As the United States grapples with age verification laws for accessing adult content, the debate over online pornography has reached a fever pitch. With 17 states now enforcing restrictions and Georgia set to follow in July, the implications of these measures extend far beyond state lines. The recent reelection of Donald Trump has added a new layer of complexity to the issue, particularly given the growing influence of Project 2025—a far-right policy agenda that includes a national pornography ban. While Trump has publicly disavowed Project 2025, it remains noteworthy because several members of his cabinet and advisors contributed to its creation, signaling its potential sway in shaping federal policy. (More on that later.)
The State-Level Push for Age Verification
At the heart of these restrictions is the goal of protecting minors from explicit content. Florida’s House Bill 3, for example, mandates that adult websites verify users’ ages through government-issued identification or other technologies. Similar laws have taken effect in states like Texas, Tennessee, and South Carolina, creating a patchwork of regulations impacting over 120 million Americans.
One of the most notable responses has come from Pornhub, the world’s largest adult content platform, founded in 2007. In states such as Texas, Utah, and Florida, Pornhub has preemptively restricted access to its site entirely, opting not to comply with the stringent age verification requirements. Instead of their usual homepage, users attempting to visit Pornhub in these states are greeted with a message and video featuring adult performer Cherie DeVille. The message explains the company’s position, emphasizing that these laws pose serious risks to user privacy and security by requiring the collection of sensitive personal data.
What makes Pornhub’s response even more striking is their call to action for users. The website encourages visitors to reach out to their state representatives and voice their opposition to the legislation, framing it as both ineffective and intrusive. According to Pornhub, such laws will not effectively prevent minors from accessing explicit content and could instead drive users to unsafe or non-compliant platforms.
Pornhub’s parent company, Aylo, has also been vocal in its criticism, citing concerns over data security in light of recent high-profile breaches. Aylo argues that requiring users to provide government-issued IDs creates a significant vulnerability, putting millions at risk of having their private browsing habits exposed. The company’s decision to block access in these states has intensified the debate over whether these laws are achieving their intended goals or merely infringing on the rights of consenting adults.
What Have Federal Courts Have Said
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld the idea that not all explicit content is obscene—and therefore, much of it is protected under the First Amendment. The landmark 1973 case Miller v. California set the standard for determining what qualifies as legally obscene and, consequently, unprotected by the First Amendment. Under the Miller test, content is only deemed obscene if it meets all three of these criteria:
1. It predominantly appeals to prurient interests, as judged by local community standards.
2. It depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, as defined by applicable state law.
3. It lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value when evaluated as a whole.
This test has created a high bar for labeling content as obscene. Courts have repeatedly ruled that explicit material can avoid the label if it holds any broader value—whether artistic, educational, or expressive. For example, adult films with storylines or creative direction often pass the Miller test, even if they contain explicit scenes.
Additionally, what is considered “patently offensive” varies by region, making enforcement inconsistent. This subjectivity means that pornography deemed acceptable in one community might not be in another. Courts have generally erred on the side of protecting speech unless the material is entirely devoid of value and overtly offensive under local standards.
This legal framework explains why mainstream pornography, carefully crafted to avoid violating obscenity laws, continues to be protected speech. Unless new regulations redefine obscenity or challenge these precedents, much of the adult entertainment industry will remain shielded by the First Amendment.
The Rise of VPNs and the Limits of Regulation
One of the most visible consequences of state-imposed age verification laws has been a dramatic surge in the use of virtual private networks (VPNs). These tools allow users to mask their location and bypass geographic restrictions, rendering state-level bans ineffective for tech-savvy individuals. In Florida, searches for “VPN” spiked by over 1,100% in the days following the implementation of the new law. Similar trends have been observed in states like Texas and Utah, raising questions about the practicality of enforcing these measures.
While VPNs offer a workaround for users, they also highlight a critical flaw in the current regulatory framework. Minors can just as easily use VPNs to access restricted content, undermining the laws’ primary objective. This technological loophole underscores the need for more sophisticated and targeted solutions that address the root of the problem without infringing on adults’ rights to privacy and free expression.
Federal Implications Under a Trump Administration
The reelection of Donald Trump adds an additional layer of complexity to the debate over pornography regulations. While Trump distanced himself from the controversial Project 2025 during his campaign, his appointments of key figures associated with the initiative suggest that its ideas may still influence his administration. The Heritage Foundation, which authored Project 2025, has explicitly called for a national pornography ban, framing explicit content as harmful and undeserving of First Amendment protections.
