---

Discussion

Sofia Jadler:

This is a proposed rule implementing Subtitle C of the Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security Act, or COINS Act, enacted in December 2025. It would update the existing Outbound Investment Security Program. This is not a blanket ban on investing in every listed country. Treasury proposes two tracks: some covered transactions would be prohibited, while others would remain lawful but require notification.

Sofia Jadler:

The proposed list includes China, Hong Kong and Macau, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela under the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros. Venezuela is unsettled because the statutory definition may not currently fit the political facts, although some Venezuelan entities could still be covered. The country list is only the beginning; the operative definitions will do much of the legal work.

Red Velhouse:

So the target is not simply money crossing a border. Omar, what else can travel with an investment?

Omar Seidren:

A private investment can carry board access, engineering advice, recruiting networks, customer relationships, managerial know-how, and visibility into what a company is building. In advanced technology, those connections can matter as much as the check. The proposal covers semiconductor technology, super-intelligence systems, quantum information technologies, high-performance computing, hypersonic systems, and biotechnology. It shifts the question from “Where did the money go?” to “What capability traveled with the deal?”

Kate Burvish:

Economically, that makes this different from ordinary portfolio exposure. Treasury would generally exclude publicly traded securities, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, ordinary lending, underwriting, payment processing, custody, and related services. The design targets private, operational, and relationship-based transactions. The immediate burden is screening, legal diligence, compliance infrastructure, and delay; whether the security benefit exceeds the lost commercial opportunity is not established yet.

Red Velhouse:

Which transactions move from notification into prohibition, and where do the technical definitions become decisive?

Sofia Jadler:

Treasury proposes prohibiting development of any covered super-intelligence system, rather than leaving those investments in a notification-only lane. It also proposes prohibitions involving specified quantum computers, critical components, sensing platforms, networks, and quantum algorithms or applications. Semiconductor restrictions would expand to areas including radiation-hardened and photonic integrated circuits and high-bandwidth memory. The strategy is technical precision; the vulnerability is that every threshold creates borderline cases and classification disputes.

Omar Seidren:

That borderline problem is especially real in computing. A system can be commercially marketed and still support military simulation, intelligence analysis, or advanced research. But dual use does not mean every powerful computer is a weapons system. High-performance computing also supports weather models, drug discovery, engineering, and ordinary data processing. The relevant combination is architecture, scale, software, access, and application—details that are difficult to compress into a clean legal category.

Kate Burvish:

Uncertainty has an economic effect before anyone is fined. If investors cannot classify a target confidently, they may delay a deal, demand a higher return, or walk away. Large firms can absorb that process more easily than smaller companies, so a rule aimed at specific capabilities can influence a much wider set of decisions through risk pricing.

Red Velhouse:

Biotechnology seems especially difficult because the same infrastructure can serve ordinary medicine and national-security work. Omar, what is Treasury trying to capture?

Omar Seidren:

The proposed category is unusually broad. It reaches certain biological agents and toxins, pharmaceutical compounds and delivery systems, cell and gene therapies, monoclonal antibodies, biofuels, brain-computer interfaces, sequencing, bioinformatics, biomanufacturing equipment, and automated or cloud-based laboratories. Modern biotechnology distributes capability across platforms, data, instruments, and production systems. The same sequencing or automation infrastructure can support a breakthrough therapy or something more concerning. The challenge is distinguishing the capability from ordinary scientific and medical work around it.

Kate Burvish:

The costs will not be evenly distributed. A large pharmaceutical or technology company may hire specialists and build a compliance team. A small biotechnology venture may avoid a market if it cannot determine whether a transaction is covered. That could reduce investment in legitimate scientific work even if the final rule excludes many activities.

Sofia Jadler:

Treasury proposes confidential, non-binding feedback for parties with a direct financial interest. That may help an investor test whether a transaction appears prohibited, but the response is not a license, waiver, authorization, or binding determination. In other words, Treasury is showing a possible move without promising that the legal board will remain there when enforcement arrives.

Red Velhouse:

Kate, does restricting American investment actually slow an adversary if domestic funding and non-U.S. investors remain available?

Kate Burvish:

It can slow particular firms without stopping national development. Capital is substitutable to a point, but expertise, networks, and market access are not perfectly substitutable. Blocking an investment that supplies all three may impose meaningful friction. Yet predictable restrictions encourage reorganization: Chinese companies could seek domestic, Gulf, European, or other Asian investors, while U.S. investors redirect money toward India, Southeast Asia, or domestic projects. That substitution is plausible, not yet a measured outcome.

Omar Seidren:

Money is often the easiest input to replace. Reconstructing a specialized team, supply chain, or research ecosystem is harder. But restrictions can accelerate indigenous alternatives: if access to a network may disappear, firms have an incentive to build a parallel one. The likely effect is less like turning off a machine and more like redrawing the map of innovation.

Sofia Jadler:

That substitution problem is part of the policy’s design. Congress and Treasury are targeting the relationship around the investment because a capital-only rule would be easy to evade. The proposed knowledge standard includes actual knowledge, awareness of a high probability of a fact, or information obtainable through reasonable and diligent inquiry. That makes compliance a continuing question about what the investor should have discovered.

