**Introduction** Geopolitical tensions and national security concerns increasingly shape trade policy choices. Trade instruments are increasingly used to manage strategic dependencies, safeguard sensitive technologies, and address perceived vulnerabilities arising from geopolitical rivalry[1]. This has brought trade policy into closer alignment with industrial policy, national security objectives, and broader foreign policy strategies[1][2]. **How strategic rivalry and security concerns reshape trade policy?** **1.** **Trade instruments are used to reduce strategic dependence** Tariffs, export controls, licensing requirements, and investment restrictions are increasingly deployed to limit reliance on geopolitical competitors in sensitive sectors[1][2]. Export controls on advanced technologies and dual-use goods are used to restrict the transfer of capabilities considered relevant to defense and security interests[1]. These measures involve trade-offs between security objectives and economic efficiency, reshaping trade flows and raising costs across global value chains[1][3]. **2.** **Supply chain resilience becomes a central trade policy objective** National security concerns have made supply chain resilience a central objective of trade policy[1][3]. Governments encourage diversification away from highly concentrated suppliers through trade agreements, industrial incentives, and public procurement policies that favor domestic production or sourcing from trusted partners[3]. These strategies — often described as reshoring, near-shoring, or friend-shoring — aim to reduce exposure to disruption or coercion, but they also tend to raise production costs and contribute to greater fragmentation in global trade and investment[1][3]. **3.** **Industrial policy and trade policy are increasingly intertwined** National security considerations are increasingly used to justify industrial policy measures with direct trade effects, including subsidies, tax incentives, and local content requirements in sectors such as clean energy, advanced manufacturing, and digital infrastructure[3][4]. These measures shape trade outcomes by redirecting investment and production and can intensify subsidy competition, particularly where transparency and multilateral disciplines are weak[4]. **4.** **Expanded use of security exceptions weakens predictability** The use of national security justifications for trade measures has become more frequent and broader in scope[1][2]. Measures adopted on security grounds are often treated as outside the reach of conventional trade disciplines, reducing predictability and limiting avenues for challenge[2]. This has encouraged greater reliance on unilateral measures and selective cooperation among like-minded economies, placing additional strain on multilateral trade governance and increasing uncertainty for firms and smaller economies[1][2]. **Conclusion** Geopolitical tensions and national security concerns have reshaped trade policy into a central instrument of economic statecraft. Governments increasingly use trade measures to manage strategic risks, secure critical capabilities, and reinforce alignment with trusted partners[1]. While these approaches may enhance resilience for some economies, they also raise costs, fragment markets, and weaken the predictability and coherence of the global trading system[1][3].
