The intersection of economics and national security has emerged as a defining challenge for U.S. policymaking, particularly as global economic interdependence and strategic competition intensify. The Trump administration, entering its second term in 2025, inherits a complex landscape where economic security—encompassing the protection of critical infrastructure, supply chains, and technological innovation from coercive threats and disruptions—demands robust institutional frameworks and private-sector collaboration. This article examines the mechanics of economic security policymaking within the U.S. government, focusing on the National Security Council’s organizational structure, resource allocation, and the imperative of industry engagement. Drawing on authoritative data from institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, it critically analyzes deficiencies in current approaches and proposes actionable reforms to enhance policy execution amid evolving geopolitical realities.
Economic security, as a subset of national security, extends beyond the race for advanced technologies to include safeguarding low-tech supply chains, financial systems, and critical infrastructure. The Department of Commerce’s pivotal role in this domain was underscored in 2023 when Chinese Ambassador Xie Feng prioritized a meeting with Deputy Secretary Don Graves to discuss bilateral economic relations, signaling the department’s expanded national security mandate. Concurrently, the Department of Defense has pursued economic deterrence through initiatives like the Defense Industrial Strategy, launched in 2024, which aimed to bolster U.S. technological competitiveness and protect industrial bases from foreign aggression. These efforts reflect a broader recognition that economic vulnerabilities can undermine national sovereignty, particularly in the context of strategic competition with China, which accounted for 14.8% of U.S. goods imports in 2024 according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
The complexity of economic security stems from the interconnected nature of global markets, where unilateral actions risk unintended consequences. For instance, the imposition of export controls on semiconductor technologies, detailed in a 2024 Bureau of Industry and Security report, expanded from an average of 30 pages to 250 pages over a decade, illustrating the intricate balance required to target adversaries without disrupting allied economies. The International Monetary Fund’s April 2025 World Economic Outlook projects global growth at 3.1% for 2025, down from 3.2% in 2024, partly attributing this moderation to trade barriers and policy uncertainty. Such data underscores the need for nuanced policymaking that mitigates collateral damage while achieving security objectives.
A critical deficiency in U.S. economic security policymaking is the lack of sufficient analytical and enforcement resources. The Office of Economic Security and Emerging Technology, established by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in 2023, exemplifies efforts to bridge this gap. However, its leadership vacancy as of March 2025 highlights ongoing challenges in institutionalizing expertise. Academic output provides a proxy for this shortfall: while dissertations mentioning “China” grew tenfold from 2000 to 2024, those addressing “economic security” declined slightly, according to the ProQuest Dissertations Database. This trend suggests a misalignment between academic research and policy needs, exacerbated by federal hiring constraints and reduced funding for higher education, which the National Science Foundation reported as declining by 2.3% in real terms from 2022 to 2024.
Retraining existing government personnel offers a viable solution. National security offices require enhanced economic and statistical training to navigate complex global markets, while economic agencies like the Department of Commerce need security clearances and threat awareness to align with national security priorities. The Department of Commerce, employing over 47,000 personnel as of 2024 per the Office of Personnel Management, faced bottlenecks during the Biden administration due to insufficient clearances among its trade analysts. Similarly, the Department of the Navy reported in 2024 that only 15% of its technologists held clearances adequate for national security-related projects. Addressing these gaps requires targeted investments in workforce development, potentially modeled on the Department of Defense’s Civilian Cybersecurity Workforce Framework, which trained 3,200 employees in 2024 alone.
Enforcement capacity is equally strained. The Bureau of Industry and Security, responsible for export controls, employed fewer than 400 enforcement agents in 2024 despite overseeing $1.8 trillion in dual-use technology exports, as reported by the Department of Commerce. Expanding this workforce is essential to match the scope of regulatory expansion, particularly as adversaries exploit loopholes in investment screening and technology transfers. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reviewed 313 transactions in 2024, a 22% increase from 2022, yet lacked comprehensive data on outbound investments, limiting its ability to counter exploitation, according to its 2024 annual report.
Engaging the private sector is paramount, given its dominance in innovation and supply chain dynamics. The World Bank’s 2025 Global Economic Prospects notes that private investment accounts for 85% of global research and development expenditure, underscoring industry’s role in technological advancement. During the Biden administration, regular staff-level engagement with industry refined export controls, closing loopholes that enabled adversaries to access dual-use technologies. For example, a 2024 Commerce Department consultation with semiconductor firms led to revised restrictions that reduced China’s access to advanced chips by 18%, per industry estimates. However, initial reluctance to share national security details hampered progress, highlighting the need for transparent, structured dialogue.
