I'm Tyrus. I'm Liz Klayman. I'm Greg Jarrett. And this is the Fox News Rundown. Thursday, February 12th, 2026. I'm Jessica Rosenthal. Is social media addictive? That's the question at the heart of a trial underway right now in Los Angeles, though many people impacted by social media already feel like they know the answer. It's taken thousands of children dying before these social media companies have introduced a small design safeguard. I'm Dave Anthony. We'll get a report on the housing market today at a time when there's a lot of focus on affordability. The president is very smart. He understands human psychology. He understands market. He understands real estate. And you have this situation now where interest rates are too high. And I'm Jason Chaffetz. I've got the final word on the Fox News Rundown. Two trials are underway this week against social media companies. In New Mexico, Attorney General Raul Torres filed suit against Meta in 2023, alleging a failure to stop child exploitation after conducting an undercover operation with officers posing as children on the platform. New Mexico's attorney Donald Migliore told jurors this week in opening statements. We believe the evidence in this case is that Meta made its profits while publicly misrepresenting that its platforms were safe for youth, downplaying or outright lying about what it knows about the dangers of its platforms. While internal documents reveal Meta knew of the sheer volume of child exploitation, the company has said that didn't represent individual victims or cases. The number they had, they said, captured many benign interactions. Meta says prosecutors cherry-picked data to be sensational. Now, in Los Angeles, a woman who is now 20 years old is suing, claiming that social media was addictive to her and purposely so. Her case is serving as a bellwether to help decide what should happen with thousands of other similar lawsuits. While Snap and TikTok have settled here, this case remains against Meta and YouTube. David Lanier is one of the attorneys representing the woman, and he told Fox Business this week. We've got documents where the companies themselves are claiming that they are addictive, that they are trying to drive addiction, because the more time they drive to their platforms, the more money they're able to garner. It's an attention economy that they're working. Meta has said in response to this in part that such lawsuits are an effort to blame social media for teen mental health struggles and that they've done a lot of work on parental controls and safety features meant to protect minors. Still, many parents say it's easy to get around those controls, and they find features like endless scrolling and constant notifications addicting for their teens. David, my son, he showed all the signs of a behavioral addiction, which happened after a serious basketball injury. Maureen Molak is the co-founder of Parents SOS and David's Legacy Foundation. Her son committed suicide 10 years ago after he experienced intense bullying over social media. From lying about completing his homework, he was sneaking around using his devices when he wasn't supposed to. He would get angry and aggressive and we would try to get him to stop. And he was stealing from us in order to purchase virtual assets to increase his player power. We were seeking out mental health supports when after he was medically cleared to go back and play basketball, he no longer had the desire to do that. He preferred to sit behind a screen. He was spending a lot of time on YouTube following these professional gamers who were teaching him the tips and tricks and tactics on how to circumvent parental controls and how to steal from your parents. And we, you know, we were just we were devastated and it created a lot of conflict in our home. I mean, we had before all of this happened, David was a completely different child. I mean, we grew up in a conservative Christian home, went to church every Sunday, and he was an Eagle Scout. He was a basketball player. He was an NFL football fanatic. And it wasn't until he was turning to social media and online gaming to fill that void that we started to see that change of behavior after about eight months. Wow. And this was due to an injury, right? He couldn't play basketball? He couldn't play basketball. He had fractured his back after a serious basketball injury, and then he had re-injured it. And so he was having to wear a back brace and go to, he had to lay off of it for six months and then re-injured it. So it was a lengthy injury, and he had lost his social connections. He had lost that identity, and that's when he turned to social media and online gaming. and during this period of time when we knew we were up against something that we had never experienced david was the youngest of three boys and we were dealing with something we didn't deal with with our older two two boys and and so uh you know he was getting that mental health support but remember this was 10 years ago and what we know you know we know so much more now than we knew 10 years ago. And even the mental health professionals didn't really understand it to the full capacity that they understand it now. And it was at that period of time when David became depressed and anxious over all of it. He did not want to seek out, he did not want to go to see a therapist about it. And a group of classmates knew that he was struggling and they started