Opinion: Rep. Brian Mast Says Trump's Proposed Limits on Investment in China's Military Tech Keep American Money From Arming Our Adversary
The House Foreign Affairs Republican backs new Treasury rules on U.S. capital flowing to China's military-industrial base in AI and chips. The views are his. The column does not detail the rules.
This is a summary of an opinion column on Fox News by Rep. Brian Mast, a Republican who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The views are his, not RightNewsRightNow's.
The argument. Mast writes that the Chinese Communist Party "is not our friend" and is putting resources into the technologies that will define the next generation of warfare. He says American capital and expertise have for too long reached Chinese companies developing military technologies, which he calls "a serious national security failure." In his words, "Our troops should never have to face a more powerful Chinese military because American dollars helped build it."
The rules. He praises the Trump administration for proposing new rules that restrict investments that could help build China's military-industrial base, and credits Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. He says the rules close loopholes involving financial and professional services, and that they build on the COINS Act. He frames it as economic warfare: "to do more harm to your enemy than you do to yourself."
The legislation. Mast, an Army veteran, says the House Foreign Affairs Committee has backed bills to codify the president's AI Action Plan, among them the AI OVERWATCH Act, the MATCH Act and the Remote Access Security Act. He says they would strengthen oversight of advanced AI chip exports, close gaps in semiconductor equipment controls and stop China from reaching sensitive technology through remote access.
What we have not checked. The column does not lay out the proposed rules' text, scope or timeline, and we have not read them. The claim that every part of China's economy is tied to its military is Mast's. Critics of tighter investment and export limits, who often cite costs to U.S. firms, are not part of the column.