HB5090, titled the HONOR Act, adds a new offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to prohibit wrongful broadcasting, distribution, or publication of intimate visual images and digital forgeries of identifiable individuals. The bill covers adults and minors under different provisions and lays out the conditions under which such transmissions are illegal, as well as the harm criteria and public-interest considerations that shape prosecutorial decisions.
It also introduces a consent framework and a set of exceptions to ensure legitimate disclosures remain possible in law enforcement, legal proceedings, medical education, and other legitimate contexts. Penalties would be determined by a court-martial.
This establishes a clearer, military-specific standard for privacy-protective behavior and accountability for online harms within armed forces communities.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a new offense under Article 117a (Wrongful broadcast, distribution, or publication of intimate visual images) to prohibit nonconsensual transmissions, including digital forgeries, of identifiable individuals who are not minors under defined conditions.
Who It Affects
Service members subject to the UCMJ, military units, defense lawyers, and DoD investigators; also extends to communications services used to publish or share material.
Why It Matters
Sets clear privacy protections for service members and creates enforceable mechanisms for accountability and redress within the military justice system.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The HONOR Act amends the Uniform Code of Military Justice to combat the wrongful broadcast, distribution, or publication of intimate visuals and digital-forgeries of identifiable individuals. It introduces a new offense under Article 117a that applies when a service member knowingly uses a communications service to publish such material, with conditions that mirror a reasonable expectation of privacy and lack of consent.
In addition to adults, the bill adds a proportional set of restrictions for minors, including cases where the intent is to humiliate, harass, or arouse sexual desire. The bill also defines what constitutes an intimate visual depiction and a digital forgery and includes a broad set of exemptions for legitimate contexts like law enforcement, medical cases, and legal proceedings.
Consent is narrowly defined as affirmative, voluntary authorization given free from coercion. The overall effect is to provide a precise, enforceable standard for preventing online harm within the military while preserving certain lawful disclosures and protections for the service member community.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a new offense under Article 117a for wrongful broadcasting or distribution of intimate images when privacy expectations exist and consent is missing.
A separate offense targets digital forgeries of identifiable individuals (non-minors) under similar non-consent and harm conditions.
The bill adds a distinct offense for digital forgeries of minors when the intent is to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade.
Consent is narrowly defined as affirmative, conscious, and voluntary authorization.
The bill includes explicit exceptions for law enforcement, legal proceedings, medical education, legitimate reporting, and self-published content.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Wrongful broadcast or distribution of intimate images
Section 2(a) creates a new offense under Article 117a prohibiting knowingly broadcasting, distributing, or using a communications service to publish an authentic intimate visual depiction of an identifiable adult under circumstances where the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy and did not consent. The offense further requires that the material not be publicly exposed voluntarily and that it either causes harm or is not a matter of public concern; it also covers the use of a digital or other medium to distribute such content, with a focus on intent to harm or actual harms such as psychological, financial, or reputational damage.
Exceptions
The subsection lays out exceptions to the prohibitions, including lawful investigative or protective actions by law enforcement or intelligence agencies, disclosures related to legal proceedings, medical education or treatment, reporting unlawful content, or seeking support for unsolicited intimate content. It also allows disclosures intended to assist the identifiable individual and exempts individuals who publish their own intimate content.
Consent
This provision clarifies that consent to create an intimate depiction does not imply consent to its further disclosure, and that dissemination without affirmative consent remains unlawful. It reinforces that consent must be voluntary and not coerced, misrepresented, or obtained under duress.
Definitions
Defines key terms including ‘consent,’ ‘digital forgery,’ ‘identifiable individual,’ ‘visual depiction,’ ‘intimate visual depiction,’ ‘minor,’ ‘broadcast,’ ‘distribute,’ and ‘communications service’ to set precise boundaries for the offense and its enforcement across military contexts.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Privacy across all five countries.
Explore Privacy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Survivors of nonconsensual intimate imagery within the military who gain clearer legal recourse and enhanced privacy protections.
- Military justice professionals (JAGs, prosecutors, and defense counsel) who will operate under clearer, codified standards and procedures.
- Command leadership and military units that require concrete guidance for responding to incidents and maintaining order.
- Military investigators and DoD agencies with a defined framework to pursue offenses and prevent harm.
- Victim-support organizations and advocacy groups focusing on service members’ privacy and safety.
Who Bears the Cost
- DoD and individual service branches bear costs associated with enforcing the new offense, training personnel, and updating procedures.
- Communications service providers and platforms used by the military may incur compliance costs and reporting obligations.
- Military units may incur investigation and administrative costs to handle cases arising under the new offense.
- DoD privacy and civil liberties oversight bodies may need to review and refine processes to prevent overreach or misapplication.
- Potential costs to service members in navigating additional administrative steps or legal processes in complaint handling.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing robust protection for service members’ privacy with the risk of overbreadth and potential chilling effects is the central dilemma. Narrow definitions and clearly delineated exceptions are essential to prevent misuse or overreach while still enabling effective enforcement and victim support.
The HONOR Act strengthens privacy protections in the military environment by codifying a clear prohibition on the wrongful broadcasting, distribution, or publication of intimate visuals and digital forgeries. It creates a risk-focused framework that targets nonconsensual harms while preserving necessary exemptions for legitimate disclosures, investigations, and clinical or educational contexts.
Implementation hinges on precise definitions (consent, identifiable individual, intimate visual depiction, digital forgery) and careful application to ensure victims are protected without chilling legitimate reporting or research. The breadth of definitions around “communcations service” and “visual depiction” is intentional to cover a wide range of digital platforms and media, but this breadth may require careful vetting in enforcement to avoid unintended consequences for legally permissible communications.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.