Legal constraints complicate industry engagement. Federal regulations, including the Federal Advisory Committee Act, restrict government from favoring specific firms, while national security laws prohibit disclosing sensitive information. To navigate these, the government should institutionalize regular, staff-level interactions through trade councils and industry associations. The President’s Export Council, reconstituted in 2023 with 28 members from diverse sectors, provides a blueprint, having advised on trade policies that boosted U.S. exports by 4.1% in 2024, according to the International Trade Administration. Expanding such models to focus on economic security could align policy with industry realities, ensuring regulations are both effective and feasible.
Coordination within the government remains the most formidable challenge. The National Security Council, with approximately 400 staff in 2025 per the Congressional Research Service, serves as the primary coordinating body for national security policy. Its 2021 restructuring under the Biden administration introduced directorates for cybersecurity and technology, reflecting emerging priorities. However, economic security spans beyond these areas, encompassing trade, finance, and infrastructure, necessitating a broader reorientation. The National Economic Council, focused on domestic economic policy, is ill-suited to lead on security matters, as its 2024 reports prioritized inflation and labor markets over strategic threats.
A “pivot to economics” within the National Security Council could address this. Creating a deputy national security advisor for economic security, akin to the coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs established in 2021, would centralize expertise and streamline decision-making. Alternatively, designating the Department of Commerce as a statutory member of the council, alongside State, Defense, and Treasury, would elevate economic perspectives. The Department of Commerce’s 2024 budget of $11.6 billion, dwarfed by Defense’s $816 billion, underscores the need for greater influence in security discussions, particularly given its oversight of $2.7 trillion in annual trade.
Beyond the National Security Council, innovative coordination mechanisms merit exploration. The Countering Economic Coercion Task Force, launched in December 2024 under the National Defense Authorization Act, unites Commerce, State, and Treasury to counter adversarial economic tactics, such as China’s restrictions on rare earth exports, which impacted 7% of global supply in 2024 per the U.S. Geological Survey. Though nascent, its interagency approach could be formalized as an “Economic Joint Chiefs of Staff,” providing strategic advice akin to military counterparts. The proposed National Defense Economic Competition Research Council, stalled in 2024, offers another model, emphasizing data-driven analysis of economic threats.
The Trump administration’s early actions signal both opportunity and risk. Its April 2025 tariff announcements, targeting 10% duties on all imports and up to 49% on select countries, sparked market volatility, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average dipping 3.2% in a week, per Bloomberg. The OECD’s March 2025 Economic Outlook attributes a 0.2% downward revision in global growth to these policies, projecting U.S. GDP growth at 2.2% for 2025. While softened rhetoric suggests a focus on China-specific measures, inconsistent signaling undermines predictability, a cornerstone of economic security.
This malleable moment offers the administration a chance to institutionalize reforms. Prioritizing resource allocation—through hiring, training, and enforcement—can address expertise gaps. Structured industry engagement, modeled on successful precedents, can align policy with innovation. Most critically, reorienting the National Security Council toward economics can embed economic security within the core of national security strategy. The International Monetary Fund’s April 2025 warning of heightened trade risks underscores the stakes: without coordinated, data-driven policymaking, the U.S. risks ceding economic leverage to adversaries.
Achieving economic security demands precision, not blunt instruments. The World Trade Organization’s 2024 report notes that global trade disputes rose 15% amid tariff escalations, straining alliances. By investing in analytical capacity, fostering industry partnerships, and streamlining coordination, the Trump administration can strengthen U.S. resilience. Failure to act risks amplifying vulnerabilities, as adversaries exploit economic interdependence. The path forward lies in institutional rigor, grounded in verifiable data and strategic foresight, to safeguard national interests in an era of unprecedented complexity.
Advancing U.S. Economic Security Policymaking: Strategic Realignment, Workforce Modernization and Global Partnerships in the Trump Administration’s 2025 National Security Paradigm
The urgency of integrating economic security into the core of U.S. national security strategy has never been more pronounced, as global trade dynamics, technological rivalries, and geopolitical tensions reshape the international order. The Trump administration, navigating its second term in 2025, confronts a landscape where economic resilience underpins national power. This article extends the analysis of U.S. economic security policymaking, delving into underexplored dimensions: the strategic realignment of interagency priorities, the modernization of the federal workforce to address economic threats, and the cultivation of global partnerships to amplify U.S. influence. Grounded in data from authoritative institutions like the World Trade Organization, Bank for International Settlements, and International Energy Agency, it proposes innovative reforms to strengthen policy execution without revisiting prior arguments.
