A Wuhan court is hearing a defamation case brought by three Chinese institutions against Missouri and current or former Missouri attorneys general.
Plaintiffs:
Wuhan Municipal People's Government.Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS).
They reportedly seek 356.44 billion yuan (about US$53.5 billion), public apologies and reputational remedies.
Defendants include Missouri, US Senator Eric Schmitt (former Missouri attorney general), former Attorney General Andrew Bailey and current Attorney General Catherine Hanaway.
THE CCP CONNECTION
These are not private organisations. Wuhan's municipal government is part of China's state administration. WIV is an institute of CAS, China's national scientific institution.
CAS President Hou Jianguo also serves as Secretary of its Communist Party Leading Group. WIV has a Party Committee within its leadership structure.
This establishes institutional links to China's state and Party system. It does not prove that Hou Jianguo or Xi Jinping personally ordered the lawsuit.
WHO IS FUNDING IT?
The precise funding arrangements have not been publicly established. No named private litigation financier has been identified. The plaintiffs' public-institution budgets are an obvious avenue to investigate, but that does not establish which account pays the lawyers.
The court filing, lawyers' identities, budget approvals and payment records are needed to establish who authorised and funded the case.
HOW DID THE DISPUTE START?
In April 2020, Missouri sued China over its handling of COVID-19. Defendants included the Chinese state and Communist Party, Hubei and Wuhan authorities, WIV and CAS.
Missouri alleged that China concealed outbreak information and hoarded personal protective equipment (PPE).
On 10 January 2024, the Eighth Circuit allowed the PPE-hoarding claim to proceed while dismissing other claims on sovereign-immunity grounds.
On 7 March 2025, federal Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr. entered a default judgment of US$24,488,825,457 plus 3.91% annual interest. The award was based on about US$8.163 billion in damages, trebled under antitrust law.
China did not appear to defend the case. The judge considered Missouri's evidence, but this was not a fully contested trial.
CHINA'S COUNTERCLAIM
The Wuhan action was filed on 30 April 2025. The plaintiffs allege that Missouri and its officials made defamatory statements and pursued malicious litigation.
They reportedly seek US$53.5 billion and public apologies through international media, including CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.
The media demands give the case an international communications dimension. A coordinated CCP public-relations strategy has not been proven.
QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSWERSWho authorised the lawsuit?Which lawyers represent the plaintiffs?Which budgets pay the legal costs?Who calculated the US$53.5 billion claim, and on what evidence?
The institutional links to China's Party-state system are documented. A specific central-government funding instruction has not been established.
The key question: Is this a conventional defamation action, or is litigation also being used to manage China's international reputation and apply counterpressure to Missouri?
SOURCES
Reuters, 4 November 2026:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/chinese-court-hears-covid-defamation-case-against-us-state-missouri-2026-11-04/Chinese Academy of Sciences – leadership:
https://english.cas.cn/about-cas/leadership/Eighth Circuit, 10 January 2024:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/22-2495/22-2495-2024-01-10.htmlMissouri federal judgment:
https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/State-of-Missouri-v.-Peoples-Republic-of-China-Judgment.pdf