The House of Representatives is currently debating a GOP-led bill aimed at increasing transparency in civil litigation, with the legislation, known as the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025, requiring parties receiving payments in lawsuits to disclose their identities. This proposal has sparked significant backlash from conservative groups like the Tea Party Patriots Action, which argue that the bill could undermine donor privacy and deter individuals with limited means from holding ‘woke’ companies accountable.
In a letter sent earlier this week, Tea Party Patriots Action urged the House Judiciary Committee to reject HR 1109, introduced by GOP Reps. Darrell Issa, Scott Fitzgerald, and Mike Collins, which is known as the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025. The letter warns that ‘sweeping disclosure mandates in this bill threaten our core American principles of personal privacy, confidentiality, and freedom of speech and association.’ The conservatives claim that the proposal’s forced disclosure mandates would broadly apply to political organizations, religious groups, law firms, and individual plaintiffs reliant on outside support to vindicate their rights.
Republican Rep. Darrell Issa has addressed the backlash, stating that there is ‘misinformation’ about the bill’s actual proposals, and there will be a ‘small update tomorrow to clarify one item.’ He emphasized that the bill does not aim to overturn historical precedents like the NAACP v. Alabama case and that it only seeks to disclose materials when there is a material funder involved. Issa noted that the legislation is not intended to impose burdens on nonprofit donor lists but rather to ensure transparency in cases involving third-party investors in federal courts.
Proponents of the legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argue that this reform is a ‘vital step toward ensuring that our legal system remains a tool for justice rather than being a playground for hidden financial interests.’ The press release explaining the legislation’s goals highlighted that hundreds of cases per year involve civil cases funded by undisclosed third-party interests and that these investments often distort the free market and stifle innovation.
The discussion has reignited an ongoing debate between insurers and large corporations, which argue that third-party funding fuels abusive lawsuits and inflated settlements. Advocacy-oriented nonprofits and legal networks, such as Consumers’ Research, have expressed that they rely on litigation finance to counter ‘woke capitalism’ and ESG and DEI policies. The group’s executive director, Will Hild, viewed the legislation as an ‘attack’ on one of the ‘few tools Americans have to hold powerful, woke corporations accountable.’
The letter from conservative groups also expressed concerns that ‘compelled disclosure of private financial arrangements would force litigants to unveil the identity of donors — violating donor privacy rights and exposing them to threats of harassment and retaliation.’ Opponents of the bill, including Alliance Defending Freedom’s founder Alan Sears, argued that Supreme Court decisions have affirmed that forced disclosure of private association undermines fundamental freedoms.
Organizations that have endorsed the bill have pointed to concerns about foreign funding in courtrooms, particularly from China. The High Tech Investors Alliance commended the legislators for ‘defending American businesses against the exploitation of our courts by foreign adversaries and unscrupulous hedge funds.’ Leonard Leo, who operates a vast network of conservative nonprofits and is linked to Consumers’ Research, stated in an earlier Politico interview that litigation financing has always been a critical tool for the conservative movement to advance the public good by taking on the liberal woke agenda.
The House Judiciary Committee did not mark the bill up Tuesday, and it is scheduled to be marked up on Thursday at 12 p.m. Rep. Issa emphasized that the legislation does not require materials to be turned over to the defendant and that a judge can review them in private. He argued that the legislation only seeks to ensure that the judge is made aware of who the litigants are, as a responsibility of the judicial system, and that this discovery is required to be evaluated at a minimum by the judge or magistrate overseeing the case.