National Security

The UK Parliament has passed emergency legislation to enable the government to direct the use of assets of British Steel, and to take control of assets if directions are not followed.

The government’s stated intention is “continuing the support of steel production in the UK [which] involves preserving current production capacity to ensure resilience in the production of steel”. The new law creates new powers for the government to intervene in relation to steelmaking businesses whose assets are at risk of ceasing to be used. If the operation of a steelmaking blast furnace, such as those operated by British Steel, is stopped, restarting its operation can be prohibitively expensive and it may be permanently unusable.

Following negotiations with its current owners (the Chinese steelmaker Jingye Group) on the future of British Steel, the government announced on Friday its intention to recall Parliament the following day to introduce a draft bill and complete the full legislative process within a single day. The bill was passed by both Houses of Parliament and received royal asset on Saturday 12 April, coming into force on the same day, as the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 (the “Act”).

This is the first time that Parliament has responded to a perceived crisis in a UK industry by extending the government’s powers to intervene in specific industries for “public interest” reasons since 2008, in the context of the Global Financial Crisis. In that case, Parliament passed legislation to enable the government to nationalise the Northern Rock bank (and subsequently other banks), and later that year the government’s public interest intervention powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 were expanded in order to allow the government to override competition concerns in the Lloyds/HBOS merger. In contrast to previous measures that provide the government with powers to acquire businesses and to intervene in potential mergers and acquisitions between businesses, the new Act applies outside of the context of a transaction or takeover. Specifically, the new Act applies where specific assets may cease (or have ceased) to be used in a steel manufacturing business but the government considers that it is in the public interest that the use of the assets should continue.

New powers to give directions on use of assets and take control of assets

The Act gives the government the power to issue a notice to a steel manufacturing business to direct how assets (in England and Wales) used by this business are to be used. This power is available when (a) it appears to the government that the assets concerned have ceased to be used or are at risk of ceasing to be used by the business, and (b) where the government considers that it is in the public interest that the use of specified assets should resume or continue. Directions can include requirements to use (or not to use) the assets in a specified way, or requirements for the undertaking to take (or not to take) steps to secure the continued and safe use of the assets. Notably this can include requirements to enter into agreements and contracts of employment, the appointment of officers, management decisions, making payments, and preventing insolvency proceedings.

Continue Reading UK passes emergency legislation to authorize “public interest” directions on use of British Steel assets

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s January 30, 2025, confirmation hearing for former Representative Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence, previewed a potentially difficult reauthorization path for Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”).  While Gabbard appears to now publicly favor reauthorization of Section 702, her…

Continue Reading Tulsi Gabbard’s Confirmation Hearing for Director of National Intelligence: A Preview of a FISA Section 702 Reauthorization Fight?

Technology companies will be in for a bumpy ride in the second Trump Administration.  President-elect Trump has promised to adopt policies that will accelerate the United States’ technological decoupling from China.  However, he will likely take a more hands-off approach to regulating artificial intelligence and reverse several Biden Administration policies related to AI and other emerging technologies.

Continue Reading Tech Policy in a Second Trump Administration: AI Promotion and Further Decoupling from China

On October 17, 2023, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) published a report on mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”) in the defense industrial base. The report details the current M&A review process of the Department of Defense (“DOD”) and provides recommendations to proactively assess M&A competition risks.

Currently, DOD’s Industrial Base…

Continue Reading GAO Recommends Increased Guidance for DOD Mergers & Acquisitions Review

On 11 July 2023 the National Security Act 2023 (the Act) received royal assent and became law. The Act addresses trade secret misappropriation in the context of industrial espionage by a foreign government, making the unauthorised conduct of obtaining, copying, recording or retaining a trade secret, or disclosing or providing access to a trade secret, under certain circumstances, a criminal offence. The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment and/or a fine (section 2 of the Act).

The trade secrets provision is part of a broader regime introduced by the UK government to address national security threats such as espionage, sabotage and foreign interference. 

One of the conditions that has to be met in relation to the person’s conduct is the “foreign power condition”. The foreign power condition is defined in section 31(1) of the Act as:

(a)the conduct in question, or a course of conduct of which it forms part, is carried out for or on behalf of a foreign power, and

(b)the person knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought reasonably to know, that to be the case.

In order for section 31(1) to be triggered it is for example sufficient if the conduct is under direction or control of the foreign power or even just carried out with the financial or otherwise assistance provided by a foreign power for that purpose.

It will be interesting to see how the foreign power condition will be applied in practice, in particular where governments have extensive control and ownership over corporations.

