Indiana's governor delivers his second state of the state.

Indiana teens face a social media ban, and lawmakers work to bring housing solutions.

From the television studios at Wfyi Public Media.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending January 16th, 2026.

Indiana Week Review is produced by Wfyi in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey.

Indiana lawmakers gathered at the state House this week to hear Governor Braun second state of the state speech.

As Ben Thorpe reports on this week's speech.

Braun's speech focused on Indiana's strengths, citing job growth and successful efforts to attract employers.

In 2025, our message was clear.

Indiana is open for business.

Braun addressed a number of affordability issues, from utility rates to the cost of housing.

I know the most important part of affordability is new jobs and higher wages.

Braun also mentioned a number of bills currently being considered by Indiana lawmakers, including measures to increase housing stock limit bail and ban cell phones in school.

Indiana Democrats delivered a response to the address, saying Republicans had caused the state's affordability crisis.

But we're now using Democratic ideas to try and fix it.

So Is the state of the state as strong as the Governor presents?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel: Political Strategist Elise Shrock Republican, Chris Mitchem Laura Merrifield Wilson, associate professor of political science at the University of Indianapolis Niki Kelly, editor in chief at Indiana Capital Chronicle I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

So Elise what did the governor get right in this speech?

Well, I think I'm thrilled to see him finally come around to affordability as a major issue in our state.

I think it's been, a rallying cry for many for a very long time, especially Hoosier working families in the state.

I don't know how many.

quality of life rankings.

We can rank low on that it took to get us here.

But, I'm.

I'm glad to see that affordability was a certain theme of the night.

I think it was a wild stretch to say, after over 20 years of Republican, majority leadership at the state House, to say this happened from a one term federal presidency, when the state has so much control over what it can do about how we got here.

but I'm hopeful that now, we can start to address those problems with the bevy of, Democratic proposals that have been put on the table.

Year after year, over the last several decades.

that might be gaining traction now, whether or not they're authored by Republicans or Democrats.

So we did hear the word affordability quite a bit.

you know, what stood out to you as far as, pieces of the governor's speech that, you know, really could make an impact?

Yeah.

I think it's important to whenever you digest the speech, take it into the context of the legislative session we're in right now.

We are only five session days away from the first legislative deadlines coming in.

So I know he received criticism for not having any bold ideas, but I mean, you look at, especially in December, how really just the whole cadence of the session kind of been thrown off.

This is probably not going to be the session for any huge overhaul.

You know, property tax edits that I know a lot of people want.

So I think he did everything you would want to see from a governor in a state of the state speech.

He praised a lot of the winds that Indiana has been having recently.

When it comes to economic development, education in particular.

and then he also was, I thought, surprisingly strong on data centers as well.

you know, I think you see a lot of Republican leadership starting to lean more towards that way of, you know, I think on the grassroots level, a lot of the discussion on that issue is between whether we should have them or not.

It's seemingly at the top level.

The Republican discussion is turning into, yes, we should have them.

Yes, we need them, but it should be that they come in again at an affordable rate and a rate that is attractive to people that not only do they pay for their own power, but they're starting to be trying to be required to put more power on the grid and actually lower utility costs.

So I thought that was a really interesting spot.

But he did the right thing when it came to not trying to back any major changes when we have an eight week session and instead kind of put your name on a lot of these legislative proposals that are going through that have been vetted, previously in summer study committees or during the off season, that I think are going to be have a real impact on Hoosiers, on an affordability rate.

You know, Nikki, I know you have said, you know, in past years, we would have known for sure what the governor was prioritizing in a speech like this.

he did not mention at all the redistricting issue that they had gone through in the first part of this session.

Was that a surprise, or was that part of the reason why we did not move on past that as fast as you can?

you know, it was not a win for him, so no reason to bring it up, especially in front of some people that you threatened to say.

You have said they don't deserve their seats.

So, obviously it was different to see a governor cede so much power to the legislators for running the agenda.

you know, in the past, the governor's I've covered come up with their agency heads or their offices, come up with, ideas, they formulate those into bills, and then they work with lawmakers to find someone to carry them.

