This bill declares nondisclosure clauses unenforceable to the extent they prohibit victims or others from disclosing sexual abuse of a person under 18. It defines covered conduct to include federal sex offenses (chapter 110 of title 18 and section 1591) and state criminal sexual offenses, and it bars courts and other authorities from enforcing or attempting to enforce those clauses.
The measure applies retroactively to agreements entered before, on, or after enactment, expressly preempts state laws that permit enforcement, and preserves a narrow space for confidentiality that does not prevent the protected disclosures (for example, limiting who may disclose payment terms by parties other than the victim). Its legal rationale invokes both Congress’s Article I Necessary and Proper authority and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to address State action through judicial enforcement of private agreements.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes nondisclosure clauses void and unenforceable only to the extent they prohibit a victim or any other person from disclosing sexual abuse of a minor or facts related to that abuse. It also permits other parties to retain certain confidentiality over payment terms so long as that confidentiality does not block the protected disclosures.
Who It Affects
Survivors, alleged perpetrators, entities that have required confidentiality in settlements (employers, institutions, and defense counsel), courts asked to enforce NDAs, and law enforcement and child-protection agencies that depend on disclosures. It also affects state law regimes that previously authorized enforcement of such clauses.
Why It Matters
By stripping enforceability from confidentiality clauses tied to child sexual abuse and applying that rule retroactively, the bill can reopen settled matters and change how institutions assess litigation risk and settlement strategy. It also raises federal–state implementation questions because it targets judicial enforcement and invokes constitutional authorities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill identifies two core problems it targets: private confidentiality provisions used to silence disclosures about sexual abuse of minors, and State-court enforcement of those provisions that the sponsors say obstructs reporting and prosecution. It defines a ‘‘minor person’’ as anyone under 18, a ‘‘nondisclosure clause’’ as any contractual provision that bars disclosure, and ‘‘sexual abuse against a minor person’’ to include conduct that would violate federal sex-offense statutes as well as comparable state crimes.
Substantively, the bill treats nondisclosure clauses as void and unenforceable—but only to the extent they stop a victim or alleged victim from revealing the abuse or prevent any other person from disclosing facts about that abuse in ways that support the victim’s right to disclose. That means courts and other authorities cannot enforce NDAs or similar confidentiality terms when enforcement would silence disclosures related to child sexual abuse.
The bill also preserves a limited form of confidentiality: parties (other than the victim) may still agree to keep certain information—such as payment amounts—confidential so long as that confidentiality does not prevent the victim or others from making the protected disclosures.The measure applies retroactively to agreements entered into at any time and includes an explicit ban on enforcing or attempting to enforce the covered nondisclosure clauses regardless of when the contract was signed. It also contains a federal preemption rule: the Act supersedes any State law that would allow enforcement of provisions the Act bars, but it allows States to enact or retain laws that are consistent with the Act or that provide greater protection for survivors.
The bill grounds its authority in Congress’s Article I power (necessary and proper to enforce federal criminal law) and in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment (addressing State action where courts enforce private confidentiality that impairs constitutional rights).
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill voids and makes unenforceable any contractual nondisclosure clause that prohibits a victim or alleged victim from disclosing sexual abuse of a person under 18, or that prevents others from disclosing facts related to that abuse to support the victim’s disclosures.
It defines covered conduct to include offenses under chapter 110 of title 18 (federal sex-offense statutes) and sex trafficking of a minor under 18 U.S.C. §1591, as well as sexual acts that are criminal under the law of the State where they occur.
The bill preserves a limited confidentiality carve‑out: parties (including alleged perpetrators) may agree to keep certain information—such as settlement amounts or payment terms—confidential so long as the restriction does not stop the disclosures protected by the Act.
The Act applies retroactively to agreements entered before, on, or after enactment and flatly bars anyone from enforcing or attempting to enforce a nondisclosure clause that the Act renders unenforceable.
It expressly preempts State laws to the extent those laws permit enforcement of the prohibited clauses, while allowing States to adopt laws that are consistent with the Act or provide greater protections for survivors.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the statute the public name ‘‘Terminating Restrictive Enforcement of Youth Settlements Law’’ or ‘‘TREY’S Law.’
Findings and purposes; constitutional bases
Lays out the legislative findings that (1) confidentiality agreements have been used to silence survivors and interfere with enforcement of federal criminal and civil law, and (2) Congress relies on Article I (Necessary and Proper) and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to prohibit judicial enforcement of such agreements. Practically, including both bases signals Congress’s intent to reach both private agreements that impede federal law enforcement and State action (judicial enforcement) that, in Congress’s view, impairs constitutional rights.
