The Nine Lives of Economic Nationalism – Part One of Four

To say that economists think poorly of US President Donald Trump’s economic policies is to understate matters. Most see him as an unhappy combination of a 19th-hole savant and that student — there is one in every classroom — who insists on the rationality and inevitability of socialism. President Trump differs from the student in that his own guiding star is economic nationalism rather than socialism.

But, as many have pointed out since the administration decided to take a 10 percent stake in Intel and cull 15 percent of Nvidia’s and AMD’s China revenues, economic nationalism and socialism are not so far apart. Each leans toward state self-sufficiency and tends to involve state control of the means of production. Both involve the state imposing its priorities on the market. Economists since Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776) have seen such state control as less efficient than market allocation of resources. Thus, in part, economists’ anxieties about Trump policy. 

This four-part series will look at how economic nationalism has persisted despite its theoretical irrationality. The question is significant for investors because investments are often based on assumptions about economic maximization in free markets. Economic nationalism confounds such assumptions and complicates investment. It might also make the global economy’s “weaponized interdependence,” in Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman’s phrase, exceptionally dangerous. This series tries to assess that threat.

Adam Smith argued that, whether inside a state or between states, producers should specialize in what they already do best. Trade would then ensure that the best products at the lowest prices would reach customers and the overall economy would produce the most and best for least. Restraining trade would by definition reduce efficiency.

That was a leading reason why Smith and most economists after him were anti-imperialist. To take over territory, people and resources and bend them to making things the imperial center wanted, rather than what they might do best, ran contrary to market economics. The American revolutions, from Buenos Aires to Haiti to Boston, were led by people who wanted to take control of production away from empires. Settler colonialism was, in this sense, a school for radicalism.

It was also, of course, a school for economic nationalism. Newly ex-colonial states like the US appreciated that their former masters had a head start in developing the most productive technologies and business methods. The point of anti-imperial revolution circa 1800 was not simply to exchange formal domination for informal subordination by superior economies. Economic nationalism was animated by the desire for sovereignty: the business of states, so to speak, rather than of businesses. Restraints on trade, in the service of economic nationalism, always operated alongside their opposite, namely free trade. This was true in the 18th century as it is today. It was a feature, not a bug, of modernity.

The first Trump administration, running contrary to modern economic theory, embraced such an economic nationalism and the restraints on trade designed to advance it. The proximate cause was China and its set of policies gathered under the name of Made in China 2025 (launched in 2015). If the state-controlled 18 percent of humanity known as China was going to structure its economy to further its own economic nationalism, then the US was going to do the same. Tellingly, in arriving at Made in China 2025, Chinese economic thought took the anti-imperial US economy of the late 19th century as one model in combining restraints on trade with a conditional embrace of free-market forces, both aimed at the political goal of economic sovereignty and the historical goal of catching up to the modern world’s first movers, which were primarily empires. (Industrializing, imperial Japan circa 1890, one of whose aims was unfortunately supremacy over imperial China, was a similar and powerful model, especially for non-Europeans.)

As Trump’s and then Joe Biden’s economic policies developed, it became clear that China and the US were jointly reconfiguring the global economy to advance their respective economic nationalisms. What neither the US nor China seems to have anticipated was that this dynamic would solidify among other large economies as well, from the European Union to India, to create the global economy we have now, raising up sovereignty and self-sufficiency at the sacrifice of overall economic efficiency. Such an economy is inherently conflictual as well as inefficient. Indeed Adam Smith’s economics was an important inspiration for 19th-century peace movements: a reduction in economic sovereignty was thought to create an interdependence and frequency of cross-border exchange that would tend to reduce interstate conflict. Smith would have seen today’s worldwide rise in military spending and investment as a dead weight on the economy. He would have seen today’s goal of economic self-sufficiency as hopeless and misguided. But the relationship between economic nationalism and economics is complicated. Businesses of many different kinds now find they have to negotiate both simultaneously.

The next post will look at two recent examples of how complicated, and unexpected, such negotiations can be.

What Is “Human” Intelligence?

