[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 13, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S143-S147]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AND NON-CONSENSUAL EDITS ACT OF 2025
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been my good fortune and honor to
serve in this Chamber for many years and to represent my home State of
Illinois. I can reflect for a moment about the changes in the Senate
Chamber in the time that I have been here. I am afraid it would take me
too long to express my thoughts on that at the expense of the regular
business of this Chamber. But we have reached a point where there are
few and far between moments where we come together and agree on
something the American people think is important.
A year ago, I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--for 4
years. We considered many judicial nominees and many pieces of
legislation in that committee. We were evenly divided or closely
divided during the entire period of time. I think we achieved quite a
few things despite those divisions.
We approved more judicial nominees for Federal judgeships in that 4-
year period of time than any 4-year period in the history of the U.S.
Senate. It took 80 percent of the votes to be bipartisan for that to
happen. So I tried as chairman to always find something we just might
agree on, Democrats and Republicans would agree. The issue which I am
going to address very briefly this morning is one of those issues.
There was a time when the Senate Judiciary Committee was so equally
and evenly divided that people thought we would accomplish nothing, but
[[Page S144]]
there came an issue where there was a consensus among Democrats and
Republicans, and it is one that every parent and grandparent--I think
every individual--will understand.
Have you seen your kids or grandkids lately? Have you noticed what
they are doing? They are looking at this virtually all day long if you
let them.
It is a concern for many conscientious parents that what is being
broadcast on those cell phones could be life-altering and -changing for
young people, and that is one of the issues I will address this
morning.
You see, during the period of time when I chaired the Senate
Judiciary Committee, we considered the negative impact that these cell
phones and laptops have on children. It is frightening.
Parents came and testified before us that their kids--normal, happy,
productive, good students--in a short period of time were captivated by
laptops and cell phones into changes in attitude, changes in conduct.
Sadly, some of the children took their own lives because of their
exposure to what happened on these devices. It is heartbreaking.
I recall one in particular: a young, African-American, high school
student--a track star at his school--who got swept into some sort of
broadcast on social media and in the span of 19 hours became so
despondent and excited and emotional, he harmed himself and took his
own life. The parents couldn't understand it. They didn't see it
coming. And when they reflected on what was being done, it was an
outrage.
There is another thing going on which everyone should be aware of,
and if you look closely on television, you might just spot warnings. It
is this whole issue of deepfakes, AI, taking what looks to be real and
broadcasting it as reality when, in fact, it is not.
Last Congress, we considered a measure which I introduced and would
like to ask for passage today. There will be a unanimous consent
request made at the end of my statement. If that unanimous consent
request passes, and I hope it does with bipartisan support, it will go
to the House of Representatives for their consideration. It will be
miraculous. We just might pass a bill. We just might create a law. Stay
tuned.
Let me tell you what it is all about. I rise today to ask the Senate
to pass the DEFIANCE Act--bipartisan legislation that gives victims of
nonconsensual, sexually explicit deepfakes the tools to fight back
against those who would exploit them.
I want to thank the Senate sponsors of this legislation, including my
Republican colleague Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South
Carolina. I told you it was bipartisan; it is.
I have been proud to partner with a person I don't know well on a
personal basis, but I certainly have seen her work. Her name is
Representative Ocasio-Cortez. She represents the city of New York. She
introduced legislation in the House with seven Republicans and six
Democratic cosponsors. So her measure was bipartisan as it passed the
House of Representatives.
Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez herself is a publicly confessed and
admitted victim of explicit deepfakes. I commend her for working to
create tools for victims in the fight against this despicable crime.
She has been an innocent victim, and she has spoken out to spare others
what she has been through.
In 2025, the TAKE IT DOWN Act was signed into law. This bipartisan
legislation makes it a Federal crime to knowingly publish or threaten
to publish nonconsensual intimate images on social media. The DEFIANCE
Act, which provides victims with a civil remedy--a remedy in court--
builds on the progress of the TAKE IT DOWN Act.
The vast majority of American people support prohibiting
nonconsensual, sexually explicit, deepfake images, with one survey
finding that 85 percent of Republicans and Democrats support this
measure. That is why I am hopeful it will pass today and be considered
favorably by the House, and that is why, last Congress, the Senate
unanimously passed this measure. We didn't get it done then, and we are
returning to it now.