cyberbullying him and it started on Instagram and we call it a cyber mob. And he was just bombarded with negative comments about his mental health, his looks, threatening him, saying things like put him in a body bag, put him six feet under, telling him he should never go back to school. It was just devastating to David. It was most devastating to him because he had really put his identity into who he thought he was online. He had wanted to be this professional gamer, you know, and it just, it crushed him. The cyber bullying just crushed him. And, you know, we moved from platform to platform, started on Instagram, moved from platform to platform. And it was a few months later that David had taken his life. Oh my goodness. Maureen, because of your experience with mental health professionals here, you sought help. I want to ask you, you know, the head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, testified on Wednesday at this trial and he admitted that they talked internally about something they called PU problematic use but said he would differentiate between problematic use and clinical addiction because he said he not an expert on addiction It sounds like in this trial the attorney for the plaintiff is trying to establish that someone can be clinically addicted just because it's not drugs or alcohol. I know that's a bit technical, but it sounds like you grappled with this. Oh, absolutely. And all I can do is explain what our life was like when David was going through all of this. And just because there is no clinical diagnosis for that, if you talk to anybody in the addiction world, those behaviors that David exhibited because of his use of social media, in my mind, David was addicted. There isn't anybody in my family who does not feel that way. And you tried, it sounds like, to help, not just with mental health experts, but just within your own family. I mean, these tech companies say they put these guardrails in place, you know, parental controls, you've alluded to that, alerts, like you've been on the phone for X amount of time now, might be time to hop off. What do you make of hearing those arguments that these guardrails are in place? Well, some of those guardrails were not available to me 10 years ago. And it's taken thousands of children dying before these social media companies have introduced a small design safeguard. Most of the time, we find almost 100% of the time, they don't work. If David was going to receive a notification that he had been online for X number of hours a week, he would not have cared. He was addicted to that. And that would not have made a difference in his own personal use. I can tell you that right now because we tried to stop that. We tried to take his devices away. We tried to limit his use, and we were going by the medical advice that we were receiving at the time. And the advice that they did give us was to not take his devices away, but to just try to set limits on him. Okay, I want to ask you just a little bit more about that, because in this trial, the attorneys for the tech companies, say the girl who's apparently now 20, had a family dynamic that caused mental health struggles. and that social media was this outlet, not totally analogous to your son, but there is a little bit of overlap, right? It sounds like this was an outlet for him, given that he couldn't do what he used to be doing physically. What do you then, based on your experience, what would you tell parents? Hey, look, your kid might be going through something and they look at this as an outlet or a tool and they think it's maybe temporary. What would you tell them to do in that moment if they see their kid, you know, sort of behaving this way? Well, I think the medical profession knows so much more now than they knew 10 years ago. And so I think that there would have been a much more aggressive action taken against the, his use of social media and online gaming. I will also say to parents, if you think your child is struggling over their social media use, I would say that if you go to a mental health professional or your pediatrician and you don't get the answer that sits well with you or is giving you the resolve that you need, then you need to seek out a different person, a different professional. to help you with this because not everybody in the medical community is up to, you know, the most current research and methods to help these children who are dealing with these issues. Finally, Maureen, do you think social media companies could fix this all if they, you know, put profits aside, adopted some sort of new mentality or new business model, or does this need congressional action? Does this require legislation? Well, we've asked them. We've asked the social media companies to make changes. We've told them where their design features are faulty, and they have refused to do that. And so it's going to take congressional action to force them to make those changes, to be held accountable for putting parental guardrails in place that actually work, to stand behind their policies, to take action when there are violators instead of allowing 17 strikes for sexual exploitation on their site, and to have a duty of care. They are the only industry that we allow to not have any liability for the decisions that they make that are addicting our children. And I am hoping that once all of this evidence comes out, the parents that have been crying for me for 10 years