Kindergarten Lobby Files Suit Against DARPA Over Paper-Mâché Supply Collapse

Washington, D.C. — A newly formed lobbying organization representing the interests of approximately 3.7 million American kindergarteners has filed a federal lawsuit against the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, alleging that the agency’s role in accelerating digital information systems and algorithmic content distribution has indirectly collapsed the domestic paper-mâché supply chain, creating what plaintiffs describe as a “national crafts emergency of unprecedented proportions.”

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Children for Sustainable Crafts (CSC), names DARPA as the primary defendant alongside the National Science Foundation, several venture capital firms that funded early internet infrastructure, and, in an unusual procedural move, "the abstract concept of Moore's Law, to the extent it can be served with process."

The 847-page complaint argues that DARPA's foundational investments in packet-switching networks, which eventually became the modern internet, set in motion a cascade of market forces that systematically destroyed local print newspapers, eliminated access to free large-format paper, and destabilized what the filing describes as "the critical pedagogical infrastructure that has supported early childhood creative expression since the papier-mâché techniques were standardized in 1947."

"This is not about nostalgia," said Marcus Wellington, the Washington-based attorney serving as CSC's primary spokesperson. "This is about balloons with no skin. This is about volcanoes that cannot erupt. This is about an entire generation of children denied the fundamental experience of covering something round with something wet."

The Complaint in Detail

According to the filing, DARPA's role in developing ARPANET in the late 1960s initiated a technological trajectory that would, over subsequent decades, fundamentally restructure the economics of information distribution in ways that produced significant collateral damage to adjacent craft-dependent industries.

The complaint traces a direct causal chain from DARPA's initial investments through the commercialization of the internet, the rise of digital advertising, the collapse of newspaper classified revenue, the subsequent decline of local print journalism, and ultimately what plaintiffs characterize as "the wholesale elimination of freely available large-format paper suitable for tearing, soaking, and adhesive-based application to balloon-based armatures."

"You cannot build a volcano with a paywalled article," the brief argues in a section titled "Material Substrate Deprivation and Its Developmental Consequences." "The New York Times digital subscription, while providing access to quality journalism, offers no physical medium capable of absorbing flour-and-water paste mixtures. This represents a fundamental misalignment between information technology innovation and early childhood educational needs."

The filing includes extensive technical appendices documenting the load-bearing characteristics of various paper types, with analysis concluding that newsprint provides optimal properties for craft applications due to its porosity, flexibility, and willingness to conform to irregular surfaces. Construction paper, the most commonly suggested alternative, is described as "too stiff, insufficiently absorbent, and prohibitively expensive when applied in the quantities necessary for a standard kindergarten volcano project."

Educational Impact Assessment

Educators across the country have submitted sworn declarations supporting the plaintiffs' claims. Dr. Sandra Chen, a developmental psychologist at the University of Michigan who has studied early childhood craft engagement for twenty-three years, testified that the paper-mâché crisis represents "one of the most significant disruptions to tactile learning environments since the great paste shortage of 1973."

"Children don't understand subscriptions," one kindergarten teacher's declaration states. "They understand paste. They understand the satisfying feeling of tearing yesterday's sports section into strips. They understand the transformative possibility of turning flat things into round things through the application of goo and patience. What they do not understand is why we now have to ration printer paper."

The complaint includes a detailed inventory of substitute materials that classrooms have attempted to use in place of newspapers, along with assessments of their effectiveness. Construction paper was rated "structurally inadequate and emotionally unsatisfying." Printer paper was deemed "too precious for sacrifice and insufficiently absorptive." Old worksheets presented what the filing describes as "emotional charging issues," with children reportedly becoming distressed when asked to destroy documents containing their own previous academic efforts.

"Nothing works like yesterday's news," testified Margaret Holloway, a thirty-two-year veteran kindergarten teacher from Omaha, Nebraska. "There's something about the texture, the smell, the fact that it was already going to be thrown away. Children inherently understand that news becomes garbage, and garbage can become art. That cycle has been broken."

