Reading Power in 2026: What the U.S. National Security Strategy Signals for Global Business 

Late last year, the Trump administration released its long-awaited National Security Strategy (NSS). The document reflects a framework of leverage-based statecraft in which tariffs, export controls, industrial policy and financial tools are primary instruments of power. In 2026, geopolitical risk will be felt less through formal diplomacy and more through economic pressure, regulatory action and shifting centers of influence. This shift has already surfaced through U.S. trade actions, tariff enforcement decisions and changes in stakeholder behavior. 

For global companies, this represents a break from long-standing assumptions about how stability is maintained and where influence is exercised. Disruption is likely to appear first at the operational level—often with limited warning—while broader business and reputational risk compounds over time.  

Executives who continue to treat geopolitics as episodic or external to core strategy will face increasing exposure. Those who integrate geopolitical risk into strategic decision-making—alongside capital allocation, stakeholder engagement and strategic communications—will be better positioned to protect their license to operate and remain competitive in a more volatile operating environment. 

The NSS does not dictate specific outcomes. It does, however, offer a clear view into how the United States is likely to exercise power in the year ahead. 

A Signal Through the Noise

The NSS should be read less as an operational roadmap and more as a statement of intent. Its significance lies less in individual policy lines than in what it confirms about how the United States intends to compete and assert influence in a more contested global environment. 

Three signals matter most for business. 

1. Economic tools have moved to the front line of U.S. power projection. 

Tariffs, export controls, investment screening and industrial policy are being deployed earlier, more visibly and with fewer institutional buffers. This approach extends well beyond the Americas. India’s government, for example, has publicly criticized U.S. tariffs—some reaching 50%—as tougher than those applied to China, straining bilateral trade talks and underscoring how economic statecraft is reshaping relationships even with strategic partners. For companies, the practical effect is less warning and higher costs of miscalculation. 

 2. U.S. engagement is increasingly transactional. 

Relationships are evaluated based on leverage and near-term outcomes rather than shared values or institutional continuity. Historical alignment alone no longer provides insulation. This has direct implications for how companies assess partnerships, manage government relationships and position themselves reputationally across markets. 

3. Multilateral engagement is selective. 

Platforms where the United States sets the agenda or retains decisive influence continue to matter. Others are deprioritized or used tactically. For companies, this can create a false sense of security: participation in multilateral forums no longer guarantees predictability or early warning when U.S. priorities shift. 

In practice, geopolitical exposure in 2026 will be shaped less by formal alliances and more by where U.S. leverage intersects directly with commercial activity. 

How Geopolitics Will Reach Companies in 2026

This shift in statecraft changes not only which risks exist but also how they materialize for business. 

Operational risk will be more visible and faster-moving. Tariffs, enforcement actions and regulatory signaling tied explicitly to geopolitical objectives can be assessed in near real time. This is also where organizations often discover too late that communications, supply-chain and government affairs teams are working from different assumptions. 

Strategic risk will accumulate more gradually, with potentially deeper consequences. Market access, supply-chain resilience and reputational standing can erode as leverage-based policies compound. Decisions that appear tactical today—where to source inputs, how to structure partnerships, which markets to prioritize—can lock in exposure for years. 

Engagement risk is immediate, ongoing and rising as well. Influence is no longer concentrated in predictable venues or timelines. It increasingly moves through close-knit cliques, informal pressure and economic signaling that companies often detect only after decisions are already underway. 

Greenland offers a timely illustration of this dynamic. While a U.S. military takeover remains unlikely, the episode has unsettled companies and governments not because of the proposal itself but because of how quickly it carried potential commercial consequences. For firms exposed to Arctic infrastructure, shipping, energy or allied government relations, the threat of retaliatory tariffs against European countries opposing the purchase triggered immediate stakeholder review and short-term supply-chain evaluation, even as the ultimate policy outcome remains uncertain. For business leaders, the signal, rather than the end state, shapes the risk. 

What Executives Should Be Doing Now

Most companies already conduct some form of geopolitical risk management. The vulnerability lies in treating it episodically or confining it to communications or compliance functions rather than embedding it into strategic decision-making. 

Two actions matter most.  

1. Elevate stakeholder mapping into a governance tool. 

These maps should be continuously refreshed and used as decision-support inputs, not static communications artifacts. When influence shifts, outdated assumptions can create as much risk as having no insight at all. 

2. Reassess influence pathways. 

Identifying formal decision-makers is no longer sufficient. Companies need clarity on who influences them, how that influence is exercised and where engagement actually shapes outcomes. In opaque environments, credible external perspectives can surface blind spots and challenge internal consensus before it hardens into exposure. 

These steps keep organizations from having to predict every shock or plan for every “what-if?” by building the discipline to respond coherently when signals of either appear. 

What to Watch Closely in 2026

• Technology leverage will remain centered around semiconductors. 

The NSS reinforces Washington’s view that technological advantage underpins both economic competitiveness and national security. Semiconductors sit at the center of this logic as the core of every modern technology from automotive to AI. Any movement toward near-parity in chip production with China would weaken export-control regimes, reshape global supply chains, and accelerate fragmentation across technology ecosystems. For companies outside the United States, this affects not only sourcing decisions, but where innovation, partnerships, and market access concentrate or become constrained. 

• U.S. funding decisions will signal which priorities become durable. 

While rhetoric moves quickly, appropriations reveal where the United States is willing to commit political and financial capital. For international firms, congressional funding decisions often provide earlier insight than strategy documents into which sectors, technologies, and alliances Washington intends to sustain and where it may scrutiny or conditionality. 

• Resilience is being treated as an economic and security imperative. 

Environmental protection and sustainability remain central frames in many markets. In Washington, climate-related risk is increasingly assessed through a narrower lens: infrastructure durability, supply-chain continuity, energy reliability and economic competitiveness. 

Rather than elevating climate change as a standalone priority, the NSS emphasizes resilience, preparedness and protection of critical systems. Climate risk enters the conversation when it affects ports, energy grids, transportation corridors, food systems or insurance markets—areas where disruption carries immediate economic and security consequences.  

This distinction matters for global companies, and it’s worth noting that climate risk has not disappeared from U.S. decision-making, even as traditional climate rhetoric recedes. The messaging focus is less on emissions and more on whether companies harden infrastructure, reduce systemic vulnerability and avoid disruptions that undermine economic performance or national security. Arguments grounded in environmental stewardship or multilateral climate commitments that resonate internationally may carry less weight in Washington than those tied to resilience, reliability and competitiveness.  

Leadership Advantage in a Leverage-Based World

In a security-first global economy, competitive advantage comes from understanding how power is exercised, not simply how policy is written. In 2026, resilient companies will be those that can translate geopolitical signals into commercial foresight and act before disruption reshapes their operating environment. 

 These companies will not avoid disruption altogether. They will see it sooner, respond with greater coherence and protect value while others are still debating what changed.