[House Report 119-700]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 119-700
======================================================================
PROTECTING OUR COURTS FROM FOREIGN MANIPULATION ACT
_______
June 15, 2026.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Jordan, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2675]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2675) to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United
States Code, to increase transparency and oversight of third-
party funding by foreign persons, to prohibit third-party
funding by foreign states and sovereign wealth funds, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as
amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 4
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 8
Committee Votes.................................................. 8
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 12
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 12
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 12
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects.......................... 14
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 14
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 14
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 14
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 14
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 14
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 14
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 14
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 15
Dissenting Views................................................. 19
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all that follows after the enacting clause and insert
the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Our Courts from Foreign
Manipulation Act''.
SEC. 2. TRANSPARENCY AND LIMITATIONS ON FOREIGN THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION
FUNDING.
(a) In General.--Chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1660. Transparency and limitations on foreign third-party
litigation funding
``(a) Prohibition on Third-Party Funding Litigation by Foreign States
and Sovereign Wealth Funds.--
``(1) Funding prohibition.--It shall be unlawful--
``(A) for any foreign state or sovereign wealth fund
to provide any monetary support either directly or
indirectly for initiating or litigating a civil action
in which it is not a named party; or
``(B) for any party or counsel to receive from a
foreign state or sovereign wealth fund any monetary
support either directly or indirectly for initiating or
litigating a civil action in which the foreign state or
sovereign wealth fund is not a named party.
``(2) Sourcing prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any
party or counsel to enter into an agreement creating a right
for anyone, other than the named parties or counsel of record,
to receive any payment that is contingent, in any respect, on
proceeds from the action or from any matter within a portfolio
of civil actions that includes the civil action and involves
the same counsel of record or affiliated counsel, the terms of
which are to be satisfied by money that has been or will be
directly or indirectly sourced, in whole or in part, from a
foreign state or a sovereign wealth fund.
``(b) Enforcement.--
``(1) Null and void.--Any obligation to provide monetary
support or agreement in violation of subsection (a) shall be
null and void.
``(2) Dismissal.--Any civil action in which monetary support
in violation of subsection (a) has been or is being used by a
plaintiff to litigate the civil action shall be dismissed with
prejudice and subject to terms the court considers proper.
``(3) Relief on motion.--Any final judgment entered in a
civil action in which monetary support in violation of
subsection (a) was used may be subject to being relieved on
motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
``(c) Disclosure of Third-Party Litigation Funding and Foreign Source
Certification by Foreign Persons, Foreign States, and Sovereign Wealth
Funds.--
``(1) In general.--In any civil action, each party or the
counsel of record for the party shall--
``(A) disclose in writing to the court, to all other
named parties to the civil action, to the Attorney
General, and to the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General for National Security--
``(i) the name, the address and, if
applicable, the citizenship or the country of
incorporation or registration of any foreign
person, foreign state, or sovereign wealth
fund, other than the named parties or counsel
of record, that--
``(I) has provided or has agreed to
provide direct or indirect monetary
support for initiating or litigating
the civil action;
``(II) has a right to receive any
payment that is contingent, in any
respect, on proceeds from the civil
action pursuant to a settlement,
judgment, award of attorney's fees, or
pursuant to any other outcome of the
civil action; or
``(III) has a right to receive any
payment that is contingent, in any
respect, on proceeds from any matter
within a portfolio of civil actions
that includes the civil action by
settlement, judgement, award of
attorney's fees, or pursuant to any
other outcome of the civil action, and
involves the same counsel of record or
affiliated counsel; and
``(ii) if the party or the counsel of record
for the party submits a certification described
in subparagraph (C)(i), the name, the address,
and, if applicable, the citizenship or the
country of incorporation or registration of the
foreign person, foreign state, or sovereign
wealth fund that is the source of the money;
``(B) produce to the court, to all other named
parties to the civil action, to the Attorney General,
and to the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
for National Security, except as otherwise stipulated
or ordered by the court, a copy of any documentation
concerning monetary support described in subparagraph
(A)(i)(I) or any agreement creating a contingent right
described in subclause (II) or (III) of subparagraph
(A)(i); and
``(C) for a civil action in which direct or indirect
monetary support for initiating or litigating the civil
action has been or will be provided or in which there
is an agreement creating a right to receive any payment
by anyone, other than the named parties or counsel of
record, that is contingent, in any respect, on proceeds
from of the civil action by settlement, judgment, award
of attorney's fees, or pursuant to any other outcome of
the civil action, or on proceeds from any matter within
a portfolio that includes the civil action and involves
the same counsel or affiliated counsel, submit to the
court a certification that--
``(i) the money that has been or will be used
to provide monetary support or satisfy any term
of the agreement has been or will be directly
or indirectly sourced, in whole or in part,
from a foreign person, foreign state, or
sovereign wealth fund, including the monetary
amounts that have been or will be used to
satisfy the agreement; or
``(ii) that the disclosure and certification
criteria set forth in subparagraph (A)(ii) and
clause (i) of this subparagraph do not apply to
the civil action.
