Republican legislation brewing in the House of Representatives aimed at addressing civil litigation transparency is sparking concern from some conservative organizations that fear it could chill donor participation and make it more difficult for Americans of modest means to hold ‘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.

It’s aimed at ensuring greater transparency in litigation, requiring parties receiving payment in lawsuits to disclose their identity. 

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.’

‘This legislation would require litigants to preemptively disclose detailed information about private financial arrangements, such as litigation funding agreements, independent from the discovery process and without any finding of relevance by a judge,’ the letter, signed by over a dozen conservative groups, including America First Legal, Defending Education, Heartland Institute and the American Energy Institute, states.

‘The bill’s forced disclosure mandates would broadly apply to any number of political organizations, religious groups, law firms, or individual plaintiffs that rely on outside support to vindicate their rights.

‘If adopted, H.R. 1109 will have a chilling effect on free speech and association and directly threaten the privacy rights of Americans,’ the letter warns. ‘The end result will be fewer Americans having the resources or willingness to bring legitimate claims, which threatens to undermine future legal battles over issues critical to our movement.

‘The privacy interests at stake here are not abstract. We have seen how disclosure regimes can be easily weaponized by bad actors, particularly those seeking to attack and intimidate political opponents.’

Issa told Fox News Digital Wednesday afternoon there is ‘misinformation’ circulating about what the bill actually proposes to do, and there will be a ‘small update tomorrow to clarify one item.’

‘What’s actually happened is language has been put in to assure groups that we’re not looking to overturn NAACP v. Alabama or any of the other historical 501(c) privileges that you don’t turn over your donor list and so on,’ Issa said. ‘That was something that Obama and Biden tried to do a couple of times. We want nothing to do with that. We’re only asking that if there is a material funder slash partner in a lawsuit, that they be disclosed.

‘I fully respect and appreciate the concerns of people who want to make sure that this does not turn into a burdensome discovery of, for example, a nonprofit’s hundreds, thousands or millions of donors.

‘We share the concern of all these groups that we wanted to make sure we believed we were on solid ground as written, but in an abundance of caution, my staff and all the parties worked to try to come up with the most straightforward, effective way to say, of course, you don’t have to disclose your donors.’

Proponents of the legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, call it a ‘vital step toward ensuring that our legal system remains a tool for justice rather than being a playground for hidden financial interests.’

In his press release announcing the legislation in February, Issa said, ‘Our legislation targets serious and continuing abuses in our litigation system that distort our system of justice by obscuring public detection and exploiting loopholes in the law for financial gain.

‘Our approach will achieve a far better standard of transparency in the courts that people deserve, and our standard of law requires. We fundamentally believe that if a third-party investor is financing a lawsuit in federal court, it should be disclosed rather than hidden from the world and left absent from the facts of a case.’  

The press release explained that hundreds of cases a year involve civil cases funded by undisclosed third-party interests as an investment for return from hedge funds, commercial lenders and sovereign wealth funds through shell companies and that there are often investor-backed entities who seek hefty settlements from American companies that end up ‘distorting the free market and stifling innovation.’

The conversation about the legislation reignites an ongoing showdown between insurers and large corporations that have made the case that third-party funding drives abusive suits and inflated settlements. Some argue there’s a need for more transparency about those who fund litigation and for limits to speculative investment in lawsuits against advocacy-oriented nonprofits and legal networks. Those groups argue they are the only mechanism for those without deep pockets to take legal action against well-funded companies. 

Many advocacy-oriented nonprofits and legal networks simply don’t hand over charitable donations to a lawsuit. Instead, they use structured litigation vehicles, limited liability companies, donor-advised funds or legal defense trusts that front the costs of a case and are reimbursed, sometimes with interest, if the case wins or settles. The process is known as non-recourse or outcome-contingent funding, meaning the investor only gets money back if the case succeeds.

Nonprofits like Consumers’ Research have been using litigation finance in recent years to push back against ‘woke capitalism’ to counter ESG and DEI policies. And the group’s executive director, Will Hild, told Fox News Digital it has been ‘all too easy for major companies to use their outsized influence and powerful market shares to push an ideological agenda with little to no recourse.’

Hild told Fox News Digital he views the legislation as an ‘attack’ on one of the ‘few tools Americans have to hold powerful, woke corporations accountable.’

Hild added, ‘Even worse, it imposes dangerous disclosure mandates that would force plaintiffs to expose confidential litigation funding agreements. This bill blatantly tips the scales in favor of woke corporations and makes it far harder for victims to secure the resources they need to fight back.’

The letter from the conservative groups also expresses fear 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.’

In a Tuesday op-ed in The Hill opposing the legislation, Alliance Defending Freedom founder Alan Sears pointed to Supreme Court decisions he says have ‘affirmed that forced disclosure of private association undermines fundamental freedoms.’

