Speak Your Truth Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 9, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to deter defamation lawsuits against individuals who speak truthfully and without malice about their personal experiences with sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination by shifting legal costs to the plaintiff if the defendant prevails.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that a defendant who successfully defends against a defamation or libel lawsuit in federal court, where the suit is based on a communication made without malice about their own experience of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination, is entitled to have their reasonable attorney's fees and costs paid by the plaintiff. It aims to protect individuals who speak out about such experiences from retaliatory lawsuits.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill empowers victims and survivors of sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination to speak their truth without fear of financially ruinous defamation lawsuits. They contend it levels the playing field, preventing powerful individuals or institutions from using litigation as a tool to silence accusers, thereby promoting transparency and accountability.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while the intent is laudable, the bill could potentially chill legitimate defamation claims, even if the communication was made with malice, due to the risk of paying the defendant's legal fees. They might also raise concerns about defining "without malice" and the potential for increased litigation over fee awards themselves.
The bill is very short and can be read and understood quickly, allowing ample time for evaluation.
Section 2(a) and 2(c)
Mandatory Attorney's Fees for Prevailing Defendants in Specific Defamation Cases
This provision requires federal courts to award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to a defendant who wins a defamation or libel lawsuit. This award is only applicable if the lawsuit was brought against the defendant for making a factual communication, without malice, about their personal experience with sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination. The plaintiff in the original defamation case would be responsible for paying these fees.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for protecting free speech, especially for survivors of sexual misconduct and discrimination. It aims to prevent "SLAPP" (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) lawsuits, which are often used to silence critics by burdening them with legal costs, regardless of the merits of the underlying claim.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that while protecting free speech is important, this provision could make it harder for individuals who have been genuinely defamed to seek justice. They might argue that it creates an imbalance, potentially allowing false statements to go unchallenged due to the plaintiff's fear of incurring the defendant's legal costs, even if the plaintiff believes the statement was malicious.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the protection of free speech for individuals reporting personal experiences of harm against the right of individuals to protect their reputation from false and malicious statements. It creates a tension between encouraging victims to speak out and ensuring a fair avenue for those who believe they have been falsely accused.
The bill defines "communication" as factual information "expressed by the individual making the communication to another without malice." This means the fee-shifting only applies if the defendant's statement was not made with malicious intent.
Section 2(c)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining key terms, but its legal interpretation will be central to the bill's effect.
Case for: Proponents argue that including "without malice" ensures that the bill protects truthful speech and not intentionally false or reckless statements. It aims to strike a balance by not shielding individuals who knowingly spread falsehoods.
Case against: Critics might argue that proving "malice" (often "actual malice" in defamation law, requiring knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth) is a high bar for plaintiffs. They might contend that even with this clause, the burden on plaintiffs to prove malice and risk paying defendant's fees could still deter legitimate claims.
Estimated impact: This clause significantly narrows the scope of cases where fee-shifting would apply, focusing it on statements made in good faith.