7. Mitigation Is Not Necessarily Permanent — But Compliance Remains an Active Obligation CFIUS risk does not necessarily end at clearance. But nor do mitigation obligations necessarily last forever. CFIUS terminated 23 mitigation agreements in 2025, following 25 terminations in 2024. The number of mitigation agreements and conditions subject to ongoing monitoring declined from 242 at year-end 2024 to 234 at year-end 2025. CFIUS also materially modified four existing mitigation agreements during 2025. At the same time, the Committee’s compliance infrastructure remains active. CFIUS monitoring agencies conducted 40 site visits in 2025 to assess compliance with existing mitigation agreements. Separately, the Committee made two formal determinations involving violations of mandatory filing requirements and continued to receive voluntary self-disclosures. Those determinations concern the filing obligation itself, not the terms of any mitigation agreement, but they underscore that CFIUS monitors compliance across the full range of its authorities. Those figures are relevant to companies and investors already operating under national security agreements and other CFIUS mitigation. Parties can sometimes treat restrictions negotiated at closing as effectively permanent. The Annual Report confirms that termination and modification remain active parts of the mitigation lifecycle. This does not establish that CFIUS has become more receptive to termination, but it does mean parties subject to legacy mitigation should not assume the original agreement is the only possible endpoint. Where the business, ownership structure, technology, customer base or national security concern has changed materially since an agreement was negotiated, there may be value in reassessing whether existing restrictions remain appropriately calibrated and whether modification or termination can be supported.
The point is particularly relevant for agreements negotiated around risks or operating models that no longer exist in the same form. A disciplined reassessment should begin with the national security rationale for the original restrictions, how the relevant facts have changed and whether the government’s remaining risk can be addressed with fewer or different controls.
2025 CFIUS Compliance and Enforcement Activities
2
Formal Determinations Involving Violations of Mandatory Filing Requirements
4
23
Mitigation Agreements and Conditions Modified
Mitigation Agreements and Conditions Terminated
What to Watch The Annual Report does not support a simple narrative that CFIUS became either more restrictive or more permissive. Total filings increased because declarations increased, but notice activity remained flat. Declarations resolved a smaller share of matters on the short form, although the declaration population included a substantial number of mandatory filings. CFIUS continued to examine a much larger universe of non-notified transactions; mitigation remained an important tool; and difficult cases continued to create execution risk beyond the statutory timetable. Three developments bear watching as the 2026 docket develops. First, AFIP creates a specific policy question around mitigation for investment from foreign-adversary countries. Future cases may provide evidence of whether the Administration’s stated preference for finite, concrete mitigation in that context changes the remedies CFIUS seeks.
8
Powered by FlippingBook