``(2) Timing.--
``(A) In general.--Any disclosure and certification
required under paragraph (1) for a civil action
described in such paragraph shall be made not later
than the later of--
``(i) 30 days after the date on which any
monetary support that is required to be
disclosed pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(i)(I),
or any portion thereof, is initially provided,
or any agreement described in subclause (I),
(II), or (III) of paragraph (1)(A)(i) is
executed; or
``(ii) the date on which the civil action is
filed.
``(B) Parties served or joined later.--A party that
has disclosure and certification obligations under
paragraph (1) that is first joined in the civil action
after the date on which the civil action is filed shall
make any disclosure and certification required under
paragraph (1) not later than 30 days after being
joined, unless a different time is set by stipulation
or court order.
``(3) Foreign source disclosure and certification format.--
``(A) In general.--Any disclosure required under
paragraph (1)(A) and a certification required under
paragraph (1)(C) shall--
``(i) be made in the form of a declaration
under penalty of perjury pursuant to section
1746 and shall be made to the best knowledge,
information, and belief of the declarant formed
after reasonable inquiry; and
``(ii) be provided to all other named parties
to the civil action, to the Attorney General,
and to the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General for National Security by the party or
counsel of record for the party making the
disclosure and certification, except as
otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court.
``(B) Supplementation and correction.--Not later than
30 days after the date on which a party or counsel of
record for the party knew or should have known that a
disclosure made under paragraph (1)(A) or a
certification made under paragraph (1)(C) is incomplete
or inaccurate in any material respect, the party or
counsel of record shall supplement or correct the
disclosure or certification.
``(d) Failure To Disclose, To Supplement; Sanctions.--A disclosure,
production, or certification under subsection (b) is deemed to be
information required by Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and subject to the sanctions provisions of Rule 37 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `foreign person'--
``(A) means any person or entity that is not a United
States person, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801);
and
``(B) does not include a foreign state or a sovereign
wealth fund;
``(2) the term `foreign state' has the meaning given that
term in section 1603; and
``(3) the term `sovereign wealth fund' means an investment
fund owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a foreign
state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state (as
defined in section 1603).''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections
chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``1660. Transparency and limitations on foreign third-party litigation
funding.''.
SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and
annually thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee
on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives a report on the activities involving
foreign third-party litigation funding in Federal courts, including, if
applicable--
(1) the identities of foreign third-party litigation funders
in Federal courts, including names, addresses, and citizenship
or country of incorporation or registration;
(2) the identities of foreign persons, foreign states, or
sovereign wealth funds (as such terms are defined in section
1660 of title 28, United States Code, as added by section 2 of
this Act) that have been the sources of money for third-party
litigation funding in Federal courts;
(3) the judicial districts in which foreign third-party
litigation funding has occurred;
(4) an estimate of the total amount of foreign-sourced money
used for third-party litigation funding in Federal courts,
including an estimate of the amount of such money sourced from
each country; and
(5) a summary of the subject matters of the civil actions in
Federal courts for which foreign sourced money has been used
for third-party litigation funding.
SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any civil action
pending on or commenced on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 2675, the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign
Manipulation Act, introduced by Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA), would
require litigants in civil actions to disclose any foreign
person, foreign state, or sovereign wealth fund that is not a
named party to the litigation but either has provided monetary
support for the civil action or has a right to receive any
payment that is contingent in any respect on the outcome or
proceeds of the civil action. Further, the bill prohibits
monetary support from a foreign state or sovereign wealth fund
that is not a named party to the civil action, and prohibits
any agreement under which such an actor would receive any
payment contingent on the outcome of the civil action.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) occurs ``when a third
party--rather than the parties themselves, their insurers, or
their counsel--agree to cover some or all of the costs of a
litigant's lawsuit.''\1\ That financial support is typically
provided in exchange for an agreement that the funder will
receive ``a percentage of any settlement the parties ultimately
negotiate in the case, or of any judgment the court ultimately
awards against the opposing party.''\2\ Over the past decade,
TPLF has grown in prevalence throughout the U.S. legal system,
spurring debate about whether the practice may present ethical
and national security concerns and whether legislative
guardrails are necessary.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Kevin Lewis, Cong. Research Serv., LSB10145, Following the
Money: Should Federal Law Require Litigants to Disclose Litigation
Funding Agreements? (2018) (``CRS TPLF Report'').
\2\Id.