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Rep. Fitzgerald said, ‘As reiterated to these groups in multiple discussions, it remains Congress’ intent to protect the First Amendment rights of those who contribute to political groups and religious organizations, consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens’ United.’

Organizations that have endorsed the bill have pointed to concerns about foreign funding in courtrooms, specifically from China, including High Tech Investors Alliance, which said in a press release it commends the legislators who put it forward for ‘defending American businesses against the exploitation of our courts by foreign adversaries and unscrupulous hedge funds.’

‘For too long, a lack of transparency has allowed shell entities to manipulate the legal system to prey on American employers, concealing their predatory practices and identities of their financial backers,’ HTIA said. ‘As President Trump takes bold action against aggressive economic maneuvers by China and other countries, Congress must also act decisively to protect our judges and juries from becoming tools in the economic warfare waged by antagonists.’

Leonard Leo, who operates a vast network of conservative nonprofits and is linked to Consumers’ Research, told Politico earlier this year that ‘while there are areas, like mass tort, where litigation financing has been abused and could be reformed, it 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 Fox News Digital is told it will be marked up on Thursday at 12 p.m. 

‘If someone is acting as a principal litigant, either directly or one step removed, then you have a right to face them. You have the right to cross-examine them. You have a right to know if they receive your trade secrets that were exposed and disclosed in litigation. These things are all important,’ Issa said.

He added the legislation does not require materials to be turned over to the defendant, and a judge can review them in private.

Issa continued, ‘We just want to make sure that the judge knows that just as the markman is a required part of determining what a patent means, that it’s a responsibility of the judge to determine who the litigants are and, as appropriate, disclosing them is required. And that last part has always been ignored a little bit. We’re only making sure that that discovery is asked for and evaluated at a minimum by the judge or magistrate overseeing the case.’

A bid by Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., to force a censure of her fellow House Republican and remove his committee assignments failed on Wednesday night.

Mace introduced a censure resolution against Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., earlier in the day, accusing him of stolen valor among other alleged improprieties.

Mills rose in his own defense on Wednesday night to call for a vote to refer the measure to the House Ethics Committee and deny her accusations.

His counter-effort succeeded, with the House voting 310-103 to send the matter to the ethics panel — effectively squashing Mace’s effort for an immediate punishment.

Seven House Republicans voted alongside Mace to move the censure vote forward. They are Reps. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., Kat Cammack, R-Fla., Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., and Joe Wilson, R-S.C.

The 310 lawmakers who voted against Mace’s move included both Democrats and Republicans.

Twelve lawmakers, including members of the House Ethics Committee, voted ‘present.’

Mace introduced the censure as a privileged resolution, a mechanism aimed at forcing House GOP leaders to reckon with a piece of legislation in the immediate future.

The resolution accused Mills of a wide variety of improprieties, including misrepresenting his military service and working as a private military contractor while serving as a member of Congress. 

She also cited several media reports alleging Mills assaulted past romantic partners while being accused of threatening another woman he was also reportedly involved with. Mills previously denied those allegations.

In addition to censuring him, Mace’s resolution would have also removed Mills from his roles on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and House Armed Services Committee if successful.

Hours before the vote, however, the House Ethics Committee announced it would open an investigation into Mills via a new subcommittee — a move Mace criticized as an effort to neuter her push.

‘This is a naked attempt to kill my resolution to censure Rep. Cory Mills. Common sense tells us we don’t need an investigative subcommittee to decide if Cory Mills, who a Court found to be an immediate and present danger of committing dating violence against a woman, should serve on committees related to national security. Or the testimony of soldiers and the stolen valor,’ Mace said.

Notably, however, the House Ethics Committee is the traditional first step when lawmakers are accused of impropriety.

It comes after House Democrats threatened to pursue a retaliatory censure against Mills Tuesday evening in response to Republicans trying to censure Del. Stacey Plaskett, D-V.I., the Virgin Islands’ nonvoting representative in the House, over her ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

The Plaskett censure failed after three House Republicans voted ‘no’ and three more voted ‘present,’ however, along with every Democrat rejecting the measure. Democrats did not appear to pursue the censure against Mills after that.

Mace had accused Mills of participating in a ‘backroom deal’ at the time to avoid a censure, adding, ‘I have the General who ‘recommended’ him for the Bronze Star on record saying he never wrote it, never read it and never personally signed it.’

Mills’ office told Fox News Digital there was never a deal, however, and had expected his censure to move forward on Tuesday night. He also voted in favor of censuring Plaskett.

Mace introduced her resolution after sending a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Wednesday accusing Mills of ‘credible accusations he misrepresented his military service’ and ‘credible accusations of having committed crimes against women.’

Mills has previously denied wrongdoing in reports of both sets of allegations.