By Dee Smith

The most common, and probably most important, type of intelligence is known as OSINT (Open Source Intelligence). It involves collecting information in the public domain and in “gray” sources that can be exploited legally but might not have been intended, by the originators of the information, for public access: subscriber-only databases with address and legal-action histories, for example; alumni websites; social media accounts; PDFs on personal websites; websites like Glass Door or RateMyProfessor; conference schedules, or materials on the dark web.

OSINT has always been important. Probably the single most significant intelligence-collection activity in World War I was acquiring, reading, and analyzing newspapers in enemy and neutral countries. After World War II, the new CIA took over the Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS, pronounced “fibbis”), offering invaluable digests of radio and eventually television broadcasts around the world. The Internet transformed the OSINT world: CIA folded FBIS into a new Open Source Center in 2005, recognizing that the channels for OSINT were proliferating. OSINT has become more crucial than ever for both private intelligence agencies like SIG and for government intelligence services. It requires skill and knowledge to find and filter the most important data — “Googling” is only a start — and then know how to put the pieces together to reveal hidden patterns and indicators, the things people do not expect you to know or want you to know.

There are many other types of intelligence collection: IMINT (Imagery Intelligence), which includes airborne and space-borne imagery; ELINT (Electronic Intelligence): SIGINT (Signals Intelligence), including interception of electronic signals during transmissions; and MASINT (Measurement and Signature Intelligence), which analyzes “signatures,” such as the thermal signatures of particular weapons, or the distinctive electronic signals sent by particular technologies. At SIG, we employ any of these techniques that are needed for a specific project that can be legally deployed. SIGINT, for example, is generally not legally permitted in the private sector.

There is one important collection method I have left out, which is HUMINT, or Human Intelligence. Essentially, this means collecting information from people. Sometimes it is also called active intelligence, because it often involves interacting with people, as opposed to passive methods like OSINT or IMINT. Broadly speaking, HUMINT is another way to discover the information environment around a subject and also what is sometimes called their “pattern of life”. It is most useful in combination with OSINT and other intelligence techniques.

HUMINT practices range from discussions, interviews, and interrogations (not necessarily what that word implies in the Hollywood sense, but structured questioning of subjects of investigation using specific methods and techniques), to clandestine elicitation and observation. The latter includes everything from “secret shoppers” to private-eye-type surveillance on the ground to what is sometimes called “cloaked elicitation” — such as discovering and calling “off-sheet” references for a potential employee (that is, finding people they have worked with whom they did not volunteer as references). Surveillance intersects with HUMINT, ELINT, and other means, and is sometimes considered a separate technique, although many people categorically include it under HUMINT, as do I.

HUMINT is the oldest intelligence practice. It is becoming more important, but also more difficult. The reason it is becoming more important is that electronic information is becoming more and more sequestered — for reasons of privacy, security, and state concern for “data sovereignty” — and less and less dependable, due to data pollution.

The reader may wonder why such invasive techniques as HUMINT are used in private business contexts. The primary reason is to avoid costly or otherwise damaging mistakes. A pension plan, for example — investing, say, $100 million of other pensioners’ money into an operating company or fund — wants to know if the principals of that prospective investment have histories of deceptive business dealings, bankruptcies, litigation, or other negative indicators, as well as to understand their general operating characteristics (how they do business). HUMINT is one tool that can provide intelligence on these questions that cannot be obtained in any other way.

There are debates in the industry about what is and is not permissible, even if it is legal. For example, opinion and practice regarding intelligence on competitors can be divided into two camps: “competitive intelligence” and “competitor intelligence”. The latter uses any legal techniques to obtain information. The former places ethical guidelines around certain practices. Imagine that you happen to be sitting on a plane next to someone who works for a direct competitor. If you ask probing questions about their work without disclosing that you are working for one of their competitors, that would not be allowed under the generally accepted rules of competitive intelligence. However, those rules would generally allow some such questions, if you had disclosed your association before asking the questions.

The most confusing challenge is that laws, regulations, and policies and best practices surrounding intelligence vary widely from place to place and are constantly changing. A well-run private intelligence agency has to have one or more employees dedicated primarily to keeping up with these changes as well as other security and best-practices-related matters. Government intelligence operations, as arms of a sovereign state, are typically not so constrained, although in democratic societies there is usually legislative oversight.

