Tech politics and Trump 2.0

Listen to article

The intensifying reliance on major tech companies in the US national security apparatus, compounded by Trump's prioritisation of economic and strategic competition with adversaries like China, has profound geopolitical implications. While some of these can be initially mapped, most of these implications will become a force multiplier towards global uncertainties.

As anticipated, under Trump 2.0, the tech rivalry between the US and China will further intensify, with AI, quantum computing, 5G infrastructure and cybersecurity emerging as the primary domains of competition. The Trump administration's continuation of tech decoupling policies - such as bans on Huawei and restrictions on semiconductor exports - will likely push China to accelerate its self-reliance in critical technologies, deepening the bifurcation of the global tech landscape.

The US government's partnerships with tech oligarchies such as Microsoft, Google, Open AI (Stargate Project), Amazon Web Services and Palantir to enhance its defence capabilities signal a deliberate strategy to counter China's technological advancements.

The Trump administration's focus will be on securing supply chains and controlling critical technologies which may compel US allies in Europe, Asia and the Indo-Pacific to align their policies with American priorities. Initiatives like the CHIPS Act, aimed at reshoring semiconductor manufacturing, are indicative of a broader effort to reduce reliance on Chinese technology. Asian nations such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are likely to deepen cooperation with the US, even as they face pressure from China to maintain neutrality. In Europe, NATO allies may be asked to limit their tech partnerships with China, particularly in AI, cybersecurity and telecommunications.

As the US leverages its tech oligarchies to dominate global tech standards and governance frameworks, multilateral institutions such as the UN or the WTO may struggle to maintain relevance. This could lead to fragmented digital governance, where competing blocs—led by the US and China—pursue divergent norms and policies. Moreover, the monopolistic control of a few US tech giants over critical technologies and their alignment with US national security interests could erode global trust. Allies and partners may perceive these companies as extensions of US geopolitical ambitions, undermining their neutrality and credibility in international markets.

Developing countries, particularly in Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America, are increasingly dependent on either the US or Chinese technology for digital infrastructure, AI and cybersecurity. The Trump administration's push to counter China's BRI with programmes like the Blue Dot Network is likely to focus on offering alternatives to Huawei and other Chinese tech firms in these regions.

Trump's emphasis on rapid deployment of AI and autonomous weapons systems in US national defense will likely provoke an arms race among major powers. China, Russia and possibly India are expected to accelerate their own military AI programmes in response. This militarisation of AI could lower the threshold for conflict, as autonomous systems reduce the need for human involvement in decision-making, potentially leading to faster escalation during crises.

Smaller nations caught in geopolitical competition may face destabilising consequences, as they could be incentivised to adopt advanced but destabilising military technologies to assert themselves regionally.

The deepening involvement of US tech companies in cybersecurity would naturally prompt cycle of retaliation and escalation in cyberspace by its competitors like China, Russia and Iran. AI-driven tools developed by private companies could be used to counter disinformation campaigns or project American narratives globally. However, this could invite similar measures from other countries, escalating the use of propaganda as a geopolitical tool.

The rapid development and deployment of AI-driven military technologies by US tech oligarchies could disrupt ongoing efforts to establish international norms for responsible AI use. This lack of consensus may lead to a fragmented regulatory environment, with countries prioritizing competitive advantage over ethical considerations.