\3\Id.; see also Unsuitable Litigation: Oversight of Third-Party
Litigation Funding Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Accountability,
118th Cong. 1 (Sept. 11, 2023) (statement for the record of Jerry
Theodorou); U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-23-105210, Third-
Party Litigation Financing: Market Characteristics, Data, and Trends
(2022) (``GAO TPLF Report''); Emily Pyclik, An Overview of How Third-
Party Litigation Funders are Being Addressed by Courts and Policymakers
Thought Leadership (June 3, 2024), https://www.bakerbotts.com/thought-
leadership/publications/2024/june/an-overview-of-how-third-party-
litigation-funders-are-being-addressed-by-courts-and-policymakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, research into the pervasiveness and nature of TPLF
is limited in part because ``[l]itigation financing is normally
done through confidential contracts, and disclosure generally
isn't required.''\4\ Unlike rules requiring insurance and
indemnification agreements to be disclosed in litigation,\5\
and rules requiring disclosure of corporate ownership of a
company in litigation,\6\ no universally applicable rules
currently exist mandating disclosure of litigation funders.\7\
This lack of information is especially concerning with respect
to the involvement of foreign actors, particularly the
governments of foreign adversary nations and their
instrumentalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Donald J. Kochan, Keeping Foreign Cash Out of U.S. Courts, Wall
St. J. (Nov. 24, 2022).
\5\See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) (requiring disclosure of
``any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be
liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action or
to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment'').
\6\See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 7.1(a) (``Any nongovernmental corporation
that is a party to a proceeding in a court of appeals must file a
statement that identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held
corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock or states that there is
no such corporation.'').
\7\See, generally, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26; U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Institute for Legal Reform, A New Threat: The National Security Risk of
Third Party Litigation Funding (Nov. 2022), https://
instituteforlegalreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/TPLF-Briefly-
Oct-2022-RBG-FINAL-1.pdf (except for a few limited exceptions, ``TPLF
arrangements need not be disclosed and therefore never end up being
revealed to the court in a particular case.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The People's Republic of China (PRC), in particular,
provides funds surreptitiously for both Chinese and non-Chinese
entities to litigate in the U.S. legal system. The city of
Haining in the PRC publicly offers direct cash subsidies for
PRC-based companies to engage in foreign patent litigation.\8\
Similarly, the city of Yangzhou offers direct cash subsidies
for PRC-based companies to engage in IP litigation overseas.\9\
Ultimately, these subsidies serve to encourage PRC-based
entities to fund potentially frivolous litigation intended to
harass U.S. companies and rights holders and profit from
them.\10\ In general, CCP-linked organizations and firms are
increasingly utilizing TPLF to strategically influence U.S.
legal proceedings.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Aaron Wininger, China Continues Market Distorting Patent
Subsidies, Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner, https://www.slwip.com/
resources/china-continues-market-distorting-
patent-subsidies/ (last visited Oct. 9, 2025).
\9\Yangzhou Market supervision, Up to 100,000 yuan! The application
for the 2024 Overseas Intellectual Property Dispute Rights Protection
Grant has begun (Aug. 6, 2024), https://mp.weixin.qq.com/
s?_biz=MzU2NTg1OTE0OA==&mid=2247598680&idx=1&sn=b7b50f53bb4
afe35280bc2a7e8265ea3&chksm=fded672f620a1de82d3bc05ef0c5515b1e4ddf80040e
7f16c5675faf
87f8aeb84746381c0c73&scene=27 (Mandarin language source only).
\10\See U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, A New
Threat: The National Security Risk of Third Party Litigation Funding
(Nov. 2022), https://instituteforlegalreform.com/wp-content/uploads/
2022/11/TPLF-Briefly-Oct-2022-RBG-FINAL-1.pdf (``These disputes, even
if not successful, could cost U.S. companies substantial sums and
damage their reputations, advancing the interests of the foreign
adversary or its home industries.''); see also USPTO, Trademarks and
patents in China: The impact of non-market factors on filing trends and
IP systems (Jan. 2021), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/USPTO-TrademarkPatents
InChina.pdf (discussing market distorting effect of subsidies for
trademark and patent application filings).
