Why has foreign direct investment (national-security) screening become a major M&A consideration, and how do you manage it?

Governments have expanded FDI / national-security screening (US CFIUS, the EU FDI screening framework, Germany's AWG/AWV, the UK's National Security and Investment Act, and many others) to review and potentially block or condition foreign acquisitions of sensitive assets — critical infrastructure, technology, data, defense, and increasingly broad 'strategic' sectors. It matters because these regimes now catch many cross-border deals, some are mandatory and suspensory (you can't close before clearance), penalties for non-filing are severe, and a review can block a deal, force divestitures/mitigation agreements, or impose conditions — adding timing and certainty risk alongside antitrust. To manage it: screen the target's activities against each relevant regime early, determine where filings are mandatory vs advisable, build the timeline into the deal (it can run months and in parallel with antitrust), and allocate the risk in the SPA — conditions precedent, efforts/'hell-or-high-water' standards, long-stop dates, and break fees for a national-security prohibition. For sensitive acquirers (state-linked, certain jurisdictions) the risk is higher and may shape whether to bid at all.