Michigan Reps. Moolenaar and Dingell Introduce BINSA: Implications for the Life Sciences Industry
Michigan’s own U.S. Representatives John Moolenaar (R-MI) and Debbie Dingell (D-MI) recently introduced the Biotech Investment National Security Act (BINSA) (H.R. 4452), legislation aimed at addressing growing concerns in Washington over the integration of the U.S. and Chinese biotechnology sectors. The bill reflects a broader bipartisan effort to strengthen national security safeguards around emerging technologies and limit potential technology transfer to strategic competitors.
BINSA would direct the U.S. Treasury Department to include biotechnology activities within the government's outbound investment screening framework and could significantly expand federal oversight beyond traditional investment transactions. Among its most notable provisions, the legislation would allow Treasury to review and potentially prohibit certain biotechnology licensing and collaboration agreements involving Chinese entities, extending scrutiny into areas that have historically been central to global biopharmaceutical innovation and commercialization.
In practical terms, the legislation could affect a range of transactions commonly used by biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. While traditional national security reviews have focused on investments and acquisitions, BINSA would also extend scrutiny to licensing arrangements in which a U.S. company obtains rights to develop or commercialize biotechnology originating from certain foreign entities. Treasury would be responsible for determining which technologies and foreign organizations fall within the scope of the law.
An analysis in BioCentury1 notes that the legislation was motivated in part by recent partnerships between major pharmaceutical companies and Chinese biotechnology firms, including agreements involving Bristol Myers Squibb and Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer and 3SBio/InventisBio. Under a broad interpretation of BINSA, similar transactions involving the licensing of drug candidates, platform technologies, or other biotechnology assets from covered foreign entities could be subject to government review or potentially prohibited, depending on how Treasury ultimately implements the legislation.
The proposal has sparked significant debate across the life sciences community. Supporters argue that stronger controls are necessary to protect U.S. intellectual property, maintain technological leadership, and reduce strategic dependence on China in critical biotechnology sectors. Critics, however, contend that restrictions on licensing, investment, and research collaborations could impede innovation, limit access to promising therapies, and create uncertainty for companies operating in a highly globalized industry. Some investors and industry leaders have argued that limiting access to international partnerships could reduce opportunities for U.S. companies and patients, while others believe stronger safeguards are needed to prevent strategic competitors from gaining access to sensitive technologies.
For emerging biotechnology companies, the implications could extend beyond large pharmaceutical licensing deals. Depending on how the regulations are written, questions have been raised about whether certain venture investments, cross-border research collaborations, co-development agreements, technology transfers, or future acquisition transactions could face additional review requirements. Many of these details would ultimately be determined through Treasury rulemaking, creating uncertainty about the legislation's eventual reach.
While BINSA faces a lengthy legislative path and may ultimately be modified, it highlights the increasing focus of policymakers on biotechnology as a national security priority. For Michigan's life sciences sector, the legislation raises important questions about future collaboration, investment, licensing strategies, capital formation, and supply chain relationships.
MichBio is studying the legislation carefully alongside national industry associations and other partners to better understand its potential implications for Michigan's life science companies. As more details emerge regarding the bill and related Treasury Department actions, MichBio will continue to engage with policymakers and stakeholders and provide updates to members on developments that could affect the state's innovation ecosystem.
MichBio would like to hear from Michigan life science companies on this issue.
How might BINSA affect your business, research collaborations, licensing activities, investment opportunities, supply chain relationships, or long-term growth strategy? Member feedback will help inform MichBio's ongoing analysis and advocacy efforts as the legislation advances and its potential impacts become clearer.
1 Usdin, Steve. Congressional concern growing over integration of Chinese, U.S. biopharma. BioCentury. June 5, 2026. PDF copy on file.
