The Wuhan court has been hearing the judicial confrontation behind the $356.4 billion claim for the US$ in the US-M-M-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-

The Wuhan City Intermediate People ' s Court held a hearing on 30 October on the case of honour violations against the Wuhan City Government, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Wuhan Institute of HIV in the United States of America by prosecuting the current and former State Attorneys General in Missouri. The Chinese plaintiffs demanded that the United States publicly apologize, restore their reputation and pay substantial compensation. The total amount of the claim disclosed in the South China Morning Post amounts to RM$35,644 million. This lawsuit has brought the dispute of responsibility for the new outbreak, which lasted more than six years, to the courts of both countries, and has given renewed attention to the issue of the public disclosure of the outbreak and the enforcement of transnational sentences.

The Wuhan College released the progress of the case in early November, and the related reports were concentrated from 3 to 4 November. The Court has not yet rendered a final judgement in the case. For this action, $35.644 billion is the plaintiff ' s claim first and foremost, not the amount of the loss that has been upheld by the court; Next, attention is drawn to how the parties engage in legal engagements around torts, jurisdiction, calculation of losses and cross-border enforcement.

♪ Missouri filed a suit in the United States, Wuhan counter-claimed

In April 2020, Missouri filed a lawsuit in the United States Federal Court against Chinese authorities for economic losses in the State of Missouri, including the response to the epidemic and the supply of personal protective supplies. Most of the claims in the case were subsequently judicially hampered, but allegations of accumulation of protective supplies continued. The United States courts subsequently delivered a default judgement of approximately $25 billion, and the Missouri side has sought ways of enforcing it.

The Wuhan side initiated proceedings against the Missouri region in 2025, accusing the state and its Attorney-General, Eric Schmidt, Andrew Bailey and Catherine Hanaway, of promoting malicious proceedings, disseminating false information and undermining the reputation of the Chinese institutions concerned. The court hearing at Wuhan was public on 30 October 2026 and proceedings are continuing.

The two claims are in the opposite direction: the state government wants to recover the damage from the epidemic from China, while the Chinese authorities hold the state government and officials responsible for the honour violations of their statements and actions. Both parties wish to rely on their own courts to hold each other responsible, but a single decision of a domestic court does not mean that it can be genuinely enforced in another State.

State immunity, service and enforcement become key points

Such proceedings involving foreign Governments would first encounter sovereign immunity and jurisdictional issues. The applicable legal rules and exceptions vary from the United States courts ' determination of immunity from action by a foreign State to the ability of Chinese courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States state government and related officials. Even if the case is brought to the entity, the ability to obtain recognition and enforcement of cross-border service and future judgements remains an obstacle to independence.

The amount of compensation claimed by the Wuhan side is substantial, but its basis of calculation, the causal link between the so-called reputation and the loss of property, ultimately requires review by the Tribunal. The previous default judgement in Missouri was also facing a similar reality: the paper figure for compensation was large, and actual access to compensation depended on enforceable assets and applicable judicial rules.

These procedural issues determine whether the case can produce real legal effects, not just the statements of victory in the Government ' s propaganda.

# # # The information duty of the first outbreak cannot be concealed by the lawsuit #

The Wuhan Municipality joined the prosecution in this case with the Wuhan Institute of HIV, which brought back the focus of discussion on administrative information management and public health decisions in the initial outbreak. Scientific evidence is required for scientific research on the origin of the virus; The handling of early warning information in the early stages of the epidemic, the ability of medical personnel to give their views in a timely manner and when local governments issue risk alerts are government actions that can be discussed through administrative records, public documents and accountability processes.

The Chinese and American sides have long been divided over the origins and responsibilities of the new coronary outbreak. The Chinese Government has the right to refute the allegations it considers false, and the State of Missouri in the United States can also make claims within the framework of its own national jurisdiction. However, the claims between the two Governments are not a substitute for the full account of specific public health decisions, disclosure of information and related responsibilities.

Now that the Wuhan court continues to hear honour violations, the public has observed not only a national reputation dispute, but also the practical limitations of whether judicial proceedings can address cross-border government disputes. The allegations that ultimately stand the courts' scrutiny, the decisions that can be truly implemented and the way public authority during the outbreak is monitored are more worthy of continued reporting than the political impact of the compensation figures.