The Senate should pass this bill again, and the House should take it
up quickly as the problem of nonconsensual, sexually explicit, deepfake
images continues to spread. With the push of a button, generative AI
can swap someone's face onto another person's body, remove that
person's clothing so they appear nude, or undress someone to show them
in lingerie or other exposed positions.
Recent reporting details how users of X, the social media platform
formerly known as Twitter, can ask its AI chatbot Grok to undress women
and underage girls in photos. Grok will comply with requests to show
subjects in various states of undress with images which I won't repeat
for the record, but they are horrible.
Even after these reports, X still has not prevented Grok from
creating these exploitative images. Let me make sure you understand
what I just said. Even after these terrible, deepfake, harming images
are pointed out to Grok and to X, formerly Twitter, they do not
respond. They don't take the images off the internet. They don't come
to the rescue of people who are victims. That is why this legislation
is critical, because this legislation says that if they are guilty of
such reckless misconduct, they can be sued for it and held civilly
liable for the damages.
Imagine losing control of your own likeness and identity. Imagine
that happening to you when you are in high school. Imagine how
powerless victims feel when they cannot remove illicit conduct, cannot
prevent it from being reproduced repeatedly, and cannot prevent new
images from being created. The consequences can be profound.
Victims may endure threats to their employment, education, or
reputation or suffer additional criminal activity, such as extortion
and stalking. Many experience depression, anxiety, and fear of being in
public, and in the worst cases, victims have been driven to suicide.
Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez described her own reaction being depicted
this way without her consent. She said:
There's a shock to seeing images of yourself that someone
could think are real.
While prominent women are often the target for nonconsensual, sexual
deepfakes, sadly, the victims can be virtually anyone.
There are distressing reports of high school students struggling to
respond to this crisis. In March 2024, at least 22 students at a high
school in McHenry County, in my home State of Illinois, learned they
were depicted in deepfakes circulating online. One was a doctored
version of two female students taken at the school prom. I will not
describe in detail what that deepfake did, but it had to be crushing
for these young women and their families.
Sadly, we are seeing an explosion of these images. One researcher
found that the number of nonconsensual pornographic deepfake videos
available online has increased 900 percent--900 percent--since 2019.
Such videos have been viewed almost 4 billion times--4 billion.
According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,
the number of AI-generated child sexual abuse images increased from
5,000 in 2023 to over 485,000 in the first 6 months of 2025.
Tragically, currently, victims have no civil legal remedy to pursue
justice. The DEFIANCE Act changes that and gives victims their day in
court. The bill would permit victims to bring civil cases against those
who produce, disclose, solicit, or possess with intent to disclose
sexually explicit deepfakes, while knowingly or recklessly disregarding
that the person depicted did not consent to the content.
I am proud to have collaborated with survivor advocates on this bill.
Their lived experience and leadership have shaped this legislation.
Congress needs to act. It is past time to give victims of
nonconsensual, sexually explicit deepfakes the tools they need to fight
back.
I am going to make a unanimous consent request on this bipartisan
legislation. Senator Graham could not join me on the floor today, but
he is a cosponsor and supporter of this bipartisan bill.
I make the following unanimous consent: Notwithstanding rule XXII, I
ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged
from further consideration of S. 1837 and the Senate proceed to its
immediate consideration.
[[Page S145]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1837) to improve rights to relief for
individuals affected by non-consensual activities involving
intimate digital forgeries, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the
Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 1837) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
was read the third time, and passed as follows:
S. 1837
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Disrupt Explicit Forged
Images And Non-Consensual Edits Act of 2025'' or the
``DEFIANCE Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Digital forgeries, often called deepfakes, are
synthetic images and videos that look realistic. The
technology to create digital forgeries is now ubiquitous and
easy to use. Hundreds of apps are available that can quickly
generate digital forgeries without the need for any technical
expertise.
(2) Digital forgeries can be wholly fictitious but can also
manipulate images of real people to depict sexually intimate
conduct that did not occur. For example, some digital
forgeries will paste the face of an individual onto the body
of a real or fictitious individual who is nude or who is
engaging in sexual activity. Another example is a photograph
of an individual that is manipulated to digitally remove the
clothing of the individual so that the person appears to be
nude.
(3) The individuals depicted in such digital forgeries are
profoundly harmed when the content is produced with intent to
disclose, disclosed, or obtained without the consent of those
individuals. These harms are not mitigated through labels or
other information that indicates that the depiction is fake.