The lawsuit cites internal DARPA documents, obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, showing that the agency never conducted an environmental impact assessment specifically examining potential effects on paper-mâché supply chains. Plaintiffs argue this represents a procedural violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, though legal scholars have noted that craft material availability has never previously been considered an environmental concern subject to federal review.

The Lobbying Organization

Children for Sustainable Crafts, the organization spearheading the litigation, was founded in early 2025 by a coalition of concerned parents, elementary school art teachers, and one surprisingly well-organized five-year-old named Madison Reynolds, who serves as the group's honorary youth ambassador. The organization operates under the legal supervision of the Brennan Center for Early Childhood Advocacy, a newly established nonprofit that specializes in representing the policy interests of individuals too young to vote.

The group's formal statement on the lawsuit is notable for its directness: "DARPA innovated too hard. Now our papier-mâché pumpkins look weak."

CSC's policy platform extends beyond the immediate litigation to include broader structural reforms. The organization argues that newspapers historically served a dual national purpose that policymakers failed to anticipate when allowing market forces to restructure the information economy: informing adults about current events, and providing children with raw material for three-dimensional artistic expression.

"Only one of those functions survived the digital transition," the organization's mission statement notes. "The adults got their news apps and their algorithmic feeds. The children got nothing. This asymmetry represents a fundamental failure of intergenerational planning."

DARPA's Response

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency declined direct comment on the pending litigation but released a brief clarification through its Office of Public Affairs. "The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency develops breakthrough technologies for national security," the statement read. "We do not target newspapers. We target technological advantage."

When a reporter asked specifically about the paper-mâché implications of the agency's historical work, the spokesperson paused for an extended period before responding. "That was not in scope," she said. "At any point in our organizational history. To my knowledge."

DARPA's official response filing, submitted three weeks after the lawsuit was announced, takes the position that the agency cannot be held liable for downstream market effects that occurred decades after its initial research investments and that were mediated by numerous independent actors making voluntary commercial decisions.

"The plaintiffs' theory of causation would make DARPA responsible for every industry disruption that can be traced, however indirectly, to the existence of computer networks," the filing argues. "This would include the decline of video rental stores, the transformation of the music industry, and presumably the reduced demand for carrier pigeons. Such an expansive interpretation of agency liability has no precedent in federal law."

Proposed Remedies

The lawsuit seeks a comprehensive package of remedial measures that the plaintiffs argue would restore what they describe as "baseline craft material accessibility." The proposed remedies include establishment of a Federal Paper-Mâché Reserve, modeled on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that would maintain stockpiles of suitable newspaper-grade paper in facilities distributed across the country. The filing suggests converting several decommissioned Cold War-era bunkers for this purpose.

Additionally, the plaintiffs propose mandatory newspaper printing requirements for craft use, arguing that any entity receiving federal telecommunications subsidies should be required to produce a minimum quantity of physical newsprint regardless of whether that newsprint contains actual news. "The information printed on the paper is irrelevant to the craft application," the filing notes. "Lorem ipsum would suffice, provided the paper maintains appropriate weight, absorbency, and tear characteristics."

The lawsuit also calls for DARPA-funded research into alternative craft substrates, suggesting that if the agency's previous work inadvertently destroyed the paper-mâché supply chain, the agency has an obligation to develop replacement technologies. One proposed line of research involves "synthetic newsprint optimized for paste adhesion," while another explores "biodegradable balloon-coating polymers that provide comparable tactile satisfaction to traditional flour-and-water mixtures."

Perhaps most controversially, the filing proposes creation of a "Sunday Crafts Edition" newspaper that would be published nationwide, distributed free to all households with children under age seven, and contain no news whatsoever. The publication would be optimized entirely for tearability and paste absorption, with pages printed in child-safe vegetable inks and perforated at standard two-inch intervals for easy strip preparation.

