Whether information is routinely and nonstrategically evaluated for truth during comprehension is still a point of contention. Previous studies supporting the assumption of nonstrategic validation have used a Stroop-like paradigm in which participants provided yes/no judgments in tasks unrelated to the truth or plausibility of the experimental sentences. Other studies using a nonevaluative task failed to support this assumption. This leaves open the possibility that validation is conditional on an evaluative mindset of the reader. In the present study, we investigated this question directly by using a nonevaluative probe task. Participants responded to the probe words "true" or "false" with two different keys after reading true or false sentences for comprehension. Results provide evidence for routine validation even when it is not encouraged by the task, but they also suggest that semantic processing is critical for validation to occur. These results can be taken as evidence for a close connection between validation and comprehension rather than validation being a goal-dependent process.