Red Velhouse:

The proposal also has a fifty-thousand-dollar threshold. Is that meaningful relief, or an invitation to restructure deals?

Kate Burvish:

Transactions valued at fifty thousand dollars or less over the preceding twelve months would be exempt from notification, but prohibitions could still apply. It lowers fixed compliance costs for some small activity while creating a possible incentive to divide or sequence transactions. The significance will depend on how aggregation and related transactions are treated in the final rule.

Red Velhouse:

What should investors do now, given that the proposal is not yet effective?

Sofia Jadler:

Existing Part 850 regulations remain in force until a final COINS Act rule becomes effective, and the proposal would not apply retroactively. But prudent institutions will map their pipelines now: ownership, board rights, technical activities, research relationships, and information available about a target. The legal risk is not merely signing a check; it is failing to investigate strategic characteristics that were reasonably discoverable.

Kate Burvish:

The existing regime is already operational. Treasury reported roughly one hundred notifications involving semiconductor and artificial-intelligence investments during its first twenty-one months. In July 2026, it imposed a two-hundred-thousand-dollar penalty over a subsidiary’s failure to report a ninety-two-thousand-five-hundred-dollar investment in a Chinese artificial-intelligence and robotics company. Compliance is not theoretical.

Omar Seidren:

It also means the organizational chart matters. A parent company may see a small subsidiary investment; the regulator may see a covered transaction connected to a sensitive capability. Technology firms build abstractions, but regulators are asking them to maintain a precise map of where those abstractions land in the real world. Technical governance is becoming part of investment strategy.

Red Velhouse:

China has criticized the proposal as an unjustified expansion of national-security concepts. Could retaliation change the economics?

Kate Burvish:

It could, but the form and scale are uncertain. China’s Foreign Ministry said Beijing would monitor developments and take measures to protect its interests; that does not establish which countermeasures will follow. Exposure would be greatest where firms depend on Chinese data, technology licensing, supply chains, market access, or critical materials. Investment flows had already weakened: mainland Chinese and Hong Kong private-equity-backed investment in the United States fell to about five-point-nine-six billion dollars in 2025, from eight-point-eight-nine billion in 2024 and twenty-six-point-one-one billion in 2021. That decline predates this proposal.

Sofia Jadler:

Politically, the proposal reflects bipartisan concern that U.S. capital can support military modernization, surveillance, human-rights abuses, or strategic technology development in countries viewed as adversaries. The COINS Act converts much of an executive-branch framework into a statutory program and extends it beyond the original China-centered focus. That may strengthen durability, but potential disputes remain over delegation, technical vagueness, administrative procedure, and Treasury’s authority. Those are legal watch points, not established court findings.

Omar Seidren:

The success test should be more demanding than “fewer U.S. investments.” A decline could mean the policy works, or that American firms are retreating while development continues through other channels. We should ask whether targeted capabilities actually slow, whether domestic alternatives improve, whether supply chains become more resilient, and whether legitimate research loses collaboration. A thicker compliance manual is not by itself evidence of a security result.

Red Velhouse:

The unresolved issue is whether this proposal can target genuinely strategic technology transfers without treating ordinary commercial and scientific activity as suspect. Its impact will depend on final definitions, technical thresholds, the knowledge standard, exemptions, and enforcement—not just the headline list of countries and industries.

Watch for public comments due December 7, 2026, the final rule and its effective date, how Treasury handles biotechnology and Venezuela, whether investors redirect capital or restructure transactions through foreign intermediaries, and whether Chinese responses affect U.S. firms. Most important, look for evidence about whether targeted technologies actually slow.

Sources and references for this discussion are available with the episode at Factolio.com.

---

Sources and References

These sources supported the factual material used in this discussion. Factolio’s panel discussion is AI-generated from researched evidence and is written in original language.

1. U.S. Department of the Treasury — Treasury Issues Proposed Rule to Implement Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security Act (PRIMARY)
2. U.S. Department of the Treasury — COINS NPRM: Proposed Regulations to Implement Subtitle C of the Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security Act (PRIMARY)
3. U.S. Department of the Treasury — Public Fact Sheet & FAQs — COINS Act NPRM (PRIMARY)
4. Reuters — US Treasury drops Venezuela from countries facing outbound US investment restrictions (NEWS)
5. U.S. Department of the Treasury — Outbound Investment Security Program (PRIMARY)
6. Congressional Research Service — Regulation of U.S. Outbound Investment to China (ANALYSIS)
7. Associated Press — US Treasury proposes a rule to crack down on high-tech investments in China, other adversaries (NEWS)
8. Associated Press — US Treasury proposes a rule to crack down on high-tech investments in China, other adversaries — enforcement and policy details (NEWS)
9. U.S. Department of the Treasury — Provisions Pertaining to U.S. Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern (PRIMARY)
10. S&P Global Market Intelligence — Regulatory strain hits mainland China, Hong Kong private equity investment in US (DATA)
11. Federal Reserve — Cross-border venture capital and reverse technology flows (DATA)