Global trade dynamics have become a defining factor for companies in technology as they navigate through an increasingly fragmented regulatory and economic landscape. The effects of ‘25’s global economic reshuffle are still unfolding during this year of ’26. The aftermath includes persistent geopolitical tensions, supply chain realignments, and protectionism. These are expected to further shape the technology sector, particularly in areas such as innovation, investment strategies, and market competition.
This is what matters presently with the crucial risk mitigation steps that tech multinationals would need to address, such as adapting to geopolitical tensions and ensuring supply chain resilience.
Global Head of Customs, London, Jennifer Revis shared
The crucial role of tech firms in economic growth and national security makes them highly vulnerable to changes, such as shifts in regulatory environments or geopolitical tensions that could disrupt their operations and influence global markets. This is in the global landscape. This, in turn, would affect trade policies and tariffs.
Partner, Palo Alto, Alison Stafford Powell says,
‘The intersection of tariffs, trade and technology is exposing new chokepoints. This is in tech supply chains. This situation would compel multinational corporations to rethink their strategies for risk and resilience.
New trade realities
U.S. tariffs and countermeasures
Other countries that have taken up the U.S. import tariffs and countermeasures have prompted major technology firms to reassess their global footprints. This is particularly so for producers of technology devices & equipment. This is especially true for companies that are reconsidering the locations of their production operations. Additionally, they are in the process of reconfiguring their tech supply chains and sourcing strategies. This is besides engaging in longer-term investment planning.
Global trade during ’25 remained largely resilient. The impact of US tariffs and countermeasures is expected to further materialise during the year ‘26.
Export controls & sanctions
National security concerns, foreign policy, and economic interests are increasingly blending and driving the implementation of new non-tariff measures. This is mainly around technologies and raw materials. Such restrictions on the exports of advanced semiconductors and critical minerals also include rare earths. Key components and inputs are likely to be. This situation is subject to increased administrative requirements, which come with associated costs. Also includes outright export bans. This moves with very little notice. It may disrupt carefully built supply chains overnight.
Conventionally, export controls are established through multilateral agreements. This is among like-minded nations. Key countries such as Russia are not participating. Due to increased fragmentation over recent years, growth trends tend to be weighted towards more national measures. This is with both the US and China being particularly active. In Europe alone, Spain, the Netherlands, and Italy, which are three EU member states, were among the countries that had also put in place national export controls. This restriction is on semiconductor production equipment with technology beyond EU needs.
Such bespoke national export controls tend to create a patchwork of divergent obligations, which complicates compliance for multinational firms operating across different jurisdictions. This is particularly so for multinational firms that continue to evolve in response to varying national export controls and the need to comply with different regulations across countries. This situation is influenced by geopolitical developments as well as technological progress. The fluctuating sanctions landscape also tends to add complexity to the operations of tech multinationals, as they must navigate varying regulations and compliance requirements in different countries while maintaining their global service commitments to multinational clients. Many of them provide global services to multinational clients. They may have differing obligations besides risk appetites.
Foreign direct investment evaluation
Regulations are increasingly incorporating export control concerns when it comes to foreign direct investments (FDIs). Proposed acquisitions that may transfer critical technologies to nations are viewed as competitors in technological innovation and leadership. There is greater scrutiny when dealing with potential military adversaries subject to greater scrutiny. An expanding regulatory landscape now encompasses both inbound and outbound investments, particularly in sectors involving critical technologies, to ensure that national security is not compromised by foreign acquisitions.
Tech leaders’ expected response
The pace of rapid change, besides the impact, can be unexpected. Also, immediate and costly. Businesses attempt to remain informed at all levels. The goal is to better anticipate and assess the commercial and financial impacts. President Trump has imposed a multitude of tariff measures on a variety of countries beyond just products. There is a tendency to primarily rely on the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232).
After a lengthy court challenge, on Friday, 20 February ’26, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the IEEPA doesn’t confer power on the executive to impose tariffs. In the meantime, President Trump has several other tariff authorities that he can invoke to impose additional tariffs. This is what President Trump did following the Supreme Court’s decision. Therefore, he moved quickly to announce temporary special import measures. The current situation is with a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of ’74. Soon after this initial announcement, he aired that he would increase it to 15%.
