What This Bill Does
The Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act would add a new section to chapter 111 of title 28 to crack down on third-party litigation funding tied to foreign states, sovereign wealth funds, and other foreign persons. It makes it unlawful for a foreign state or sovereign wealth fund to fund a civil case they are not a party to, and it requires detailed disclosure of foreign funding arrangements in federal civil actions. The bill also directs the Attorney General to report to Congress on foreign third-party litigation funding in federal courts within 1 year of enactment and every year after that. Its rules would apply to civil actions pending on or filed after the date of enactment.
- Creates new 28 U.S.C. § 1660 on foreign third-party litigation funding.
- Bars foreign states and sovereign wealth funds from funding civil actions they are not named in.
- Requires disclosure within 30 days of funding or filing, whichever is later.
- Orders annual Attorney General reports to Congress starting 1 year after enactment.
- Applies to civil actions pending on or filed after enactment.
Who This Bill Affects
If you are a federal civil litigant, lawyer, or litigation funder, this bill would create new disclosure and certification duties and could bar cases from proceeding if prohibited foreign funding is used. It would also require that foreign-state or sovereign-wealth-fund-backed funding agreements be treated as null and void, and it could expose affected cases to dismissal with prejudice or later relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(3). For most other people, the direct day-to-day effect would be limited, though the bill is intended to make federal civil litigation less vulnerable to hidden foreign money.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisCBO Cost Estimate
February 27, 2026CBO published a cost estimate for H.R. 2675, Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act, on February 27, 2026. The estimate is identified as being for the version ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on November 20, 2025. Because only the report title, date, and description were provided, detailed budget effects should be read in the linked CBO report.
Full CBO report →Who Supports & Opposes This
- Defendants in high-stakes civil litigation Supporters say hidden funding can distort litigation incentives and let outside actors influence U.S. lawsuits without transparency. They argue mandatory disclosure and the ban on foreign-state and sovereign-wealth-fund financing help ensure courts and opposing parties know who is really backing a case.
- National security and foreign influence hawks They argue foreign governments and state-linked funds should not be able to shape U.S. court outcomes through indirect financial support. The bill’s reporting requirement to the Attorney General and Congress is seen as a way to identify patterns of foreign involvement in federal courts.
- Some insurers and corporate litigants These stakeholders may favor clearer rules because third-party funding can change settlement pressure and litigation strategy. They may view the bill’s voiding of prohibited agreements and disclosure to the court and DOJ as a way to reduce uncertainty.
- Plaintiffs’ lawyers and litigation finance firms Opponents may argue the bill imposes sweeping compliance burdens on legitimate case financing and could chill access to capital for complex lawsuits. They may also object to mandatory disclosure to the Attorney General and the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for National Security in every covered case.
- Public-interest plaintiffs with overseas support Some civil-rights, mass-tort, or cross-border claimants may worry the ban could sweep too broadly and block lawful funding structures where the foreign person is not directing the litigation. They may argue the dismissal and Rule 60(b)(3) remedies are too harsh for funding-related violations.
- Civil procedure advocates They may contend that turning funding violations into dismissal with prejudice creates a strong penalty that could be disproportionate to disclosure problems. They may also question whether the bill could complicate litigation even when foreign money is only indirectly sourced or difficult to trace.
Key Implications
-
““It shall be unlawful ... for any foreign state or sovereign wealth fund to provide any monetary support””
This would directly ban foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds from backing U.S. civil cases they are not parties to. In practice, cases tied to those sources could lose financing and trigger enforcement consequences.
-
““disclose in writing to the court ... the Attorney General ... the name, the address””
Parties and counsel would have to reveal foreign funders and certain source information not just to the judge and opponents, but also to the Justice Department. That creates a new federal oversight channel for litigation finance.
-
““not later than 30 days after ... monetary support ... is initially provided””
The bill sets a short reporting window, so funding arrangements would have to be tracked quickly. Late-added parties also get a 30-day deadline after being joined, which makes ongoing compliance important.
-
““Any civil action ... shall be dismissed with prejudice””
If prohibited foreign funding is used, the penalty is not just disclosure or a fine; the case can be thrown out permanently. That is a severe consequence for plaintiffs whose claims depend on outside financing.
-
““submit to Congress ... a report on the activities involving foreign third-party litigation funding””
The Attorney General would have to produce annual data on identities, countries, districts, amounts, and case subject matter. Congress would use that information to monitor where and how foreign-funded litigation is occurring.
Latest Status
June 15, 2026
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 608.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.