A $3.7 billion pharmaceutical trade surplus with China is at risk from a Treasury Department proposal that would broadly ban US investment in Chinese biotech, according to former Senator Roy Blunt, who says the rules would harm American patients and weaken national security rather than strengthen it.

Blunt, a Missouri Republican who served 12 years in the Senate and chaired the subcommittee overseeing the National Institutes of Health, laid out his case in a Fortune commentary published November 12. His verdict: the proposal is well-intended but counterproductive, and as written would hurt American biotech companies far more than Chinese ones.

What does the Treasury proposal change?

In late October, the Treasury Department proposed expanding the Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security (COINS) Act — which limits US investments in strategically sensitive Chinese industries — to cover the biotech sector as a whole, according to a Stat News report cited by Blunt. The expansion would broadly prevent US companies from investing in, acquiring, or partnering with Chinese biotech firms.

The stated intent is national security: keeping American resources from building up China's biotech capabilities. Blunt argues the practical effect would be the opposite.

"By hampering U.S. companies' ability to develop breakthrough medicines as efficiently and quickly as possible, the proposal risks harming American patients and undermining our national security," Blunt wrote.

Why partnerships with Chinese biotechs matter

American drugmakers have long used acquisitions, joint ventures and other partnerships to bring promising discoveries made abroad into their own R&D pipelines. Chinese firms now develop an increasing share of the world's innovative drug candidates, as Goldman Sachs research has documented, so these partnerships have grown in strategic importance.

Blunt cites two concrete benefits:

• American patients gain greater opportunities to join clinical trials and potentially access lifesaving treatments.
• American companies gain influence over how and where new medicines are developed and manufactured, helping secure reliable supplies.

The former senator rejects the framing that such deals create dependence on China. In 2025, the United States recorded a $3.7 billion trade surplus with China in pharmaceuticals — evidence, he argues, that the current arrangement ensures China relies on the United States for medicines, not the reverse.

What happens if US firms are locked out?

Chinese biotechs will not abandon promising discoveries if American partners are banned, Blunt writes. Instead, they will partner with American companies' global rivals — or build out their own research, manufacturing and commercialization capabilities to replace the need for American partners altogether.

The long-term consequences he identifies:

• America loses influence over development and supply of next-generation medicines.
• Patients face longer waits for promising treatments and fewer clinical trial opportunities.
• The United States becomes more reliant on foreign companies for future innovative drugs — a potentially serious national security vulnerability.

What fix does Blunt propose?

Blunt calls on Treasury to narrow the proposal to deals that pose clear security threats — for example, agreements involving technologies that could be used to produce biological weapons — without blocking ordinary research partnerships.

He also demands clearer definitions. Although the proposal is designed to allow standard licensing agreements, its broad language suggests partnerships with common licensing terms could be treated as prohibited joint ventures. That uncertainty, he warns, could force companies to walk away from useful partnerships preemptively.

Alongside narrower rules, Blunt urges policymakers to strengthen America's own scientific base through four measures:

• Sustaining federal investment in scientific research.
• Strengthening the intellectual property system.
• Safeguarding research institutions from foreign interference.
• Expanding domestic research and manufacturing capacity.

The track record behind the argument

Blunt grounds his case in his Senate record. As NIH subcommittee chairman, he worked with colleagues in both parties to secure a nearly 50% increase in agency funding — an investment he says paid off during the Covid-19 pandemic, when President Trump's Operation Warp Speed built on NIH initiatives to help end the pandemic and save countless American lives.

"President Trump and his administration are right to be wary of China's ambitions," Blunt writes. "But America can't preserve its biotech lead by cutting itself off from promising advances made overseas."

His closing position: target genuine security threats, preserve beneficial research partnerships, and American patients will keep benefiting from the world's most promising medical discoveries. The opinions expressed in the commentary are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of Fortune.