Protectionism is nothing new. For decades, governments have sought to shield domestic interests from foreign competition, even as the World Trade Organization and its predecessor, the GATT, worked to constrain such measures and promote freer trade. In the United States, protectionism has traditionally been justified in terms of protecting jobs and domestic industry, increasingly through tariffs. The European Union has more often pursued it through regulation, frequently framed around consumer protection, environmental standards and market access. China has relied heavily on subsidies and state support to strengthen domestic industries and promote exports. These approaches have long coexisted with the global trading system, even as the WTO has struggled to prevent them from distorting it. 

What is changing is the geopolitical context in which these tools are being deployed. As the world becomes more multipolar and strategic competition intensifies, measures that once served primarily economic or domestic political objectives are increasingly being weaponized. Trump’s tariffs, the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, China’s use of export controls – particularly on critical minerals and rare earths – and the growing use of sanctions all demonstrate how economic interdependence is becoming a source of geopolitical leverage. For businesses and markets, this creates a more complex trading environment in which efficiency must be weighed against resilience, access to markets against exposure to geopolitical risk and global supply chains against strategic dependence. The question now is how businesses and markets can operate in a world where trade itself is increasingly a tool of strategic competition.