In a move critics say targets free expression under the guise of “protecting children,” Senator Mike Lee has introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act—a bill that would radically reshape how explicit content is defined and prosecuted under federal law. Backed by Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s Christian nationalist fever dream of a policy agenda, the bill expands the definition of “obscenity” so drastically that a meme, a movie still, or a risqué gif could soon be criminalized.
This is not Mike Lee’s first attempt. It’s his third.
What the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act Really Is
The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) aims to “modernize” obscenity standards by replacing the Supreme Court’s long-standing Miller Test. Instead of considering whether something has “literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,” the new standard would rely on vague moral panic and a single guiding question: Does this content arouse someone? If so, it could be a federal crime.
This isn’t about malicious intent, either. Under the new framework, intent doesn’t matter. Accidentally post or share something that a judge deems obscene? You’re still liable.
See also: Have You Seen Them? 300+ Billboards Just Exposed Trump and Elon Musk’s War on National Parks
The Project 2025 Connection
The bill is deeply aligned with Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s authoritarian policy playbook for the next Republican presidency. The document doesn’t just target what it calls “degrading” media — it explicitly claims that sexual content is responsible for “the propagation of transgender ideology.”
That phrasing tells you everything you need to know: protecting kids is the excuse, but suppressing marginalized people is the goal.
Who’s at Risk? Basically Everyone
IODA wouldn’t just affect big tech or adult content creators. Its definitions are so sweeping that it could criminalize:
-
Erotic literature
-
Art photography
-
Lingerie modeling
-
LGBTQ+ expression
-
Memes and satire
-
Even educational materials about sex or consent
This isn’t regulation. It’s erasure.
And yes, some of the loudest critics are sex workers and creators—because they see exactly what’s coming. But this bill doesn’t just target them. It targets anyone who engages with or shares sexual expression online, consensual or otherwise.
See also: Robert De Niro Just Dragged Trump in the Middle of Cannes’ Opening Night
What Mike Lee and His Allies Are Saying
Mike Lee has framed the bill as a necessary crackdown on content that “degrades human beings and ruins lives.” His language echoes the Heritage Foundation’s broader messaging that online media is a moral cancer infecting society.
Representative Mary Miller, Lee’s co-sponsor, has backed similar proposals and is known for her alignment with the far-right wing of the Republican Party. They’re not pretending this is neutral policy — it’s a culture war on a legal platform.
Why It Matters
If passed, the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act would mark one of the most significant rollbacks of speech protections in recent U.S. history. It would pave the way for federal bans on massive categories of online expression and give the government unprecedented power to define what’s acceptable to see, share, and say.
It’s not just a free speech issue. It’s a labor issue. It’s a queer issue. And it’s an authoritarian dream.
See also: Trump Approves $142 Billion Arms Deal with Saudi Arabia—The Largest in U.S. History
What Happens Next
Congress will take up the bill in committee, though its chances of passing depend heavily on Republican momentum in the House and Senate. Whether it advances or stalls, it’s a loud signal of what’s coming next if Project 2025 becomes reality.
And just like every other attempt to legislate morality, it won’t stop with this bill. IODA is just the test balloon. What they really want is a country where they decide what you’re allowed to see, create, or be.