Key definitions: minor, nondisclosure clause, sexual abuse
Defines ‘‘minor person’’ as under 18, ‘‘nondisclosure clause’’ broadly as any contract provision that bars disclosure, and ‘‘sexual abuse against a minor person’’ to include specified federal offenses and any sexual conduct that is a criminal offense under applicable state law. The statutory definitions make clear the bill’s reach covers both federal and state criminal conduct and sweeps in a wide range of confidentiality instruments (settlements, NDAs, release provisions).
Nondisclosure clauses void and unenforceable; permissible confidentiality
States the core rule: nondisclosure clauses are void only to the extent they prohibit victims or others from disclosing sexual abuse of minors or related facts. The section also creates a narrow safe harbor: confidentiality that restricts disclosure by another party (for example, an alleged perpetrator) of payment amounts or terms remains permitted so long as it does not prevent the disclosures the Act protects. Practically, this forces contract drafters to carve confidentiality carefully and preserves some settlement privacy while removing any clause that would silence a victim or block third‑party corroboration.
Retroactivity and bar on enforcement attempts
Applies the Act to nondisclosure clauses in agreements made before, on, or after enactment and explicitly forbids anyone from enforcing or attempting to enforce a clause rendered unenforceable by Section 4(a). That language can be used to challenge sealed settlements or to oppose motions to enforce confidentiality in existing cases; it also raises practical litigation questions about how courts should treat previously sealed records and whether contract resolutions will be reopened in whole or in part.
Preemption and State opt‑in for greater protection
Supersedes State law to the extent a State permits enforcement of a clause that the Act prohibits, but permits States to enact laws consistent with the Act or that provide greater protection for victims. This is a express federal preemption clause with a saving clause that invites states to go further, but it also sets up potential federal–state interface issues in implementation, especially where State procedures for settlements, confidentiality, or victim compensation differ.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice 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 child sexual abuse: The Act removes enforceable contractual barriers that could have prevented them from reporting abuse, speaking publicly, cooperating with law enforcement, or accessing the courts.
- Family members, witnesses, and third‑party corroborators: The bill permits any other person to disclose facts related to a minor’s abuse in support of a victim’s disclosure, reducing the risk that bystander corroboration will be contractually silenced.
- Law enforcement and child‑protection agencies: By eliminating enforceable confidentiality that can obstruct reporting, agencies may receive more information and cooperation needed for investigation and prosecution.
Who Bears the Cost
- Alleged perpetrators and parties who relied on confidentiality to limit reputational harm: Parties who previously negotiated secrecy as part of settlements lose the ability to enforce that secrecy, which could reduce the value of confidentiality as settlement consideration.
- Institutions that used NDAs (employers, schools, religious organizations): Those institutions may face renewed disclosures, reputational exposure, and increased litigation or regulatory scrutiny where they previously relied on confidentiality to contain allegations.
- Defense counsel, settlement negotiators, and insurers: These stakeholders will need to change settlement practices, update release language, and anticipate that confidentiality will not be enforceable if it restricts disclosures about minor sexual abuse; insurers may see shifts in reserve strategies or coverage disputes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting survivors’ constitutional and law‑enforcement interests in speaking and seeking redress, and preserving private autonomy and finality in civil settlements; the bill decisively prioritizes disclosure and public safety but does so at the cost of limiting the contractual privacy and certainty that many parties have long treated as a key component of settlement bargaining.
The bill is precise in its bar on enforcement, but it leaves unresolved enforcement mechanics and downstream litigation consequences. It explicitly forbids enforcement or attempts to enforce covered nondisclosure clauses, yet it does not create a specific private cause of action, statutory damages, or an enforcement mechanism (for example, direct federal penalties).
Practically, this means challenges to NDAs will proceed through existing litigation pathways—motions to vacate, objections to enforcement, or refusal of State courts to enforce contracts—raising questions about remedies for victims, sanctions for violations of the Act, and how federal courts should intervene when State courts attempt enforcement.
Retroactivity is consequential and legally fraught. Applying the rule to pre‑existing settlements can reopen cases, unsettle final judgments, and trigger collateral disputes about sealed records, confidentiality orders, and the allocation of settlement funds.
Although the statute permits confidentiality of payment terms by other parties provided it does not block victim disclosure, the line between permissible and impermissible confidentiality will invite litigation—especially over what counts as ‘‘facts related to’’ abuse or whether a nondisclosure clause has an indirect chilling effect. Finally, the federal preemption/backstop approach addresses interstate variation but creates federal–state friction: States may have differing procedures for enforcing contracts and protecting victims, and courts will likely need to interpret the scope of ‘‘State action’’ when judges themselves enforce NDAs.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.