If parents thought 2024 would be the year Congress passed legislation to protect their kids online, they were wrong. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his company Meta managed to hold it off, Ruth reports. Meta, once reviled by Republicans, has restored its relationship to the party and pushed off legislation that would have significantly changed its platform. The company deployed key lobbyists, campaign financing and other assets to convince lawmakers to take a fresh look at the issue next year. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) never brought the Kids Online Safety Act, which had already passed the Senate, to the House floor for a vote, citing First Amendment concerns. Despite immense pressure from parents, Congress left Washington without passing a bill that would have required social media companies to remove product features doctors say harm kids’ health, such as endless content scrolling and notifications pulling them back onto the platform. Erin chatted with Ruth about why the bill stalled and what comes next for kids’ safety: Why did this kids’ safety bill die and what does Meta have to do with it? The bill died over concerns that it violates free speech rights. Meta hasn’t said this publicly, but a large industry lobbying group it belongs to has repeatedly said the bill violates free speech and has sued states with similar laws on the books. It is also notable that Meta has disproportionately donated to House Republicans, where the bill ultimately stalled. KOSA’s supporters say the bill doesn’t violate free speech and is a product liability bill. What are the implications of Zuckerberg’s influence in Congress? Members of Congress have repeatedly aired frustrations over tech companies having too much sway in Washington, effectively preventing them from reaching consensus on how to regulate social platforms. After holding hearings and listening to Meta whistleblowers and researchers, they have enough data to make the case that, yes, social platforms are actively harming youth mental health. But this influence — the money, the concerns over free speech and the threat of lawsuits — may be keeping lawmakers in limbo. What are you watching in coming months along this storyline? The canary in the coal mine for this issue has been lawsuits. Parents of kids who were harmed by social media, who developed an eating disorder or severe depression or harmed themselves as a result of their online experiences, have sued large tech companies. Those suits are ongoing. Now, we’re starting to see kids self-harm after engaging with AI chatbots. KOSA doesn’t address that problem and I imagine lawmakers will have to think about that as they confront the issue next year. Disney princesses face hidden health risks, the British Medical Journal’s light-hearted Christmas edition says. Our favorite: Cinderella’s dust exposure puts her at risk of developing occupational lung disease, a condition exacerbated by her fairy godmother’s liberal use of magical glitter. Health executives have their asks in order for the incoming administration. In a letter to the co-chairs of President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team, the Healthcare Leadership Council, an association of executives across health sectors, laid out its priorities for the coming years. What they want: The group asked Trump to support policies it says will increase access to quality care: boosting value-based care models, removing regulatory barriers to medical research for new treatments and partnering with Medicare Advantage plans. The group also asked the incoming administration to tackle tech policies that could impact the health sector, including expanding support for telehealth, promoting best practices to improve cybersecurity and taking the lead on artificial intelligence in health care. Why it matters: Trump will have significant power early in his administration. Republicans control the House and Senate, and as incoming president, he’ll have huge influence on legislative and regulatory outcomes. How Trump works with the health industry alongside his industry-skeptical HHS nominee, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., could affect policy that governs insurers, providers, patients and drug makers. POLITICO Pro’s unique analysis combines exclusive transition intelligence and data visualization to help you understand not just what’s changing, but why it matters for your organization. Explore how POLITICO Pro will make a difference for you. If Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants to overhaul leadership at the National Institutes of Health, House leaders charged with overseeing the agency say he’ll be within his rights, our Chelsea Cirruzzo reports. How so? In a report from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, current Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), incoming Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) said that 14 of 27 NIH center directors were not properly reappointed by HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra after their terms expired at the end of 2021. The report concludes that the incoming administration would have legal standing to dismiss NIH directors, who head divisions in charge of various aspects of health research and serve five-year terms. Directors named in the report include Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and Dr. Joshua Gordon, director of the National Institute of Mental Health. What’s next: Rodgers is retiring from Congress, but Guthrie is expected to continue her effort to make changes at the NIH.