\11\Emily R. Siegel, China Firm Funds US Suits Amid Push to
Disclose Foreign Ties, Bloomberg Law (Nov. 6, 2023), https://
news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/china-firm-funds-us-
lawsuits-amid-push-to-disclose-foreign-ties; U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Institute for Legal Reform, A New Threat: The National Security Risk of
Third Party Litigation Funding (Nov. 2022), https://
instituteforlegalreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/TPLF-Briefly-
Oct-2022-RBG-FINAL-1.pdf (``a foreign adversary could encourage and
exploit commercial disputes involving U.S. companies to advance their
national interests in a variety of ways.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2023, for example, news reports revealed that a Chinese
funding entity was behind several patent lawsuits in the United
States, signaling that the PRC may be ``exploit[ing] the
American legal system and spy[ing] on corporations.''\12\
Specifically, the ``[c]ourt filings in Delaware show that
Shenzhen-based PurpleVine IP is backing two related
intellectual property suits'' filed by a U.S. plaintiff
relating to voice detection and noise reduction technology.\13\
PurpleVine IP also reportedly backed ``three other cases in
Texas, brought by the same Florida-based wearable tech
company.''\14\ These lawsuits could ``advance [the PRC's]
national interest in a variety of ways,'' including
``advantag[ing] their home industries'' by targeting U.S.
competitors.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\See, e.g., Joe Miller, Chinese-funded lawsuits fuel backlash
against litigation financiers, Fin. Times (Nov. 18, 2023).
\13\Id.
\14\Id.
\15\U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, A New
Threat: The National Security Risk of Third Party Litigation Funding
(Nov. 2022), https://instituteforlegalreform.com/wp-content/uploads/
2022/11/TPLF-Briefly-Oct-2022-RBG-FINAL-1.pdf (``a foreign adversary
could encourage and exploit commercial disputes involving U.S.
companies to advance their national interests in a variety of ways.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC's litigation funding efforts underscore risks that
the PRC and other adversaries will gain access to vital
emerging technologies. By providing financial backing for
lawsuits, particularly in intellectual property (IP) cases, PRC
actors may attempt to gain access to sensitive proprietary
information disclosed during discovery through their hidden
relationships with the plaintiffs they are funding, which could
be used to advance the PRC's technological and economic
objectives.\16\ Although protective orders are available in
litigation, there is a significant risk of trade secret
leakage.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., Intellectual Property:
Information On Third-Party Funding Of Patent Litigation (Dec. 2024),
https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-25-107214/
index.html?_gl=1*1akc7l*_ga*MTI5MTQzNTMwNS4xNzMzNTAyOTg2*_ga_V393SNS3SR*
MT
czNDEyMTM0OS4yLjAuMTczNDEyMTM1Ni4wLjAuMA; Press Release, U.S. Chamber
of Commerce Releases New Report on the National Security Ramifications
of Third Party Litigation Funding, U.S. Chamber of Com. (Nov. 2, 2022),
https://instituteforlegalreform.com/press-release/new-report-national-
security-ramifications-of-third-party-litigation-funding/.
\17\Peter S. Menell, et al., Trade Secret Case Management Judicial
Guide, 1-3, Federal Judicial Center (2023), https://www.fjc.gov/sites/
default/files/materials/08/Trade%20Secret%20final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted by the Federal Judicial Center, ``[t]he protected
information claimed to be at issue in a trade secret case
cannot be disclosed in public filings . . . without destroying
the very subject matter of the plaintiff's legal claim.''\18\
Courts must fashion ``an appropriate protective order that
takes into consideration the trustworthiness of the various
players in the litigation drama: counsel, litigants, employees,
experts, and possibly others.''\19\ These risks are not merely
speculative when it comes to the PRC, which has a track record
of being involved in attempts to improperly access confidential
information.\20\ Moreover, PRC law requires entities that
obtain disclosure of trade secrets in litigation, including
U.S. litigation, to disclose those trade secrets to the PRC
state intelligence agency upon request.\21\ Undisclosed funding
by the PRC, and by PRC-affiliated or controlled entities,
raises risks of IP leakage and disclosure of technology and
information that pose significant national security risks.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Id. at 1-3.
\19\Id. at 1-3.
\20\Stan Gibson, Plaintiff's Violation of Protective Order Results
in $40,000 in Sanctions for Disclosing Confidential Information from
U.S. Litigation in a Lawsuit in China, Patent Lawyer Blog (Dec. 16,
2020), https://patentlaw.jmbm.com/2020/12/plaintiffs-violation-of-
protective-order-results-in-40000-in-sanctions-for-disclosing-
confidential-information-from-u-s-litigation-in-a-
lawsuit-in-china.html; See also In re Micron Technology, Inc., Petition
for a Writ of Mandamus, Supreme Court Docket No. 24-1216 (May 27, 2025)
(objecting to order to provide copies of highly confidential computer
source code to PRC state owned enterprise during discovery) (petition
denied).
\21\The National Intelligence Law of 2017 of the PRC mandates
collaboration with state intelligence operations. See China Law
Translate, ``PRC National Intelligence Law (as amended in 2018)'' (June
27, 2017), available at https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/national-
intelligence- law-of-the-p-r-c-2017/; See also Law Info China,
``Cybersecurity Law of the People's Republic of China'' (Nov. 7, 2016),
available at https://www.lawinfochina.com/Display.aspx?Id=
22826&Lib=law&LookType=3.
