Military Law Update Criminalizes Deepfakes and Strengthens Penalties for Nonconsensual Image Sharing

The Halting Online Nonconsensual Offenses in the Ranks Act, or the HONOR Act, updates the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to crack down on the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, formally known as NCII. This legislation specifically targets service members who wrongly broadcast or distribute private pictures or videos, making a critical update by including “digital forgeries”—or deepfakes—under the same offense. This isn't just a technical change; it’s the military justice system catching up with modern digital harm.

The New Rules of Digital Privacy

This bill overhauls Article 117a of Title 10, U.S. Code, to define what actions are punishable. For images of adults, a service member is guilty if they share an authentic intimate image without consent, and they knew the person expected privacy, the image wasn’t taken in a public setting, it’s not a matter of public concern, and the sharing was intended to cause—or actually caused—harm. That harm can be psychological, financial, or reputational. If they share a deepfake of an adult, the rules are similar, requiring lack of consent, no public concern, and proof of intent or actual harm. This requirement to prove intent or actual harm for adult victims is a key detail and could be a high bar to clear in a military court setting.

Stricter Standards for Minors and Deepfakes

When the image involves a minor (under 18), the rules tighten significantly. If a service member shares an authentic intimate image or a deepfake of a minor, they are guilty if they did it with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade the minor, or for sexual arousal or gratification. This removes the need to prove expected privacy or public setting, recognizing the heightened vulnerability of minors.

Consent is Not a Blanket Pass

One of the most important clarifications in the HONOR Act is how it defines consent. The bill explicitly states that just because someone agreed to have a picture taken doesn't mean they consented to it being shared later. Furthermore, sharing an image with one person does not give permission for that person, or anyone else, to share it further. Consent must be an “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement made without force, fraud, or coercion.” This is a huge win for privacy, making it clear that consent to creation is separate from consent to distribution.

When Sharing is Still Allowed

The bill carves out several necessary exceptions, showing that the law recognizes the difference between malicious sharing and legitimate activity. The offense does not apply if the sharing is part of a lawful investigation by U.S. or state law enforcement or intelligence agencies. It also allows for good faith disclosures made in legal filings, for medical treatment, or for legitimate scientific or educational purposes. This means that if a service member is reporting an assault or seeking help after receiving an unsolicited image, they are protected from being charged under this article. For the average person, this ensures that the new rules don't interfere with necessary legal or medical processes, but rather target the malicious intent.