(4) It can be destabilizing to victims whenever those
victims are depicted in intimate digital forgeries against
their will, as the privacy of those victims is violated and
the victims lose control over their likeness and identity.
(5) Victims can feel helpless because the victims--
(A) may not be able to determine who has created the
content; and
(B) do not know how to prevent further disclosure of the
intimate digital forgery or how to prevent more forgeries
from being made.
(6) Victims may be fearful of being in public out of
concern that individuals the victims encounter have seen the
digital forgeries. This leads to social rupture through the
loss of the ability to trust, stigmatization, and isolation.
(7) Victims of non-consensual, sexually intimate digital
forgeries may experience depression, anxiety, and suicidal
ideation. These victims may also experience the ``silencing
effect'' in which the victims withdraw from online spaces and
public discourse to avoid further abuse.
(8) Digital forgeries are often used to--
(A) harass victims, interfering with their employment,
education, reputation, or sense of safety; or
(B) commit extortion, sexual assault, domestic violence,
and other crimes.
(9) Because of the harms caused by non-consensual, sexually
intimate digital forgeries, such digital forgeries are
considered to be a form of image-based sexual abuse.
SEC. 3. CIVIL ACTION RELATING TO DISCLOSURE OF INTIMATE
IMAGES.
(a) Definitions.--Section 1309 of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022 (15 U.S.C. 6851) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``or nonconsensual
activity involving digital forgeries'' after ``intimate
images''; and
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``competent,'' after
``conscious,'';
(B) by striking paragraph (3);
(C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3);
(D) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs
(6) and (7), respectively;
(E) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) Identifiable individual.--The term `identifiable
individual' means an individual whose body appears in whole
or in part in an intimate visual depiction or intimate
digital forgery and who is identifiable by virtue of the
individual's face, likeness, or other distinguishing
characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other
recognizable feature, or from information displayed in
connection with the intimate visual depiction or intimate
digital forgery.
``(5) Intimate digital forgery.--
``(A) In general.--The term `intimate digital forgery'
means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable
individual that--
``(i) falsely represents, in whole or in part--
``(I) the identifiable individual; or
``(II) the conduct or content that makes the visual
depiction intimate;
``(ii) is created through the use of software, machine
learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-
generated or technological means, including by adapting,
modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual
depiction; and
``(iii) is indistinguishable from an authentic visual
depiction of the identifiable individual when viewed as a
whole by a reasonable person.
``(B) Labels, disclosure, and context.--Any visual
depiction described in subparagraph (A) constitutes an
intimate digital forgery for purposes of this paragraph
regardless of whether a label, information disclosed with the
visual depiction, or the context or setting in which the
visual depiction is disclosed states or implies that the
visual depiction is not authentic.''; and
(F) in paragraph (6)(A), as so redesignated--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(ii) in clause (ii)--
(I) in subclause (I), by striking ``individual;'' and
inserting ``individual; or''; and
(II) by striking subclause (III); and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) an identifiable individual engaging in sexually
explicit conduct; and''.
(b) Civil Action.--Section 1309(b) of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022 (15 U.S.C. 6851(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (5)--
``(i) an identifiable individual whose intimate visual
depiction is disclosed, in or affecting interstate or foreign
commerce or using any means or facility of interstate or
foreign commerce, without the consent of the identifiable
individual, where such disclosure was made by a person who
knows or recklessly disregards that the identifiable
individual has not consented to such disclosure, may bring a
civil action against that person in an appropriate district
court of the United States for relief as set forth in
paragraph (3);
``(ii) an identifiable individual who is the subject of an
intimate digital forgery may bring a civil action in an
appropriate district court of the United States for relief as
set forth in paragraph (3) against any person that knowingly
produced or possessed the intimate digital forgery with
intent to disclose it, knowingly disclosed the intimate
digital forgery, or knowingly solicited and received the
intimate digital forgery, if--
``(I) the identifiable individual did not consent to such
production or possession with intent to disclose, disclosure,
or solicitation and receipt;
``(II) the person knew or recklessly disregarded that the
identifiable individual did not consent to such production or
possession with intent to disclose, disclosure, or
solicitation and receipt; and
``(III) such production or possession with intent to
disclose, disclosure, or solicitation and receipt, is in or