\22\Peter Charles Choharis, National Security Implications of
Foreign Third-Party Litigation Financing, American Security Project
(May 8, 2025), https://www.american securityproject.org/perspective-
national-security-implications-of-foreign-third-party-litigation-
financing/; U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, A New
Threat: The National Security Risk of Third Party Litigation Funding
(Nov. 2022), https://instituteforlegalreform.com/wp-content/uploads/
2022/11/TPLF-Briefly-Oct-2022-RBG-FINAL-1.pdf (``The foreign adversary
could also use litigation funding to gain access to sensitive or
otherwise unavailable information related to either of the
litigants.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to direct evidence of Chinese TPLF in IP
disputes, circumstantial evidence also strongly indicates that
the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is orchestrating TPLF to
influence and exploit U.S. litigation in other areas. A long-
running dispute between Stanford University and the widow of Li
Rui, a former CCP leader and outspoken critic of the CCP, bears
hallmarks of CCP financial support.\23\ Li Rui's daughter, who
is a vocal critic of the CCP, donated his diaries to the Hoover
Institution at Stanford.\24\ Following the donation, Li Rui's
widow sued Stanford to seek the return of the diaries, but her
age and limited resources have caused ``questions [to be]
raised about whether the lawsuit was her idea,'' as ``[o]nly
the Chinese Communist Party . . . has `the resources, the money
and the political will to do that.''\25\ Attorneys for Li Rui's
widow deny the allegations of CCP control.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\See Jennifer Jett, Diaries of Mao's secretary at the center of
a legal battle over the history of modern China, NBC News (Aug. 25,
2024), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/us-china-legal-battle-mao-
secretary-diaries-rcna167726.
\24\Id.
\25\Id.
\26\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current lack of disclosure obligations on TPLF
arrangements severely hampers the ability to identify, much
less counteract, efforts of the CCP to advance the interests of
the PRC through such funding. The funding of the suits in
Delaware by PurpleVine IP was only discovered because the Chief
Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
has a standing order requiring disclosure of all litigation
funding in his courtroom.\27\ Without such a standing rule,
there are serious questions whether the funding would have ever
been discovered.\28\ If the funding arrangements are never
discovered, courts are unable to fashion protective orders that
may be appropriate in some cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\Setting the Record Straight on Third-Party Litigation Funding,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Oct. 15, 2024), https://www.uschamber.com/
lawsuits/setting-the-record-straight-on-third-party-litigation-funding.
\28\See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Protecting Our Courts From Foreign Manipulation Act
H.R. 2675 addresses these issues by imposing certain
disclosure obligations related to any foreign person, foreign
state, or sovereign wealth fund that is not a named party to
the litigation when such an entity provides monetary support to
initiate or prosecute the litigation, or has a right to receive
any payment that is contingent in any respect with the outcome
of the civil action. The disclosure obligations are triggered
whenever a payment is contingent on the outcome of or any
proceeds from the litigation, which could include a judgment, a
settlement, or an award of attorney's fees. In addition to
disclosure, the bill prohibits foreign states or sovereign
wealth funds from funding U.S. litigation, and parties or
counsel from accepting such funding or entering into an
agreement under which such funding will be provided such that a
non-party will receive a payment contingent on the outcome or
proceeds of the litigation. The prohibition addresses the
unique risks that are posed by foreign states and their
instrumentalities funding litigation within U.S. courts.
Hearings
For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6)(A) of House rule XIII,
the following hearing was used to develop H.R. 2675: ``Foreign
Abuse of U.S. Courts,'' a hearing held on July 22, 2025, before
the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial
Intelligence, and the Internet of the Committee on the
Judiciary. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the following
witnesses:
Ms. Emily de La Bruyere, Senior Fellow,
Foundation for Defense of Democracies;
Professor Julian Ku, Maurice A. Deane
Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Hofstra
University Maurice A. Deane School of Law;
Mr. Bradford Muller, Senior Vice President,
Charlotte Pipe and Foundry; and
Professor Jacque deLisle, Stephan A. Cozen
Professor of Law and Political Science, University of
Pennsylvania
The hearing addressed foreign efforts, particularly those
of the PRC, to strategically use or otherwise influence
litigation in U.S. courts.
Committee Consideration
On November 18, 2025, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill, H.R. 2675, favorably reported with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute by a roll call vote of
15-11, a quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 2675:
1. Vote on the motion to table the motion to appeal the
ruling of the Chair (Germaneness, with respect to amendment #1,
offered by Mr. Raskin)--agreed to 14 ayes to 10 nays.
2. Vote on favorably reporting H.R. 2675, as amended--
passed 15 ayes to 11 nays.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1)
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are
incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to filing of the report
and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is included
in this report.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has
received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2675 from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
H.R. 2675 would make it unlawful for a foreign state or
sovereign wealth fund to directly or indirectly fund a civil
lawsuit in the United States in which it is not a named party.