He also criticized the move in a statement to Fox News Digital.

‘Congresswoman Nancy Mace’s latest stunt is a politically motivated attempt to grab headlines and settle personal scores. The American people deserve better than fabricated accusations and theatrics at a time when Republicans should be focused on governing,’ Mills said.

‘The claims on my valor that she’s pushing are baseless, recycled, and already publicly disproven. I fully deny them, just as I always have. This is not oversight, it’s attention-seeking dressed up as accountability.’

The House of Representatives unanimously voted against a provision that allows Republican senators whose phone records were seized by former Special Counsel Jack Smith to sue the federal government.

The provision was included in the recently passed bill to end the 43-day government shutdown, which President Donald Trump signed into law last week.

Despite supporters saying the provision is necessary to give senators recourse when the executive branch oversteps its constitutional bounds and reaches into congressional communications, the last-minute inclusion of the measure outraged both Republicans and Democrats, underscoring the ever-present tensions between the House and Senate.

The repeal passed 426 to 0, with 210 Democrats and 216 Republicans in the tally.

Dubbed ‘Requiring Senate Notification for Senate Data,’ the provision would allow senators directly targeted in former special counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation to sue the U.S. government for up to $500,000.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., who was involved in crafting part of the successful funding deal, told Fox News Digital he had even been afraid it could derail the final vote to end the shutdown.

‘It had been added in the Senate without our knowledge,’ Cole said. ‘It was a real trust factor … I mean, all of a sudden, this pops up in the bill, and we’re confronted with either: leave this in here, or we pull it out, we have to go to conference, and the government doesn’t get reopened.’

It was placed into the bill by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and given the green light by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sources confirmed to Fox News Digital last week.

Thune put the provision into the bill at the request of members of the Senate GOP, a source familiar with the negotiations told Fox News Digital, which included Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. 

It was a big point of contention when the House Rules Committee met to prepare the legislation for a final vote last Tuesday night. Reps. Chip Roy, R-Texas, Austin Scott, R-Ga., and Morgan Griffith, R-Va., all shared House Democrats’ frustration with the measure, but they made clear it would not stand in the way of ending what had become the longest shutdown in history.

Even Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., appeared blindsided by the move.

‘I had no prior notice of it at all,’ Johnson told reporters last week. ‘I was frustrated, as my colleagues are over here, and I thought it was untimely and inappropriate. So we’ll be requesting, strongly urging, our Senate colleagues to repeal that.’

Those Republicans agreed with the motivations behind their Senate counterparts wanting to sue but bristled over the notion that it would come at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.

Rep. John Rose, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital the senators ‘have been wronged, no doubt in my mind’ but added its scope was too narrow.

‘This provision does not allow other Americans to pursue a remedy. It does not even allow the President of the United States, who was equally wrongfully surveilled and pursued by the Justice Department — they didn’t even include President Trump in this,’ Rose said.

And while several senators who would be eligible for the taxpayer-funded lawsuits have distanced themselves from the issue amid uproar, others have stuck to their guns.

‘My phone records were seized. I’m not going to put up with this crap. I’m going to sue,’ Graham said on ‘Hannity’ Tuesday night. He said he would be seeking ‘tens of millions of dollars.’

Cruz also told Fox News Digital that he did not support repealing the provision.

And Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., defended the provision in comments to Politico. 

‘I’d like for us to be able to defend our branch when DOJ gets out of control,’ he said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., similarly suggested to reporters on Wednesday that he was in favor of the measure.

‘I would just say, I mean, you have an independent, co-equal branch of government whose members were, through illegal means, having their phone records acquired — spied on, if you will, through a weaponized Biden Justice Department,’ Thune said. ‘That, to me, demands some accountability.’

He added, ‘I think that in the end, this is something that all members of Congress, both House and Senate, are probably going to want as a protection, and we were thinking about the institution of the Senate and individual senators going into the future.’

A U.S. citizen jailed in Saudi Arabia for criticizing the royal family online was freed Wednesday by Saudi authorities, ending a four-year ordeal in the country, according to media reports.

Saad Almadi’s release came just a day after President Donald Trump met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Washington, D.C., per the New York Post.

Almadi, 75, a retired engineer and U.S. resident since 1976, was detained in 2021 during a family visit to Riyadh and later sentenced to more than 19 years in prison on terrorism charges tied to a series of posts online.

The charges were reduced to cyber crimes, and although he was released from prison in 2023, Almadi was held in the country under an exit ban which prevented him from going back home to the U.S.

The Almadi family issued a statement Wednesday celebrating the good news and thanking Trump.

‘Our family is overjoyed that, after four long years, our father, Saad Almadi, is finally on his way home to the United States!’ they said.

