DEFIANCE Act
Last reviewed
Jun 7, 2026
Sources
14 citations
Review status
Source-backed
Revision
v1 · 1,808 words
Improve this article
Add missing citations, update stale details, or suggest a clearer explanation.
Suggest edit
CtrlK
Last reviewed
Jun 7, 2026
Sources
14 citations
Review status
Source-backed
Revision
v1 · 1,808 words
Add missing citations, update stale details, or suggest a clearer explanation.
The DEFIANCE Act (Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits Act) is a proposed United States federal law that would create a civil cause of action allowing victims of nonconsensual sexually explicit "digital forgeries," commonly known as deepfake pornography, to sue the people who produce, disclose, solicit, or possess such material with intent to distribute it. The measure amends the federal civil remedy for nonconsensual intimate imagery at 15 U.S.C. 6851, originally enacted in the 2022 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, to make clear that the remedy reaches synthetic depictions produced with software, machine learning, or artificial intelligence, not only authentic images. It is led by Senators Dick Durbin (Democrat of Illinois) and Lindsey Graham (Republican of South Carolina) in the Senate and by Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Democrat of New York) and Laurel Lee (Republican of Florida) in the House.[1][2][3]
As of June 2026 the DEFIANCE Act is not law. The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent twice, first in July 2024 and again on January 13, 2026, but in both Congresses the House of Representatives declined to bring it to a floor vote. The bill is the civil-litigation counterpart to the criminal TAKE IT DOWN Act, which was signed into law in May 2025; supporters describe the two measures as complementary halves of a federal response to image-based sexual abuse.[1][4][5]
Nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII), sometimes called "revenge porn," is the distribution of sexually explicit or intimate images of a person without that person's consent. For most of the past decade the United States had no comprehensive federal statute addressing NCII, and enforcement depended on a patchwork of state laws of varying scope. The 2022 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act created the first federal civil cause of action for victims of authentic NCII, codified at 15 U.S.C. 6851, but it did not clearly cover fabricated images and carried no criminal penalty.[5][6]
The spread of consumer generative AI tools sharpened the problem. Inexpensive "nudify" applications and image generation models made it possible to fabricate convincing explicit depictions of real people from ordinary photographs. A flood of AI-generated explicit images of the singer Taylor Swift on the platform X in January 2024 drew national attention, and one such post reportedly drew tens of millions of views before it was removed. That episode is widely credited with building political momentum for a federal response and was cited by the bill's sponsors when they introduced the DEFIANCE Act.[1][7]
A second wave of public pressure arrived in late 2025 and early 2026, when xAI's Grok image generator, integrated into the X platform, was used to produce sexualized images of real people, including by users replying to ordinary posts with prompts directed at the tool. The renewed furor preceded the Senate's January 2026 vote, and several outlets framed that vote as a direct response to the Grok controversy.[4][8][9]
The DEFIANCE Act works by amending the existing civil remedy at 15 U.S.C. 6851 rather than by creating an entirely new statute. It adds a defined category of "intimate digital forgery" alongside the authentic "intimate images" the 2022 law already covered, so that a victim can recover whether the depiction was photographed or synthesized.[3][6]
The bill defines an "intimate digital forgery" as an intimate visual depiction that falsely represents either the identifiable individual or the conduct that makes the depiction intimate, created through software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or other technological means, and that a reasonable person viewing it as a whole would find indistinguishable from an authentic depiction of that individual. A label or other context indicating that the image is fake does not remove it from the definition.[3]
A victim may bring a civil action against a person who knowingly produced or possessed the forgery with intent to disclose it, knowingly disclosed it, or knowingly solicited and received it, in each case where the individual did not consent and the defendant knew of or recklessly disregarded the lack of consent. The remedy is enforced through private lawsuits in federal court; it does not create a crime.[3][5]
The most distinctive feature is its liquidated-damages scheme, which lets a prevailing plaintiff recover a fixed statutory sum without proving the dollar value of the harm. The bill also preserves other relief such as actual and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive remedies, and it sets a long statute of limitations to account for the difficulty of discovering fabricated images.[3][10]
| Provision | Detail |
|---|---|
