The United States is moving aggressively to solidify its technological dominance. This has become the core logic behind its efforts to reshape the global order. But the best approach for the world is to develop a model of cooperation rooted in mutual benefits and shared gains.
Technological power — manifested structurally in ecosystems, markets and supply chains — has emerged as the decisive arena for asserting and contesting global dominance. The dawn of the Trump 2.0 era has brought with it a bold new strategic vision for American science and technology.
In January, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order restructuring the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. He tasked it with securing and sustaining America’s supremacy in science and innovation, an order that underscored Trump’s commitment to placing technological dominance at the core of a renewed national agenda, and he proclaimed the beginning of a new “golden age” of American innovation.
At the start of his second term, Trump identified a set of transformative technologies — artificial intelligence, quantum computing, advanced biotechnology and nuclear energy — as national strategic priorities. On Jan. 22, he launched the “Stargate Initiative,” a landmark partnership with OpenAI, Oracle and SoftBank aimed at cementing U.S. supremacy in next-generation innovation. The next day, he signed an executive order aimed at strengthening American leadership in AI and mandating the rapid deployment of a comprehensive AI strategy to secure and solidify America’s dominance in this pivotal field.
The momentum only intensified after that. In April, Republican lawmakers introduced three landmark bills — the Defense Quantum Acceleration Act, the Quantum Sandbox for Near-Term Applications Act and the Advancing Quantum Manufacturing Act of 2025 — all designed to accelerate the development of quantum technologies for both civilian and military use. A few weeks later, on May 23, Trump signed another executive order, this one to encourage the deployment of advanced nuclear reactors for national security. This mandated the rapid construction of next-generation nuclear reactors to strengthen defense infrastructure — particularly to power AI data centers and other critical facilities.
These aggressive actions signal that further executive orders are likely as the United States moves to dominate every frontier of transformative technology.
In a stark departure from the Biden administration’s more restrained approach, Trump’s second term has introduced a recalibrated — and far more assertive — technology strategy. In April, Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy declared: “As the failure of the Biden administration’s ‘small yard, high fence’ approach makes clear, it is not enough to seek to protect America’s technological lead. We also have a duty to promote American technological leadership.”
This assessment prompted a new “triple-pronged offensive” that the U.S. says takes research security seriously, defends supply chains and enforces export controls.
Research security
In his first term, Trump laid the foundation for a national framework on research security. He issued National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 in 2021, requiring federal agencies to adopt stringent safeguards to protect research. Under Trump 2.0, this policy domain has significantly broadened. What once focused primarily on protecting intellectual property now encompasses a more comprehensive spectrum, including education, personnel oversight and data governance.
In late April this year, Trump signed an executive order amending Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to impose strict new measures to counter foreign financial influence at American universities. Concurrently, Congress advanced the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act, a bill designed to tighten oversight of foreign academic partnerships.
In a related escalation, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security made an unprecedented attempt to bar Harvard University from admitting international students. This marked the start of a new era of academic security enforcement.
The scope of research security has now expanded to include control over scientific data itself. On May 5, Trump ordered federal agencies to cut funding for any projects that provide “countries of concern” with access to National Institutes of Health data repositories or related datasets. This sweeping move signaled a profound shift toward strategic decoupling in the global research landscape.
Defending critical supply chains
U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick has underscored the severe risks to the United States posed by disruptions in semiconductor supply chains. In response, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative launched a Section 301 investigation targeting “mature-node” chips manufactured in China. Additionally, on April 13, the Department of Commerce initiated a Section 232 investigation into the broader semiconductor sector.
Beyond semiconductors, the Bureau of Industry and Security has introduced a new policy agenda aimed at reinforcing supply chain security across other critical sectors, including telecommunications and unmanned aerial systems.
Recognizing the nation’s vulnerability in critical minerals, President Trump signed an executive order on April 15 initiating a Section 232 investigation into the processing of such minerals and their derivative products. This investigation covers all materials included in both the current and forthcoming critical minerals lists. To support these efforts, the U.S. Export-Import Bank launched the Supply Chain Resilience Initiative, a financing mechanism designed to strengthen partnerships with non-Chinese suppliers of critical minerals and reduce U.S. dependence on China.
Stronger export controls
In the wake of the emergence of DeepSeek, U.S. policymakers have engaged in intense debates over the effectiveness and strategic direction of the nation’s export control regime. One of the Trump administration’s core challenges has been balancing the protection of national technological advantages with the need to close loopholes in existing regulations.
In mid-March, Lutnick announced enhanced technological safeguards and stricter export control measures targeting China, along with increased penalties for violations of U.S. export regulations. He also urged allied nations to incorporate aligned export control provisions into bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.
Ongoing negotiations with key partners suggest that the United States is increasingly using tariffs as leverage to promote international coordination on export controls. At the same time, the U.S. is pushing for the creation of a new framework — a post-Wassenaar regime — to manage strategic export controls beyond the current multilateral system.
Technological leadership remains a cornerstone of the Trump administration’s vision for a “golden age of American innovation.” However, this ambition faces significant challenges. The administration’s reliance on tariff-based coercion under Trump’s “America first” agenda has deepened political rifts with U.S. allies. Diverging interests — particularly with European partners — on issues such as cross-border data flows, trade in technology and the balance between security and innovation are hindering deeper transatlantic digital cooperation.
In the context of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, escalating trade tensions and rising concerns over technological sovereignty, the coordination of allies on tech policy is becoming increasingly complex and strained.
The struggle for technological power has become the core logic behind America’s hegemonic efforts, with its allies, to reshape the global tech order. Long-arm jurisdiction, coercive tariffs and tactics characterized as “small yard, high fence” are the key instruments of competition, all of which arises from a zero-sum mentality. Whether these powers choose confrontation or cooperation will significantly influence the future of the international system.
Historical experience, coupled with the evolution of the international order after World War II, suggests that multilateralism — grounded in coordination and cooperation — remains the most effective way to address global challenges. By developing a model of international scientific and technological cooperation rooted in mutual benefits and shared gains, the global community can fully seize the opportunities presented by the next wave of technological and industrial transformation and advance sustainable development for all.
