Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 18, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance transparency and restrict foreign state influence in U.S. federal litigation by requiring disclosures of foreign funding and banning funding from foreign states and sovereign wealth funds.
What it actually does
This bill amends title 28 of the U.S. Code to mandate comprehensive disclosure of foreign third-party litigation funding in all federal civil actions. It requires parties to identify foreign persons, foreign states, or sovereign wealth funds that have a contingent financial interest in the outcome of a case. Furthermore, the bill explicitly prohibits foreign states and sovereign wealth funds from directly or indirectly providing such litigation funding, rendering any agreements in violation null and void.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that foreign third-party litigation funding, particularly from state-backed entities, poses significant national security risks by allowing adversarial foreign governments to influence U.S. legal outcomes, undermine judicial integrity, and potentially weaponize the U.S. legal system against American interests. They contend that increased transparency and outright prohibitions are essential to safeguard the impartiality and security of U.S. courts.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that these restrictions could unduly limit access to justice for parties who rely on third-party funding, especially in complex and costly cases against powerful defendants. They may also contend that the broad definitions of 'foreign state' and 'sovereign wealth fund' could be overly encompassing, potentially chilling legitimate foreign investment or participation in the U.S. legal system without clear evidence of malicious intent.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, allowing an informed reader to grasp its core provisions and implications relatively quickly.
Section 2(a), adding 28 U.S.C. 1660(a)
Defining Key Terms for Foreign Funding
This section establishes the foundational definitions for the bill, specifying what constitutes a 'foreign person,' a 'foreign state,' and a 'sovereign wealth fund.' A 'foreign person' is broadly defined as any non-U.S. person or entity, excluding foreign states and sovereign wealth funds. 'Foreign state' references an existing legal definition (28 U.S.C. 1603), and 'sovereign wealth fund' is defined to include investment funds owned or controlled by foreign states or their instrumentalities, as well as entities majority-owned by such funds or their subsidiaries.
Supporters argue
Supporters contend that clear and comprehensive definitions are crucial to prevent circumvention of the bill's intent, ensuring that all relevant foreign entities are covered by the transparency and prohibition measures, thereby closing potential loopholes.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the broad definition of 'sovereign wealth fund,' particularly its inclusion of entities majority-owned by such funds, could inadvertently capture legitimate private investment vehicles with some foreign state ownership, leading to unintended consequences or overreach.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for comprehensive coverage to prevent evasion of the bill's intent against the risk of overly broad definitions that might impact legitimate foreign investment or participation in the U.S. legal system.
Section 2(a), adding 28 U.S.C. 1660(b)
Mandatory Disclosure of Foreign Litigation Funding
This provision mandates that parties or their counsel in any civil action must disclose in writing to the court, other parties, the Attorney General, and the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for National Security, the identity (name, address, citizenship/country of incorporation) of any foreign person, foreign state, or sovereign wealth fund that has a contingent right to receive payment from the litigation's outcome. This includes payments contingent on a portfolio of cases involving the same counsel. If foreign money is used, the source must be certified. A copy of the funding agreement must also be produced. Disclosures are required within 30 days of the agreement or filing, whichever is later, and must be supplemented if incomplete or inaccurate.
Section 2(a), adding 28 U.S.C. 1660(c)
Prohibition on Foreign State and Sovereign Wealth Fund Litigation Funding
This section makes it illegal for any party or counsel in a civil action to enter into an agreement where a foreign state or a sovereign wealth fund directly or indirectly provides money for litigation funding that is contingent on the outcome of the civil action or a related portfolio of cases. Any agreement made in violation of this prohibition is declared null and void, meaning it will have no legal force or effect.
Section 2(a), adding 28 U.S.C. 1660(d)
Penalties for Non-Compliance with Disclosure
This provision clarifies that the disclosure, production, or certification requirements outlined in the bill are considered information required by Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, any failure to comply with these new requirements will be subject to the sanctions provisions of Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which can include a range of penalties such as exclusion of evidence, adverse inferences, or monetary fines.
Section 3
Annual Report on Foreign Litigation Funding Activities
The Attorney General is mandated to submit an annual report to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, beginning one year after the Act's enactment. This report must detail activities involving foreign third-party litigation funding in federal courts. It will include the identities of foreign funders and sources of money, the judicial districts where funding occurred, an estimate of the total foreign-sourced money used (including amounts from each country), and a summary of the subject matters of the civil actions involved.
The definitions of 'foreign person' and 'foreign state' rely on external statutory references: section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801) for 'United States person' (to define 'foreign person' by exclusion) and section 1603 of title 28, United States Code, for 'foreign state' and 'agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.' The definition of 'sovereign wealth fund' also extensively references 28 U.S.C. 1603.
Section 2(a), adding 28 U.S.C. 1660(a)(1)(A), (a)(2), (a)(3)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing legal frameworks. By referencing established definitions, the bill leverages existing judicial interpretations and avoids creating new, potentially conflicting legal standards.
Case for: Using existing definitions ensures legal consistency and leverages established interpretations, avoiding the creation of new, potentially conflicting legal standards and streamlining the legislative process.
Case against: It requires external research for a complete understanding of the bill's scope, potentially obscuring the full reach of who is covered by the disclosure and prohibition requirements for readers unfamiliar with the referenced statutes.
Estimated impact: The scope of the bill's application to foreign entities, and thus its overall impact, is entirely dependent on these external, cross-referenced definitions.