‘This day would not have been possible without President Donald Trump and the tireless efforts of his administration. We are deeply grateful to Dr. Sebastian Gorka and the team at the National Security Council, as well as everyone at the State Department.’

A third portion of the statement expressed appreciation to others who had supported the case over the years.

‘We extend our thanks to the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh for keeping our father safe, and to the nonprofit organizations and members of Congress who fought for his freedom,’ the statement read.

Almadi’s case also drew attention from human rights groups and U.S. lawmakers after he was accused of terrorism over 14 social media posts.

One suggested that a street in Washington be renamed after Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in 2018.

U.S. pressure to lift Almadi’s exit ban had also intensified since Trump’s May visit to Saudi Arabia.

The president’s national security advisor, Sebastian Gorka, also met with Almadi’s son at the White House.

The Foley Foundation, which advocates for Americans detained overseas, praised the news Wednesday, saying it was ‘so excited’ the family’s fight had finally succeeded.

Per reports, Almadi was flying to the U.S. from Riyadh on Wednesday, according to his family, after Trump and the crown prince set foot on stage at a forum in Washington.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Sebastian Gorka, the Department of State and The White House for comment.

U.S. taxpayers are footing nearly $250 million a year in SNAP benefits spent on fast-food meals across just nine states, most of which are blue states, according to Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst.

Nine states, including Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island and Virginia — all of which are Democrat-run states except for Virginia — are opted into a SNAP program called the Restaurant Meals Program (RMP), which has spent nearly $250 million a year on hot meals, including fast-food, Ernst’s office found. 

The modern day Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was established in 1964 under the Food Stamps Act to provide basic food needs such as meats and fruits and vegetables to financially vulnerable Americans. Hot foods or foods ready for immediate consumption were not eligible for purchase under the program as its main mission was to provide staple foods to be prepared at home. 

A 1977 loophole, however, allowed states to opt into a program called the Restaurant Meals Program, which was established to allow homeless individuals who do not have a kitchen to purchase prepared meals using SNAP benefits, according to Ernst’s office. The eligibility for the program expanded in the following years to include disabled individuals, the elderly and their spouses, according to the office. 

Nine states are opted into the program, which requires participating restaurants to sign an agreement with the state that is then authorized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the SNAP program writ large. Restaurants that participate in the program were historically a small group but have since expanded, most notably in California in the Biden era, Ernst’s office said. 

California expanded its program statewide, for example, in 2021 that allowed restaurants to accept CalFresh benefits via SNAP at a swath of top fast-food chains stretching from McDonald’s to Domino’s Pizza to Jack in the Box. 

Ernst’s office found that from June 2023 to May 2025, more than $475 million in taxpayer dollars funded Restaurant Meals Program meals at fast-food establishments. During that same time period, $524 million in taxpayer funds were spent through the Restaurant Meals Program overall, meaning California accounted for more than 90% of the nation’s total Restaurant Meals Program funds from June 2023 to May 2025, according to the office. 

‘The ‘N’ in SNAP stands for nutrition not nuggets with a side of fries,’ Ernst told Fox News Digital. ‘I wish I was McRibbing you but $250 million per year at the drive-through is no joke and a serious waste of tax dollars. I hate to be the one to say McSCUSE ME, but something needs to be done because taxpayers are not lovin’ it.’

The data found that between June 2023 and May 2025 $41.4 million funds went through Restaurant Meals Program in Arizona, $3.6 million in New York, $1.3 million in Michigan, $995,900 in Rhode Island, $649,000 in Massachusetts, $479,000 in Illinois, $308,500 in Virginia and $8,600 in Maryland. 

Ernst’s introduced legislation Thursday, dubbed the McSCUSE ME Act, to rein in the scope of the Restaurant Meals Program. Specifically, the bill would continue allowing homeless, elderly and disabled individuals to continue using the program, but ending spousal eligibility. 

The legislation also would reel in which vendors are able to participate in the program, specifically restricting fast-food vendors in favor of grocery stores that have hot bars to better ensure availability of healthy prepared food options. The legislation would also require states to produce public annual reports showing how many vendors participate in the Restaurant Meals Program, the number of participating beneficiaries and total costs for the program, Fox News Digital learned. 

The report and legislation comes after the U.S. government just emerged from the longest government shutdown in history, at 43 days, that included putting the food assistance program under heightened scrutiny over fraud and concern as recipients saw disruptions to their access. 

Upon the reopening of the government, the Trump administration is requiring all SNAP beneficiaries to reapply for the program in an effort to prevent fraud. 

Federal spending on SNAP overall climbed to record highs under the Biden administration, Fox News Digital previously reported, at $128 billion in 2021 and $127 billion in 2022 during the pandemic. By the Biden administration’s final year, SNAP cost $99.8 billion.

Fox News Digital’s Amanda Macias contributed to this report.