Biosecurity Modernization and Innovation Act of 2026 is a Major Step for U.S. Biosecurity
There are moments where biosecurity reform moves from thought to action. This week is one of them.
On Wednesday, Senators Tom Cotton (R-AK) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) introduced the Biosecurity Modernization and Innovation Act of 2026. Inspired in part by the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology’s recommendation for foundational biosecurity and biosafety oversight reform, this bipartisan effort works to fix a basic problem: the United States still lacks clear, accountable oversight for biological risks.
This bill takes a first practical step. It gives the White House 90 days to assess the state of biosecurity oversight by clarifying roles, measuring effectiveness, listening to practitioners, and identifying gaps in resources and capability. Asking these basic accountability questions is essential to the growth of a strong and secure biotechnology landscape.
This assessment would feed directly into implementation, with executive actions where possible, legislative action where necessary, and structural reforms that could consolidate oversight mechanisms into a central oversight hub on biorisk matters.
Clarity is not just bureaucratic housekeeping. It is the critical foundation for national security, international competitiveness, and public trust in biotechnology. We have known for decades that the system needs modernization. This bill finally begins some of this critical work.
Ninety 90 days is ambitious for running an interagency process at this scale, but the urgency is needed.
For half a century, we’ve patched problems as they arose, building a culture of compliance, not curiosity. As an example, after the early-2000s anthrax attacks and a series of controversial experiments, the government created and tightened rules around select agents and created policies for “dual use” and pandemic research. Yet those policies were rarely evaluated or consistently implemented, and in some cases the measures would not have prevented the very incidents that prompted their creation. While part of the gap is technical, much of it comes from a paradigm that positions biosecurity and biosafety as a hindrance to innovation, and not its enabler.
This misalignment matters. The pace of advance in the last 50 years is dwarfed by the leaps in the last five. Biotechnology today is more diffuse and comes at a lower price point than at any point in history. It is digital, global, and increasingly powered by AI. Tools that once required specialized labs may now run from a laptop or are outsourced across borders.
This is the moment to move from fragmented compliance to modern governance: a system that is proactive, coordinated, and accountable. Senators Tom Cotton and Amy Klobuchar recognize that reality. Their bill creates the space to step back, clarify roles, and design biosecurity oversight on purpose – not by accident or after the next crisis.
By preparing credible, bipartisan options now, before the bill becomes law, we can give the Administration a plan that is ready to implement rather than another study that gathers dust.
At the Federation of American Scientists, this reform agenda builds on work already underway across the biotechnology landscape – from exploring and advancing practical governance approaches for AI-enabled and data-driven biology, strengthening domestic biomanufacturing and scale-up policy, identifying gaps and coordination challenges in federal oversight, and translating technical expertise into actionable options for policymakers.
FAS is expanding its role as a convener and catalyst over the coming months through additional gatherings, publications, and structured dialogues with government, industry, academia, and civil society leaders to help shape the present and future of biorisk policy.
This next phase will focus on foundational, cross-cutting reform. Many of the ideas on the table today are incremental; they target individual risks or technologies in isolation. However, the challenges we face are systemic. We need institutions and oversight tools that evolve alongside the science, and align innovation, economic growth, and security rather than treating them as tradeoffs. That’s the focus of our work, and we’re actively engaging practitioners, policymakers, and researchers who want to help design effective solutions that last. If you are working or interested in this space, reach out to any of us here or on LinkedIn.
By preparing credible, bipartisan options now, before the bill becomes law, we can give the Administration a plan that is ready to implement rather than another study that gathers dust.
Even as companies and countries race to adopt AI, the U.S. lacks the capacity to fully characterize the behavior and risks of AI systems and ensure leadership across the AI stack. This gap has direct consequences for Commerce’s core missions.
As states take up AI regulation, they must prioritize transparency and build technical capacity to ensure effective governance and build public trust.
In the absence of guardrails and guidance, AI can increase inequities, introduce bias, spread misinformation, and risk data security for schools and students alike.