China SLAMS U.S Senator with $50B Lawsuit!

Sign displaying United States Senate in a government building

China just put a $50 billion price tag on an American state’s words, and one senator’s refusal to say “sorry” may tell you more about modern U.S.–China conflict than any summit ever will.

Story Snapshot

Wuhan authorities, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology are suing Missouri and Sen. Eric Schmitt for roughly $50 billion over COVID-era accusations.
The suit responds directly to Missouri’s 2020 lawsuit blaming China for pandemic harm and alleging cover‑ups and hoarding of medical supplies.
Sen. Schmitt calls the case baseless retaliation and says he “won’t be apologizing,” framing it as proof he “hit a nerve” in Beijing.
Neither side can realistically enforce the other’s court rulings, turning the fight into high‑stakes lawfare and political theater rather than conventional litigation.

How Missouri’s COVID Lawsuit Set This Fuse

Missouri’s confrontation with China did not start in a Wuhan courtroom; it started in a Missouri one. In April 2020, then–Attorney General Eric Schmitt sued the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party, several ministries, and Hubei Province, accusing them of mismanaging COVID‑19, suppressing information, and inflicting massive damage on Missouri families and businesses. Legal experts immediately flagged foreign sovereign immunity as a brick wall, but Schmitt’s move clearly aimed beyond technical victory.

That lawsuit echoed a broader American demand: who pays when a foreign regime’s conduct helps unleash a global catastrophe? From a conservative common‑sense perspective, the logic resonated. If a local factory dumps chemicals in your river, you do not shrug; you sue. China rejected the entire premise, calling such claims politicized “stigmatization.” Missouri pressed ahead anyway, and state officials later touted multi‑billion‑dollar default judgments against Chinese actors as symbolic accountability, even if no one expected Beijing to cut a check.

Sen Eric Schmitt says he ‘won’t be apologizing’ as China hits him with $50B lawsuit https://t.co/s4iXqrQQTv

— News Span Media (@newsspanmedia) December 17, 2025

Why Wuhan, CAS, and the Virology Lab Are Striking Back

Fast‑forward to 2024, and the counterpunch arrives. The municipal government of Wuhan, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology filed a civil suit in the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court. They want roughly $50 billion, arguing that Missouri’s lawsuit and related statements “politicised” COVID‑19, distorted origin‑tracing, and slandered Wuhan institutions as the villains of the pandemic. In their telling, Missouri turned a public‑health crisis into a geopolitical weapon and trashed their reputations worldwide.

These plaintiffs are not random actors. Wuhan is where COVID‑19 first exploded onto the world stage. CAS is China’s flagship scientific institution. The Wuhan Institute of Virology sits at the center of every lab‑leak debate on cable news and in congressional hearings. When these entities sue, they are not only defending budgets and prestige; they are performing for a domestic audience that expects the Communist Party to strike back against foreign “smears.” From Beijing’s vantage point, this is about reclaiming narrative territory they believe Missouri tried to seize.

Eric Schmitt’s Calculated Defiance and What It Signals

Senator Schmitt is not ducking this fight; he is leveraging it. Now a U.S. senator, he has publicly rejected the Chinese claims and made it clear he will not apologize. On Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle,” he cast the Wuhan suit as a badge of honor, saying it proves he “hit a nerve” by calling out China’s COVID handling. That framing fits squarely with conservative instincts: when an authoritarian regime targets you, you must be doing something right.

Common sense says no American state should bow to a foreign court because a communist government dislikes its criticism. Missouri has every reason to refuse recognition of a Chinese judgment that tries to tax its speech at $50 billion. At the same time, the case offers Schmitt political capital. Being singled out by China allows him to reinforce a tough‑on‑Beijing image with voters who see the CCP as a strategic and ideological threat, not just a trade rival.

When Courts Become Weapons Instead of Referees

Behind the legal jargon, this is classic lawfare: using courts as instruments in a political conflict. Missouri sued China in a U.S. federal court bound by rule‑of‑law constraints and sovereign‑immunity doctrines. Wuhan’s plaintiffs turned to a Chinese court where party‑state influence is overt, and where condemning an American state can serve diplomatic and propaganda goals. Neither court can realistically enforce its outcome across borders, yet both can produce headline‑worthy judgments with symbolic power.

That asymmetry matters. U.S. conservatives see Missouri’s action as an attempt—however uphill—to hold a foreign regime accountable for real‑world harm to American citizens. Chinese authorities present their lawsuit as a defense of national dignity. Still, the facts sit inside a system where criticizing the Party can be dangerous while suing foreign critics is applauded. When you weigh those realities against basic American values, free speech, state sovereignty, transparent courts, the strength of each side’s case looks very different.