Our Take
BINSA is a straightforward expansion of existing oversight (COINS and BIOSECURE) into deal-by-deal veto power, not a novel security framework—and it arrives after the biggest cross-border licensing boom on record.
Why it matters
US pharma is racing to fill a $230B patent-cliff crater by licensing from Chinese innovators; Congress now wants friction in that supply chain. If passed, BINSA will slow or kill the licensing trend that kept American pipelines competitive in 2025.
Do this week
In-house counsel: audit all pending and contemplated Chinese partnerships (licensing, equity, JVs) against BINSA's language and brief leadership on Treasury review timelines before filing.
Michigan lawmakers introduce bill to block pharma deals with China
Republican John Moolenaar and Democrat Debbie Dingell jointly proposed the Biotech Investment National Security Act (BINSA) to amend the Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security (COINS) Act of December 2025. The bill would grant the US Department of the Treasury power to monitor and restrict American pharma and biotech investments, licensing agreements, equity stakes, and joint ventures involving Chinese entities.
Moolenaar specifically called out two recent mega-deals as "dangerous": Bristol Myers Squibb's $15.2 billion partnership with Hengrui and Pfizer's $10.5 billion cancer licensing deal with Innovent Biologics. The bill applies to licensing of technology and intellectual property as well as capital commitments.
BINSA follows the BIOSECURE Act, which Congress signed into law six months prior. BIOSECURE restricts Chinese biotech access to US funding and limits collaborations with domestic pharma firms using federal money. BINSA widens the net to cover all outbound deals, not just those touching federal funding.
Patent cliff is driving the dealmaking Congress now wants to slow
Cross-border licensing between US and Chinese biotech and pharma companies surged to $136 billion in 2025, more than 27 times the $5 billion rate in 2020 (per GlobalData analysis). The spike reflects urgency: American pharma faces $230 billion in market losses between 2025 and 2030 as high-value drugs lose patent exclusivity (analyst estimate). Oncology will be hit hardest.
Rather than develop wholly new drugs, US companies have increasingly turned to Chinese innovators who have shifted focus from generic and "me-too" production to first- or best-in-class assets. That licensing model allowed American firms to restock pipelines faster and cheaper than internal R&D.
BINSA throws a Treasury checkpoint into every material deal. The bill does not ban outbound investment; it introduces review and veto authority. In practice, this will lengthen deal timelines, raise uncertainty for counterparties, and likely drive some deals to remain unsigned pending regulatory clarity.
What companies and lawyers need to do now
If BINSA passes and is signed into law, any pharma or biotech firm with pending or contemplated Chinese partnerships must prepare for Treasury review. The bill does not specify review timelines, approval rates, or appeal processes; those details will emerge through regulation and case law.
Companies currently in negotiation with Chinese partners face a binary choice: accelerate to close before BINSA is enacted (unlikely given Congressional pace) or freeze and wait for Treasury guidance. Partners already under contract will want legal review of change-of-control and termination clauses in case political pressure forces renegotiation.
The broader dynamic: US lawmakers are no longer comfortable with open capital flow into Chinese biotech innovation, even when US companies initiate the deals. This is a structural shift in dealmaking norms, not a technical ban. Practitioners should expect Treasury to publish FAQ and guidance documents within weeks or months of enactment, and should lobby through industry associations (PhRMA, BIO) for clear approval thresholds and timelines before the bill passes.