Proposed 'Safeguarding Honest Speech Act' Blocks Federal Funds for Preferred Pronoun/Name Policies, Defines 'Sex' Biologically

The Safeguarding Honest Speech Act proposes a significant shift in federal workplace policies. At its core, this bill would prohibit using federal money to enforce any rule or guidance requiring federal employees or contractors to use a person's preferred pronouns if those pronouns don't align with the person's sex, as defined by the bill. It also applies this prohibition to using a name other than a person's legal name.

Defining the Terms

A key part of this bill is its specific definition of "sex." Section 2 explicitly states that for the purposes of this act, "sex" refers only to the biological and genetic traits recognized at birth. This definition directly impacts the bill's main prohibition, tying the non-use of preferred pronouns or names to this biological definition. The bill targets any federal rule, policy, or guidance that mandates language contrary to this specific definition of sex.

Recourse for Employees and Contractors

The act outlines a clear process for federal employees and contractors who believe a violation has occurred. According to Section 2, they can submit a written notice to the relevant federal agency. The agency must then provide a formal response within 30 days. If the employee or contractor isn't satisfied, the bill grants them the right to file a civil lawsuit against the agency. The timeframe for filing such a suit is tight: within one year of the alleged violation. Potential court awards include stopping the enforcement of the policy (injunctive relief), compensation for damages (compensatory damages), and punitive damages, though the latter are capped at $100,000. Reasonable attorney fees could also be awarded.

Potential Workplace Impact

This legislation could directly influence interactions within federal agencies and among contractors. For instance, if an agency currently has or introduces a policy requiring employees to use colleagues' or citizens' preferred pronouns as a matter of respect or workplace conduct, this bill would prevent federal funds from being used to enforce that requirement if the pronouns don't match the bill's definition of 'sex'. It essentially creates a federal shield against mandatory pronoun or preferred name usage policies based on gender identity, grounding the acceptable terms in the legal name and the biologically defined sex. This could alter the dynamics of workplace communication and potentially conflict with existing diversity and inclusion initiatives within federal workplaces, focusing solely on the perspective outlined in the bill regarding 'honest speech'.