<p>In their article “Traumatherapie und ihre Schattenseiten: Über unerwünschte Nebenwirkungen müssen wir reden, statt sie zu verharmlosen [Trauma therapy and its problems: We need to talk about adverse efects rather than play them down]”, Niehaus and Sonnicksen express critical views on the research conducted by our group regarding potential memory-distorting effects of trauma-focused interventions. We welcome this debate as a valuable contribution to the scientific discourse. In this reply, we address central points of criticism raised by the authors, clarify several statements that are either misleading or factually inaccurate, and refer to recent studies that directly address the research gaps identified. Among other aspects, we discuss the validity of analogue paradigms, the external validity of our findings, and the generalizability of our results to the context of psychological expert testimony in legal proceedings. Our previous results suggest that trauma-focused interventions, when conducted professionally and according to established standards, do not impair memory for distressing events. At the same time, we acknowledge the need for further research into risk constellations and potentially suggestive elements within psychotherapeutic practice. We advocate for a nuanced, empirically grounded examination of the conditions under which psychotherapeutic interventions may increase the risk of memory distortions. The aim is to enable a differentiated risk assessment that neither trivializes potential dangers nor leads to the blanket rejection of trauma-focused psychotherapeutic interventions as inherently unsuitable or risky in forensic contexts.</p>