Photo of Ingrid Price

Ingrid Price

Ingrid Price advises clients on a range of national security matters including cross border investment, supply chain security, and public policy. She regularly represents clients worldwide seeking national security approval for foreign investments before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and in proceedings related to the mitigation of foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI). She also advises clients on the implications of the new Information and Communication Technologies and Services (ICTS) Rule, particularly with respect to how it may impact technology companies going forward.

Drawing on her experience as in-house counsel where she directly counseled business leaders, engineers and operations teams on security and compliance matters, Ingrid maintains a client-centered perspective as she helps guide them through the national security regulatory processes. She has successfully represented numerous clients in gaining CFIUS approval across various technology sectors, including AI, mobile applications, software, telecommunications, and robotics, in addition to clients across other industries ranging from financial services to energy and real estate. Ingrid also has significant experience negotiating agreements on behalf of clients with the U.S. government to mitigate national security concerns in connection with achieving CFIUS approval, including several agreements specifically focused on data protection.

Prior to joining Covington, Ingrid clerked for Chief Judge James E. Baker of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. She also served as in-house counsel on law enforcement matters, security operations, and communications products at Amazon Web Services before returning to Covington as Special Counsel.

Contact:Read more about Ingrid PriceEmail

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?