Expert Testimony

The plaintiffs have assembled a substantial roster of expert witnesses spanning multiple disciplines. Dr. Heinrich Müller, a materials scientist at MIT who has published extensively on paper porosity and adhesive interactions, submitted a declaration stating that newsprint represents "an essentially irreplaceable substrate for the specific application of layered paste-and-paper construction methods."

"The physics are straightforward," Dr. Müller's declaration explains. "Newsprint achieves an optimal balance between structural integrity when dry and conformability when wet. The fiber length, the porosity, the surface texture—all of these properties emerged through decades of optimization for printing and reading, but they happen to also be ideal for craft applications. This was not by design. It was serendipity. And we have lost it."

Economic experts have also been engaged to quantify the damages. Dr. Elena Vasquez, a labor economist at Berkeley who specializes in household production theory, submitted analysis estimating the annual economic value of kindergarten paper-mâché production at approximately $2.3 billion, accounting for both direct material costs and the imputed value of adult supervision time.

"When you force parents to drive to specialty craft stores to purchase archival-quality construction paper for a volcano project that their child will abandon after fifteen minutes, you are destroying economic value," Dr. Vasquez's declaration states. "Newspapers were free. They arrived at your door. This was an elegant system, and its destruction represents a genuine welfare loss."

Congressional Response

The lawsuit has attracted unexpected attention on Capitol Hill, where several members of Congress have expressed interest in the underlying policy issues. Senator Margaret Thornton of Iowa, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Science and Technology, announced plans to hold hearings on what she described as "the unexamined downstream consequences of federal technology investments."

"We spend billions of dollars on research and development, and we never stop to ask what we might be destroying in the process," Senator Thornton said in a floor speech. "Today it's paper-mâché. Tomorrow it could be something we haven't even thought to protect. We need a more comprehensive approach to technological impact assessment."

Representative David Chen of California, whose district includes several major technology companies, expressed skepticism about the lawsuit's legal theory but acknowledged the underlying concern. "Look, I don't think DARPA is responsible for the newspaper industry's business model challenges," he said. "But I have three kids, and I can tell you from personal experience that finding craft supplies has gotten harder. Maybe there's a conversation to be had here that doesn't involve courtroom litigation."

The White House has not officially commented on the lawsuit but did note in a statement that the administration "remains committed to supporting early childhood education and believes that hands-on learning experiences are an important component of child development." When pressed on whether this commitment extended to federal intervention in craft supply chains, the press secretary declined to elaborate.

Industry Perspectives

The newspaper industry has responded to the lawsuit with a mixture of bemusement and melancholy. The American Society of News Editors released a statement acknowledging that "the decline of print journalism has had many consequences, and we appreciate that some of them extend beyond the information ecosystem to the craft ecosystem."

The Newspaper Association of America, which represents the business interests of print publications, has been more guarded. "We are reviewing the legal filings and assessing whether there may be opportunities for the newspaper industry to participate in any remediation efforts," a spokesperson said. "If there is federal funding available for craft-grade newsprint production, we would certainly be interested in understanding the parameters of such a program."

Several technology companies have also weighed in, generally expressing sympathy for the plaintiffs while distancing themselves from any suggestion of responsibility. A spokesperson for Google, whose advertising platform many analysts cite as a primary driver of newspaper revenue decline, stated that "we believe strongly in the importance of early childhood creativity and are exploring ways our platforms might support craft education in the digital age."

When asked what digital alternatives might exist for paper-mâché, the spokesperson suggested that "augmented reality craft experiences could potentially provide similar developmental benefits without requiring physical materials." This suggestion was met with what the lawsuit characterizes as "universal derision from the early childhood education community."

International Dimensions

The paper-mâché crisis appears to be primarily an American phenomenon, as many other developed nations have maintained stronger newspaper industries through various forms of public subsidy or different advertising market structures. Dr. Hans Bergstrom, a comparative education researcher at Uppsala University in Sweden, noted that Swedish kindergartens continue to have reliable access to newsprint through a combination of public media funding and cultural norms around newspaper readership.

