PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 608.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Jun 15, 2026
Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act
This bill limits third-party financing of civil litigation by foreign entities in federal courts and establishes related disclosure requirements.
The bill makes it unlawful for a foreign state or sovereign wealth fund to provide any monetary support for a civil action in which it is not a named party. The bill also makes it unlawful for any party or counsel to receive monetary support for civil litigation from a foreign state or sovereign wealth fund that is not a party.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill also prohibits third-party litigation funding agreements involving money from a foreign state or sovereign wealth fund in which someone other than named parties or counsel of record receives a payment that is contingent on the outcome or proceeds from the civil action or from any matter within a portfolio that includes the civil action.
The bill requires any party or counsel in a civil action to disclose the name of any foreign person, state, or sovereign wealth fund that has agreed to provide monetary support for the civil action, has a right to receive a payment contingent upon the outcome of the civil action, or has the right to receive payment that is contingent on proceeds from any matter within a portfolio that includes the civil action.
The bill also requires parties to produce the agreement creating a contingent right to payment.
These requirements apply to claims that are pending on or commenced after this bill's date of enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 608.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-700.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-700.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 11.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2675 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2675 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2675 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2675 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.