.”
Like going to the store on their bike a few blocks away?
Exactly. Children agree with parents on what the task is. And then the child does this type of assignment once a month for six months.
The brilliant part of this challenge is that it changes the norms. Before you know it, it’s normal to see an 8-year-old carrying a quart of milk. It’s normal to see a 9-year-old on a bicycle — that’s how you change the norms.
So after the second police incident, we actually went to the Let Grow website and printed out the little licenses that kids can carry, saying that their parents have given them permission to walk around town. And our daughter loved that.
Oh good! That was my invention.
Well, thank you. It worked well. We actually thought about going to the police with other parents and discussing how we want our children to walk and ride around the neighborhood without problems.
Oh, I should have put that in the book. So, yeah, once the school does the Let Grow Experience, you can get 10 parents to go into the police station and say, “Here’s what we want to do with our kids. And we want to make sure there’s no trouble with it.”
In your book, you also recommend waiting to give children smartphones until at least high school. As a parent, I’m already hearing parents talk about giving their 9-year-olds a smartphone. How do you even broach the subject with other parents about delaying, without sounding judgy or angering them? I worry that I’ll hurt the friendship between our children.
Why not suggest that the 9-year-olds have a flip phone that only has the ability to make phone calls and text? No access to the internet.
Parents think the only option is a smartphone or no phone at all. That’s what I thought. So I gave my son my old smartphone when he was in fourth grade and started walking to school. It didn’t occur to me to give him a more basic phone. So that was just a failure of imagination. And it’s funny because most of the parents now are millennials who grew up with flip phones. The flip phones let them connect. It did not harm them. I see no evidence that flip phones harmed millennials. So just give the 9-year-old a flip phone.
So flip phones allow parents to communicate with their children while they’re away from home without giving them access to the internet and all the risks associated with it, such as the risk of bringing strangers into their lives.
Yes, it’s really internet-linked devices that allow companies [and strangers] to reach your child directly. And that’s really, really a bad thing.
Gosh, I hope it will be that easy to get many parents to go along with this and switch to flip phones. I know I will try.
To change things, we need coordinated action, like this. Parents feel hopeless right now. But they shouldn’t feel that way. Things are going to change very quickly because we all want them to change.
Last question: The Anxious Generation focuses on smartphones, especially during middle school. But for many younger children, iPads and game consoles can consume nearly all their time out of school. Is there a developmental trajectory in which children develop screen-based habits at a very young age so that when they do have a phone, it’s hard to regulate because long screen times have become a habit?
What you’re describing is what I call a phone-based child. It doesn’t start with the first smartphone. It starts with the first screens. When I say phone in the book, I don’t just mean the smartphone — I mean every internet-enabled device.
If we’re going to keep all of our kids alone in our houses because we’re afraid to let them explore their neighborhood autonomously, then they’re going to get bored. But if we make much more effort to have them spend time with other kids without screens, guess what? They’ll figure out a game to play. If you send them outside, they’ll figure out something to do. You know, in the ’60s and ’70s, there were crime waves, but parents still sent their kids outside to play. Today many parts of the country are much safer, and yet we’re so afraid to let children go outside. If we’re going to take away screens from children, then we have to give them freedom outside too.
This story was edited by Jane Greenhalgh.
News
As Supreme Court expands Trump’s immigration power, experts warn of steeper U.S. population decline
President Trump holds up a bill funding immigration enforcement after signing it in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, June 10, 2026, in Washington.
Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP
Even before the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Trump has broad power to deport hundreds of thousands of migrants living legally in the U.S. under temporary protected status, David Bier feared the U.S. was slipping toward a demographic cliff.
“We’re destined to be there, in short order, there’s no question,” Bier said. “We’re already seeing a situation where most counties in the United States had more deaths than births.”
An expert on population and immigration at the libertarian Cato Institute, Bier believes the U.S. is beginning to look more like China, Italy and South Korea — nations that face rapid aging and population decline are seen as a crisis.

U.S. birthrates have been declining for decades. There are far too few children born each year to maintain a stable population.
