It started with a court file from a Midwestern state, not with a news conference or diplomatic communication. Missouri filed a lawsuit against the Chinese government in April 2020, claiming that it had stocked up life-saving medical supplies in the early stages of the epidemic and misled the world public. The physical equipment that frontline workers sorely required when supply lines broke under the strain was the focus of the claim: safety masks, gloves, and gowns.
Many at the time viewed the action as a political stunt. After all, sovereign immunity usually protects foreign countries. Missouri, however, persisted. The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge in 2022. However, by early 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals gave some of the lawsuit fresh life, especially the claim that China’s acquisition and storage of PPE amounted to business, not diplomacy.
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Initial Lawsuit by Missouri | Filed April 2020; accused China of exacerbating COVID-19 and hoarding PPE. |
| Legal Foundation | Based on Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and commercial activity. |
| Judgment Awarded to Missouri | $24 billion default judgment secured in March 2025. |
| China’s Response | Filed a countersuit in Wuhan, December 2025, demanding $50.5 billion. |
| Named Missouri Officials | AG Catherine Hanaway, Sen. Eric Schmitt, Gov. Mike Kehoe, Andrew Bailey. |
| Core Chinese Claims | Alleged reputational harm, fabricated disinformation, stigmatization. |
| Legal Stakes | U.S. asset seizures vs. China’s retaliatory legal provisions. |
| Broader Implications | Tests enforcement of judgments across borders under sovereign immunity. |
China did not engage in the proceedings, and Missouri obtained a default judgment by March 2025. It was an astounding $24 billion. It was one of the most ambitious judicial initiatives to apportion financial responsibility for pandemic mismanagement, in addition to being the largest judgment in the state’s history.
This was an improbable legal win for many.
The pursuit of Chinese-owned assets, including land and interests connected to the Chinese government or its institutions, was legally initiated by Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway by November. Although her office revealed interest in farming and real estate, they officially denied allegations that they would confiscate zoo animals, particularly pandas.
China retaliated in a daring and strikingly forceful move. It had sued the state of Missouri and some public officials at the Intermediate People’s Court of Wuhan by December 2025. Andrew Bailey, a current top FBI official, U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt, and Governor Mike Kehoe were among the defendants identified. China requested $50.5 billion in monetary damages and public apologies in major Chinese and American media outlets.
The level of specificity in the allegation was unexpected. Missouri was charged with damaging China’s reputation, disparaging national institutions, and obstructing the commercialization of scientific advancements. The assertion that Missouri had “belittled the social evaluation” of the Wuhan Institute of Virology was particularly stressed; the wording demonstrated how delicate the issue had become in terms of reputation.
Missouri has kept its course via judicial motions and diplomatic service packs. Hanaway has stated unequivocally that China’s legal reaction merely affirms their right to take action. She has even cited the case as proof that their approach worked.
When I read that the two lawsuits now reflect one another, not only in tone but also in intent, I became subtly uneasy.
This is more than just Missouri for China. Beijing is sending a message to Washington and the rest of the world that attempts to breach sovereign immunity would not be tolerated, according to legal experts. When another nation violates customary safeguards, retaliation is not only allowed but anticipated under Chinese law.
Additionally, there is the strategic component. China generates legal friction by taking the matter to its own courts, which would deter Missouri or other U.S. states from pursuing comparable claims. It compels a reexamination of the kind of foreign-owned assets that are actually available under U.S. law.
Finding property that is both held by the defendants and not covered by sovereign usage is the difficult part of the case in Missouri. The majority of Chinese government properties in the United States, including consulates, embassy buildings, and cultural landmarks, are exempt. The burden of demonstrating clear links to PPE stockpiling or pandemic mishandling is still heavy, even if Hanaway’s team discovers eligible property.
Beijing views the countersuit as having two benefits. First, it shifts the focus back to American actions in the legal context. Second, it allows for reciprocal reprisal against U.S. property abroad by providing China with leverage should Missouri ever be successful in seizing assets.
Senator Schmitt has leaned into the dispute, even referring to China’s countersuit as a “badge of honor.” Schmitt initiated the lawsuit in 2020 while serving as Attorney General. According to him, the legal response is a diversionary strategy meant to divert attention away from Beijing’s initial errors in responding to COVID-19. Additionally, he claims that he has been prohibited from entering China.
The outcome is still up in the air legally. Cross-border judgment enforcement is infamously difficult. A U.S. court can render a decision, but it is much more difficult to collect the money, particularly from a sovereign state. With its multiple layers of protection and diplomatic ramifications, international law seldom yields to the wishes of one country.
Notwithstanding the deadlock, this case might work amazingly well to test the limits of sovereign accountability.
Legal experts have already been pushed to reconsider the ways in which immunity regimes and economic activity interact. Judges are now being challenged to determine whether mask hoarding qualifies as an economic activity as opposed to a sovereign choice. Lawmakers are also keeping a careful eye on the situation and evaluating if further exemptions to immunity laws are necessary.
This legal battle between China and Missouri is more about rewriting rules than it is about paying a check.
Missouri is sparking a far wider discussion by questioning presumptions about what states can do when they are hurt by foreign entities. Do nations have the right to bring legal action against superpowers? When defendants fail to show up, are default judgments ethically acceptable? And without reciprocity, is justice really possible?
The stakes are obvious, even though the outcome is still uncertain.
Missouri might never get the $24 billion it is due. China’s lawsuit might never be upheld. However, both sides have put forward a diplomatic and judicial chess game that is changing countries’ perspectives on accountability, reparation, and the fallout from global crises.
Interestingly, this conflict is also making smaller governments—state-level entities in particular—think about how they may influence international legal norms.
Missouri will go back to federal court to confirm diplomatic service in the upcoming months. Attorney General Hanaway has the authority to start the contentious asset seizure process if the court confirms that all formalities have been completed.
It will be a moment with symbolic significance in addition to legal ramifications.
The dispute continues as a courtroom show and a strategic move, despite legal experts’ skepticism about any financial settlement.
After all, decisions are rarely the start and finish of legal proceedings. They have an outer effect, raising concerns, attracting attention, and sometimes even changing the regulations.
