A substantive modification. v3 primarily standardizes terminology by replacing "foreign adversary" and specific references to "China" or "Chinese Communist Party" with the broader, statutorily defined term "foreign country of concern" throughout the bill. Additionally, v3 removes a clause from the Sense of Congress stating that foreign direct investment policies should not disadvantage domestic investors or companies.
Global Investment in American Jobs Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Young, Todd [R-IN]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 24, 2026
Bottom line
This bill mandates a comprehensive interagency review and report to Congress on strategies to enhance U.S. competitiveness in attracting foreign direct investment from trusted sources while safeguarding national security interests.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of Commerce and the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a comprehensive interagency review of the global competitiveness of the United States in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) from responsible private sector entities based in trusted countries. The review must identify key foreign trade barriers, analyze economic impacts and trends, examine federal and state policies, and address challenges posed by state-owned enterprises from foreign countries of concern, including efforts by the Chinese Communist Party. Within one year, a report with recommendations for increasing U.S. competitiveness in attracting FDI, while strengthening U.S. protections, must be submitted to Congress.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that understanding and improving the U.S. ability to attract foreign direct investment from trusted partners is crucial for long-term economic prosperity, job creation, and national security. They believe the review will identify barriers and best practices, promoting policies that strengthen resilient supply chains and maintain U.S. leadership in cutting-edge technologies, while explicitly countering malign influence from foreign countries of concern.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that such a review could be redundant with existing efforts or that focusing too heavily on attracting foreign investment, even from 'trusted' sources, might inadvertently lead to overlooking domestic investment needs or create new avenues for foreign influence. Some might also contend that the existing policy framework is sufficient, or that the bill's emphasis on 'foreign countries of concern' could be perceived as overly broad or lead to unintended diplomatic tensions.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick and informed evaluation by any interested reader.
Section 4(a)
Interagency Review of Global Competitiveness in Attracting FDI
This section directs the Secretary of Commerce and the Comptroller General, in consultation with other federal agencies, to conduct a comprehensive review. The purpose of this review is to assess how competitive the United States is globally in attracting foreign direct investment from private companies based in countries considered allies or partners, specifically excluding 'foreign countries of concern.' The review is also tasked with identifying key foreign trade barriers faced by advanced technology firms in the digital economy.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this review is essential for a data-driven approach to U.S. economic policy, ensuring the nation remains a top destination for job-creating foreign investment from trusted partners. They believe it will identify specific areas for improvement and help counter economic threats from adversaries.
Critics contend
Some might argue that existing government bodies already conduct similar analyses, making this new mandate potentially redundant or an inefficient use of resources. They might also suggest that the focus on 'trusted countries' could be overly restrictive.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire to attract beneficial foreign investment with the need to protect national security and economic interests from adversarial states. It aims to streamline investment from allies while strengthening defenses against threats.
Section 4(b)
Detailed Scope of the FDI Review
This section outlines 15 specific areas that the interagency review must cover. These include the economic impact of FDI on U.S. manufacturing, services, trade, and jobs; global investment trends; federal and state policies affecting FDI; challenges posed by state-owned enterprises from 'foreign countries of concern'; and the impact of protectionist policies by other countries (like data localization and intellectual property infringement). It also specifically targets efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to gain access to U.S. markets, FDI, or intellectual property.
Section 4(d) and 4(e)
Public Engagement and Congressional Reporting Requirements
Before starting the review, the Secretary must publish a notice in the Federal Register and solicit public comment on the matters to be covered. Similarly, before submitting the final report to Congress, the Secretary must publish the proposed findings and recommendations for public comment. The final report, due within one year of the Act's enactment, will detail the review's findings and include recommendations for increasing U.S. global competitiveness in attracting FDI from trusted countries, while also strengthening U.S. security, labor, consumer, financial, or environmental protections.
Defines 'foreign country of concern' by referencing section 9901 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (15 U.S.C. 4651). This external reference is crucial because the entire bill's focus on 'trusted countries' and 'responsible private sector entities' hinges on this definition.
Section 2(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid reprinting lengthy definitions and ensure consistency across different laws. It's not evasive.
Case for: Referencing existing definitions promotes consistency in federal law and avoids potential conflicts or ambiguities that could arise from creating a new, slightly different definition. It streamlines legislative drafting.
Case against: For a casual reader, it adds a layer of complexity, requiring external research to fully grasp which countries are explicitly deemed 'of concern' and thus excluded from the bill's positive investment attraction efforts.
Estimated impact: Significant, as it dictates which countries are the focus of the bill's protective measures and which are the targets for increased FDI.
Explicitly states that the review conducted under subsection (a) shall not address laws or policies relating to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).
Section 4(c)
Why it matters:This is likely a deliberate carve-out to avoid overlapping with or undermining the established and sensitive work of CFIUS, which has its own specific mandate and processes. It's a jurisdictional clarification.
Case for: Supporters would argue this prevents redundancy and ensures the review focuses on areas not already covered by CFIUS, allowing each body to operate within its specialized domain. It avoids potential conflicts or confusion regarding investment screening.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding CFIUS from the review creates a blind spot, as CFIUS policies are directly relevant to attracting and screening foreign direct investment, especially from 'foreign countries of concern.' They might suggest that a holistic review should at least consider CFIUS's role and effectiveness.
Estimated impact: Moderate, as it narrows the scope of the review, potentially leaving out a critical aspect of foreign investment policy from this specific analysis.