Until last year, high rates of foreign immigration largely offset that trend. But for the first time since the 1930s, during the Great Depression, the U.S. now faces record low birthrates and low numbers of migrants at the same time.
“Our higher birthrates of a century ago are not coming back. There’s no way to have a sustainable fiscal and economic situation that doesn’t involve immigration,” Bier said.
Trump’s legal fight to end temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of Haitians, Syrians and others living in the U.S. legally is only one part of a wider administration effort to squeeze immigration.
The Supreme Court also ruled this week that the administration has authority to block most asylum seekers from entering the country. Federal agents have also conducted raids in cities across the U.S., to accelerate deportations.
Last month, Trump issued an executive order that could make it harder for many migrants living in the U.S. without full legal status to use banking and financial services.
Many immigration opponents see these changes as progress. In a statement following this week’s Supreme Court decisions. A spokesman for the Federation for Immigration Reform said Trump should have full authority to direct who enters the U.S.
“Our immigration laws are written to be pro-enforcement, not anti-enforcement,” said FAIR’s Christopher Hajec.
But according to Cato’s Bier, Trump’s policies are already reshaping the demographics of communities, meaning there are fewer workers, consumers, taxpayers, and children in schools.
“If you’re not allowing immigration, you’re going to have [an aging and] a declining population and that creates all kinds of problems,” Bier said.
Economists say that without migrants, the number of young workers paying into Social Security will fall more rapidly; schools in many areas will close; and the number of young families having children will decline.
Census data already shows big changes to U.S. population
The immigration decline under Trump is dramatic. In 2024, roughly 2.7 million foreign migrants entered the U.S., according to the Census Bureau. This year, census experts predict that number could drop as low as 300,000. Some demographers believe the U.S. may be reaching a point where more migrants are leaving than entering.

Impacts of this massive shift on America’s wider population are already emerging. Studies by the Census Bureau, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Federal Reserve all point to a more rapidly aging national population under Trump.
Population growth in the U.S. fell by half in 2025 from the previous year, with five states losing population. Census data shows the total number of young Americans, those under age 25, is already falling nationwide.
William Frey, a demographer at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, described last week’s Supreme Court rulings as “alarming.” He believes without robust foreign immigration, more states will quickly see their populations stagnate or decline.
“Not just in big immigration states, but in places that have relatively small numbers of immigrants, you know, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska — those states require immigrants to get any population growth,” Frey said.
Even before Trump’s policies curbed immigration, the U.S. population was expected to decline later this century. Experts say low immigration rates will cause that downward trend to happen much sooner.
According to Frey, the U.S. has time to reverse course. But he believes the Trump administration is committed to lowering both legal and illegal immigration over the long term, a policy he described as dangerous.
“This is as clear as the nose on your face,” he said. “You’ve got to have this growth in the younger population if you’re going to survive. Immigration is a key part of that going forward.”
“America’s doors are closed”
Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy, speaks with reports at the White House, Thursday, June 25, 2026, in Washington.
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
The Trump administration sees this very differently, describing foreign migrants not as people who sustain state populations and economies, but as a social burden and a threat.
“America’s doors are closed fully to asylum seekers,” Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top White House policy advisors, said on Thursday.
Speaking with reporters, Miller described the Supreme Court rulings as a victory and said ending birthright citizenship for the children of migrants born in the U.S. is the next step.
“This country doesn’t have a future if we don’t end birthright citizenship,” Miller said. Justices are expected to rule on birthright citizenship as early as next week.
This kind of opposition to both legal and illegal immigration is now widespread among conservatives, said Cato’s David Bier, who worked as a Republican congressional staffer on immigration policy.
He told NPR that when he talks to conservatives about the economic and demographic risks of closing the country’s doors to migrants, many answer with a cultural argument. “[They] would rather have a declining population of ‘true Americans’ than have an economy kept afloat by people who don’t share [their] values,” Bier said.
But if extremely low or zero-level immigration does become the new normal for the U.S., experts say it would swiftly remake the fabric of the country. The Census Bureau estimates that without robust migration in the coming years, total population loss by the end of this century could exceed 107 million people.
