The Trump administration announced Wednesday that it will block imports from Chinese biotechnology firm BGI Group and two of its affiliates, citing alleged links to forced labor in Xinjiang, China's far-western ethnic region.

Beginning Thursday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will stop goods from BGI Group, a major player in genetic sequencing, along with BGI Genomics and MGI Tech. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the companies either source materials from Xinjiang or work with the regional government in the recruitment and movement of forced labor drawn from persecuted ethnic groups there, including Uyghurs. DHS said BGI Group holds controlling stakes in both affiliates.

DHS cites genetic testing in Xinjiang

In its announcement, DHS said credible information, including corporate and government reports, shows the three companies have supported genetic testing in Xinjiang. The department said the collection and analysis of genetic material helps Chinese authorities monitor, surveil and repress ethnic minorities, including through forced labor.

The action falls under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law at the end of 2021 in response to allegations of human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang. In August, the Trump administration added 43 Chinese companies to the law's blacklist, bringing the total to 187 entities. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has pledged to protect American workers from being undercut by foreign companies that rely on forced labor.

Beijing and BGI push back

China rejected the forced labor accusations and denounced the ban as political manipulation and bullying carried out in the name of human rights. In a statement Thursday morning, China's Ministry of Commerce said the listings contradict the consensus reached by the two countries' leaders, threaten the stability of bilateral trade relations, and that China will take necessary measures to protect its interests. Beijing has long dismissed the Xinjiang allegations as false, describing its policies in the region as counterterrorism and stability efforts.

BGI Group also denied the claims, stating Wednesday that it "has not engaged in any form of forced labor" and opposes forced labor in all forms.

Biotech becomes a new front

The move highlights biotechnology as a growing area of economic and technological rivalry between Washington and Beijing. Last week, the Treasury Department proposed new limits on U.S. investment in biotechnology, artificial intelligence and supercomputing in countries such as China.

BGI Group has drawn scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers and officials for years over concerns that its alleged government ties and access to vast amounts of genetic data could threaten U.S. national security and commercial interests. The company has emphasized that it is privately owned, does not serve patients in the United States and has no access to Americans' genetic data. The Pentagon has designated BGI Group, BGI Genomics and MGI Tech as Chinese military companies.

Congress did not pass a bill that would have barred BGI from working with federally funded medical providers, but late last year it approved a similar measure that did not name specific companies and instead called for a list of biotechnology companies of concern.

The latest trade action comes ahead of an expected meeting next month between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and President Donald Trump in Shenzhen, where BGI Group is headquartered. Xi may also travel to Florida in December for the Group of 20 leaders summit, which would mark a fourth meeting between the two leaders this year as they seek to keep relations steady under a trade truce.

The Trump administration on Wednesday filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to set aside a lower court order that has stopped construction of border barriers through the Big Bend region of Texas.

The order is a significant obstacle for one of President Donald Trump's signature initiatives. The administration has been moving quickly to build walls and related infrastructure along the southern border from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.

Local opposition and the October injunction

In Big Bend, the project has drawn pushback from ranchers, residents, business owners and environmental groups. They contend that the plan, which combines walls, vehicle barriers and surveillance technology, wastes money in a region where illegal crossings have historically been low, and that construction threatens the area's landscapes. Opponents have brought several lawsuits challenging the work.

In one of those cases, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone on Oct. 2 issued a preliminary injunction halting construction across the roughly 500-mile project area while the litigation continues. The order covers Big Bend National Park as well as state-owned and privately owned land upriver and downriver from the park. Opposition had been building for months but intensified in August, when bulldozers were seen clearing land inside the national park.

The waiver dispute

At the center of the case are broad waivers issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security that let U.S. Customs and Border Protection skip environmental and other regulatory requirements that would otherwise slow a project of this size.

The government maintains that Big Bend sees a high level of illegal entry and that a 1996 law expressly gives the secretary authority to waive such rules when needed to build barriers and roads near the border. Challengers counter that Congress limited that power to areas of high illegal entry, and that the remote, rugged Big Bend region does not qualify.

Judge Cardone agreed with the challengers, finding that they "are likely to succeed on the merits of their major questions doctrine claim that the Big Bend Waivers were issued in excess of the Secretary's authority."

What is at stake

Trump has long promised a wall along the approximately 2,000-mile southwest border. Last summer, congressional Republicans provided the Department of Homeland Security with $46 billion to complete it, using a combination of 30-foot steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers and surveillance systems.

The administration warns that if Big Bend remains one of the few stretches without barriers, illegal crossings could shift there. Opponents respond that drones, surveillance towers and similar tools would be equally effective at a far lower cost than a wall.

Federal prosecutors have filed criminal charges against two former FBI officials, Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, accusing them of giving false statements to Congress about their role in the bureau's handling of the Hunter Biden laptop matter before the 2020 presidential election.

Both previously helped lead an FBI task force focused on foreign interference in U.S. elections, a unit that has since been disbanded. Prosecutors allege that when questioned by lawmakers, the two denied taking part in FBI investigative work involving Biden, and that those denials were untrue.

The pair made their first appearance in federal court in Washington on Friday. Their lawyers asked the court to move quickly so they can challenge the allegations.

The case stands out for several reasons. Criminal prosecutions of former FBI employees by the Justice Department are uncommon. The charges were also brought by criminal complaint rather than grand jury indictment, a route prosecutors usually take when they need to detain someone quickly, for example because of flight risk or danger to the public. Both the defense and the judge commented on that choice in court. The Justice Department has had trouble in recent high-profile cases persuading grand juries in the capital to return indictments.

Timing has also drawn attention. The complaint came less than two weeks before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, as part of a wider review under FBI Director Kash Patel of past bureau episodes that have long been criticized by President Donald Trump's supporters. Patel was a vocal critic of the FBI before he took over the agency.

Lawyers for both defendants rejected the charges. Floris's attorneys described her as a career FBI intelligence officer with nearly two decades of service and argued the case was driven by politics rather than evidence, pointing to its timing so close to an election. Benavides's legal team called the complaint baseless and politically motivated, and said they expect the court process to clear him.

Because the case was filed by complaint, prosecutors have not yet presented it to a grand jury. Both defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.