Technical corrections only. The diff between v3 and v4 consists solely of the addition of the Clerk's name in the attestation block at the end of the bill. No substantive policy changes were made between these versions.
Global Investment in American Jobs Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Evans, Gabe [R-CO-8]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2025
Bottom line
This bill mandates a detailed federal review and report to Congress on strategies to enhance U.S. competitiveness in attracting trusted foreign direct investment while mitigating risks from adversarial state-backed investments.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of Commerce and the Comptroller General, in consultation with other federal agencies, to conduct a comprehensive interagency review of the United States' global competitiveness in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) from responsible private-sector entities based in trusted countries. The review must also address key foreign trade barriers faced by advanced technology firms and specifically examine the unique challenges posed by FDI from State-owned or State-backed enterprises, particularly those influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. Within one year, a report with findings and recommendations for increasing U.S. competitiveness in attracting trusted FDI, while safeguarding national interests, must be submitted to Congress.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is crucial for U.S. economic prosperity and national security by identifying ways to attract beneficial FDI, foster innovation in critical technologies, strengthen supply chains, and counter economic threats from state-directed economies like China. They believe a comprehensive review will provide actionable insights to maintain the U.S. as a premier investment destination and protect its interests.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that such a review could be redundant with existing agency efforts, potentially leading to bureaucratic delays rather than immediate policy action. Some might also express concern that an overly broad focus on 'trusted countries' could inadvertently create new barriers or complicate international trade relations, or that the emphasis on 'responsible private-sector entities' might be difficult to define and implement consistently.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, allowing a reader to quickly grasp its intent and scope.
Section 2
Congressional Statement on Foreign Direct Investment Policy
This section outlines Congress's belief that attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) from trusted private-sector entities is vital for U.S. economic prosperity, global competitiveness, and security. It emphasizes removing unnecessary barriers to such investment, promoting policies for the U.S. to remain a top investment destination, leading in cutting-edge technologies, and expanding resilient supply chains away from reliance on China. It also explicitly identifies FDI by entities influenced by the Chinese Communist Party as a threat to U.S. security and interests.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this section clearly articulates the strategic importance of FDI from allies while explicitly identifying and condemning adversarial investment, providing a strong foundation for the subsequent review and future policy.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against 'Sense of Congress' provisions as they are non-binding statements of intent, though some might argue specific points could be more nuanced or less confrontational.
Tradeoffs
Balances the desire for open investment with the need for national security and protection against adversarial economic influence.
Section 3(a) and (b)
Mandated Interagency Review of U.S. FDI Competitiveness
This provision directs the Secretary of Commerce and the Comptroller General, in collaboration with the Federal Interagency Investment Working Group and other relevant agencies, to conduct a comprehensive review. The review must assess the U.S.'s global competitiveness in attracting FDI from trusted private-sector entities and analyze key foreign trade barriers in the global digital economy. It specifies 15 detailed matters to be included, such as the economic impact of FDI, global investment trends, federal policies, challenges from state-owned enterprises (especially from China), and protectionist policies by other countries.
Section 3(d) and (e)
Public Engagement and Reporting Requirements
This provision mandates that the Secretary of Commerce must solicit public comment both before conducting the review (on matters to be covered) and before submitting the final report (on proposed findings and recommendations). Within one year of the Act's enactment, the Secretary, in coordination with relevant agencies, must submit a report to Congress detailing the review's findings and including recommendations for increasing U.S. global competitiveness in attracting trusted FDI, while ensuring security, labor, consumer, financial, and environmental protections are maintained or strengthened.
This subsection explicitly states that the review conducted under this Act 'shall not address laws or policies relating to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States' (CFIUS).
Section 3(c)
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice to clarify jurisdictional boundaries and avoid overlap or interference with existing, sensitive national security review processes. It ensures the new review focuses on broader economic competitiveness rather than specific transaction-level security assessments.
Case for: Supporters would argue this limitation is crucial to prevent duplication of effort and maintain the distinct, critical national security function of CFIUS, which operates under different authorities and objectives.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding CFIUS from the review creates a blind spot, as CFIUS policies significantly impact foreign direct investment flows and perceptions of the U.S. investment climate, especially concerning national security risks.
Estimated impact: Ensures the review focuses on proactive investment attraction and policy, rather than reactive security screening of individual transactions, thereby maintaining the distinct roles of different federal bodies.
This section defines 'responsible private-sector entity' as one not organized under, owned, controlled, or influenced by a 'foreign adversary.' It also defines 'trusted country' as a country not determined by the Secretary of Commerce to be a 'foreign adversary' (though the bill text contains a grammatical error, stating 'to be a of the United States').
Section 3(f)
Why it matters:Definitions are typically placed at the end of bills as standard legislative practice. The grammatical error is likely a drafting or transcription mistake. The substance of these definitions is crucial for the bill's intent and application.
Case for: Proponents would argue these definitions are essential to ensure the bill's focus is on attracting beneficial investment from allies while explicitly excluding and protecting against adversarial state influence, particularly from China.
Case against: Critics might argue that the definitions grant significant discretionary power to the Secretary of Commerce to determine 'foreign adversaries' and 'trusted countries,' which could lead to arbitrary decisions or political influence in these designations. The typo also creates ambiguity that could lead to misinterpretation.
Estimated impact: These definitions fundamentally shape the scope and direction of the entire review, determining which investments are sought and which are scrutinized, thereby having a profound impact on U.S. economic and security policy.