Biopharma divides over how to respond to China

U.S. biopharma is dividing over how aggressively the United States should respond to China’s fast-growing biotech sector, with some leaders pressing for tighter restrictions and others warning that broad limits could slow drug development and hurt patients.

The split is playing out as lawmakers, federal health officials and drugmakers converge on the same question: how to blunt China’s rise without cutting off access to promising science or making U.S. research slower and more expensive.

Axios reported on July 10 that the industry remains split between protectionist responses and continued engagement. The debate has intensified because early-stage drug development is often cheaper and faster in China, and major U.S. companies including Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb continue to spend there.

PhRMA has argued that cutting off access to promising science from China could hurt U.S. patients and give China even more control over the sector. Supporters of tighter restrictions say the opposite: that U.S. capital, know-how and licensing activity are helping finance China’s biotech climb.

Congress moves first

On May 21, House Select Committee on China Chairman John Moolenaar urged Treasury to add biotechnology to COINS Act review, saying American capital and expertise were helping fuel China’s biotech rise.

On June 2, Moolenaar and Rep. Debbie Dingell introduced the Biotech Investment National Security Act. The committee said the bill would extend COINS Act review to biotechnology, including pharmaceutical development, biologics manufacturing and clinical research and development.

The proposal would also subject licensing deals, joint ventures and equity investments with Chinese biotech firms to Treasury review. That makes the policy fight broader than a simple ban on investment: it reaches the structure of cross-border collaboration itself.

The House Select Committee has also widened scrutiny of company conduct. On June 30, it said Moolenaar sent Bristol Myers Squibb a letter seeking information about clinical trials in China, including trials at Chinese military hospitals and in Xinjiang.

The committee said publicly available ClinicalTrials.gov records show at least eight BMS trials involved Xinjiang hospitals and at least 17 involved PRC military medical centers or hospitals. The letter asks about clinical-trial policies, due diligence and licensing deals.

HHS tries to speed U.S. trials

Federal health officials are advancing a different answer to the same competitiveness problem. On June 22, HHS launched Operation TrialBlazer, a department-wide effort to restore U.S. leadership in clinical trials and bring more research back to the United States.

HHS said FDA is proposing a pilot program that could shorten the time from drug identification to first-in-human Phase 1 trials by six to 12 months. That effort is meant to make U.S. development faster rather than merely more restrictive.

The policy contrast is stark. Congress is considering ways to limit risk from China-linked biotech activity, while HHS is trying to reduce the reasons U.S. firms move research abroad in the first place.

Why it matters

China’s biotech rise now matters to three groups at once: drugmakers, patients and policymakers. For companies, the issue affects speed, cost and access to global talent and assets. For patients, it affects whether promising therapies move faster or get boxed out by policy. For lawmakers, it raises questions of national security, capital flows and intellectual property.

The broader backdrop is that Chinese biotechs are taking a larger share of global venture funding, and U.S. startups are becoming more secretive to avoid Chinese fast followers that can move faster and cheaper.

That dynamic is helping reframe biotech from a pure innovation story into a strategic competition. It also helps explain why companies are being pulled in opposite directions: protect intellectual property and domestic capacity, or keep international dealmaking open enough to speed development.

What happens next

The next watchpoint is Treasury’s response to the request to bring biotechnology under COINS Act screening. Another is whether the House committee expands scrutiny beyond Bristol Myers Squibb to other drugmakers with China exposure.

HHS’s trial-reform effort is another key test. If FDA follows with more detailed guidance, the administration could help reduce the incentive to run more development work overseas.

For now, the policy debate is moving on two tracks at once: one trying to restrict China ties, the other trying to make the United States fast and attractive enough that fewer of those ties are needed.