H.R. 2675 explained · 119th Congress · Pending in Congress
Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act
Cosponsors: 26 (1 D, 25 R) · per Congress.gov, 2026-10-14
Introduced: 2025-04-07
Latest action (2026-06-15): Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 608.
What H.R. 2675 does, in plain terms
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. 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.
Official summary by the Congressional Research Service, via Congress.gov.
Constitution Index
“VFA Constitution grade”
Not graded yet
H.R. 2675 has not been graded yet. New measures with an official summary are graded daily under the published rubric.
The Framers
“Founders’ Verdict”
Confidence 0.75
Archived SI output (machine-generated)No editorial review recorded. This historical SI verdict was machine-generated by software and predates the review desk; check it against the official bill text.
Synthesis
The act is constitutional only if it is narrowly tailored to protect federal courts from genuine foreign threats, respects judicial independence under Article III, does not infringe on state court autonomy under the Tenth Amendment, and does not violate rights to due process or petition for redress of grievances under the First and Fifth Amendments.
The proposed act, which seeks to protect federal courts from foreign manipulation, touches upon the constitutional authority of Congress to define and punish offenses against the law of nations (Article I, Section 8, Clause 10) and to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested in the federal judiciary (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18). However, the act must not infringe upon the independence of the judiciary as established in Article III, nor may it impose restrictions that effectively alter the jurisdiction or proceedings of the courts beyond what is nece…
The proposed bill, while ostensibly aimed at protecting judicial integrity, must be strictly scrutinized under the Constitution. The federal government possesses only enumerated powers, and any legislation that restricts access to courts—whether for foreign parties or otherwise—must be grounded in a specific grant of authority, such as Article III's vesting of judicial power in federal courts. However, if this bill extends to state courts or imposes burdens on the right to petition for redress of grievances, it would exceed federal authority and violate the Tenth Amendment's reservation of pow…
The constitutionality of this bill depends on its specific provisions. Congress possesses authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which may extend to foreign involvement in federal judicial proceedings. Additionally, Article III, Section 1 vests the judicial power in federal courts, and Congress may define their jurisdiction and procedures under the Necessary and Proper Clause. However, if the bill attempts to restrict state courts or dictate the internal decision-making of federal judges, it would encroach upon the reserved powers of the state…
This Act, which aims to protect the integrity of federal courts from foreign influence, is a proper exercise of Congress’s power under Article I, Section 8 to establish and regulate tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. The judicial power of the United States, vested in the federal courts by Article III, must be shielded from external corruption to preserve the independence essential to constitutional governance. As Chief Justice Marshall held in McCulloch v. Maryland, the means adopted by Congress need only be appropriate and plainly adapted to a legitimate end, and here the protection of …
Report an error in this Founders' Verdict
What should pass
“VFA SI Solution”
Archived SI output (machine-generated) · No editorial review recorded
This historical draft has no editorial review time on record. Check its claims against the original bill and current law.
Federal Court Integrity Against Foreign Manipulation Act of 2025
Generated by VFA SI Solutions
To prevent foreign governments, entities, or agents from manipulating or unduly influencing the decision-making processes of U.S. federal courts through bribery, coercion, or submission of fraudulent evidence.
Bipartisan rationale: Democratic priorities honored: protects judicial independence and due process rights, avoids criminalizing conduct that could chill legitimate petitioning, and includes robust oversight and reporting. Republican priorities honored: narrowly targets foreign actors (not U.S. citizens or domestic entities), applies only to federal courts (respects state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment), includes a sunset clause to limit federal overreach, and uses civil rather than criminal penalties to avoid excessive government power.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 Article III Article III, Section 1 Amendment X Amendment I Amendment V
Report an error in this Solution
Citizen Consensus
“Do you support this VFA SI Solution?”
One vote per verified account; you can change it any time. Only verified accounts count, results publish once 30 verified people have voted, and state and district results count only people who attested a home ZIP code. How this works.
Email verification is not switched on yet, so no vote counts toward results yet. Votes cast now are saved and count once the voter verifies their email address.
Sign in or create a free account to vote.
Add a short reason (optional)
/280 · no links or contact details · reasons are reviewed before anyone sees them, and many never are shown.
Your vote is saved but held out of published results by an automated integrity check (for example, several accounts voting from one browser).
Your vote is saved. It will count once you verify your email address. Verify on your account page.
Your vote counts nationally. Add your home ZIP code to count in your state and district too.
Your vote counts nationally and in .
Reason saved privately; it is shown only if it passes review.
Verified participants nationwide · n =
Self-selected participants, not a random sample; ± is the 95% sampling margin.
Not enough verified votes yet. Results publish at verified votes.
A sudden surge of votes on this item was flagged and is under review; votes from new accounts in that surge are held out until it is resolved.
Related on VFA
For journalists and bloggers
“Embed this grade”
Free to use with the link back. The badge and card update when the grade changes. Embed terms →
