Moms for Liberty puts AI as a children's confidant on its agenda: the alarm is reasonable, the evidence isn't there yet

By Dallas Express · October 13, 2026.

Moms for Liberty's Joyful Warriors national summit, held October 8–11 at the Sheraton Dallas Hotel, listed artificial intelligence among its concerns, alongside school bathroom policies and parental rights. Dallas Express interviewed attendees during the event, and according to its report, AI came up mainly as an emotional risk to minors.

The most specific comments came from Angela Belcamino, a content creator known as “Bold Lib”, who says she holds a master's degree in mental health counseling. She warned against letting AI replace relationships with parents, therapists and friends: “AI is not a replacement for that.” She also called for making use of the technology's helpful applications without ignoring its risks. This part of the coverage includes no figures, studies or specific cases involving chatbots and minors.

The rest of the report covers other topics: a Massachusetts father who alleges an incident in a school bathroom, and a local official who wants schools to focus on academics. These accounts are attributed to the interviewees themselves and to partial documents, and we do not assess them here. What matters to us is the place AI holds in the conversation.

Our take: a forum of activist parents putting emotional AI on its agenda shows that the issue has moved beyond technical debate and reached families. That is a useful signal. Companion and emotional-support chatbots have spread widely among teenagers, and the concern that they could replace human relationships is reasonable and deserves serious research.

But the warning, as quoted, is a principle, not a policy. “AI is not a substitute” is hard to argue with. The hard part is turning it into rules: what minimum age, what verification, what limits on a product designed to keep the conversation going, and what referral to human help when a crisis arises. That is where governance should focus, and it should be guided by evidence rather than alarm.

It also helps to separate what the technology can do from how it is used. A well-designed assistant can offer company, provide information or take tasks off people's hands without replacing anyone. In the long term, it could also expand access to psychological support where none exists today. In the short term, though, the real risk is that commercial incentives push toward dependence. Parents are right to be watchful, and developers must show with data that their products don't encourage dependence.

The underlying point: family literacy and product safeguards must advance together. Asking that AI not replace the family is the starting point. Demanding evidence and responsible design is what makes that demand effective.