For instance, while the "Made in China 2025" initiative drew intense international scrutiny for its heavy state support, the Chinese government merely reduced public mention of this 10-year roadmap and subsumed them under broader strategic plans such as its 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025) and Dual Circulation Strategy.

Buy American Act

In the United States, the Buy American Act of 1933 and subsequent domestic preference policies are foundational toolkits for protectionism designed to boost domestic industries and employment. Updated and amended over the years, the Act remains on US statutes and allows the US government to prefer US-made products in its procurement. Though it’s not regarded as more restrictive than similar provisions in other developed economies, the Buy American Act is effectively excluded from the coverage of the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), allowing local industries to enjoy significant advantages.⁵ Recent administrations have further elevated these measures; the first Trump administration increased the domestic content threshold from 50% to 55% and the Biden administration raised it to 75% over seven years. However, the lack of reciprocal access in this aspect of America’s GPA commitments has drawn scrutiny from other trading partners like Canada that grant higher levels of access to their public procurement programs.

Conclusion

To add to the challenge of identifying local content measures, such policies and other non-tariff measures are frequently embedded within broader regulatory or policy documents seemingly unrelated to trade, which are not always readily accessible to the public or clearly articulated in terms of their impact on trade.⁶ This can lead to inconsistencies in how they are reported and challenged within jurisdictions and internationally.

In the face of economic challenges or to appeal to voters during elections, governments often scale up such protectionist policies to provide a sense of comfort to voters.

However, the repercussions of local content measures should not be underestimated. They inevitably lead to increased production costs and inefficiencies as firms are forced to source locally rather than from the most competitive suppliers globally. This ultimately results in higher prices for consumers and reduced competitiveness of domestic industries internationally. These policies fuel trade tensions and disrupt international supply chains, making them a double-edged sword that must be wielded with caution.

With trade tensions at unprecedented levels among the world's largest economies, global trade is at a pivotal moment where countries need to reassess the wisdom of relying on protectionist measures that increase costs and compromise efficiency. All countries should urgently pursue new opportunities for mutual trade collaboration to mitigate non-tariff measures and restore certainty for businesses.