ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican, is a former member of the House of Representatives who served on the Intelligence Committee and the Appropriations subcommittees on Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

The United States and China are locked in a new kind of arms race — one not fought with missiles or microchips alone, but with molecules and medical data. From artificial intelligence to advanced manufacturing, Beijing has made no secret of its intent to dominate the next generation of strategic technologies. Biotechnology is at the top of that list.

Against this backdrop, renewed enthusiasm in Washington for “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) drug pricing may seem well-intentioned, but it carries real national security consequences. The policy’s premise — tying U.S. drug prices to those paid by foreign governments — may sound like a common-sense way to control costs. In practice, however, it would import the very price controls that have left our allies dependent on American innovation for decades, while giving China a clear opening to overtake us in the global biotech race.

Having served on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations while in Congress from 1995 to 2011, I’ve seen how economic policy decisions can quietly shape America’s long-term strategic strength. During my time in Congress, we worried about protecting critical technologies — defense systems, aerospace, and information networks — from foreign control. Few foresaw that biotechnology would soon join that list. Today, breakthroughs in genomics, vaccines and biologics are as vital to our national resilience as advanced weapons systems.

But drug development is not a low-risk business. Bringing a new medicine to market can take over a decade and cost billions. When governments cap prices, they inevitably cap incentives. For pharmaceuticals, that means fewer cures, less investment, and slower innovation. Economists at the University of Chicago have projected that European-style price controls could reduce domestic research and development by up to 60%, leading to hundreds fewer new medicines over the next two decades.

If MFN is implemented, the results would also extend far beyond the health sector. It would signal to investors that the United States no longer prizes scientific risk-taking — just as Beijing is doubling down on it. China declared biotechnology a “strategic emerging industry” in 2011 and has since poured billions into research parks, genome data centers, and state-backed startups. The country now accounts for roughly 30% of global drug development, according to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and it already outpaces the United States in listed clinical trials. Imposing MFN pricing today would be the economic equivalent of unilateral disarmament in a critical technology race.

The national security implications of such a scenario are profound.

A weakened U.S. biotech base would not just slow our progress in public health; it would erode our ability to protect against biothreats and pandemics. Even more troubling, pushing research and manufacturing overseas would undermine our export-control regime; the legal firewall that keeps sensitive biological technologies out of adversarial hands. If innovation migrates to China or other jurisdictions beyond U.S. oversight, Washington will find it far harder to safeguard genetic data and dual-use materials.

The supply-chain vulnerabilities are already apparent. China now produces most of the world’s active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and dominates the upstream chemical base for many antibiotics and generic drugs. If we also lose our edge in cutting-edge biologics, we risk depending on an authoritarian rival for both discovery and delivery. This would be the worst possible position in any future pandemic or biological conflict.

Allies, too, play a role in this equation. Nations like the United Kingdom and Germany have long benefited from U.S.-funded innovation while paying far less for the medicines those discoveries produce. That imbalance needs correction. But MFN is not the way to achieve it. Rather than importing foreign price controls, Washington should use trade negotiations and diplomatic engagement to ensure our partners contribute their fair share to the global R&D ecosystem — without undermining our own. Strengthening allied cooperation in biotech research while demanding equitable cost-sharing is a far more sustainable approach.

The stakes are not just economic. According to Vital Transformation, MFN-style reference pricing could eliminate more than 470,000 U.S. biopharmaceutical jobs and end nearly all venture capital funding for early and late-stage companies in the sector. Those losses would not just slow the next generation of cancer cures or Alzheimer’s treatments; they would hollow out one of America’s most strategically important industries.

America’s leadership in biotechnology is a source of both prosperity and protection. Every discovery made in a U.S. lab reinforces our global standing and our bio-industrial base. Leaders in Washington should certainly focus on reducing drug costs for American families, but MFN is the wrong tool for the job.

In the 21st century, innovation is defense. If we allow short-term politics to dictate long-term strategy, we will not just lose our edge in medicine; we will lose the commanding heights of the next great technological frontier. America cannot afford to let that happen.