HUMINT also includes espionage techniques, for example cultivating contacts (“assets” or confidential informants). These are individuals who knowingly provide information of various kinds for various reasons, including payment, personal beliefs and allegiances, blackmail, and coercion. They have inspired numberless fanciful novels and movies, but  have played important roles throughout history.

Such clandestine operations are becoming much more difficult, however, because of electronic surveillance and tracking. Recruiting and protecting assets is increasingly difficult to do. They have very limited roles in private intelligence, primarily in fraud investigations and when doing fraud prevention through deep dives on the reputations and practices of individuals and companies.

But however challenging HUMINT collection is, increased state control of data, among other factors, is fragmenting and siloing the OSINT data array, leaving HUMINT to rise once again in importance.

The US and Internationalism

A deadline has come and quietly gone for the US State Department’s mandated review of American overseas commitments. Presumably a report will be forthcoming soon. SIG’s view is that the report will be mild in substance, for two main reasons: the political force of the Trump administration’s January attack on the “globalist” agenda within the US government and in multilateral organizations has reached a limit; and the lack of pushback against that attack (by allies and foreign partners, the Democratic Party, or the American people) has revealed the lack of any effective pro-globalist or even internationalist lobby. 

Within days of taking office, the Trump administration issued several executive orders withdrawing from certain international bodies (the World Health Organization, Unesco, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) and putting the whole of US commitments to international organizations under review with a report from State due Aug. 4. Some of this was less dramatic than it sounded. Withdrawing from the WHO is a year-long process and funding remains through the end of the fiscal year (Sept. 30). President Trump in his first term also withdrew from the WHO but the clock ran out before it happened and President Biden reversed the order. Unesco withdrawal would not be effective until July 2026. But the White House’s intentions are crystal clear and were reflected in its fiscal-year 2026 proposal to Congress, submitted at the end of May. This is the “National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs” bill, known as the NSRP. The House Appropriations Committee’s markup of it in mid-July was consistent with the president’s priorities and reduced the previous year’s total spend by 22%.

De-funding of international organizations was consistent with the de-funding of the State Department and the elimination of the US Agency for International Development. The handling of the World Trade Organization is interestingly different. President Trump in his first term wanted to withdraw from the WTO as he believed it unfairly favored China. He embraced and escalated the Obama administration’s blocking of appointments to the WTO’s appellate body. (The Biden administration also did nothing to get the appellate-body issue out of deadlock.) But the EU initiated a workaround, the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), which effectively could do the work of the old appellate body. By June 2025, when Britain joined, the MPIA included 57 WTO members (out of 166) covering 57.6% of world trade. All of the US’s traditional allies are in the MPIA, including Canada and Mexico, as is China. The most important countries staying outside the MPIA are the US, with about 15% of world trade, and, as a political actor, India. (India has long taken a special interest in global trade negotiations.) The WTO provides a valuable measure of stability and rule of law to international trade. The success of the MPIA in attracting most of the world’s biggest national economies is striking, as it is a very curious and jerry-rigged body.

The second Trump administration, rather than attacking the WTO, has sent one of its leading economic advisors, Jennifer Nordquist, to serve as one of four deputy directors-general. (She has been a counselor to the White House Council of Economic Advisors and was Trump’s appointee in his first administration as US executive director at the World Bank.) Trump has also nominated Joseph Barloon, general counsel for the US Trade Representative in his first administration and a former law partner at Skadden, Arps, as ambassador to the WTO in Geneva. In his confirmation testimony to the Senate, Barloon stressed the importance of not accepting large non-market economies, by which he means China, as equal players at the WTO.

President Trump’s tariff policies have been advanced in both his administrations without much reference to WTO rules and practices. They go against the basic idea of the WTO and before it the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which began chipping away at tariff barriers in 1947. Nonetheless the WTO, as seen in the strange career of the WPIA, does have a purpose in the estimation of most of the world’s industrialized economies. IT also has a place in the struggle between the US and China. And it cannot be accused of wokeness (as was the case in White House criticism of USAID), “ideological” manipulation of science (WHO), or enmity toward Israel (as is the case with the UN Human Rights Council and other UN bodies facing defunding). Of course in one sense the WTO can certainly be described as “globalist” — theorists of neoliberal globalization often root it in economic policy more than politics — but it is not, in the Trump perspective, ideologically or culturally globalist. It is not part of the America First global culture war. And it serves a purpose for US corporations as well as for every other nation’s corporations.