affects interstate or foreign commerce or uses any means or
facility of interstate or foreign commerce; and
``(iii) an identifiable individual who is the subject of an
intimate digital forgery may bring a civil action in an
appropriate district court of the United States for relief as
set forth in paragraph (3) against any person that knowingly
produced the intimate digital forgery if--
``(I) the identifiable individual did not consent to such
production;
``(II) the person knew or recklessly disregarded that the
identifiable individual--
``(aa) did not consent to such production; and
``(bb) was harmed, or was reasonably likely to be harmed,
by the production; and
``(III) such production is in or affects interstate or
foreign commerce or uses any means or facility of interstate
or foreign commerce.''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in the subparagraph heading, by inserting
``identifiable'' before ``individuals''; and
(ii) by striking ``an individual who is under 18 years of
age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal
guardian of the individual'' and inserting ``an identifiable
individual who is under 18 years of age, incompetent,
incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardian of the
identifiable individual'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by inserting ``identifiable'' before ``individual'';
(ii) by striking ``depiction'' and inserting ``intimate
visual depiction or intimate digital forgery''; and
(iii) by striking ``distribution'' and inserting
``disclosure, solicitation, or possession''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by inserting ``identifiable'' before ``individual'';
(ii) by inserting ``or intimate digital forgery'' after
``depiction'' each place it appears; and
(iii) by inserting ``, solicitation, or possession'' after
``disclosure'';
(3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5);
[[Page S146]]
(4) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Relief.--
``(A) In general.--In a civil action filed under this
section, an identifiable individual may recover--
``(i) damages as provided under subparagraph (C); and
``(ii) the cost of the action, including reasonable
attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
``(B) Punitive damages and other relief.--The court may, in
addition to any other relief available at law, award punitive
damages or order equitable relief, including a temporary
restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or a permanent
injunction ordering the defendant to delete, destroy, or
cease to display or disclose the intimate visual depiction or
intimate digital forgery.
``(C) Damages.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), the
identifiable individual may recover--
``(i) liquidated damages in the amount of--
``(I) $150,000; or
``(II) $250,000 if the conduct at issue in the claim was--
``(aa) committed in relation to actual or attempted sexual
assault, stalking, or harassment of the identifiable
individual by the defendant; or
``(bb) the direct and proximate cause of actual or
attempted sexual assault, stalking, or harassment of the
identifiable individual by any person; or
``(ii) actual damages sustained by the individual, which
shall include any profits of the defendant that are
attributable to the conduct at issue in the claim that are
not otherwise taken into account in computing the actual
damages.
``(D) Calculation of defendant's profit.--For purposes of
subparagraph (C)(ii), to establish the defendant's profits,
the identifiable individual shall be required to present
proof only of the gross revenue of the defendant, and the
defendant shall be required to prove the deductible expenses
of the defendant and the elements of profit attributable to
factors other than the conduct at issue in the claim.
``(4) Preservation of privacy.--In a civil action filed
under this section, the court may issue an order to protect
the privacy of a plaintiff, including by--
``(A) permitting the plaintiff to use a pseudonym;
``(B) requiring the parties to redact the personal
identifying information of the plaintiff from any public
filing, or to file such documents under seal; and
``(C) issuing a protective order for purposes of discovery,
which may include an order indicating that any intimate
visual depiction or intimate digital forgery shall remain in
the care, custody, and control of the court.'';
(5) in paragraph (5)(A), as so redesignated--
(A) by striking ``image'' and inserting ``visual depiction
or intimate digital forgery''; and
(B) by striking ``depicted'' and inserting
``identifiable''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Statute of limitations.--Any action commenced under
this section shall be barred unless the complaint is filed
not later than 10 years from the later of--
``(A) the date on which the identifiable individual
reasonably discovers the violation that forms the basis for
the claim; or
``(B) the date on which the identifiable individual reaches
18 years of age.
``(7) Duplicative recovery barred.--No relief may be
ordered under paragraph (3) against a person who is subject
to a judgment under section 2255 of title 18, United States
Code, for the same conduct involving the same identifiable
individual and the same intimate visual depiction or intimate
digital forgery.''.
(c) Continued Applicability of Federal, State, and Tribal
Law.--
(1) In general.--This Act shall not be construed to impair,
supersede, or limit a provision of Federal, State, or Tribal
law.