about this are going to be vindicated because the evidence is going to prove, I believe, what we have been saying all these years. And I hope that Congress looks at the evidence. And not only do they investigate, do they determine whether or not Mark Zuckerberg, when he was under oath during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, when Mark Zuckerberg turned around and apologized to me and the other parents that were in that room, was he telling the truth? And then I hope Congress, those members, do some self-reflecting and say, you know, have we done everything in our power? Did we do everything we possibly could to ensure that America's children were safe online? Wow. Marie Molak, co-founder of Parents SOS and David's Legacy Foundation, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much. from the fox news podcast network hey there it's me kennedy make sure to check out my podcast kennedy saves the world it is five days a week every week download and listen at foxnewspodcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast this is jason chaffetz with your fox news commentary Coming up. We'll get another update on the housing market this morning. Ahead of a new report on inflation tomorrow And President Trump insists he fixing a mess he inherited Telling Larry Kudlow on Fox Business The economy the inflation the inflation was the worst ever in history They say 48 years, but basically ever in history. And the prices were high and you don't hear them use the word affordability anymore. They can't use it because we brought the prices down. Yesterday, the president on Truth Social touted, the golden age of America is upon us after a surge in hiring in January with double the number of jobs created last month and expected 130,000. The National Association of Realtors report that we'll get today for January on previously owned home sales and prices comes after a recent NAR poll showing 52 percent of those surveyed say housing affordability is a very important voting issue for them. We're digging out from Biden's housing market. And the good news is that President Trump made a decision to purchase $200 billion in mortgage bonds. Bill Pulte is the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. And what that means for consumers and those listening is that basically when that happens, the price of mortgages, the rate goes down. And so we've seen some softness in the rate, which is actually a good thing. And that obviously is helping people refinance their homes as well as buy homes. So we're doing everything that we can with the tools in our box to figure out how we get out of this thing. Because as I said, when Biden's inflation ran up, mortgage rates, if you can believe it, went all the way up to 8%. And recently we had a five handle on our mortgage rates. So it's an interesting time, but we're making progress. Now, the average rate for 30 years, somewhere in the low 6% now. Applications fell slightly last week. But interestingly, I saw that applications for an adjustable rate mortgage, we were talking about a fixed rate for 30 years in the low sixes, but adjustable rate mortgage applications rose. Those are a little bit riskier, right? Well, theoretically, they are. And obviously, anytime you don't have something that's fixed and you think it can go up, it's obviously a risk. But I think, look, people, generally speaking, are very comfortable with President Trump as the president. And he brings a certain level of stability. You know, everybody said, oh, you know, he's going to be one way or the other. Well, he actually turned out to be the most stable one. And so you look at the bond market, you look at the stock market, people view President Trump as a very good steward for the economy and for the housing market. And so I think what it reflects is really people's confidence that President Trump is a stable economic operator. And unlike some of these politicians, he really knows what's going on. And I think that's why it's so great what's happening with the Fed in terms of people are starting to wake up and say, you know what, this thing is being terribly run. These are people who are supposed to be financial stewards of our money. I mean, if there's anybody who's supposed to be in charge of our money in this country, it should be the Fed. And this Jay Powell, he just laughs at everyone and thinks that he's totally, you know, innocent when he's not. And he just, you know, he just laughs at everyone. Meanwhile, people's interest rates over the last four years under Biden went up. And so it's about time we fix this. And I can't wait for this new Fed chair to start. Well, that won't be until May when Chairman Powell leaves. But it's not just the chairman. I mean, there's the entire federal open market committee that makes the decision and votes on what to do with interest rate policy. The last time they voted to keep rates the same. How far down, how much lower do you want the Fed to bring rates? And how would that affect the mortgage that people get? Well, I think rates are at three and three quarters, three and a half, three and three quarters. I think the rates could be down to 1%. I think you've seen true inflation. You've seen some inflation data that shows that inflation is in the ones. So I think that interest rates, just like the president says, could be materially lower. And I actually think that that would be a really good thing. You have a