New 'Honest Speech' Bill Bans Federal Funds for Mandatory Pronoun Use, Creates $100k Lawsuit Cap

The newly introduced Safeguarding Honest Speech Act is aiming to change the way federal agencies manage employee speech, specifically around gender identity. In short, this bill says the federal government cannot spend any money to force its employees or contractors to use preferred pronouns that don’t match the person’s "sex as determined only by their reproductive biology and genetics at birth." It also prohibits agencies from compelling the use of any name that isn't a person's legal name.

The Fine Print on Compelled Speech

This isn't just about internal memos; it’s a hard line drawn in the budget. The bill explicitly bans the use of any federal funds to enforce rules that compel this kind of speech. For the average federal worker—say, a manager at the VA or a contractor working on an IT project—this means they cannot be disciplined, demoted, or fired for refusing to use a colleague’s preferred pronouns if those pronouns differ from the colleague's biological sex at birth, as defined by the bill. If an agency tries to mandate the use of a non-legal name, that’s also off the table.

Your Right to Sue the Feds

One of the biggest real-world impacts of this bill is the private right of action it establishes. If you are a federal employee or contractor and you feel your agency is forcing you to violate this rule, you first have to send the agency a written notice. They have 30 days to respond. If their response doesn't satisfy you, the bill gives you a green light to sue the federal agency or department directly. You only have one year from the date of the alleged violation to file that lawsuit.

If you win, the judge can order the practice to stop (injunctive relief), award you money for losses (compensatory damages), and even award punitive damages, though those are capped at $100,000. Plus, the agency has to cover your reasonable attorney fees. This structure—a clear path to litigation and the promise of damages—is designed to make agencies think twice before implementing any policy that touches on mandatory pronoun or name use.

The Unintended Consequences of Clarity

While the bill aims to protect the conscience of employees who object to using certain pronouns, it creates a tricky situation for everyone else. Federal agencies, fearing lawsuits and the loss of funds, might simply ban all policies related to preferred names or pronouns to avoid violating this act. This could inadvertently create a less inclusive or even hostile work environment for transgender or non-binary employees who rely on those workplace policies for respect and recognition. Essentially, the bill forces agencies to prioritize the objecting employee's conscience over the affirming employee's identity.

Furthermore, the definition of sex here is extremely narrow—based only on "reproductive biology and genetics at birth." This highly specific definition, combined with the threat of litigation, means agencies must navigate a very narrow path, and any misstep could result in a costly lawsuit. The bill is clear about who it intends to protect, but the cost of that protection might be borne by the agency budget and the workplace environment for many federal employees.