The changes would apply to both pending and future civil
actions. The bill would increase disclosure and certification
requirements on litigants in cases where foreign sponsors or
entities have interests at stake. H.R. 2675 also would require
the Attorney General to report annually to the Congress on
activities involving foreign funding of third-party litigation.
As a result of the changes, CBO expects that fewer civil
cases would be filed in federal courts. Under current law, the
federal judiciary charges fees to file suits in district
courts. Those fees are recorded in the budget as revenues and
the courts can spend those fees without further appropriation.
Because CBO expects that the number of affected cases would be
small, we estimate that any decrease in revenues and the
consequent direct spending would be insignificant over the
2026-2036 period. The net effect on the deficit from those
changes would be negligible.
Using information from the Department of Justice about the
costs of similar activities, CBO estimates that implementing
the reporting requirement in H.R. 2675 would cost less than
$500,000 over the 2026-2031 period. Any related spending would
be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
H.R. 2675 would impose intergovernmental and private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
by prohibiting lawyers and litigants, including state and local
governments, in federal civil lawsuits from accepting payments
or entering into contracts with foreign states or sovereign
wealth funds that are not named parties in the lawsuit. The
bill also would cancel existing contracts that violate those
provisions.
The cost of those mandates is the lost compensation from
the contracts and payments that would be prohibited or canceled
by this bill. CBO has determined that there is limited publicly
available information on the number and value of such
contracts. Additionally, that information does not distinguish
between foreign and domestic contracts. Therefore, CBO cannot
estimate whether the cost of the mandates would exceed the
annual thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental and
private-sector mandates ($107 million and $214 million
respectively, in 2026, adjusted annually for inflation).
The bill also would require federal courts to dismiss with
prejudice any pending civil actions in which prohibited funding
was used by a plaintiff. By dismissing those cases, the bill
would eliminate those plaintiffs' ability to pursue otherwise
valid claims in federal court. This would impose an
intergovernmental and private-sector mandate by eliminating an
existing right of action for plaintiffs. Because the details of
these cases are generally confidential, CBO has no basis to
determine the number of cases that could be dismissed or the
potential awards from such cases. Therefore, CBO cannot
estimate whether the cost of the mandates would exceed the
annual thresholds established in UMRA.
Lastly, the bill would impose intergovernmental and
private-sector mandates by requiring lawyers and litigants to
disclose information related to foreign funding to the other
parties of the lawsuit, the court, and the Attorney General.
CBO estimates that the cost to comply with this mandate is
small because such information would be readily available.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Jon Sperl (for
federal costs) and Erich Dvorak (for mandates). The estimate
was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget
Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(d)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision
of H.R. 2675 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal
program.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
House rule XIII, H.R. 2675 would require litigants in civil
actions to disclose any foreign person, foreign state, or
sovereign wealth fund that is not a named party to the
litigation but either has provided monetary support for the
civil action or has a right to receive any payment that is
contingent in any respect on the outcome or proceeds of the
civil action. Further, the bill prohibits monetary support from
a foreign state or sovereign wealth fund that is not a named
party to the civil action, and prohibits any agreement under
which such an actor would receive any payment contingent on the
outcome of the civil action.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, H.R. 2675
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of House rule XXI.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Pub. L. 104-
1).
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
The ``Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation
Act.''
Section 2. Transparency and limitations on foreign third-party
litigation funding
This Section bans any foreign state or sovereign wealth
fund that is not a named party to a civil action from providing
monetary support for initiating or litigating the civil action
(regardless of whether they receive any payment), blocks
litigants from receiving such monetary support, and further
prohibits any agreement under which such a foreign state or
sovereign wealth fund would receive any payment contingent on
the outcome or proceeds of a civil action or from any matter
within a portfolio that contains the civil action. This section
also requires litigants in civil actions to disclose via a
certified statement certain information regarding any foreign
person, foreign state, or sovereign wealth fund that is not a
named party to the litigation but either has provided direct or
indirect monetary support for initiating or litigating the
civil action, or has a right to receive any payment that is
contingent in any respect with the outcome or proceeds of the
civil action. In addition to the certified disclosures, copies
of such agreements must be provided to the court, other named
parties, and the Department of Justice.
Section 3. Report to Congress
This section requires the Attorney General to provide an
annual report on foreign sourced third-party litigation funding
to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. The
annual report must include the identity of foreign funders of
litigation, judicial districts in which foreign funding has
occurred, the total amount of foreign funding, and a summary of
the subject matter of the cases that involved foreign funding.
Section 4. Applicability
This section provides that the Act applies to any civil
actions pending on or commenced on or after the date of
enactment.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART V--PROCEDURE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 111--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec.