(2) No preemption.--Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a
State or Tribal government from adopting and enforcing a
provision of law governing disclosure of intimate images or
nonconsensual activity involving an intimate digital forgery,
as defined in section 1309(a) of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022 (15 U.S.C. 6851(a)), as amended by
this Act, that is at least as protective of the rights of a
victim as this Act.
SEC. 4. SEVERABILITY; RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Severability.--If any provision of this Act, an
amendment made by this Act, or the application of such a
provision or amendment to any person or circumstance, is held
to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions of and
amendments made by this Act, and the application of the
provision or amendment held to be unconstitutional to any
other person or circumstance, shall not be affected thereby.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act, or an
amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to limit or
expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it feels good. It feels good to see the
Senate actually passing legislation. It is rare. It doesn't happen a
lot. With a measure of this importance, it is critically important that
we come together, both political parties.
I want to thank Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez for her leadership on
this issue and her bravery on this issue throughout this debate.
Now, let's pass this in the House and make it the law of the land.
Give to the victims their day in court to hold those responsible and
continue to publish these images at their expense.
The Senate voted to unanimously pass this important legislation. The
victims of this horrible crime deserve their day in court and, today,
we are one step closer to making that a reality.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
S.J. Res. 84
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, sometimes, in Washington, you feel like
there is nothing anyone can agree on. But one thing we can all agree
on, no matter what your party, healthcare is too expensive.
I am a doctor who worked at a hospital in the public hospital system
for the working uninsured and poorly insured. And it is not just the
poor but middle-income Americans who have a really hard time right now
affording their healthcare.
There is a little bit of irony here. ObamaCare came into existence,
and it was supposed to decrease premiums by $2,400 a year. Since then,
premiums have probably risen an aggregate of 100 percent since that law
was passed. Part of this--part of this--is waste, fraud, and abuse of
taxpayer dollars. So we pay higher premiums, and the taxpayer is
getting ripped off as well.
Here are just some recent examples. In November, a Federal jury in
West Palm Beach convicted two individuals in a $233 million ObamaCare
fraudulent enrollment scheme. Earlier this year, the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services identified 2.8 million duplicate
enrollments across Medicaid and ObamaCare, which wastes an estimated
$14 billion annually.
Just a few weeks ago, the Government Accountability Office released a
report highlighting likely significant fraud in the ObamaCare
Marketplace due to lack of proper verification. In this report, by the
way, the GAO put up shoddy data on purpose to see if it would be
accepted, and it was accepted across the board, even though they came
nowhere close to providing the information they were supposed to
provide.
The American people want lower healthcare costs. They also want us to
protect their taxpayer dollars from fraud and abuse. So we need a
healthcare system that protects patients and families but doesn't
reward a ``get rich quick by any means'' fraudster looking to get an
extra buck from the Federal taxpayer.
That is why Republicans have focused on a way forward on healthcare
that actually lowers costs, fights fraud, and gives power to the
patient, not profit to the insurance company, not ill-gotten gains to
the criminal.
My Democratic colleagues are about to put up a resolution that would
do a Congressional Review Act on a recent rule put out by the
administration to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. For whatever reason,
this resolution wants to fight fighting waste, fraud, and abuse. And if
the CRA passes, it will eliminate commonsense measures for waste,
fraud, and abuse--to eliminate them, to at least address them--as well
as safeguards ensuring that subsidies go to patients who qualify, those
who need it to afford coverage.
By the way, the resolution being offered by my Democratic colleagues
will raise insurance premiums by 5 percent. They are offering a CRA
that raises premiums, the effect of, by 5 percent. That is money that a
family could use to pay their car note, their flood insurance note,
their grocery bill--you name it--rent for their apartment, and,
instead, it is going to insurance companies.
I don't quite know why my Democratic colleagues are so entrenched in
protecting a broken system. They are willing to raise premiums by 5
percent to protect the status quo.
All that said, I am a doctor who worked in the public hospital system
for over 20 years, trying to bring healthcare to people who otherwise
couldn't afford it. Let's work together. Let's find a solution that
actually lowers costs, doesn't increase premiums. Let's find a solution
that squeezes out waste, eliminates and prosecutes fraud, not a system
in which they are rewarded.
[[Page S147]]
As a doctor, as a conservative, as an American, as a steward of the
Federal taxpayer--when I say Federal taxpayer, I mean you and me and
everybody watching and everyone in the Gallery--let's steward that
money correctly. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution and
continue with bipartisan, important work to make healthcare more
affordable.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
____________________