Stop the bad foreign investment in U.S. industries but not the good foreign investment, argues Gary Sumihiro. Foreign investment brings “fresh ideas, capital, and competitive pressure.” So we don’t want to kill it altogether (“Don’t Deep-Six Foreign Investment,” American Thinker, May 19, 2025).
Who can disagree that foreign investment is often beneficial? Apparently some do, or the argument for the advantages of economic interaction, including investment, between persons in different countries—which is the same as the argument for the benefits of economic exchange between persons in different states, counties, or city blocks—would not have to be made.
National security concerns are real, especially with countries like China. Equipment from companies like Huawei can pose serious risks, especially when it’s sold through third countries to hide where it really comes from. That’s why efforts like “rip and replace” are important to protect our networks. But instead of banning everything across the board, we need smart, targeted actions that address real threats without shutting out all foreign investment….
In a race for technological leadership, nations that isolate themselves risk falling behind. Strategic alliances between the U.S. and foreign firms illustrate how international cooperation can accelerate innovation and bolster market leadership.
Certain sectors, however, demand a heightened scrutiny.
Battery technology, “advanced manufacturing and semiconductor production,” “health care and biotechnology,” “infrastructure modernization,” may all benefit from foreign investment but are also susceptible to sabotage, surveillance, information theft, intellectual property theft.
In some sectors, “unequivocal security measures” are required, though: one can’t permit any foreign ownership of military tech.
Nor can we let “ZTE, China Mobile, Huawei, and Applovin,” which “have raised credible concerns among security experts” gain control of our data networks.
We also “need to begin thinking about farms and food the way we think about ships and satellites. Pending legislation like the Foreign Adversary Risk Management Act and mechanisms like the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States are critical tools to assess and address these risks.”
Who can disagree? If nobody did, including in Congress, the job of protecting the U.S. from infiltration and sabotage by the Chinese government and other foreign aggressors would be easier.
Also see:
PCMag: “Effort to ‘Rip and Replace’ Huawei, ZTE Tech in US Backfires Due to Funding Woes”
