The skyrocketing use of Chinese biopharmas as a source of innovation for U.S. drug developers has been viewed with alarm among certain parts of the political establishment. But for Rep. Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas, the debate over the perceived geopolitical threat posed by China’s biotech industry misses the point.
“The United States has been too focused on measuring the outcomes of strategic scenarios with China and not paid enough attention to the input,” Moran told Fierce.
“We talk about the growing trials that are happening in China,” he continued. “What we forget to focus on is that they are beating us on our ground game. They're doing things at the beginning of the supply chain that lead to the dominance on the output side of who controls the ultimate number of drugs that are important to the United States and our constituents.”
Moran, who represents Texas’ 1st Congressional District, is a member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. That gives the congressman a front-row seat to lawmakers’ efforts to constrain China’s expanding role.
According to the committee’s website, its members are tasked with assessing “the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party and develop[ing] a plan of action to defend the American people, our economy and our values.” The committee has been actively discussing and proposing bipartisan legislation that could impact the biopharma industry.
Committee Chairman John Moolenaar, R-Mich., and Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., recently introduced the Biotech Investment National Security Act (BINSA), which would apply the review requirements of the Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security (COINS) Act to investments in Chinese biotechnology. A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate, while everything from investments in Chinese drug developers to manufacturing and clinical research is coming under increasing scrutiny.
Over the summer, Moolenaar also fired off letters to four U.S.-headquartered Big Pharmas conducting trials in China, citing concerns that ranged from human rights violations in a specific region of the country to trials that could inadvertently aid China’s military.
These tactics are a reaction to the speed with which China has come to dominate the market for drug licensing deals. According to data from Evaluate shared with Fierce, Chinese assets are positioned to account for more than two-thirds of total licensing deal value this year, up from about half in 2025 and less than 5% just five years ago.
Moran has spoken on Capitol Hill about the issue and set out his thoughts in writing on China’s “aggressive push to dominate pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.”
Moran told Fierce that he is particularly interested in the knock-on impact on the availability of medicines. This means asking questions like: “Who's controlling the market? Do we have our active pharmaceutical ingredients? Are we incentivizing manufacturing here in the United States? Are we finding supply chains that are independent of China?”
Beyond that, the congressman is also looking at the development of new medicines and how U.S. venture capital dollars are flowing into the Chinese biotech system.
“Investors are interested only in profits, and they ultimately are going to chase where they think future profits will come from,” he explained. “That is a bad sign for the United States because that means that the research and development, the intellectual property and the knowledge base is going to start shifting quickly to China—it already has.”
Moran hails from Tyler in East Texas. While the region isn’t exactly a hotbed of biopharma development, his primarily rural district is home to three major health systems, a medical school, a pharmacy school and two nursing schools. “Pharmaceutical development is critically important to us,” he explained.
But his personal interest in biotech stems from the larger conversation about strategic competition with China.
“It's like playing a chess game,” Moran explained. “Whether that’s rare earth minerals, shipbuilding capabilities or pharmaceutical supply chains—all of those pieces mean something significant when you talk about influence in the world.”
“We have to address and watch every piece on the board,” Moran added.
Though outside his district, Moran praised Bristol Myers Squibb’s plans for a $2.3 billion manufacturing facility in nearby Houston. “The future of our pharmaceutical independence relies on companies choosing the United States,” he said.
Moran also drew attention to the Working Families Tax Cuts, a law signed in 2025 that allows companies to immediately deduct 100% of eligible domestic R&D costs from taxable income, with the aim of lowering tax bills and freeing up cash to reinvest in future projects.
Additionally, the bill allows for permanent full expensing of physical capital, machinery and new facility construction, to incentivize the construction of biomanufacturing plants on U.S. soil. It also delayed eligibility or exclusion from Medicare drug price negotiation for certain orphan drugs, making them more profitable therapies.
This went “a long way to help incentivize reshoring manufacturing—not just for pharmaceuticals, but for other industries,” according to Moran.
Making the U.S. biotech industry more competitive is a “multifaceted approach” and includes “identifying private-public partnerships where research, particularly in colleges and universities and medical institutions, can grow significantly, so that we spend the time necessary to see the next generation of pharmaceuticals that need to come,” the congressman added.
Meanwhile, Moran argued that changes at the FDA are needed to make drug development “simpler, less time-consuming and less expensive for those that are developing pharmaceuticals.”
While he’s interested in seeing the FDA's reach extended to put regulators closer to where global drugs are developed, Moran insisted the focus should be on domestic development.
“We need to continue to invest deeply in our pharmaceutical research here,” he added. “We've outsourced that to the Chinese for the past 20 years.”
Facts Only
* Rep. Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas, discussed the use of Chinese biopharma as a source of innovation for U.S. drug developers.
* Moran stated the U.S. has focused too much on strategic scenarios and not enough on the input.
* Chinese entities are performing work at the beginning of the supply chain, leading to dominance in the output of important drugs.
* Rep. Moran is a member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.
* Committee members assess threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party and develop defense plans.
* Representatives Moolenaar and Dingell introduced legislation applying COINS review requirements to investments in Chinese biotechnology.
* Letters were sent to Big Pharmas conducting trials in China citing human rights violations or potential military aid for trials.
* Chinese assets account for more than two-thirds of total licensing deal value this year, up from less than 5% five years prior.
* Moran expressed interest in controlling market control, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and domestic manufacturing incentives.
* Investors are chasing profit, leading to a potential shift of R&D and intellectual property to China.
* Moran supported tax cuts incentivizing the reshoring of biomanufacturing.
* Moran advocated for increased domestic investment in pharmaceutical research.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative pivots on a fundamental tension between perceived geopolitical security concerns and the practical economic mechanisms of global supply chains. The argument frames competition over pharmaceuticals not merely as an issue of national strategy, but as one of control over knowledge and production infrastructure. A critical pattern emerging is the shift in focus: moving from observing external strategic positioning (geopolitics) to demanding control over internal operational levers (supply chain inputs, IP location, domestic R&D investment). The emphasis on "who controls the market" highlights a challenge to traditional security paradigms that often prioritize territorial control over technological and economic dependencies.
The appeal made by Moran suggests that ignoring the 'input' of foreign capabilities results in systemic disadvantage. The pattern of legislative attempts (like BINSA) and direct pressure (letters to Big Pharmas) demonstrates an attempt to bridge the gap between abstract geopolitical threat and tangible regulatory action concerning biopharma flows. However, the focus on profit-driven investor behavior—chasing where future profits lie—introduces a layer of complexity: the movement toward China is driven by market forces, which must be countered not just with security measures, but also with robust domestic incentives for innovation and manufacturing resilience. The suggested solution involves a multifaceted approach combining regulatory oversight (FDA changes), investment incentives (tax credits for reshoring), and foundational research investment. This suggests that sovereignty in the biotech sphere requires simultaneously managing external threats while actively redesigning internal economic structures to ensure self-sufficiency.
Bridge Questions: If the primary goal is securing pharmaceutical independence, what specific domestic infrastructure investments would yield the greatest leverage against a foreign entity already dominating front-end supply chain innovation? How can regulatory mechanisms be designed to effectively monitor and counterbalance the movement of intellectual property without stifling legitimate international research collaboration? What are the long-term consequences if the market incentives for R&D remain overwhelmingly aligned with profit maximization rather than national security priorities?
Sentinel — Human
This text appears to be a human-written journalistic piece that synthesizes political commentary with specific industry and legislative details regarding U.S.-China biotech competition.