Federal Bill Ties Grant Money to State Laws Allowing Civil Suits Over Nonconsensual Condom Removal

The newly introduced Consent is Key Act is straightforward: it uses federal funding to push states into creating a specific new civil right. Specifically, the bill requires the Attorney General to give states an increase in certain federal grant money if that state passes a law allowing residents to sue anyone who removes a sexual protection barrier—like a condom or dental dam—without consent. This civil lawsuit could seek financial damages or other court-ordered solutions, providing a specific legal remedy for a serious violation often referred to as "stealthing." The bill defines "nonconsensual sexual protection barrier removal" as taking away one of these barriers without permission, resulting in sexual contact, and sets aside $5 million annually from 2026 through 2030 to fund this incentive program.

The Federal Carrot on a Stick

This isn't just a suggestion; it's a financial incentive tied to a specific federal grant under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). If your state wants a bigger slice of that grant pie, it has to show the Attorney General that it has passed the required civil liability law (SEC. 2). For states that comply, the funding boost is capped at 20 percent of the average amount they received over the last three grant cycles (SEC. 4). This increase lasts for four years, and a state can only receive this specific bonus four times total (SEC. 5). This mechanism is a classic example of the federal government using its budget to steer state policy—a big financial carrot encouraging states to adopt a specific legal protection.

A New Tool for Accountability

For everyday people, the biggest impact is the creation of a new legal tool. Currently, many jurisdictions lack clear legal recourse for victims of nonconsensual barrier removal, often leaving them with limited options outside of complex or rarely prosecuted criminal charges. This bill incentivizes states to create a clear path for a civil lawsuit. Imagine a scenario where someone removes a condom without permission; under this new state law, the victim could sue the perpetrator directly for damages, covering things like medical testing, emotional distress, or other costs associated with the violation. This provides a specific, accessible form of justice and accountability that is separate from the criminal court system.

The Fine Print on State Compliance

While the goal is solid—protecting sexual autonomy—the implementation relies heavily on the Attorney General. If a state applies for the increased funding, it must provide "whatever information the Attorney General reasonably asks for" to prove compliance (SEC. 3). This is where things get a little squishy. The term "reasonably asks for" gives the Attorney General significant administrative power to decide if a state's newly passed law actually meets the federal requirements. If a state passes a law that the AG deems insufficient, they could miss out on the crucial grant money, which could lead to friction between state capitals and Washington D.C. over what constitutes a valid law.

The Cost of Doing Business

For taxpayers, the bill authorizes $5 million per year from Fiscal Year 2026 through 2030 to cover the cost of these grant increases (SEC. 6). For states, the decision is simple: pass the specific civil liability law and get up to 20% more federal funding for four years, or keep their current laws and miss out on the bonus. This puts pressure on state legislatures to act quickly and specifically, potentially overriding other priorities. Ultimately, this Act is a targeted effort to establish a national standard for protecting against nonconsensual barrier removal, using the power of the federal purse to make it happen.