Rogers is the “data wrangler” at BillTrack50. He previously worked on policy in several government departments.
This month IssueVoter and BillTrack50 take a look at the BIOSECURE Act, a significant escalation in efforts to restrict Chinese influence in America's biotechnology sector.
The bipartisan legislation, passed by the House of Representatives in September and spearheaded by Reps. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), aims to protect American patient data and prevent federal funds from flowing to biotechnology companies deemed to pose national security risks.
Key Provisions
At its core, the BIOSECURE Act seeks to create a firewall between federal agencies and certain biotechnology companies. Under the legislation, federal agencies would be barred from contracting with designated "biotechnology companies of concern" or providing grants and loans to entities that use their services.
This prohibition extends to organizations that maintain contracts with these companies, creating a ripple effect throughout the biotechnology supply chain.
The bill takes direct aim at five Chinese companies: BGI, MGI, Complete Genomics, WuXi AppTec,and WuXi Biologics. Beyond these specific designations, it establishes a framework for identifying additional companies as security risks, particularly those controlled by "foreign adversaries" including China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and Cuba.
Weaponizing Our Genome
Supporters of the BIOSECURE Act, with Wenstrup at the forefront, paint a concerning picture of vulnerable national security and compromised patient privacy.
As Krishnamoorthi dramatically frames the issue: "As Americans have their blood drawn or take other medical tests each day, few have any idea that their personal genetic information could be going to biotech companies controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and other adversaries that would weaponize our own genomes against us."
The military connections between Chinese biotech firms and the People's Liberation Army have raised additional red flags. These relationships reportedly extend beyond mere collaboration to include joint research projects and shared genetic collection sites. The fact that WuXi AppTec derives over 60 percent of its revenue from the U.S. market has intensified concerns about American dependency on potentially compromised supply chains.
Perhaps most alarming to supporters is China's legal framework requiring companies to share data with the government upon request. This mandate creates a direct pipeline for sensitive genetic information about American citizens to flow into the hands of Chinese authorities.
Opposition and Concerns
Yet the legislation has drawn significant criticism, even from unexpected quarters. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), known for his tough stance on China, has emerged as a prominent critic. In his forceful opposition to the bill, McGovern argues: "Naming specific companies will create a 'whack-a-mole' situation where entities can change their name and reincorporate to evade sanctions. ... [I]t's totally wrong to call out specific companies without any formal investigation or interagency process —that might be how they do things in the PRC, but this is the United States of America where we ought to have a thorough, independent investigation."
Company Responses
Health care technology executives have added their voices to the chorus of concern. At the Clinical Trial Supply West Coast 2024 conference, Umar Hayat of Gladius Therapeutics offered a stark warning:"This seems more like politics rather than about a security threat. ... [I]f you want to play politics, play politics in other industries like automotive, electronics or telecommunications. Don't play politics in health care where so many people are in dire need. Let science evolve and advance — wherever it comes from."
BGI has mounted a vigorous defense against the allegations, emphasizing that it maintains no direct patient services in the United States and therefore has no access to Americans' personal data. The company has clarified that its Covid-19 PCR testing analyzes only viral RNA, not patient DNA, and stressed its status as a privately owned entity independent from Chinese government control. BGI likens its gene bank operations to those of U.S. national laboratories, suggesting that fears about its activities may be overblown.
Broader Implications
The BIOSECURE Act represents more than a simple regulatory change; it signals a fundamental shift in how the United States approaches biotechnology in the context of national security. This transformation raises complex questions about the future of international scientific collaboration at a time when global cooperation has proven crucial for addressing health challenges.
The legislation could trigger a significant reorganization of pharmaceutical supply chains, with countries like Ireland and India potentially emerging as alternative manufacturing locations. However, this restructuring comes with its own set of challenges and uncertainties.
Innovation in the biotechnology sector could face headwinds as restrictions on collaboration with Chinese firms affect the development pipeline for new treatments. The legislation also adds another layer of complexity to U.S.-China relations, potentially complicating ongoing dialogue in other areas.
Looking Ahead
As the BIOSECURE Act moves to the Senate with strong bipartisan support, its passage could mark a watershed moment in U.S. biotechnology policy. Policymakers face the delicate task of balancing legitimate national security concerns with the benefits of international scientific collaboration and market competition.
The debate over this legislation reflects deeper questions facing the biotechnology sector about the relationship between national security and scientific progress. How nations protect sensitive genetic data while maintaining scientific openness, and the role of national security considerations in health care innovation, will likely shape the future of global biotechnology development for years to come.
The answers to these questions will determine not just the future of U.S.-China relations in biotechnology, but the pace and direction of medical innovation in an increasingly interconnected world.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.