News
Utah County declares State of Emergency as wildfires ‘ravage’ the state
UTAH COUNTY, Utah (ABC4) — Utah County has declared a state of emergency.
According to an announcement from the Utah County Commissioner Skyler Beltran, the county is in a dire position due to the extensive wildfires in the area and high fire risk.
The announcement states that declaring the State of Emergency will allow the county to access additional resources, and notes there is no imminent threat to Utah County residents.
“We have utilized a tremendous amount of our resources (very early in the traditional fire season schedule) responding to the Iron Fire and continue to face ongoing recovery concerns,” the statement read. “This was even before the Maple Peak and Cherry fires, which have now merged and are moving toward the Iron Fire.”
The Iron Fire, which started last week, has burned over 40,000 acres. Around 22,830 of those acres were in Utah County. Reportedly, the county has limited resources available to help those who are evacuating from Juab County, including the 600 residents in the Town of Eureka.
Due to the influx in evacuees, the Utah County Commission says that more resources are necessary to help the evacuation shelters in Elberta, Utah. Additionally, due to the Iron Fire and other wildfires, Utah County is facing immense repair needs to avoid future flooding, loss of homes, and disruption to local economies and ecosystems.
There is “imminent threat” to public safety due to the damage.
The commission also asks the public to be vigilant when handling heavy equipment, using campfires or barbecues, and discharging fireworks, to avoid preventing fires.
Their statement added, “Our firefighters are exhausted, our resources are stretched thin and we are in a very vulnerable position.”
News
A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor (seated left) and Justice Samuel Alito (seated second from right).
Alex Wong/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Wong/Getty Images
As the Supreme Court heads into the announcement of its final and hugely important opinions next week, there are reverberations from this week’s announcements, and Justice Samuel Alito’s public rebuke of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
On Thursday, Justice Alito summarized from the bench three very big opinions he authored for the court’s six justice conservative majority. Alito, unlike most of his colleagues, doesn’t spend much time on these summaries. And it is rare that a justice has three big opinions to announce, but it is almost the end of the term, and there are a lot of big cases still outstanding.
The first case he announced came and went. Alito then moved on to a second case, this one tests whether migrants may apply for asylum in the U.S. by going to one of several ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexican border, and presenting themselves for admission. This entails presenting documents that persuade an asylum officer that applicants’ fear of persecution in their home country is credible enough to allow them to enter the U.S. while their asylum application is processed. Alito’s opinion ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of refusing all such applicants by blocking them at the border. It was a policy also followed at one time by the Obama administration until it was blocked by the lower courts.
After Alito finished his summary of the opinion, he paused, at which point Justice Sotomayor read a summary of her contrary views in dissent. When she finished, however, Justice Alito did not move on to the announcement of his third opinion. Instead, he did something that nobody in the press corps ever remembers happening before. Looking much as if he had just bitten into a lemon, Alito said, “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read.” And he then went on to a short extemporaneous rebuttal.
What caused the hissy fit? Did Sotomayor really fail to tell him she would have an oral dissent? That really would have been a breach of the court’s practices. A justice typically notifies the chief justice and the author of the majority opinion in writing if there is to be an oral dissent.
In response Friday to an inquiry from NPR came this terse statement from the court’s public information office.
“Justice Alito was notified in advance by Justice Sotomayor’s chambers that she would be reading a dissent from the bench. It was a misunderstanding on Justice Alito’s part.”
-
New York42 minutes agoMetropolitan Diary Challenge Day 1: What Is Your N.Y. Story?
-
Los Angeles, Ca49 minutes agoLASD releases video of man shot by deputy after allegedly charging them with knife
-
Detroit, MI1 hour agoRick Mahorn returns to coaching Detroit basketball with BIG3 Amps
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour agoSuspect arrested after shooting near San Francisco Pride events, police say
-
Dallas, TX1 hour agoDallas shooting injures 2 as police search for suspect
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoColombia wins Group K after 0-0 draw with Portugal in Miami Stadium; both teams advance to World Cup knockouts
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoBeyond the frame: ‘Where’s Boston?’ revisited through new oral histories – Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoArizona Cardinals will face Denver Broncos QB Bo Nix for 1st time