Introduction

A bipartisan United States House committee has launched a national‑security investigation into the clinical trials conducted by pharmaceutical giants Merck and AbbVie in China. The inquiry, announced on June 30 2026, seeks to determine whether research activities in Chinese sites, including the Xinjiang region and military hospitals, could expose sensitive biotechnology to foreign influence or pose ethical risks.

Scope of the Investigation

Lawmakers led by Representative John Moolenaar, chair of the China Select Committee, sent letters to the CEOs of Merck and AbbVie requesting comprehensive details by July 17. The request focuses on due‑diligence procedures, data‑protection safeguards, and ethical standards at each trial location, especially where the Chinese military is involved.

According to the committee’s findings, Merck has participated in 224 clinical studies in China since 2005, including at least 31 in Xinjiang and 40 at facilities tied to the People’s Liberation Army. AbbVie’s record shows over 100 trials since 2007, with 17 sites in Xinjiang and 16 at military centers. The letters note that while there is “no evidence” of illegal activity, conducting research at these venues may place American intellectual property at risk of transfer to the Chinese military.

Ethical and Security Implications

The investigation highlights broader concerns about China's rapid expansion in early‑stage drug development. By 2024, China’s share of global early drug trials rose to more than 32%, overtaking the United States, whose share fell to around 37%. This shift is driven by state subsidies, regulatory reforms, and lower costs, creating a competitive yet potentially vulnerable landscape for multinational biotech firms.

Human‑rights advocates also point to documented lapses in informed consent at some Chinese trial sites, particularly in Xinjiang, where the region is known for severe repression of Uyghurs and other minorities. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act of 2021, while not directly addressing clinical trials, underscores the importance of preventing forced labor and unethical practices in supply chains and research activities.

Legislative Response

In response to these findings, Representative Moolenaar is sponsoring the Biotech Investment National Security Act. This bill would amend the Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security Act to include biotechnology among the technologies subject to rigorous national‑security review. The legislation aims to ensure that outbound licensing deals, joint ventures, and equity investments in China receive heightened scrutiny.

The Biosecure Act, signed into law in 2025, already restricts federal agencies from engaging with non‑U.S. biotech entities lacking adequate safeguards. Together, these measures reflect a growing resolve to protect American scientific leadership and safeguard public health.

Conclusion

The House committee’s probe into Merck and AbbVie underscores the intersection of health research, national security, and ethical responsibility. As China continues to expand its biotech footprint, robust oversight and transparent practices become essential to protect both scientific innovation and human rights. Ongoing congressional scrutiny and potential legislative reforms signal a commitment to ensuring that American pharmaceutical advancements remain secure, ethical, and aligned with the values of health, science, and technology.