U.S. Plans to Allow Most China Drug Licensing Deals
nashnova research
The US Treasury is drafting investment rules that would clear most pharmaceutical licensing deals with Chinese firms, restricting only pathogens and weaponizable biotech; the rules are not final and are unlikely to drop before the upcoming Xi–Trump summit.
What do these rules actually restrict — and what do they leave alone?
The framework draws a narrow line: pathogens and biotech that could be weaponized sit inside it; everything else in pharma licensing stays open.
This means → the vast majority of US-China drug deals — oncology, autoimmune, and other hot therapeutic areas — proceed as normal.
The rules are being drafted by the Treasury Department, are not yet finalized, and could shift if Trump personally intervenes.
In plain terms = this is not a blanket ban — it is a very narrow red line between national security and industry access.
Why are Big Pharma companies lobbying so hard to keep it open?
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has met separately with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and HHS representatives, arguing that drug licensing deals pose no national-security threat.
Bourla's words: "I don't think trying to slow China down is the right way to compete with China."
This reflects Big Pharma's real dependence on China's drug pipeline — GlobalData puts last year's outbound licensing deals from Chinese biotech at $115 billion.
Nearly half of all foreign-licensed drugs brought into the US in 2025 came from Chinese companies, a trend continuing into 2026.
Which mega-deals are already signed?
Bristol Myers Squibb signed a deal this year with Jiangsu Hengrui worth up to $15.2 billion.
Pfizer signed a deal with Innovent Biologics covering 12 oncology programs, worth up to $10.5 billion.
This means → if the scope of restrictions widens, tens of billions of dollars in signed or pending deals face direct disruption.
Why are smaller biotech firms pushing back?
Some mid-size and small biotech companies argue that investing in China poses a national-security risk and will erode US dominance in drug development.
These firms typically rely on licensing deals with Big Pharma for revenue and worry that Chinese competitors are squeezing their market space.
Ginkgo Bioworks CEO Jason Kelly told Treasury officials: "Do we accept strategic dependence on Chinese innovative drugs? Because that's where this is heading."
Opening pharma licensing to China — net positive or net risk?
BULL
Innovation won't wait
Nearly half of in-licensed drugs come from China; blocking them cuts your own pipeline.
A narrow restriction is enough
Only pathogens and weaponizable biotech are flagged — routine drug licenses carry no security risk.
BEAR
Long-term dependency
China's share of the pipeline keeps rising; US and European pharma lose bargaining power over time.
Small firms get crowded out
Big Pharma imports cheaper Chinese drugs, shrinking the space for domestic innovators.
In plain terms = Big Pharma wants cheap, proven molecules to fill its pipeline fast; smaller firms fear being replaced — both sides have a point, and the real tension is short-term efficiency versus long-term self-reliance.
What is the next timeline to watch?
Xi Jinping travels to the US next week for a summit with Trump; the Treasury is unlikely to release any new rules before the meeting.
The rules remain in draft and Trump may personally adjust how tight or loose they land.
This means → the final scope of these rules will be a key signal of how the Trump administration balances technology controls against industry interests on China.
市场有风险，内容仅供研究参考，不构成投资建议。