The global economic environment in 2025 presents unprecedented challenges. The World Trade Organization’s October 2024 Trade Monitoring Update reported a 12% increase in trade-restrictive measures globally, reflecting a retreat from open markets. This trend, coupled with China’s dominance in critical minerals—controlling 68% of global cobalt production in 2024 per the U.S. Geological Survey—underscores the need for a recalibrated U.S. approach. Economic security now demands proactive measures to counter adversarial leverage over supply chains and financial systems. The Trump administration’s early tariff policies, while aimed at protecting domestic industries, have elicited retaliatory measures, with the European Union imposing $4.2 billion in countermeasures on U.S. exports in March 2025, according to the European Commission. These dynamics necessitate a strategic overhaul of interagency priorities to align economic and security objectives.
Realigning interagency priorities requires a shift from siloed operations to a unified framework that elevates economic considerations. The Department of the Treasury, managing $4.1 trillion in federal debt issuance in 2024 per the Congressional Budget Office, must integrate macroeconomic stability into security planning. Its Office of Financial Research, tasked with monitoring systemic risks, identified in its 2025 annual report a 15% rise in vulnerabilities tied to cross-border capital flows. Coordinating with the Department of Defense, which allocated $28 billion to supply chain resilience in its 2025 budget, can mitigate risks from foreign dependencies. A new interagency task force, chaired by the National Security Council, could streamline these efforts, ensuring that economic tools—such as sanctions and trade agreements—complement military readiness without duplicating existing coordination mechanisms.
Workforce modernization is equally critical. The federal government employs 2.2 million civilians, yet only 8% possess advanced training in data analytics or emerging technologies, per the Office of Personnel Management’s 2024 workforce report. Economic security demands expertise in areas like blockchain, which facilitated $3.7 trillion in global transactions in 2024 according to the Bank for International Settlements, and renewable energy markets, where China’s 42% share of solar panel production outpaces U.S. output, as noted by the International Energy Agency. A government-wide retraining program, modeled on the Department of Energy’s 2024 AI Workforce Initiative that upskilled 1,200 employees, could bridge this gap. Such programs must prioritize measurable outcomes, with clear benchmarks for proficiency in analyzing economic threats.
Global partnerships offer a force multiplier for U.S. economic security. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, representing 2.9 billion consumers and 62% of global GDP in 2024, provides a platform to counterbalance China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which disbursed $92 billion in loans in 2024 per the Asian Development Bank. Strengthening trade agreements with allies, such as the 2024 U.S.-Japan Critical Minerals Agreement that secured 10% of U.S. cobalt imports, can reduce vulnerabilities. These partnerships must extend beyond traditional allies to include emerging economies. For instance, India’s $1.2 trillion digital economy, growing at 9% annually per the Reserve Bank of India, offers opportunities for collaboration in fintech and cybersecurity, countering adversarial influence without relying on outdated multilateral frameworks.
The private sector’s role in global partnerships cannot be overstated. U.S. firms invested $5.4 trillion abroad in 2024, per the Bureau of Economic Analysis, shaping global standards in industries like aerospace and pharmaceuticals. A public-private council, hosted by the Department of Commerce, could facilitate knowledge sharing without compromising proprietary data. Unlike prior engagement models, this council would focus on real-time threat intelligence, leveraging the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s 2024 framework that reduced cyber incidents by 14% in participating firms. Such collaboration ensures that policy reflects market realities, enhancing U.S. competitiveness in a fragmented global economy.
These reforms face significant hurdles. Bureaucratic inertia, with 63% of federal agencies reporting delayed policy implementation in 2024 per the Government Accountability Office, threatens progress. Political polarization further complicates workforce funding, as evidenced by a 2025 Senate deadlock over a $2 billion training bill. Globally, aligning partners with U.S. interests risks friction, particularly with nations like Brazil, which increased trade with China by 11% in 2024, according to Brazil’s Ministry of Economy. Yet, the costs of inaction are steeper. The African Development Bank’s 2025 report warns that unchecked economic coercion could shave 0.8% off global GDP by 2030, with the U.S. bearing disproportionate losses due to its $25.5 trillion economy.
The Trump administration’s opportunity lies in its ability to act decisively. By realigning interagency priorities, modernizing the workforce, and forging global partnerships, it can fortify economic security as a pillar of national strength. These measures, grounded in rigorous data and tailored to 2025’s realities, offer a blueprint for navigating a world where economic power increasingly dictates geopolitical outcomes. Failure to adapt risks ceding influence to adversaries, undermining the stability that underpins U.S. prosperity.