* * * * * * *
1660. Transparency and limitations on foreign third-party litigation
funding.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1660. Transparency and limitations on foreign third-party
litigation funding
(a) Prohibition on Third-party Funding Litigation by Foreign
States and Sovereign Wealth Funds.--
(1) Funding prohibition.--It shall be unlawful--
(A) for any foreign state or sovereign wealth
fund to provide any monetary support either
directly or indirectly for initiating or
litigating a civil action in which it is not a
named party; or
(B) for any party or counsel to receive from
a foreign state or sovereign wealth fund any
monetary support either directly or indirectly
for initiating or litigating a civil action in
which the foreign state or sovereign wealth
fund is not a named party.
(2) Sourcing prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for
any party or counsel to enter into an agreement
creating a right for anyone, other than the named
parties or counsel of record, to receive any payment
that is contingent, in any respect, on proceeds from
the action or from any matter within a portfolio of
civil actions that includes the civil action and
involves the same counsel of record or affiliated
counsel, the terms of which are to be satisfied by
money that has been or will be directly or indirectly
sourced, in whole or in part, from a foreign state or a
sovereign wealth fund.
(b) Enforcement.--
(1) Null and void.--Any obligation to provide
monetary support or agreement in violation of
subsection (a) shall be null and void.
(2) Dismissal.--Any civil action in which monetary
support in violation of subsection (a) has been or is
being used by a plaintiff to litigate the civil action
shall be dismissed with prejudice and subject to terms
the court considers proper.
(3) Relief on motion.--Any final judgment entered in
a civil action in which monetary support in violation
of subsection (a) was used may be subject to being
relieved on motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(c) Disclosure of Third-party Litigation Funding and Foreign
Source Certification by Foreign Persons, Foreign States, and
Sovereign Wealth Funds.--
(1) In general.--In any civil action, each party or
the counsel of record for the party shall--
(A) disclose in writing to the court, to all
other named parties to the civil action, to the
Attorney General, and to the Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General for National
Security--
(i) the name, the address and, if
applicable, the citizenship or the
country of incorporation or
registration of any foreign person,
foreign state, or sovereign wealth
fund, other than the named parties or
counsel of record, that--
(I) has provided or has
agreed to provide direct or
indirect monetary support for
initiating or litigating the
civil action;
(II) has a right to receive
any payment that is contingent,
in any respect, on proceeds
from the civil action pursuant
to a settlement, judgment,
award of attorney's fees, or
pursuant to any other outcome
of the civil action; or
(III) has a right to receive
any payment that is contingent,
in any respect, on proceeds
from any matter within a
portfolio of civil actions that
includes the civil action by
settlement, judgement, award of
attorney's fees, or pursuant to
any other outcome of the civil
action, and involves the same
counsel of record or affiliated
counsel; and
(ii) if the party or the counsel of
record for the party submits a
certification described in subparagraph
(C)(i), the name, the address, and, if
applicable, the citizenship or the
country of incorporation or
registration of the foreign person,
foreign state, or sovereign wealth fund
that is the source of the money;
(B) produce to the court, to all other named
parties to the civil action, to the Attorney
General, and to the Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General for National Security, except
as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the
court, a copy of any documentation concerning
monetary support described in subparagraph
(A)(i)(I) or any agreement creating a
contingent right described in subclause (II) or
(III) of subparagraph (A)(i); and
(C) for a civil action in which direct or
indirect monetary support for initiating or
litigating the civil action has been or will be
provided or in which there is an agreement
creating a right to receive any payment by
anyone, other than the named parties or counsel
of record, that is contingent, in any respect,
on proceeds from of the civil action by
settlement, judgment, award of attorney's fees,
or pursuant to any other outcome of the civil
action, or on proceeds from any matter within a
portfolio that includes the civil action and
involves the same counsel or affiliated
counsel, submit to the court a certification
that--
(i) the money that has been or will
be used to provide monetary support or
satisfy any term of the agreement has
been or will be directly or indirectly
sourced, in whole or in part, from a
foreign person, foreign state, or
sovereign wealth fund, including the
monetary amounts that have been or will
be used to satisfy the agreement; or
(ii) that the disclosure and
certification criteria set forth in
subparagraph (A)(ii) and clause (i) of
this subparagraph do not apply to the
civil action.
(2) Timing.--
(A) In general.--Any disclosure and
certification required under paragraph (1) for
a civil action described in such paragraph
shall be made not later than the later of--
(i) 30 days after the date on which
any monetary support that is required
to be disclosed pursuant to paragraph
(1)(A)(i)(I), or any portion thereof,
is initially provided, or any agreement
described in subclause (I), (II), or
(III) of paragraph (1)(A)(i) is
executed; or
(ii) the date on which the civil
action is filed.