But this was a completely different tact.

It was, hey, here are some bills that are moving that I support, and we should pass those instead.

And some of those bills, you know, concern housing and other ways that, that lawmakers are looking, you know, they're going to address some affordability issues.

Absolutely.

Housing was really important.

I think if you can contrast this state of the state address compared to what he delivered last year, last year was really dominated by a property tax.

And that's really what we saw as a defensive measure coming out of the state legislature in affordability.

He talked about housing.

He talked a little bit about health care, but he spent a lot of time talking about utilities and regulations related, of course, to data centers, but also the increasing costs that Hoosiers are facing in terms of these utility bills.

And so it wasn't necessarily a state of the state where he outlined his priorities.

But by giving those shout outs to legislators and the bills that he highlighted that he thought were important.

I think that is going to be one of the dominant themes we see, if not through the legislative session.

What he plans on addressing in the next 12 months?

Well, he didn't bring up police again, you know, property, the property tax issue from last year.

And we know that there's been, you know, some municipalities in the state of Indiana that are, you know, dealing with the the outcome of that as, as should that have been something that he's highlighting in the speech.

He probably doesn't want to because the feedback that he's getting isn't necessarily great.

what we heard last year from local communities was this is going to happen.

you know, on our backs and this, these costs don't just disappear.

They just are transferred.

so I guess I'm not surprised that he didn't dig in on that.

I don't think he would want to or tout that.

I think it's going to be a really quick session.

So I don't anticipate that, you know, like Chris said, taking that on.

But at some point that will continue to be an issue, and it's not going to be one that they can ignore.

and as of the government saying, you know, crack down on, on fraud and waste and, you know, reducing some of these regulations.

was that a theme that stood out to you?

Yeah, a little bit.

And obviously that is one of the priority bills of the Indiana Senate Republicans as well, trying to make sure that we keep our verification process is right for all of our welfare programs.

and I think you've seen that be successful not only on this level, but at the federal level as well.

So, again, that kind of goes back to him, I think, trying to latch on to some of these legislative priorities that the the legislature has already kind of deem to be important.

And they have obviously a lot of credibility.

And that's where a lot of the effort is going to be in moving those and actually passing policy that he can.

I think towards the end of the year claim, like, you know, I worked with the legislature on that.

As Indiana football state.

Now, we had a lot of mentions of IU football.

We had a lot of mentions of Chicago Bears.

Do you think the governor used it as, lighthearted?

Absolutely.

The the nod to the kid who asked about, you know, can we have a two hour delay on Tuesday was awesome.

I do think the surprise of the session and him bringing up the bears so definitively will be movement on a bears stadium and kind of what the lawmakers will put out there for that.

So that'll be something to watch.

Another issues, that we were talking about, that the governor was talking about during during his speech, you know, things like child care will not be reached.

this legislative session.

Is that a myth?

Well, it is certainly.

An unfortunate opportunity to have 32,000 children on the waitlist for the voucher system.

That's not taking any more children until 2027. he did say that child care was important, but I think it was one sentence, one line, and then nothing else past that.

I do expect that's something we see Democrats take on.

but it's hard.

We knew they weren't going to reopen the budget.

I feel like that question has been asked and answered definitively.

It's not going to be reopened.

so if we're not reopening the budget, we don't have the fiscal appropriations for child care.

It's not happening this year.

I'm sure it will come back next year, though.

Yeah.

Well, we'll be watching.

Next, a bill that would ban children from having social media accounts in Indiana passed its first legislative hurdle this week amid growing concerns of social media impact on children's health.

Caroline Beck reports.

The bill saw lots large support from school leaders during a recent hearing.

Indiana.

Secretary of Education Katie Jenner.

Made a passionate plea to lawmakers over the measure, saying that children's minds are not developed enough yet to combat the addictive features of social.

Media.

They are growing up in what is now the largest unregulated experiment ever conducted on young moms.

While school leaders are largely supportive of the ban.

Two Democrats on the committee.

Voted against the bill because of another, unrelated provision that could place low earning college.

Degrees at risk of being eliminated in Indiana.

So this is a ban on social media.

