Two federal lawmakers have introduced a bill seeking to apply the review requirements of the Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security (COINS) Act to investments in Chinese biotechnology.
Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-MI) introduced the Biotech Investment National Security Act (BINSA) this week. The legislation would apply to biotechnology activities including pharmaceutical development, biologics manufacturing and clinical research and development.
Moolenaar framed the bill (PDF) as an effort to protect research, innovation and medicines, and in a release called out Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb for “making dangerous deals with Chinese biotech companies that threaten the future of American pharmaceutical production.”
The bill aims to limit the offshoring of the biotech industry, with Moolenaar claiming that doing otherwise would “hand Chinese companies another chokehold over our economy, and hollow out our nation’s research infrastructure.”
Over the past few months, there has been increasing scrutiny of the biotech industry in the context of the COINS Act. In February, Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL) chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, sent a letter (PDF) to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urging his department to add biotechnology to the implementation of the COINS Act. A May 12 op-ed in STAT by Olivia Kosloff, a senior fellow at the American Economic Liberties Project, argued for increased scrutiny of the U.S. biopharma industry’s growing dependence on China.
The COINS Act, which became law as part of the fiscal year 2026 national defense bill, codifies and expands a U.S. Treasury screening system designed to require notification of American investments in sensitive foreign sectors. The investment types covered by the act include equity backing, debt financing and option and warrant structures.
Related
But Laurie Burlingame, a lawyer at Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton who specializes in life sciences transactions, told Fierce Biotech that the “NewCo” model, in which investors form a new American company around a licensed Chinese asset, may be particularly vulnerable if the COINS Act expands to the sector. Joint ventures are a core category of covered outbound investment activity under the act.
Moolenaar pointed to those licensing deals in his own letter to Bessent last month. “I urge Treasury to give particular consideration to transactions involving the licensing of pharmaceutical IP, drug discovery platforms, clinical research and development capabilities, and biologics manufacturing and commercialization know-how,” the lawmaker wrote.
BINSA would add biotechnology to the list of sectors subject to outbound investment screening and make U.S. pharmaceutical licensing deals, joint ventures and equity investments with Chinese covered foreign persons subject to Treasury Department review.
The bill covers licensing deals involving technology and intellectual property and directs the Treasury Department to issue implementing regulations within a year. It also requires the Secretary of Defense to analyze whether capital flows from the U.S. into Chinese biotechnology have a negative impact on national security within 60 days.
Moolenaar and Dingell aren’t the only ones calling for more action to do what they say will protect the American biotech industry. Alanna Temme, spokesperson for advocacy group Midsize Biotech Alliance of America, offered nuanced support for the goals of BINSA.
“As Congress advances this legislation, we encourage a targeted approach that strengthens national security while preserving the legitimate global partnerships that help deliver new medicines and therapies to patients,” she said in a statement to Fierce.
The bill arrives as the Chinese biotech industry continues to ascend. Though China has historically been a source of inexpensive biotech investment opportunities, prices have been on the rise. According to data from Evaluate, the average upfront value of licensing deals between Western biopharma companies and their Chinese counterparts surged by 230% over the past four years, from $52 million in 2022 to $172 million in early 2026.
Chinese companies now execute 50% of global out-licensing deals, with U.S. companies accounting for about 28%, a January report from SynBioBeta revealed. Earlier this month at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, Chinese biotech Akeso offered the first-ever Chinese data in a coveted plenary session slot on its lung cancer drug ivonescimab.
According to the release from Moolenaar and Dingell, biopharma licensing transactions between the U.S. and China totaled approximately $136 billion in potential value in 2025, up from less than $5 billion in 2020. The lawmakers pointed to Bristol Myers Squibb’s $15.2 billion co-development deal for early-stage molecules with China’s Hengrui Pharmaceuticals.
Related
Dingell said the bill aims to ensure that American investment does not support the development of an industry that could threaten U.S. economic interests.
“The United States must remain the global leader in innovation, and we cannot afford to be dependent on foreign competitors—like the People’s Republic of China—for critical pharmaceutical ingredients, drug development, and medical supply chains,” Dingell said in a statement.
The pushback
As China has become an integral part of the global biotech industry, some influential voices are making their case against protectionist measures. RA Capital Managing Partner Peter Kolchinsky, Ph.D., argues BINSA’s long-term consequences for the industry and patients would be disastrous.
“A China ban would destroy the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry for nothing,” he told Fierce Biotech. “We will hand over leadership to the rest of the world. You can’t deprive U.S. companies in the competitive market from any efficiencies that are available to other players; it’s a basic rule of competition.”
Kolchinsky recently penned a lengthy post on RA Capital’s blog arguing that limiting U.S.-Chinese biotech and clinical trial collaborations would not have the intended consequences and instead would harm patients while making the U.S. more dependent on foreign biotech in the future. He argues that the U.S. should focus on making its own industry more efficient while protecting drug manufacturing pipelines.
In addition, he argues that unlike tangible resources, China’s innovation is protected primarily by patents, which could be broken in extreme circumstances if China were to withhold drugs from U.S. patients.
The structural advantages that allow China to conduct clinical trials more quickly and at lower costs should be leveraged to benefit the American biotech industry and spur development and innovation, not walled off, Kolchinsky said. In the end, domestic industry and patients would suffer.
“When you are less efficient than somebody else at something and are limited to your inefficiency, you will pay the price in some way,” he said in an interview. “You either will pay a higher price for comparable quality, or will pay the same price for lower quality.”
BINSA isn’t the first time this spring that Moolenaar and Dingell have teamed up against Chinese industry. In May, they introduced a bill that would prohibit the importation, manufacture or sale of Chinese cars in the United States.
Kolchinsky said biotech is different from other industries that have been subject to laws designed to protect domestic industries. If BINSA results in limiting treatments for American patients, he said the political and health consequences would be substantial.
“Can you imagine if the FDA were told it is not allowed to approve a drug from a European company simply because the idea was licensed from China or some early study was done in China? You are going to have American patients rising up and saying, ‘How does this serve my interest? What are we protecting?’” he said.
If the debate in the court of public opinion is between protecting certain biotech jobs and providing treatments to sick patients, Kolchinsky is confident who will win the argument.
“The American patient has more clout than anybody. Everything is here to serve the American patient, and at the moment, the ones who are the most vulnerable have the most influence.”