(B) Parties served or joined later.--A party
that has disclosure and certification
obligations under paragraph (1) that is first
joined in the civil action after the date on
which the civil action is filed shall make any
disclosure and certification required under
paragraph (1) not later than 30 days after
being joined, unless a different time is set by
stipulation or court order.
(3) Foreign source disclosure and certification
format.--
(A) In general.--Any disclosure required
under paragraph (1)(A) and a certification
required under paragraph (1)(C) shall--
(i) be made in the form of a
declaration under penalty of perjury
pursuant to section 1746 and shall be
made to the best knowledge,
information, and belief of the
declarant formed after reasonable
inquiry; and
(ii) be provided to all other named
parties to the civil action, to the
Attorney General, and to the Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for
National Security by the party or
counsel of record for the party making
the disclosure and certification,
except as otherwise stipulated or
ordered by the court.
(B) Supplementation and correction.--Not
later than 30 days after the date on which a
party or counsel of record for the party knew
or should have known that a disclosure made
under paragraph (1)(A) or a certification made
under paragraph (1)(C) is incomplete or
inaccurate in any material respect, the party
or counsel of record shall supplement or
correct the disclosure or certification.
(d) Failure to Disclose, to Supplement; Sanctions.--A
disclosure, production, or certification under subsection (b)
is deemed to be information required by Rule 26(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and subject to the sanctions
provisions of Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(e) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``foreign person''--
(A) means any person or entity that is not a
United States person, as defined in section 101
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801); and
(B) does not include a foreign state or a
sovereign wealth fund;
(2) the term ``foreign state'' has the meaning given
that term in section 1603; and
(3) the term ``sovereign wealth fund'' means an
investment fund owned or controlled, directly or
indirectly, by a foreign state or an agency or
instrumentality of a foreign state (as defined in
section 1603).
* * * * * * *
Dissenting Views
Third party litigation funding, or TPLF, is exactly what it
sounds like. Third parties invest in litigation in return for a
share of the contingency fee or the damages awarded, should the
party they've invested in win. It's a practical solution to the
very real problem that many Americans face when they need to go
to court to obtain justice: Litigation is too often
prohibitively expensive. Third party litigation funding helps
ensure that no person is denied their day in court due to
financial barriers.
Third party litigation funding levels the playing field for
ordinary Americans facing powerful corporations, which is
exactly why major business interests are now working to
discredit it and deter the lawsuits that could hold them
responsible. But because TPLF helps ordinary citizens take on
powerful corporations, it has become a target of big business
groups, who would very much prefer that people not bring
lawsuits holding their companies accountable for the harm and
suffering they have caused. These businesses and other
corporate interests want you to believe that TLPF agreements
are nefarious, that third party funding somehow gives ordinary
people an unfair advantage against large and powerful
corporations.
Donald Trump's actions belie the claims behind the
``Protecting our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act.'' The
specter of ``foreigners'' behind our litigation is without
merit for a series of practical reasons. Judges have the power
to compel disclosure of funders, TPLF companies typically work
through intermediaries so there is visibility into case
documents, and, perhaps most importantly, anyone, not just
Americans, can access our court system if they have a
cognizable claim.
But beyond being impractical, we also know that the fear of
foreign governments funding cases is disingenuous. Because if
the sponsors were truly concerned about foreign TPLF funders,
they would also have to be concerned about the Qatari royal
family donating a $400 million luxury jet to President Trump.
Or Trump businesses receiving $7.8 million from at least 20
foreign governments during his first term. Or President Trump
failing to disclose tens of thousands of dollars in major
foreign gifts. Or the Saudis paying for tournaments at Trump
golf courses. So, this clearly isn't about ending third party
funding. It's about ending the litigation.
Over the past 50 years, small legislative changes have made
it increasingly difficult just to initiate a case. And that's
what this bill would do. Increasing the disclosures needed to
file a claim makes TPLF more cumbersome and expensive. It is an
attack on the litigation victories that third party litigation
funding has enabled: the 1993 lawsuit brought by Erin
Brockovich against Pacific Gas and Electric Company for dumping
a carcinogen into the water supply of Hinkley, California, was
partially funded by an outside provider. Other cases, such as
the group of women and small law firms who sued Pfizer to prove
their drug caused a breast cancer epidemic, would not have been
possible but for TPLF.
For decades, Members of Congress from across the aisle have
been warning of the dangers from unhindered litigation if the
deck isn't properly stacked in favor of corporate interests.
This time around, however, my colleagues' silence as Donald
Trump denies Americans transparency and accepts foreign funds
makes the anti-plaintiff claims even harder to believe.
I oppose H.R. 2675, and I encourage my colleagues to do the
same.
Jamie Raskin,
Ranking Member.
[all]