After the longest government shutdown in modern history, the House is finally back in session. Unfortunately, one of its first orders of business appears to be siding with Big Tech over small inventors.

Imagine a world without the airplane, the lightbulb, or self-starting cars. These homegrown inventions revolutionized modern life and we have Ohio inventors to thank. But they didn’t succeed on ingenuity alone. They thrived because of a system that protected their ideas. For centuries, strong intellectual property rights have powered American innovation.

Congress is considering a measure that could harm the very people the US depends on for its next wave of innovation. The Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 would force plaintiffs to reveal details about anyone who helps finance their lawsuits.

Missouri’s inventors are helping power America’s next technological renaissance — from medical breakthroughs in St. Louis to ag-tech innovation in Columbia and aerospace engineering in Kansas City. But now, a federal tax scheme threatens to undermine that momentum and penalize the very people driving it.

From the bustling research corridors of Oak Ridge National Laboratory to the advanced manufacturing plants in Clarksville and the growing tech ecosystem in Nashville, Tennessee’s entrepreneurs are fueling America’s innovation economy.

Idaho has long been a quiet leader in innovation and technology. From the massive new Micron semiconductor factories in Boise to the research facilities at Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls, our state’s scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs are spearheading America’s technological and manufacturing renaissance.

Big Tech companies have spent much of the past decade censoring conservatives. Yet a handful of congressional Republicans want to overlook this abuse — and make it easier for Big Tech firms to steal technologies from small businesses and garage-shop inventors.

Inventors and their supporters will be busy for months as US policymakers tinker with litigation funding taxes, disclosure of funding details and whether to restore injunctions to patent cases