On December 18, 2025, President Trump signed the FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act into law, which includes the Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security Act of 2025 (COINS Act). According to the report by JD Supra, the COINS Act gives statutory force to the administration’s Outbound Investment Security Program by codifying restrictions on certain US outbound investments in sensitive technologies and authorising new resources and hiring for the programme. [1][2][3]
The legislation expands the technical scope of covered technologies beyond the semiconductor, microelectronics, artificial intelligence and quantum information categories that were the focus of the Treasury’s January 2, 2025 rule, explicitly adding high-performance computing, supercomputing and hypersonic systems. Industry commentary notes that Treasury’s rulemaking authority under the COINS Act could permit further additions of technologies that “enable the military, surveillance, or cyber-enabled capabilities of a country of concern.” [1][3][4]
Geographic coverage is widened as well. The COINS Act extends the definition of “country of concern” beyond the People’s Republic of China (including Hong Kong and Macau) to include Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela under the Maduro regime. JD Supra and other law firm analyses observe this expansion is largely symbolic insofar as most investments in those jurisdictions already face severe US sanctions, but it does formalise a broader multijurisdictional posture for outbound screening. [1][3]
The Act preserves the existing regime’s central structure while directing Treasury to undertake notice-and-comment rulemaking within 450 days to define the technical parameters of “prohibited” and “notifiable” technologies and to issue implementing regulations. It also requires Treasury to establish a confidential, non‑binding feedback process so members of the public can request guidance on whether a proposed transaction would be a covered national security transaction, and authorises creation of a public, non‑exhaustive database of covered foreign persons. Treasury’s earlier final rule and industry alerts make clear that these process enhancements respond to persistent requests for clarity from investors and firms. [1][4][6]
Key definitional and exceptions changes are embedded in the statute. The COINS Act narrows the 50% test for a “covered foreign person” to a direct or indirect ownership threshold rather than the broader revenue/net‑income or expenditure measures used in the current regulations, expands the concept of direction or control, preserves the broad brownfield/greenfield transaction definitions, and clarifies or adds exceptions (including underwriting services that involve temporary equity acquisition, intracompany transfers, certain secondary transactions and ordinary administrative business transactions). The statute also directs establishment of a formal non‑notified programme to identify transactions not voluntarily notified to Treasury. [1]
The COINS Act contains a sanctions-sizing provision that authorises, but does not compel, the President to use IEEPA authorities to prohibit US persons from investing in certain covered foreign persons connected to China (including Hong Kong and Macau) that are “knowingly engaged in significant operations in the defense and related material sector or the surveillance technology sector.” The provision identifies ownership and control relationships that could trigger designation and makes clear civil and criminal penalties available under IEEPA for violations of those sanctions if imposed. JD Supra and other analyses emphasise that this is an authorisation rather than a mandatory sanctioning requirement. [1][3]
For the moment, the Treasury regulations that took effect on January 2, 2025, remain in force until amended, revoked or superseded through the COINS Act’s rulemaking process. Commentary from several law firms notes the likely friction points between the existing regulatory parameters and the statute’s provisions and urges that companies, investors and fund managers participate in the forthcoming notice‑and‑comment process to shape definitions, thresholds and exceptions. Firms should treat the COINS Act as establishing a durable, bipartisan framework for outbound screening, even if some technical contours will be resolved in the upcoming rulemaking, and should incorporate the expected changes into diligence, compliance and investment‑approval workflows. [1][4][5][7]
##Reference Map:
- [1] (JD Supra) - Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 6, Paragraph 7
- [2] (JD Supra summary) - Paragraph 1
- [3] (Latham/other law firm summaries) - Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 6
- [4] (Perkins Coie) - Paragraph 2, Paragraph 4, Paragraph 7
- [5] (Greenberg Traurig) - Paragraph 7, Paragraph 8
- [6] (Dentons) - Paragraph 4
- [7] (Simpson Thacher/other firm synopsis) - Paragraph 7
Source: Noah Wire Services