You know, what would this this be a real answer to the concerns for Indiana teens?

Yeah, it's a it's a fascinating issue.

And it's kind of trendy right now.

I think a lot of other I think about a dozen other states have passed similar legislation with varying degrees of success in the legal system.

I know there's some First Amendment challenges there.

Go in there, but it's my understanding that this bill reflects a similar bill out of Florida that has withstood a lot of legal changes.

And rather than just saying, hey, if you're under 18, you can't be on social media.

This bill kind of separates an adolescent from a youth.

And I think if you are above the age of 14, you have to get parental sign off versus if you're under 14, you just don't get one.

So I think that's a fascinating little tweak and a way to try to get around some of those legal challenges.

And I think it's also significant that you're seeing this start in the Senate Education Committee, because you do have teachers and school administrators that are spending more time with these kids and seeing the effects that social media is having on them.

I mean, unless you're reading a study from meta or TikTok, like every single study you'll read is just seeing the devastating effects that social media is having on our youth when it comes to eating disorders, anxiety, depression, and it's not really any other benefit that's tangibly outweighing those things.

So I think you're now seeing a band consideration because not only of those effects, but also just the development of technology.

We're not on a am AOL messenger anymore, like when I was growing up.

We are now on, you know, just a world wide platform where you're seeing trends and you're telling you the way to think.

What's the cool way to think?

And seeing some things that, you know, probably make, you know, me and my parents blush that some of these kids are starting to look at.

So I think you're now seeing a ban just because legislation and regulation is having a really hard time keeping up with just how fast some of these social media companies are developing these apps.

And when we did hear, you know, so much from parents and, you know, from from Jenner as well, she spoke so passionately about, you know, this a the biggest social experiment.

and those health and anxiety concerns.

Is this the right way?

Real?

Yeah.

They're real.

And I was kind of thinking about this because I, I, you know, I'm an 80s kid.

I came about, in an era where I grew up without the internet, and then I had dos, which for all the Gen-Z and younger folks in our audience that are likely listening to this on a podcast, look it up.

you can figure out what that was.

I went from, like, Oregon Trail and EFF commands to the internet, like overnight.

And there was not literacy for what the internet was in my school to teach me how to safely navigate the internet.

That didn't happen until I became a career professional.

A lot of that doesn't happen until you are taking, your HR classes in your career field sometimes, you know, and I think that's probably changed.

and, higher ed, but I think in addition to some of this legislation like we're seeing with bans, where schools can also be helpful is literacy for what this means.

I could have really benefited from safety measures, teaching me what the internet was, what it was capable of, and how to navigate it, and, a safe way.

So this is a discussion that needs to be had.

I think, you know, having all of these stakeholders at the table is appropriate.

and I'm interested to see where it goes from here.

You know, I think a lot of parents in Indiana might feel some of that, like, guilt.

You know what I do for a living?

You know, my children use social media because it is so many unknowns.

Is this the way that we, you know, move forward?

Do you think Indiana parents actually might find this helpful?

I think this legislation is a great start.

for for starters, we there's so much unknown, right?

But we do know, as secretary of education, Doctor Jenner testified on some of this legislation.

unequivocally social media exposure can be incredibly dangerous.

And that's probably true for adults, too.

We could all do a better job.

I personally could do a better job of regulating and, utilizing discipline and responsibility.

But for children who don't have that, it's a real concern.

And I worry as a parent about the parents that don't really parent.

and what we're placing on schools to do that, maybe parents or family members at home either are unwilling or maybe unable to do to have healthy boundaries, healthy restrictions.

On one hand, I think with social media, it's going to be very hard to regulate what children are exposed to.

On the other hand, I don't think that means we don't try because we know how harmful that can be.

And this feels like legislation that's a very good step towards the right direction.

I mean, there are pieces of legislation, you know, a curfew involved in, like the, you know, the logistics of this actually happening.

Nicki, is this a good bill?

I know they're trying to avoid legal battles.

Yeah.

I mean, first of all, this bill passed the Senate last year, but it didn't go the education route and went solely to judiciary.

I believe it's going to be recommitted to judiciary.

