In a landmark legal development, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey secured a $24 billion judgment against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on March 7, 2025. This unprecedented decision stems from allegations that China hoarded personal protective equipment (PPE) during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbating the crisis and imposing significant financial burdens on the state.
Background of the Lawsuit
In 2020, Missouri filed a lawsuit against the CCP, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and several other Chinese entities. The state accused China of actions that hindered the production, purchase, and export of critical medical supplies, including PPE. Specifically, Missouri alleged that China nationalized American factories producing PPE and engaged in hoarding protective equipment available in the U.S. This conduct, according to the lawsuit, led to inflated prices and scarcity of essential protective gear.
Court’s Findings
Federal Judge Stephen Limbaugh, Jr., presiding over the case, found that Missouri provided substantial evidence supporting its claims. The court determined that China’s actions violated both state and federal anti-monopoly laws. As a result, Missouri suffered significant harm, including increased expenditures on PPE and substantial losses in tax revenue. The state reportedly spent over $122 million more on PPE than it would have without China’s alleged hoarding and lost more than $8 billion in tax revenue.
State’s Response and Enforcement Plans
Attorney General Bailey hailed the judgment as a “landmark victory” for Missouri and the United States, emphasizing the importance of holding China accountable for its role in the pandemic’s global spread. He stated, “China refused to show up to court, but that doesn’t mean they get away with causing untold suffering and economic devastation.” Bailey outlined plans to enforce the judgment by seizing Chinese-owned assets within Missouri, including farmland. If necessary, the state intends to collaborate with federal authorities to identify and seize additional Chinese-owned assets to satisfy the judgment.
Potential Implications
This ruling carries significant implications for international relations and legal precedents. It underscores the potential for U.S. states to hold foreign governments accountable for actions deemed harmful to state interests. The judgment also raises questions about the enforcement of such decisions, especially when they involve sovereign nations like China. The prospect of seizing foreign assets within U.S. borders could lead to diplomatic tensions and may prompt appeals or counter-lawsuits.
Looking Ahead
As Missouri moves forward with efforts to collect the judgment, the situation will likely evolve, attracting attention from legal experts, policymakers, and international observers. The case may set a precedent for how U.S. courts handle claims against foreign governments and could influence future litigation involving state interests and foreign entities.