situation, too, where President Trump has come in and just crushed inflation. I mean, if you recall, you know, just go back a year or two. Do you remember how many people were talking about how expensive things have gotten? And now people think they got expensive because of Biden, but at least people have, you know, really slowed things down and started to understand, hey, look, President Trump has this under control. Housing prices certainly rose a lot after what happened in the housing crisis and the recession in 2008 into 2009. But prices have slowed down. The increase has certainly dropped. Quotality put out a report that the annual increase last year was only about 1%. We've seen recently price declines in parts of the South and the West. But that's a double-edged sword because people who own a home don't want to see the values go down. Well, I think that's right. And I think not only do people not want to see the values go down, but they don't want to see the situation that we had in 08. And so the president is very smart. He understands human psychology. He understands market. He understands real estate. And you have this situation now where interest rates are too high, prohibitively high. And if we can fix that dynamic, I'm telling you right now, I think that people will be able to more afford a home while also preserving the value of people's homes. Okay. So the median existing home price in the last report that came out from the National Association of Realtors before the one that comes out Thursday was $405,000. Is that too much? When you're looking at the affordability issue, how do you decide or think about what's too much or what's affordable when you assess things? Well, obviously, price matters. So I would say purchase price of the homes does matter. But a big thing that we look at in terms of affordability are two things. It's the down payment. So making sure that people have enough money for a down payment. And number two, that people can afford their monthly mortgage payments. So those are the two key ingredients that we are laser focused on. So when it comes to monthly payments, obviously, the interest rates are there. And when it comes to the down payment, obviously, we're doing everything we can to work on that as well and removing costs entirely from the mortgage system. So I'm confident we'll get this problem solved, but it's going to take quite a bit of digging out after these last four years. We talked about the previously owned homes. That's a much bigger part of the housing market, but new home sales certainly are a factor, too. I know your family, you've been in the home building industry for a long time. What do you see for the building industry now? Where is home building and the cost of home building? Well, the cost of home building is an interesting question because a lot of supplies out there that the builders have and they're just not producing it. And so that's one of the things that we've been working on, working on constructively with the builders. And look, you know, people are very generous with these builders. You know, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we provide a lot of liquidity to the builders. In fact, many of these businesses would have a very hard time operating without Fannie and Freddie. And so, you know, a lot of people say, well, you know, it's capitalism and builders are capitalism in the free market. And I agree. I also agree that Fannie and Freddie have been absolutely critical for these builders and the American people have done right by these builders. And so hopefully we can all constructively work together and solve this supply problem. And I think you'll see some announcements in the coming months as it pertains to our work with home builders. And hopefully, hopefully they'll really step up to the plate because, you know, you won't believe this, but they actually have two million lots ready, willing and able to go. They just need to put them into production. Why are they holding off doing more production? Well because they make a lot of money You know I mean it kind of like OPEC with the oil right It like if you flood market too much then you know your profits go down And so look I very sensitive to economics I very sensitive to business capitalism But at the same time, we don't want people taking, we don't want companies taking advantage of the American people. And so that's really what my conversations with builders are focused on. You talk about Fannie and Freddie. Those are, right now, you as the director of the FHFA, you oversee Fannie and Freddie. And the government sort of took control after the 2008 housing crisis. There is talk, and you guys have discussed, selling parts of Fannie and Freddie private, but not taking all of it private. How would this work? Well, basically, the businesses have become very valuable. You know, President Trump was approaching his first term to sell these companies for $100 billion, if you can believe that. And now they're worth anywhere between $500 to $750 billion, people say. So, you know, it was a great decision that he made not selling the businesses. And so we have a situation now where if President Trump decides to, he can sell some of the stake in these companies, a very, very small part, probably two and a half to five percent. The government can keep its control over it and really make sure that there's a stable and liquid and solid and sound