So yeah.

So it will have another hearing on the legality side versus the education side.

So they're trying a new tack.

But the House didn't even give it a hearing last year.

So I'll be curious if that has changed at all in the past year.

There's also some interesting language in there about the devices that get sent home, like my daughter had a Chromebook.

And giving parents more control over like being able to set timing controls when it has to shut off at night.

because some I know my my daughter used it as, like her personal laptop.

Right.

You know, and so there's some language in there too that would be helpful on school devices as well as, you know, the social media side.

I'm not sure that this is actually part of kind of like a package of bill.

There's another proposal that's moving that would straight up prohibit cell phones.

during in schools.

I think the law right now is, is that during instructional time, we're not allowed to have them, but it would prohibit it during schools.

And, in the state House, we work with a lot of school resource officers, and they like to tell me that it used to be, you know, lunch time and recess time.

You know, the kids were running around and playing.

It's silent as a mouse in those rooms now because kids are just down working on it.

So even again, from a social aspect, you can take that into account.

But going back to Lori's point about, you know, that being in schools, I think that could be more favorable.

It's when you start getting outside into the home on the weekends.

Saying that you just can't have it is maybe when they'll experience some pushback.

That's a whole different world.

Time now for viewer feedback each week we pose an unscientific online poll question.

This week's question should the state ban social media for children and teens?

Answer yes or no.

The last question posed to viewers should schools do even more to increase graduation rates?

Yes, 92%.

And 8% saying no.

If you would like to take part in the poll.

Go to WFYI.org/IWIR Wire and look for the poll.

A bill to deregulate zoning in an effort to reduce the cost of building new housing.

House has its first hearing at the statehouse.

As Ben Thorpe reports, the bill's been identified by Republican leadership as a priority and aims to make Indiana housing more affordable.

The bill is part of a House Republican effort to improve affordability for everyday Hoosiers, focusing on reducing the cost of housing.

The bill operates in a number of ways.

It allows accessory dwelling units on properties, permits religious institutions to build affordable housing, and prohibits a number of design requirements that could add to construction costs.

Bill sponsor Doug Miller says the goal is to expand housing stock by reducing red tape for builders.

For every thousand dollars that a home increases in price, 2292 of our friends and neighbors are priced out of the market.

Local units of government will be able to opt out of some of the bill's provisions.

So, Nikki, could this, you know, measure actually improve housing affordability in the state of Indiana?

I think it could.

I think there are some definite parts of it, some preemption of some local regulations, which of course, locals are not going to like because they want to be able to control the building in their area.

But I think lawmakers are really trying to thread the needle on this one, right.

Because you want it to be cheaper, but you also don't want it to be shoddy, like you do, right?

You just don't want builders to be able to throw up any kind of house or apartment building, you know, and then have it just be not habitable or, you know, good for for Hoosiers.

But you also want to make sure that there's more supply.

You know, when I've been covering this issue in the past, Laura, you know, I have heard you know, many people say, you know, housing is something that we've just kept doing the same way, like, let's think outside the box and let's really try to find different answers.

Are these some options?

I think this legislation offers some creative solutions, but I hope is we don't just look at affordability and say in order to achieve that, we must deregulate everything.

To Nikki's point, there are some good, fair, necessary regulations.

I think we really have to look at homeownership much more holistically.

How do we help people afford a house?

How do we make houses more affordable?

How do we allow there to be supply and demand?

So we need more housing.

It's probably not just a one bill fits all sizes, if you will, but this could be at least a good step towards that direction.

And this is a long time coming crisis we know we've had in Indiana, so hopefully it's a start to that solution.

Yeah, I think it's like 50,000 housing shortage in the state of Indiana.

This bill also allows religious institutions to build more housing on their property.

is that something that makes sense?

I've seen, you know, some churches doing tiny homes and.

Sure, because I think, places like churches especially see the need.

They're in the community.

They're walking.

Shoulder to.

Shoulder with folks who are on the margins and they are trying to, fill the gaps where they exist.

because maybe institutionally they can't find the way forward.

so sometimes those, those fixes exist because there's no other option.

so I don't want to conflate the two.