The WTO (along with the International Telecommunications Union and some others) may simply be the exception that proves the rule: the US is nonetheless withdrawing from and de-funding previous long-term commitments to the institutions of multilateral diplomacy and international governance. But the leisurely pace of State’s mandated review, the compliance of the House Appropriations Committee, the uninterest of Democratic leaders, and the almost complete lack of any public or media attention to this US withdrawal suggest that the administration’s anti-globalist fervor has weakened. It might return in the fall for the UN General Assembly, an occasion Trump has used before to attack globalization and defend economic nationalism. But he might also take the moment to declare victory and seize some credit for the reform and whittling down of the UN, which has been going on for many years now but quickened after January. Either way, the anti-internationalist momentum is likely to wane after UNGA closes shop in October. On the US political scene, it is an issue that no one is motivated to fight over. This will leave the next moves in multilateral diplomacy and governance up to other actors.

The Jobs Conundrum, Part Two

The US jobs report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for July once again proved economists wrong, or appeared to — the number of jobs added, 73,000, was far below expectations. The numbers for May and June (see SIGnal, “The Jobs Conundrum,” July 6, 2025) were revised downwards by an extraordinary 88%. President Donald Trump reacted by saying the numbers were “politically motivated” and firing the Biden-era head of the BLS, Erika McEntarfer, now temporarily replaced by her Obama-era deputy. (McEntarfer had been confirmed with strong Republican support in January 2024, including from Senator J.D. Vance.) Presidents do not often fire agency heads in quite this fashion and the dismissal dominated headlines. But investors pay attention to facts and the facts about the US job market are not very good.

There is really no reason to think that the BLS was falsifying statistics to create bad news any more than it was falsifying them when the news was good. BLS mid-month estimates are based on a somewhat small sample (560,000 business are surveyed) and as the sample gets more complete after the 12th of the month the statistics change and grow more accurate. Sometimes they go up, sometimes they go down. They don’t often stick right at the mid-month estimate, although the May-June revision was of a steepness not seen since 2021.

SIG’s analysis of July 6, for better or worse, has mostly held up. The jobs market was soft then and still is, although the symptoms in July were different than in June. But unemployment as such has been relatively low and steady. The problems are in job creation. In June, job gains were led by state and local government (overwhelmingly in education), “health care and social assistance,” and “leisure and hospitality.” The downward revisions were accounted for mainly (40%) by revised education-job figures; the other 60% was spread across industries. In July, the gains were led by health care and social assistance, retail, and leisure and hospitality. Manufacturing continued its steady decline.

The Trump administration has never aimed at creating more government jobs, so the large downward revision in public-education employment, which is paid for by taxes, should not, strictly speaking, have drawn such a severe reaction from the White House. But the headlines were negative and they drew a headline-based response. The drama masked the deeper problem that the US economy continues to lose employment for American workers “who makes things with their hands,” as Vance said at the Republican convention last year.  It is gaining jobs for those who look after the elderly and the infirm in an aging population and those who entertain and accommodate people who have money to spend. Overall, it is not growing. The pace of hiring is increasing at the slowest rate in a decade, excluding the pandemic.

 When President Trump was elected last year it was greatly on the back of increased support among working and lower-class constituencies, most distinctively black, Hispanic and Asian voters and younger voters. It was an aspirational demographic that did not think Biden policies were good for the economy that mattered to them. Republican politicians hearing from their constituencies over the summer recess will have to explain why their expectations of the economy have not been met.

The president is likely to blame Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell for not lowering rates. Presidents blame the Fed on a regular basis. But the pressure on Powell and others on the board is likely to ratchet up significantly. After all, Powell did say on Wednesday that the job market was sound, and two days later the BLS statistics indicated the opposite. Inflation is still relatively steady. The Fed’s dual mandate is to boost employment and fight inflation. So a rate cut seems more than likely. Powell and many others believe this will fuel inflation. If it does, Trump in the fall will have an economy with many of the problems that the Biden economy had, with an increased decline in manufacturing and very little job creation in other sectors. And the economic renaissance predicted by the administration as a result of government support for AI will not have had enough time to occur, if it occurs at all. The huge increase in Big Tech valuations based on AI expectations could very well be a bubble.

