House Judiciary subcommittee hearing examines alleged Chinese 'lawfare,' debates disclosure and reciprocity measures

WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Subcommittee convened for a hearing "on foreign abuse of U.S. courts," where lawmakers and four expert witnesses discussed what they described as systematic attempts by Chinese-linked actors to use U.S. litigation for strategic advantage and considered legislative and procedural responses.

Chairman Darrell Issa opened the hearing by saying the "Chinese Communist Party is waging what they call legal warfare using the U.S. courts," and said the subcommittee would consider measures to strengthen transparency so judges and defendants can know "who is truly behind a litigant," including third-party funding. Ranking Member Hank Johnson described access-to-court concerns, saying reforms should not make the system available only to "the well connected and the rich."

The panel of witnesses included Della Delabriere, identified in the hearing as a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD); Julian Ku, listed as a law professor and faculty director of an international program at the Maurice A. Deane School of Law; Brad Mueller of Charlotte Pipe and Foundry; and a University of Pennsylvania law professor introduced as the Stephen A. Cozen Professor of Law and director of a Penn China center.

"Beijing competes with co-option, not confrontation," Delabriere testified, arguing that China seeks to "subvert" foreign systems from within and to weaponize U.S. litigation for censorship and technology acquisition. Julian Ku defined the problem as "lawfare," which he said is "a systematic use of judicial proceedings to accomplish strategic or political goals," adding that Chinese plaintiffs often retain top U.S. firms and can impose substantial costs even when their cases do not reach judgment.

Witnesses offered overlapping but distinct remedies. Ku and Delabriere urged greater disclosure of third-party litigation funders and of connections between ostensibly private Chinese companies and Beijing. Ku cited proposals such as modifying the enforcement of foreign judgments (including an American Law Institute proposal to require reciprocity) and strengthening disclosure rules for foreign funding of litigation, potentially through amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act or other transparency mechanisms. Delabriere suggested higher pleading standards for entities receiving state-linked funding and said sovereign immunity and other protections should not be extended to Chinese state-linked entities.

Several members pressed for narrow fixes instead of broad restrictions. Multiple witnesses and members pointed to existing procedural tools — Rule 11 sanctions, Rule 26 discovery rules, and case-specific dismissal powers — that courts can use to address vexatious or abusive suits. Professor De Leal noted that "the tools are there" in U.S. courts and warned that broad, country-targeted limitations risk chilling legitimate claims and could provoke retaliatory steps by foreign governments.

Lawmakers also discussed reciprocity for enforcing foreign judgments. Ku and others noted that U.S. courts generally enforce foreign judgments more readily than foreign courts enforce U.S. judgments; some members and witnesses urged legislation requiring reciprocity or altering standards applied when enforcing judgments from countries Congress designates as foreign adversaries.

Several members raised national-security concerns connected to undisclosed funding. Representative David Kustoff (questioning during the hearing) and others supported bills that would require disclosure of foreign third-party litigation funding in federal courts; Representative Don Bacon and others discussed the Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act (introduced by Representative John Rutherford's office in this hearing) and similar proposals to prohibit sovereign wealth funds and foreign governments from financing litigation that appears to serve state strategic interests.

The chairman closed by asking witnesses to supplement written answers, and the committee requested that witness materials be placed in the hearing record.

Ending: The hearing did not produce formal committee action; members and witnesses left open multiple paths for follow-up, including potential legislation on disclosure, reciprocity in foreign judgment enforcement, and targeted enforcement measures. The committee requested written submissions and signaled follow-up hearings with Department of Justice and FBI officials in September (scheduled per the record).