Amid growing concerns that China is creeping closer to becoming competitive with the US tech industry, a new pilot program is to grant the government increased ability to intervene into lucrative foreign investments in Silicon Valley.
While it is unclear how drastically they will be applied, the rules are causing concerns among industry insiders, who fear that it could cool a US tech market fueled by foreign investment and that US President Donald Trump would use them as political leverage in his ongoing trade war.
Following calls from intelligence agencies to crack down on predatory investment strategies, the US Congress in August passed the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA).
The program expands governmental oversight on any foreign investments into vaguely defined “emerging technologies” and the power to block deals if they are deemed to be unfavorable to US security interests.
The rules are to affect financing from around the world, but are intended to curb predatory strategies China has used to extract information out of the companies it invests in.
“There’s know-how, there’s knowledge, there’s secret sauces, and the way you get that is by buying companies,” said James Andrew, a senior vice president at the Center for International Studies who has worked at the US State and Treasury departments.
“The Chinese shifted their strategy a couple years ago to ‘let’s just buy companies and we don’t have to go through all this.’ That’s what the bill is intended to block,” he said.
Over the past decade, China has invested more than US$35 billion into US tech, largely to gather insights into how to build its own.
In 2015, China launched Made in China 2025, a state-led 10-year plan that seeks to develop and build a better tech industry with a focus on new energy, cars, IT, telecoms, robotics and artificial intelligence.
As the line between consumer and military technology becomes increasingly blurred, the Trump administration and other advocates have raised the alarm, framing China’s plan as a threat to the economy and national security.
“It’s a strategic plan designed to acquire advanced research and technologies that will allow China not just to challenge the US, but to supplant the United States as the single dominant world power,” US Representative Chris Stewart, who chairs a US House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees the US Department of Defense, wrote in an opinion piece in The Hill in August, defending the urgency of bill.
FIRRMA expands the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an agency founded in 1975.
As of last week, CFIUS is to require documentation from any foreign investor who has access to nonpublic information from companies that produce so-called “critical technology.”
In the past, less than half of filings resulted in investigations and it was rare that the president would block a deal. US presidents have blocked five transactions since CFIUS was launched, two of which were under Trump.
As the numbers of firms required to file increase, so could the decisions to block deals, especially as the Trump administration continues to look for ways to curb Chinese economic growth.
“Certainly, the Trump administration has shown that it is willing to use its national security authority in the trade area to generate economic leverage,” said Alan Sykes, a Stanford University law professor and senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, citing Trump’s use of national security rational to impose steep steel and aluminum tariffs.
“It would be surprising if the new rules, at least in this administration, were not used to promote US technological superiority in areas that don’t have major security implications,” he said.
While the rules will likely slow Chinese tech innovation, some are worried it will also hurt Silicon Valley.
“The impact ultimately on the companies is not known — but is certainly likely to inhibit them in many ways,” said Jeff Farrah, the general council for the National Venture Capital Association.
There are still a lot of questions about how the regulations will be applied and how difficult and expensive the process could become, and whether that would scare away investors, he said.
According to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service, firms would have to pay a filing fee of up to US$300,000, along with the mandatory declarations. The three-step evaluation could also slow the turnaround time on deals in a fast-moving market.
Over the past two decades, there has been an increase in foreign investment into the US tech industry and, while it is unclear exactly how much money has flowed into Silicon Valley from abroad — due to the layered and often secretive way capital comes into new companies — Farrah said the influx of foreign capital has powered development.
While he agreed it is important to ensure the safe-keeping of US intellectual property — especially when it comes to emerging technologies — he questioned the bill’s ability to achieve its goals without causing unintended harm.
“If [the legislation] can be scaled that gets after that concern, then it could be a benefit, but if it is used to significantly chill investment from China into the United States or — even worse — chill it from a lot of friendly countries into the United States, then it is going to be extremely harmful and counter-productive,” he said.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with