Photo of Brian Kim

Brian Kim

Brian Kim is a member of the firm’s Washington, DC office where he practices in the firm’s top-ranked cross-border investment and national security group.

Brian advises clients on a broad range of national security, regulatory, and public policy matters related to cross-border investment, data governance, cybersecurity, technology regulation, and supply chain security. He regularly represents clients worldwide in obtaining U.S. national security approvals for foreign investments before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), including negotiating and implementing national security mitigation agreements with the U.S. government, as well as in related reviews conducted by the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector (commonly known as Team Telecom) and proceedings before the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) involving foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI).

His practice also encompasses emerging national security regulatory regimes affecting technology companies and multinational corporations, including the Department of Commerce’s Information and Communication Technologies and Services (ICTS) Rule and Connected Vehicle Rule, the Department of Justice’s Data Security Program, and the Treasury Department’s Outbound Investment Security Program. Brian regularly advises clients on legal, regulatory, and strategic issues involving China and the broader Asia-Pacific region, including technology regulation, supply chain resilience, and developments arising from the evolving U.S.-China competitive landscape.

Brian served on the firm’s Associate Advisory Committee from 2022 to 2024.

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?