U.S. Economic Security Policy Table (2025)
| Category | Subcategory | Detail | Data Source / Stat |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic Security Frameworks | Government Agencies | Department of Commerce’s expanded role in national security post-2023. Emphasized by meeting between Chinese Ambassador Xie Feng and Deputy Secretary Don Graves. | U.S. Census Bureau: China accounted for 14.8% of U.S. goods imports in 2024 |
| Economic Security Frameworks | Defense Industrial Strategy | Launched in 2024 by the Department of Defense to strengthen U.S. technological competitiveness and protect industrial bases from foreign aggression. | DoD strategy publication (2024) |
| Export Controls | Semiconductors | Export control documentation grew from 30 to 250 pages in a decade, illustrating the increasing regulatory complexity required to balance security with allied economic impact. | Bureau of Industry and Security Report, 2024 |
| Resource Gaps | Analytical Deficiency | Office of Economic Security and Emerging Technology, created in 2023, lacked appointed leadership as of March 2025, undermining analytical depth. | ODNI; ProQuest Dissertation Data: “China” +10x (2000–2024), “economic security” down |
| Workforce & Training | Clearance Shortages | The Commerce Department had security clearance shortages among its 47,000 employees (2024). Only 15% of Navy technologists held required clearances for national security projects. | Office of Personnel Management 2024; Department of Navy 2024 |
| Enforcement Challenges | Export Control Agents | Bureau of Industry and Security oversaw $1.8 trillion in dual-use exports with fewer than 400 enforcement agents. CFIUS reviewed 313 transactions in 2024, up 22% from 2022. | U.S. Department of Commerce; CFIUS 2024 Annual Report |
| Industry Engagement | Private Sector Collaboration | The private sector contributed 85% of global R&D spending. A 2024 Commerce consultation with chipmakers led to controls that reduced China’s chip access by 18%. | World Bank 2025 Global Economic Prospects; Commerce Department, Industry Feedback Reports |
| Institutional Coordination | NSC Reform | Proposals include creating a Deputy National Security Advisor for Economic Security or making the Department of Commerce a statutory member of the NSC. | CRS 2025: NSC staff ~400; DoC budget $11.6B vs. DoD $816B in 2024 |
| Coordination Mechanisms | Task Forces | Countering Economic Coercion Task Force was launched in Dec 2024 under the NDAA. It responded to China’s export restrictions that affected 7% of global rare earth supply. | U.S. Geological Survey 2024; NDAA 2024 Legislative Record |
| Global Dynamics | Tariff Policy Impacts | April 2025 tariffs (10–49%) led to a 3.2% drop in Dow Jones. OECD adjusted global growth down by 0.2%; U.S. GDP growth for 2025 forecasted at 2.2%. | OECD Economic Outlook March 2025; Bloomberg Market Tracker April 2025 |
| Trade Environment | WTO & Global Disputes | Global trade disputes increased by 15% in 2024, reflecting rising tension due to tariff escalations and export restrictions. | WTO Report 2024 |
| Interagency Realignment | Treasury & Defense | The Department of Treasury issued $4.1 trillion in debt in 2024. The DoD budgeted $28 billion for supply chain resilience in 2025, requiring integrated strategic planning. | Congressional Budget Office 2024; DoD Budget Documents 2025 |
| Workforce Modernization | Training in Tech | Only 8% of the 2.2 million federal employees had advanced training in data analytics or emerging technologies. DOE’s AI Initiative in 2024 retrained 1,200 staff. | Office of Personnel Management 2024; Department of Energy Workforce Report 2024 |
| Strategic Partnerships | Allied Agreements | APEC represents 2.9 billion people and 62% of global GDP (2024). The U.S.-Japan critical minerals agreement secured 10% of U.S. cobalt imports. | Asian Development Bank; IEA; Reserve Bank of India |
| Private Sector Role | Cybersecurity & Standards | U.S. companies invested $5.4 trillion abroad in 2024. A Commerce-hosted council focused on real-time cyber threat sharing. CISA’s framework reduced incidents by 14%. | Bureau of Economic Analysis 2024; CISA Cyber Report 2024 |
| Implementation Barriers | Bureaucracy & Politics | 63% of federal agencies faced policy implementation delays in 2024. Senate gridlock over a $2 billion training bill in 2025 reflected persistent political challenges. | Government Accountability Office 2024; Congressional Record 2025 |
| Geopolitical Risks | Global Trade Patterns | Brazil’s trade with China rose 11% in 2024. AfDB warned that unchecked economic coercion may reduce global GDP by 0.8% by 2030, with disproportionate impact on the U.S. | Brazil Ministry of Economy 2024; African Development Bank Report 2025 |
