- StatesIncreases national security oversight over foreign-state-linked greenfield and brownfield investments.
- Targeted stakeholdersEnables scrutiny of potential foreign government control of new U.S. factories or facilities.
- StatesCloses a regulatory gap that previously exempted some real-estate-based investments from CFIUS review.
PROTECT Act of 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
The bill expands the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) jurisdiction to cover certain greenfield and brownfield investments by foreign countries of concern.
It defines covered transactions to include purchase, lease, or concession of U.S. real estate combined with establishing a U.S. business to operate on that site when control could result by specified foreign-government-linked actors.
The bill adds ownership, appointment, and former-official connection thresholds (including a 5 percent interest threshold and appointment powers) to determine coverage.
Targeted national-security expansion with precedent (CFIUS reforms) improves prospects, though industry pushback and federalism concerns create headwinds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a focused and well-integrated statutory expansion of CFIUS jurisdiction to cover specified greenfield and brownfield investments by 'foreign countries of concern' and establishes a mandatory filing requirement. The statutory text is precise in many respects (specific insertion points, ownership/control criteria, cross-references) but leaves several operational and resourcing matters to existing authorities.
Progressives emphasize security and preventing foreign control
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
- DevelopersAdds regulatory burden and compliance costs for foreign investors and U.S. project developers.
- Targeted stakeholdersMay discourage some foreign direct investment and potential job-creating projects.
- Local governmentsExtends federal review into real estate and local economic development decisions.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Progressives emphasize security and preventing foreign control
Likely supportive because the bill increases oversight of foreign-government-linked investments, protecting national security and domestic jobs.
It aligns with precautionary approaches to supply chains and foreign influence in critical facilities.
Generally supportive but cautious; sees national security rationale yet worries about economic and administrative tradeoffs.
Wants clearer definitions, cost estimates, and procedural limits to avoid unnecessary burdens.
Mixed: supportive of measures that protect national security from adversarial governments, but concerned about expanded federal authority and economic impacts on private property and investment.
Preference for narrow, clearly limited scope.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Targeted national-security expansion with precedent (CFIUS reforms) improves prospects, though industry pushback and federalism concerns create headwinds.
- Which countries qualify as ‘‘foreign countries of concern’’ under referenced statute
- Extent of business and foreign investor lobbying against mandatory filings
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Progressives emphasize security and preventing foreign control
Targeted national-security expansion with precedent (CFIUS reforms) improves prospects, though industry pushback and federalism concerns cr…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a focused and well-integrated statutory expansion of CFIUS jurisdiction to cover specified greenfield and brownfield investments by 'foreign countries of con…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.