Congress expands national security screening to biotech deals—with minimal guardrails.
H.R. 9102 — BINSA Act · Filed by John Moolenaar (R-MI) · 1 cosponsor · Introduced Jun 2, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill expands the Defense Production Act to treat biotechnology (pharmaceuticals, biologics, drug discovery, and clinical research) as a national security technology subject to outbound investment screening. It requires the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with Defense, Health and Human Services, and Intelligence officials, to define which biotech transactions with foreign entities—especially China—must be reported or prohibited. The bill aims to prevent U.S. capital and intellectual property from flowing to Chinese biotech firms through licensing, joint ventures, and equity investments.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is to extend Defense Production Act outbound investment screening to biotechnology, treating it as a dual-use national security technology. This is a regulatory expansion, not a subsidy or carve-out, but it delegates substantial definitional authority to the executive branch with limited statutory guardrails.
What the text implies
- The bill grants Treasury, Defense, HHS, and Intelligence broad discretion to define 'prohibited' and 'notifiable' biotech transactions with minimal statutory limits, creating regulatory uncertainty that may chill legitimate U.S.-foreign biotech partnerships and licensing deals.
- By targeting 'covered foreign persons' and emphasizing China specifically in findings but not in operative text, the rule-making process may apply screening asymmetrically, potentially affecting allies' biotech firms differently than Chinese competitors.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who stands to gain
U.S. biotech and pharmaceutical companies (reduced foreign competition for licensing deals); U.S. government contractors in biodefense and pharmaceutical manufacturing; Domestic clinical research organizations (reduced foreign outsourcing)