I also think, we can restructure rezoning.

We can do, as many fixes as we want, but there has to be the political will of leaders, in local, local communities to invest and local communities meaning leadership, meaning nonprofit meeting, the business community.

So my hope is, you know, like Laura said, this is this is one bill.

It's a start.

It is a tool in the tool bag.

so I hope this is part of a larger conversation.

and then also this whole conversation is the impetus to drive the political will, that we can really do something with these tools.

Because do you think, you know, as the governor and the many, lawmakers are saying, again, affordability that this is a this is a measure that can actually, you know, have an impact.

Yeah.

And I think actually a lot of credit needs to go to Representative Doug Miller because he's kind of taking a two pronged approach here.

I know something Republicans always like to say is don't just throw money at the issue and cross your fingers and hope it works.

You know, he established a program, I believe, four years ago that has put about $100 million into communities.

And I work with an organization, a church organization, that says that those moneys have gone just directly to projects rather than to governments with hopes that they go and use it to build projects.

So I think that side has been really good.

And then you have this side today where you do go into the regulations and the zoning laws and things to try to expedite that process, try to make it easier to use those funds.

So I think what those two prongs approach, he's really been a leader of trying to make sure the state kind of takes into account all the possible options.

And is something that we need to address.

So how much freedom is too much for a child?

That question is central to a bill that aims to limit the state from investigating parents for neglect, simply for letting their kids play outside alone.

The measure would clarify when and if the Department of Child Services could intervene if the family was flagged for a lack of child supervision.

The bipartisan legislation, coauthored by Republican Representative Jake Tucker, would allow age appropriate children more independent activity, including walking or biking or staying in home alone.

Children who are allowed to, to have sensible independence, learn how to navigate minor risks, develop situational awareness, and are less dependent on constant adult intervention.

Indiana would join a number of states that have passed legislation that seeks to limit state involvement and create a defense of a family, was accused of neglect.

So, yes, a couple other states have, you know, passed legislation like this.

Does this make sense in Indiana?

I think generally it does.

and the subtext of the legislation is let kids be kids.

You also need to let parents.

but require parents to be parents.

So much of this feels very subjective.

So I know what I would allow my 16 year old to do.

And I was, well, my six year old.

Doing it might be different than other parents and other children.

But we have seen a number of states move in this direction, and I think it's a reflection, maybe a reaction to helicopter parenting in what we experience now.

But those age appropriate developmental markers that we want children to expand on independence without being reckless.

That's the fine line that this legislation is aiming to to thread there.

And I think it does a really good job on that.

I mean, Nikki is one of the bipartisan bills that we're seeing, you know, this session and it is, but we do have to acknowledge that, you know, today is a different world than it was, when we were you know, it is course, parents still have to make educated decisions about, you know, how far they'll let them go.

And is that particular park safe or you know, something, you know, if I'm going in my target, am I going to be in there 15 minutes or an hour?

You know, that kind of thing.

If they're left in the car.

But I think they're basically just trying to.

It makes more of a point.

I mean, I'm not sure there are a lot of Chin's cases, which are child in need of neglect saying like, oh, you let your kid drive to or ride to school.

And that's the only reason we're taking your kid away.

I'm sure there are not a lot of cases like that, but it makes a point for the larger audience.

Yeah, a real quick class.

I mean, you know, again, we're seeing both sides supporting this.

Will this move?

I think so, and I think representative made a good point when he said it's not so much about, you know, the cases that are being prosecuted.

It's the process of somebody reporting somebody showing up to your house, having to talk to the children, having talked to the parents.

It's just not needed.

Whenever you can have more independence with your children, I think.

Well, we didn't get to the final issue, but go.

Are you the big, big week for IU football?

And that is Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel has been ... Political Strategist Elise Shrock Republican, Chris Mitchem Laura Merrifield Wilson, associate professor of political science at the University of Indianapolis Niki Kelly, editor in chief at Indiana Capital Chronicle You can find Indiana Week In Reviews podcast and episodes because a lot can happen in an Indiana Week The views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by Wfyi in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by PA Ritchey.