| Legal mechanism | Civil cause of action (private lawsuit), no criminal penalty |
| Statute amended | 15 U.S.C. 6851 (Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022) |
| Covered material | "Intimate digital forgery," including AI-generated and altered images |
| Liable conduct | Producing or possessing with intent to disclose; disclosing; soliciting and receiving |
| Liquidated damages | Up to $150,000 |
| Enhanced damages | Up to $250,000 if connected to actual or attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment |
| Other relief | Actual and punitive damages, attorney's fees, injunctive relief |
| Statute of limitations | 10 years from discovery, or from the victim's 18th birthday, whichever is later |
The DEFIANCE Act was first introduced in the 118th Congress. Durbin introduced the Senate bill, S.3696, in early 2024, and Ocasio-Cortez introduced the House companion, H.R.7569, which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on March 6, 2024. The Senate passed S.3696 by unanimous consent on July 23, 2024. The House never brought the measure to a vote, and it expired when the 118th Congress ended. The bill was a standalone measure and was not folded into the National Defense Authorization Act or any other vehicle.[1][2][11]
The sponsors reintroduced the legislation in the 119th Congress in May 2025 as the DEFIANCE Act of 2025. Durbin filed the Senate version, S.1837, and Ocasio-Cortez and Lee led the House version, H.R.3562, which was introduced on May 21, 2025, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The Senate again passed its bill by unanimous consent, on January 13, 2026, with cosponsors spanning both parties, including Graham, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Amy Klobuchar, and Josh Hawley. Following that vote, Ocasio-Cortez, Lee, and advocates, including Paris Hilton, held a news conference pressing House leadership to schedule the companion bill. As of June 2026 the House had taken no further action, and the DEFIANCE Act remained pending without a markup or floor vote.[1][2][4][12]
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Early 2024 | Durbin introduces S.3696 in the Senate (118th Congress) |
| March 6, 2024 | H.R.7569 (Ocasio-Cortez) referred to House Judiciary Committee |
| July 23, 2024 | Senate passes S.3696 by unanimous consent; House does not act |
| January 2025 | 118th Congress ends; the bill expires without becoming law |
| May 21, 2025 | DEFIANCE Act of 2025 reintroduced as S.1837 and H.R.3562 |
| January 13, 2026 | Senate passes S.1837 by unanimous consent |
| As of June 2026 | House version still in the Judiciary Committee; not enacted |
The DEFIANCE Act and the TAKE IT DOWN Act are separate bills that address the same harm through different tools, and supporters treat them as complementary rather than competing. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed into law on May 19, 2025, as Public Law 119-12, makes the nonconsensual publication of intimate imagery a federal crime and requires "covered platforms" to remove reported material within 48 hours, with enforcement split between the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. It targets the act of publishing and the platforms that host such content.[5][13]
The DEFIANCE Act instead empowers the depicted individual to sue the people responsible for creating or spreading the forgery and to recover money damages directly. Where the TAKE IT DOWN Act delivers a criminal deterrent and a takedown mechanism, the DEFIANCE Act supplies a private financial remedy that does not depend on a prosecutor bringing charges. Both statutes were drafted to reach "digital forgeries," and both draw on the same underlying federal definition of nonconsensual intimate depictions, which is part of why advocates have urged Congress to enact the two together. The DEFIANCE Act has also been discussed alongside other synthetic-media proposals such as the NO FAKES Act, which addresses unauthorized digital replicas of a person's voice and likeness more broadly.[4][5][14]
The DEFIANCE Act is a pending bill, not an enacted law. Its civil cause of action exists only in proposed text and is not yet available to victims. The Senate has now passed the measure by unanimous consent in two consecutive Congresses, in July 2024 and again on January 13, 2026, demonstrating broad and bipartisan Senate support. In both instances the obstacle has been the House of Representatives, where the companion bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee but not advanced to the floor.[1][4][12]
Because the 119th Congress runs through the end of 2026, the House could still act on H.R.3562, in which case the bill would need to pass the House and be signed by the President to take effect; the version that passed the Senate would be the operative text. If the House does not act before the Congress ends, the bill would again expire and have to be reintroduced. Until then, victims of AI-generated NCII in the United States continue to rely on the criminal prohibitions and platform-takedown duties of the TAKE IT DOWN Act, on the existing civil remedy at 15 U.S.C. 6851 for authentic images, and on the growing body of state AI regulation and image-abuse statutes.[4][5][6]