← Back to bills and search results
2025 · Regular session · House bill
HB2884
HB2884 adds sworn funding disclosures in civil cases regarding the activities of U.S. defense contractors—even when the contractor is not a party.
Official caption: Relating to the required disclosure of certain financial relationships in civil actions regarding the activities of United States defense contractors.
Official report lists House author(s): Landgraf. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- HB2884 adds sworn funding disclosures in civil cases regarding the activities of U.S. defense contractors—even when the contractor is not a party.
- A claimant must disclose whether the claimant or the claimant's attorney has directly or indirectly received funding or financial support from an individual, entity or government affiliated with a nation subject to sanctions or an embargo under the Arms Export Control Act, as determined by the U.S.
- The information is required as part of initial disclosures under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, with a continuing duty to update it during the case.
- For noncompliance, the court may pause the case until disclosure occurs.
- The governor signed the act and it took effect May 28, 2025.
What does it do?
HB2884 adds sworn funding disclosures in civil cases regarding the activities of U.S. defense contractors—even when the contractor is not a party. A covered contractor is an entity producing, manufacturing or providing defense articles or defense services to the U.S. Department of Defense under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The law does not cover every government supplier or every civil lawsuit. Final law, new Chapter 28.
A claimant must disclose whether the claimant or the claimant’s attorney has directly or indirectly received funding or financial support from an individual, entity or government affiliated with a nation subject to sanctions or an embargo under the Arms Export Control Act, as determined by the U.S. State Department. The sources must be identified. The act does not simply require disclosure of all foreign funding, and its text does not limit the specified financial support to money expressly earmarked for the lawsuit.
The information is required as part of initial disclosures under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, with a continuing duty to update it during the case. The act specifies disclosure no later than ten days after receiving the money or identifying the source, as applicable. Disclosures must be made under oath and filed with the court. Under the act, they cannot be delayed or withheld on privilege or exemption grounds, and a court may not grant a claimant’s motion to limit disclosure of the specified proprietary or confidential funding information. Referenced court rules, Rule 194.
For noncompliance, the court may pause the case until disclosure occurs. If it finds willful noncompliance, it may dismiss the action with prejudice—ending the claim in a way that generally prevents refiling it. These are discretionary sanctions, not automatic dismissal for every mistake, and other legally available sanctions remain possible. The act requires transparency; it does not itself prohibit receipt of the funding or decide the merits of the underlying claim.
The governor signed the act and it took effect May 28, 2025. It applies both to actions then pending in a trial court and to actions filed on or after that date. Official history.
What changed along the way?
The introduced bill applied only to lawsuits against a defense contractor and used a definition requiring an entity to supply goods or services to the Defense Department and be a party to a contract subject to the Arms Export Control Act. The House committee substitute changed the scope to cases regarding a contractor’s activities, whether or not the contractor is a party, and rewrote the definition around defense articles/services supplied under the federal arms regulations.
The disclosure duties, ten-day provision, privilege/confidentiality limits, sanctions and pending-case transition otherwise survived. The House-passed text, Senate committee text and final law are substantively the same. The amendment index lists no floor amendments, and the history shows no later Senate amendment or conference change.
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
Defense contractors, other litigants and courts could gain visibility into financial backing connected with sanctioned or embargoed nations. Claimants and lawyers bear disclosure and updating duties, potential confidentiality costs and serious litigation consequences for noncompliance. Disclosure alone does not prove foreign control, wrongdoing or that a claim lacks merit. The act does not define every possible affiliation, so a specific funding relationship may require legal interpretation.
The latest available fiscal note anticipates no significant state or local fiscal effect, assuming public implementation costs can be absorbed with existing resources. It does not quantify private legal expenses, the value of disclosed funding or national-security benefits.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.