market in the mortgage market. And so, you know, it would be a win for everyone. But I would just say this. The president has the best instincts and the president will be the one to make the call. There has been talk about trying to keep investors out of buying single family homes. How much of home buying would be by an investor versus just people trying to get a new house? Well, we'll see. I think that, look, this is a great policy initiative. I think it's very popular. I think it will get done. You know what effects there will be. I think there will be significant effects in a good way for the American people. So it all depends on, you know, not just what the president is looking for the Treasury secretary and the secretary of HUD and myself to do, but also which legislation and which legislators want to push the prospective legislation. I will tell you this. Interestingly, there's almost like an internal fight in a friendly way over which a legislator can sponsor this legislation. That's how hot of a legislation it is. That's how much the American people like it. They are ready for people to be in homes, not corporations. That poll that I referenced earlier with the National Association of Realtors, only 17 percent say now is a good time to buy a house. Does that concern you? Well, it concerns me what happened the last four years under Biden, where inflation went out of control and mortgage rates went to 8%. So my focus, my constructive focus is on taking rates down from mortgage rates down from the 8% down to like recently we saw a five handle on the mortgage interest rate. So, you know, I'm kind of moving forward and saying, how do we how do we fix the problem instead of dwelling on the past? And I think, you know, we've made good progress. You know, mortgage affordability is at a four year high. Mortgage affordability is and that rates are at a multi-year low. So, look, we got more work to do, but at least the initial steps we've taken have had a dramatic effect. And we look forward to that continuing. You know, in 2019, in the late, you know, the last part of the first Trump administration, there were rates down. People were refinancing in the low threes. Do you think we'll get there again? We'll see. I tell you this, though. The president is laser focused on crushing inflation and interest rates. And I wouldn't bet against him in any way, shape or form. Now, whether that comes into rates or whether that comes into what have you, I'd say this. I think the economy is going to be incredibly strong. Nobody thought that we'd hit 50,000 on the Dow. That's entirely because of President Trump. And I think the best is yet to come. Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Thank you very much for joining us. We really appreciate your time. Of course. Thank you for having me. 2026 marks 250 years of America. And throughout the year, Bill Hammer takes listeners on a journey through the 250 most impactful moments in American history. Listen and follow now at FoxNewsPodcasts.com. Subscribe to this podcast at FoxNewsPodcasts.com. It's time for your Fox News commentary. Jason Chaffetz. What's on your mind? Neither party has put a stake in the ground on the issue that will drive the next presidential election cycle. Artificial intelligence is expected to transform the global economy at a dizzying pace, radically reordering nearly every industry and bringing with it unprecedented disruptions in the labor market. Nobody is prepared to address what could be the biggest issue of 2028. In a recent earnings call, ex-AI founder Elon Musk described an exciting era of abundance in which AI and robotics take over labor and Americans enjoy what he calls universal high income. But that vision raises more questions than it answers. Where do people go when an entire industry shrinks? How do we fulfill our need for meaningful work? Who decides how to distribute this universal high income? What is the role of higher education? How much government would we need? We have to come to terms with where this AI revolution could take us. In the world of politics, which tends to follow where the winds are blowing, what are the principles that remain timeless? Who do we trust to steer us in these uncertain waters? Both parties need to come up with a vision to steer AI toward empowerment, foster independence, and amplify human potential rather than erode it. Historical precedents suggest technological advances, though disruptive, ultimately create more opportunities than they destroy. I'm hopeful that AI will create new roles we cannot yet fully imagine, perhaps allowing workers to focus on strategic and creative roles that machines can't replicate. AI doesn't have to be the end of work. It can be the beginning of better work. But in the process of getting from here to there, we face challenges that will test our resolve and the foundational principles that sustain our past success. We know that government doesn't create jobs. Entrepreneurs do. The key is not to resist, but to embrace AI as a tool that enhances independence, freeing us from meaningful pursuits like family, community, and invention. We can build a future where every American contributes on their terms. For 250 years, these principles have stood the test of time. Instead of resisting progress, we need to be directing it to more productive use. I'm Jason Chaffetz, Fox News contributor and the host of the Jason in the House podcast.
