As I read it this allows civil suites against persons for publishing up a photo where the publisher used the "remove element from background", much less "any Instagram filter" without the explicit consent of the photographed person.
The definition of digital forgery references the existing legal code's definition of "Intimate visual depiction", which is defined here: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6...
So if you take an otherwise legal picture of someone, and add a filter which, eg, gives them a big forehead, you're fine. However, if you take a picture of and use it to create realistic porn of that person, that can sue.
Plus all the usual not understanding how the government, and especially the first amendment, works, which is a separate but also serious problem.
However, I do think it would allow, say, Trump to sue people who made or distributed an image of him appearing in a diaper (IIRC I think that has been a fairly common way to mock him as a crybaby).
The existing legal code which this bill modified is linked from the bill and available here: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6...
In this, it defines "intimate visual depiction". I see nothing here that would qualify in an image of Trump being in a diaper.