BINSA Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Ricketts, Pete [R-NE]
- Committees
- Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 6, 2026
Bottom line
The bill expands U.S. national security investment screening to the biotechnology sector, aiming to prevent the transfer of critical pharmaceutical innovation capacity and intellectual property to foreign adversaries, particularly the People's Republic of China.
What it actually does
This bill amends title VIII of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to include biotechnology within the definitions of "prohibited technology" and "notifiable technology" for outbound investment screening. It specifically targets pharmaceutical products, biological products, and therapeutic compounds, encompassing related intellectual property, drug discovery platforms, clinical research, and biologics manufacturing. The bill also mandates the Secretary of the Treasury to issue a rule further defining these parameters and requires a report from the Secretary of Defense on the national security implications of U.S. capital flows into China's biotechnology sector.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is crucial for national security, preventing the People's Republic of China from dominating the global biotechnology and pharmaceutical supply chain, which presents strategic dependency risks similar to those seen with semiconductors and rare earth elements. They emphasize the dual-use nature of biotechnology and the accelerating transfer of U.S. intellectual property and manufacturing know-how to Chinese entities, which could undermine U.S. pharmaceutical independence and military readiness.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that such restrictions could stifle innovation, limit U.S. companies' access to global markets and research collaborations, and potentially harm the competitiveness of the U.S. biotechnology sector. They might also raise concerns about the breadth of the definitions and the potential for unintended consequences on legitimate scientific and commercial exchanges, or that it could lead to retaliatory measures from China.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick understanding of its core intent and mechanisms.
Section 3, amending Section 809 of the Defense Production Act of 1950
Expanding Outbound Investment Screening to Biotechnology
This provision adds "Biotechnology" to the definitions of both "prohibited technology" and "notifiable technology" under the Defense Production Act. This means that certain U.S. investments and transactions involving biotechnology with covered foreign persons will either be outright prohibited or require notification to the U.S. government for review. The definition of biotechnology specifically includes pharmaceutical products, biological products, and therapeutic compounds, encompassing drug discovery platforms, clinical research, biologics manufacturing, and related intellectual property.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this is essential to safeguard U.S. pharmaceutical innovation and manufacturing capacity, preventing its transfer to strategic competitors like China, thereby reducing national security risks and strategic dependencies.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that such broad restrictions could hinder global scientific collaboration, slow down drug development, and disadvantage U.S. companies by limiting their market access and investment opportunities abroad.
Tradeoffs
Balances national security concerns regarding technology transfer with the potential for stifling innovation, limiting market access for U.S. companies, and impacting global scientific collaboration.
Section 3(1), amending Section 809(4)(A) of the Defense Production Act of 1950
Explicitly Covering Licensing Agreements
This amendment explicitly adds "licensing of a prohibited technology from a covered foreign person" to the list of transactions that can be prohibited under the Defense Production Act. This clarifies and strengthens the government's ability to review and block intellectual property transfers, particularly in the newly included biotechnology sector, to entities associated with foreign adversaries.
Section 4
Treasury Department Rulemaking on Biotechnology Parameters
This section mandates the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Defense, and the Director of National Intelligence, to issue a rule within one year to further define "biotechnology" for the purposes of the DPA amendments. The rule must specifically consider transactions involving intellectual property licensing, drug discovery platforms, clinical research, and biologics manufacturing know-how, particularly concerning transfers to entities controlled by the People's Republic of China. It also explicitly excludes agricultural biotechnology, industrial fermentation unrelated to pharmaceuticals, and basic academic research.
Section 5
Secretary of Defense Report on National Security Impacts
This section requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to appropriate congressional committees within 60 days of the bill's enactment. The report must assess whether U.S. capital flows into China's biotechnology sector, including through licensing transactions, negatively affect U.S. national security and military readiness. The report can include a classified annex.
The bill defines "pharmaceutical products" by referencing the term "drug" in section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)) and "biological products" by referencing section 351(i) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(i)).
Section 3(2)(vi)(I) and (II), and Section 3(3)(vi)(I) and (II)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing legal frameworks and regulatory interpretations.
Case for: Using established definitions from relevant acts ensures legal consistency and leverages existing regulatory interpretations, preventing new, potentially conflicting definitions and reducing ambiguity.
Case against: It increases the complexity for a lay reader, requiring external research to fully grasp the bill's precise scope and the types of products that will be subject to screening.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the precise scope of "pharmaceutical products" and "biological products" under the DPA, affecting all entities involved in the research, development, manufacturing, or commercialization of these specific types of products.