"In Sweden, we still have newspapers," Dr. Bergstrom said. "Our children can still make things. This is perhaps one of the quieter benefits of our public media model that we had not previously appreciated."

The European Union has indicated informal interest in the case, with officials from the European Commission's Directorate-General for Education and Culture reportedly monitoring developments. "If the American market system cannot provide basic craft materials to children, this represents a potential area of European competitive advantage," one official said, speaking on background. "We had not previously considered paper-mâché as an indicator of civilizational health, but perhaps we should."

Public Reaction

Parents across the country have expressed cautious support for the litigation, though opinions vary on its practical prospects. Jennifer Martinez, a mother of two in suburban Chicago, summarized a common sentiment: "I don't care who did it. I don't care about DARPA or the internet or whatever. My kid needs to make a dinosaur. That's all I know."

Social media response has been mixed. The hashtag #JusticeForPaste briefly trended on Twitter before being overwhelmed by unrelated content. Several parenting influencers have posted videos attempting to demonstrate newspaper alternatives, with results that the lawsuit characterizes as "uniformly disappointing."

Policy analysts remain divided on the merits of the case. Dr. Robert Kaplan, a technology policy scholar at the Brookings Institution, called the lawsuit "analytically absurd but emotionally resonant." His colleague, Dr. Sarah Whitfield, countered: "We've spent thirty years asking what we gained from the digital revolution. Maybe it's time to seriously catalog what we lost. Paper-mâché might seem trivial, but it represents a whole category of material culture that simply doesn't exist anymore."

"This is absurd," one analyst said. Another countered: "So was eliminating newspapers without a glue plan."

Legal Prospects

Legal scholars have expressed skepticism about the lawsuit's chances of surviving initial motions to dismiss, citing the attenuated causal chain and the unprecedented nature of the claims. Professor Amanda Reyes, who teaches federal courts at Georgetown Law School, noted that "there is no legal doctrine I'm aware of that would hold a research agency liable for market transformations that occurred decades later and were mediated by countless independent actors."

However, Professor Reyes also acknowledged that "novel legal theories sometimes succeed precisely because they force courts to confront questions that existing doctrine doesn't comfortably address. The question of who bears responsibility for the collateral damage of technological change is genuinely unresolved in our legal system."

The plaintiffs' attorneys appear to be pursuing a strategy that prioritizes public attention over immediate legal victory. "We understand that the courts may not be ready to recognize these claims," attorney Wellington acknowledged in a press conference. "But the purpose of this litigation is not only to win in court. It's to force a national conversation about what we've sacrificed in the name of progress. If paper-mâché helps us have that conversation, then paper-mâché has served its purpose."

Current Status

As of press time, the lawsuit remains pending, with initial motions expected to be filed over the coming months. DARPA has retained outside counsel from a major Washington law firm specializing in government defense litigation. The plaintiffs have established a legal defense fund that has reportedly attracted modest donations from concerned parents, nostalgic former newspaper employees, and at least one anonymous donor who identified themselves only as "a friend of paste."

In the meantime, teachers continue to improvise. Glue dries on fingers that have nothing to adhere. Balloons deflate, their surfaces never to be transformed. Creativity waits for a substrate that may never come.

At press time, a kindergarten classroom in suburban Maryland attempted paper-mâché using old Amazon delivery boxes. The project failed. The cardboard proved too rigid to conform to the balloon armature, and the adhesive could not penetrate the waxy coating applied to protect packages during shipping. The children reportedly lost interest after twelve minutes, at which point the teacher pivoted to a coloring activity using worksheets printed on precious, precious printer paper.

DARPA remains undefeated in federal court.

Editor's note: Following publication of this article, the author received fourteen emails from readers offering to donate old newspapers. All donors were over the age of sixty-five. The youngest reader to respond expressed confusion about what a "newspaper" was and asked if the article was "some kind of bit."