That said, Trump has often demonstrated a pragmatic, common-sense approach to policymaking. Given his focus on larger national and global challenges, it seems unlikely that he would prioritize a legal battle over pornography—particularly one that would face accusations of infringing on freedom of speech. Such a fight would not only create divisive headlines but also divert attention from more pressing issues, such as economic recovery, international relations, and national security.
Moreover, Trump’s previous handling of contentious social issues provides clues about how he might approach this matter. For instance, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Trump supported leaving the decision on abortion laws to individual states rather than pushing for federal legislation. This approach respected the principles of federalism while avoiding a protracted national battle. It stands to reason that Trump might take a similar stance on pornography regulations, leaving the issue to state governments to decide for themselves rather than attempting to impose federal restrictions.
This perspective aligns with his pragmatic tendencies: battling to redefine obscenity at the federal level would be an uphill legal and political fight, especially given the current legal framework established by Supreme Court rulings like Miller v. California (1973). These precedents protect non-obscene adult content under the First Amendment, making a national ban highly unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny. In contrast, allowing states to enact and enforce their own laws on pornography aligns with Trump’s inclination to decentralize contentious social issues.
While Trump’s appointments of figures associated with Project 2025 indicate that far-right voices may influence some aspects of his administration, his own track record suggests he is likely to focus on issues he deems more impactful and politically advantageous. As a result, the federal government may opt to stay out of the pornography debate, leaving it to the states to implement and defend their own age verification and content regulation laws.
The Growing Divide: A Nation Split on Pornography Laws
As states roll out age verification laws and restrictions on adult content, the issue has exposed a deep divide in American society. On one side, proponents argue these measures are critical to safeguarding children from explicit material, framing them as a moral and social necessity. Many conservative-leaning states have embraced these regulations, viewing them as aligned with community values and family-focused priorities.
On the other hand, critics see these laws as a dangerous encroachment on personal freedoms and privacy. Civil liberties groups, tech experts, and free speech advocates argue that these measures open the door to government overreach and unnecessary surveillance. This tension reflects broader cultural and political divides between progressive and conservative values, with states adopting starkly different approaches to regulation.
The geographical disparities are also striking. Southern and Republican-majority states, such as Texas, Florida, and Tennessee, are leading the charge on enforcing age verification, while others, like California and New York, are unlikely to follow suit. The result is a fragmented digital landscape where access to adult content depends on where you live, leaving millions of Americans to navigate inconsistent rules and contentious debates.
These divides reflect a broader ideological struggle over the role of government in regulating morality, privacy, and free speech in the digital age. As the issue escalates, it underscores how deeply polarized the nation remains—not just on pornography, but on the values that underpin American democracy itself.
The Road Ahead
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on Texas’ age verification law later this month, the outcome will likely set the tone for future debates over online pornography. A ruling in favor of the law could embolden other states and even federal lawmakers to pursue similar measures, while a decision against it could force a reevaluation of current approaches.
Regardless of the legal outcomes, the intersection of technology, politics, and ethics will continue to shape the discourse. The rise of VPNs, the potential for federal intervention, and the ongoing concerns about privacy highlight the complexities of regulating online content in a digital age.
While the intentions behind these laws are noble, their implementation must carefully balance the need to protect children with the rights of adults to access lawful content without fear of surveillance or data breaches. As this issue evolves, policymakers, industry leaders, and advocacy groups must work together to find solutions that are both effective and equitable—before the digital divide grows even wider.
Disclaimer
This article is an opinion piece that examines the ongoing debate over online pornography regulations, age verification laws, and their broader implications for privacy, free speech, and public policy. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not endorse or oppose any specific individual, organization, platform, or policy.
References to Project 2025, a policy agenda developed by The Heritage Foundation, are included solely for context and public interest. It is explicitly noted that President Donald Trump has publicly disavowed Project 2025 and expressed disagreement with parts of its proposals. Mentions of Project 2025 or individuals associated with it are not intended to suggest endorsement or direct connection to federal actions but rather to highlight ongoing discussions shaping public policy.
Mentions of companies, including Pornhub or other platforms, are factual and based on publicly available information. This article does not make claims about their operations, intentions, or legal compliance and does not seek to harm their reputation or misrepresent their activities.
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, political, or policy advice. Readers are encouraged to consult multiple sources for a comprehensive understanding of the topics discussed. The author and publisher disclaim any liability for how the content of this article is interpreted or used.