Continue Reading Trade secrets misappropriation: a new criminal offence in the UK

Earlier this month the Biden Administration released its long-anticipated Executive Order on Addressing United States Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern (“EO”), which imposes (1) prohibitions on certain outbound investments in the semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies, and artificial intelligence sectors, and (2)…

Continue Reading Covington Alert: U.S. Launches Outbound Investment Screening Targeting China with Further Developments Forthcoming

Updated August 8, 2023.  Originally posted May 1, 2023.

Last week, comment deadlines were announced for a Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) that could have significant compliance implications for all holders of international Section 214 authority (i.e., authorization to provide telecommunications services from points in the U.S. to points abroad).  The rule changes on which the FCC seeks comment are far-reaching and, if adopted as written, could result in significant future compliance burdens, both for entities holding international Section 214 authority, as well as the parties holding ownership interests in these entities.  Comments on these rule changes are due Thursday, August 31, with reply comments due October 2.

Adopted in April, the FCC’s item proposing the new rules also includes an Order requiring all holders of international Section 214 authority to respond to a one-time information request concerning their foreign ownership. Although last week’s Federal Register publication sets a comment deadline for the proposed rules, the reporting deadline for the one-time information request has not yet been established.  However, because the FCC has fulfilled its statutory obligations regarding the new information collection presented by the one-time reporting requirement, carriers — as well as entities holding an ownership interest in these carriers — should prepare for the announcement of the reporting deadline.

The FCC’s latest actions underscore the agency’s ongoing desire to closely scrutinize foreign ownership and involvement in telecommunications carriers serving the U.S. market, as well as to play a more active role in cybersecurity policy. These developments should be of interest to any carrier that serves the U.S. market and any financial or strategic investor focused on the telecommunications space, as well as other parties interested in national security developments affecting telecommunications infrastructure.

Proposed Rule Changes for International Section 214 Authority

The FCC’s proposed changes to its regulation of international Section 214 authorizations generally concern additional compliance, disclosure, and reporting requirements. The FCC’s proposed rule changes are far-reaching, but the most notable of the proposals concern the following:

Continue Reading Comments Due August 31 on FCC’s Proposal to Step Up Review of Foreign Ownership in Telecom Carriers and Establish Cybersecurity Requirements

Congressional scrutiny of the U.S. relationship with China marched forward this week as Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) reintroduced a new and expanded version of the National Critical Capabilities Defense Act (NCCDA)—legislation to create a national security review process for “outbound” transactions by U.S.

Continue Reading Lawmakers Introduce “New” Version of Expansive Outbound Investment Legislation

On March 21, 2023, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Commerce Proposed Rule”) to implement certain provisions of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 (“CHIPS Act”) that place restrictions on certain activities of businesses receiving federal funding pursuant to the CHIPS Act (“Commerce…

Continue Reading National Security Update – Departments of Commerce and Treasury Release Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding CHIPS “Guardrails”

On the heels of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, pandemic-induced supply chain disruptions, and U.S.-China tensions over Taiwan, 2022 accelerated a sweeping effort within the U.S. government to make national security considerations—especially with respect to China—a key feature of new and existing regulatory processes. This trend toward broader national security regulation, designed to help maintain U.S. strategic advantage, has support from both Republicans and Democrats, including from the Biden Administration. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s remarks in September 2022 capture the tone shift in Washington: “…[W]e have to revisit the longstanding premise of maintaining ‘relative’ advantages over competitors in certain key technologies…That is not the strategic environment we are in today…[w]e must maintain as large of a lead as possible.”

This environment produced important legislative and regulatory developments in 2022, including the CHIPS and Science Act (Covington alert), first-ever Enforcement and Penalty Guidelines promulgated by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS” or the “Committee”) (Covington alert), President Biden’s Executive Order on CFIUS (Covington alert), new restrictions under U.S. export control authorities targeting China (Covington alert), and proposals for a new regime to review outbound investments by U.S. businesses (Covington alert). The common thread among these developments is the U.S. government’s continuing appetite to use both existing and new regulatory authorities to address identified national security risks, especially where perceived risks relate to China.

With a Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives riding the tailwinds of this bipartisan consensus, 2023 is looking like a pivotal moment for national security regulation—expanding beyond the use of traditional authorities such as trade controls and CFIUS, into additional regulatory domains touching upon data, communications, antitrust, and possibly more. In parallel, the U.S. focus on national security continues to gain purchase abroad, with foreign direct investment (“FDI”) regimes maturing in tandem with CFIUS, and outbound investment screening gaining traction, for example, in the European Union (“EU”). It is crucial for businesses to be aware of these developments and to approach U.S. regulatory processes with a sensitivity towards the shifting national security undercurrents described in greater detail below.

Continue Reading Will 2023 Be an Inflection Point in National Security Regulation?