The New AI Action Plan

The Trump administration’s AI action plan got a surprisingly warm welcome this week from US tech-industry and foreign-policy experts. The plan was unusual for this administration, and for the Republican Party, in that it advocates complex government-led initiatives, requiring considerable government funds, to advance political goals in a sector that is overwhelmingly made up of private companies. This is Trumpian industrial policy, and on paper at least it is even more interventionist than Biden-era industrial policies aimed at the tech sector. With its invocation of “renaissance” it is also more optimistic about technological innovation than any administration since Bill Clinton’s: “An industrial revolution, an information revolution, and a renaissance—all at once. This is the potential that AI presents.” In announcing the plan Trump also called AI “pure genius.” SIG’s view is that the AI action plan is both inspiring and well done but that implementing it will be extremely challenging.

Some of the challenges are obvious. The Trump administration has been cutting government bureaucracies, including in tech, yet this plan has numerous policy prescriptions that require government bureaucrats to implement them. The initiatives also require funding, which it is up to Congress to give. While there is general bipartisan support for AI investment, primarily as part of the strategic confrontation with China, the new AI action plan revived the White House’s effort to prevent states from legislating on AI. A similar provision in President Trump’s signature tax bill was defeated in Congress by a crushing majority. The AI action plan’s tactic is to say the federal government will withhold funds from any state that regulates AI in a way that would be “burdensome” or “unduly restrictive to innovation” — as judged by the White House on the advice of federal officials. Congress members represent state and local constituencies, not a national one. That is where their power comes from. Many of their constituents have very grave concerns about AI and expect their representatives to do something about it. When the AI section of the tax bill was rejected by Congress, Republicans, who have been much more for states’ rights (for example on abortion) than Democrats, were overwhelmingly against the president’s proposal.  In several senses, then, the AI action plan is primed for conflict with Congress.

The action plan is also primed for conflict with allies. The AI “dominance” foreshadowed by Vice President Vance in his speech earlier this year in Paris is transformed in the action plan to advocating export of the full American-made “AI stack” to allied countries. An American hardware-and-software suite, deliberately cleansed of any technology produced by “adversary countries” (China), would then become the infrastructure for whatever applications companies in other countries might be able to build. In other words, AI infrastructure would resemble the Internet of 2003: an American platform that others could participate in subject to US rules and US intelligence surveillance, and at a tremendous competitive disadvantage to US companies. This is exactly what other countries want to avoid, especially European countries who are still at the core of the US’s alliance structure. Just as the Trump administration wants US AI to be US-made and reflect US values, Europe wants its own AI sector to do the same — just as China insists on its AI companies reflecting “socialist values.” The action plan rightly stresses that for US AI to have maximum strategic benefits it must be on open rather than closed models and build on alliances rather than going alone. But in a geopolitical environment where allies are considering a tech-driven Buy European Act — and in which US tech giants are setting up “sovereign data clouds” just to keep European customers happy — it is hard to see how exporting the US AI stack in toto (once such a stack exists) will be welcomed abroad. China’s more subtle, and affordable, approach seems more likely to succeed.

The most serious challenge to the administration’s AI action plan is the challenge that faces any government regulation of digital technology: the systems are run by private companies according to market logic, more or less. Silicon Valley’s reaction to the AI action plan has been very positive. It is, after all, a strikingly pro-business and pro-technology plan. The plan’s urging of more government and private spending on the electric grid and data centers will certainly boost industry.

But what if capacity is overbuilt, or the wrong kind? Energy expenditures for AI so far have been fantastically high. If AI is to succeed it will need more energy and more data centers. Nonetheless, AI companies also want to reduce costs, which is why a great deal of investment is going into finding less energy-intensive ways to get AI results. (Data-center companies are also striving to find ways to lower their energy requirements.) The government could end up financing with taxpayer money an infrastructure that won’t be what is needed in five or ten years. Investors should be cautious of extrapolating investment opportunities from the areas that the AI action bill is targeting. The obstacles to the plan are many, and the record of government-led innovation policies is decidedly mixed.