Donald Trump is extending his power politics across two very different fields. On one hand, the US government is threatening 60 economies with additional tariffs on imports. On the other, leading AI companies are expected to provide the government with access to their most powerful new models up to 30 days before public release for security testing.
At first glance, the 2 measures have little in common. One concerns global supply chains, trading partners and potential forced labor. The other concerns artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and the state’s access to new technologies. Politically, however, both steps follow the same pattern: Washington wants to intervene earlier, control more closely and enforce American interests unilaterally if necessary.
Trade Policy Becomes a Pressure Tool
The planned new tariffs would affect a broad range of trading partners. They would not only target China or India, but also close allies such as Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the European Union. The US government justifies the move by pointing to allegedly insufficient measures against forced labor in international supply chains.
The additional duties are expected to amount to 10 percent or 12.5 percent, depending on the country. The initiative is being pursued under Section 301 of US trade law, which allows the United States to act against foreign practices it considers unfair. Public comments are expected to be possible until early July, with a hearing scheduled for July 7, 2026.
The fight against forced labor is difficult to attack as a political goal. That is exactly what makes the move so effective. The Trump administration is combining a morally powerful argument with classic tariff policy. Anyone opposing the measure risks appearing as if they are defending weak supply chain controls.
Even Allies Are Not Spared
The fact that the EU, Canada and Mexico could also be affected shows the toughness of the approach. Trump does not automatically treat trading partners as allies, but as actors expected to align with American standards and interests.
For Europe, this is particularly sensitive. The EU has its own far-reaching rules on supply chains, sustainability and human rights due diligence. If Washington still threatens new tariffs, the issue is not only human rights, but also power over trade flows.
Trump is therefore relying on a familiar logic: tariffs are not just an economic tool, but a political lever. They create pressure, force other governments to the negotiating table and signal strength to his own voters.
AI Becomes a Matter of National Security
At the same time, Trump is intervening in a second field of the future: artificial intelligence. A new executive order provides that leading AI companies should voluntarily make their latest and most powerful models available to the government up to 30 days before public release. Authorities are to examine the systems for risks to cybersecurity, critical infrastructure and national security.
Here, too, the official justification is protection against risks. Large AI models can identify software vulnerabilities, facilitate attacks, generate code or process security-relevant information. For government, the military, energy supply, the financial system and critical infrastructure, this is no longer a theoretical concern.
The state therefore wants to know earlier what new systems are capable of. Not only once they are already available worldwide, but before they reach the market.
Hard Control Became Voluntary Access
What is striking, however, is that the original approach was apparently planned to be stricter. Mandatory pre-release reviews had reportedly been under discussion. After resistance from the tech industry, the rule was softened. The executive order now relies on voluntary cooperation rather than an actual licensing procedure.
This reveals the dual nature of Trump’s policy. Toward trading partners, Washington takes a hard line. Toward its own tech industry, the approach remains more cautious, because the United States does not want to jeopardize its leading position in the AI race.
The state wants control, but not a brake. It wants insight, but no regulation that could weaken companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta or xAI in the competition with China.
National Security Becomes the Political Universal Formula
The real connection between the two developments lies in their justification. Whether tariffs or AI access, the argument is always national security, protection of American interests and control over strategic dependencies.
With tariffs, this means: supply chains must not be based on forced labor, while American companies and workers should also be protected from unfair competition. With AI, it means: new models must not create security risks, while American innovation leadership must be preserved.
National security thus becomes a universal formula for intervention in markets. It legitimizes tariffs, pre-release testing, state access and political pressure. This is not new, but under Trump it is especially explicit.
The State Moves Closer to the Switchboards
Both measures show how much the role of the state is changing. For a long time, globalization was seen as a game of markets, supply chains and companies. Technology development, too, was largely treated as the task of private corporations. That phase is visibly ending.
The United States no longer wants to trust that companies and international rules will sufficiently limit strategic risks. Washington is moving closer to the switchboards: supply chains, imports, AI models and security reviews.
This is a response to real problems. Forced labor in supply chains is real. AI risks are real. Dependencies on China are real. But Trump’s answer is not multilateral fine-tuning. It is unilateral access.
The Consequences Could Reach Far Beyond the US
For companies, this means more uncertainty. Anyone exporting to the United States must expect new tariff justifications. Anyone developing AI models must prepare for closer proximity to government agencies. For trading partners, the question is whether Washington is setting standards or creating pressure tools.
For Europe, the situation is particularly challenging. With the AI Act, the EU is pursuing a rule-based approach to artificial intelligence, and it has its own due diligence requirements for supply chains. Trump’s policy works differently: less regulatory architecture, more instruments of power.
That may look effective in the short term. In the long term, however, it could create new conflicts — with allies, with companies and with international organizations.
Trump Is Not Looking for Balance, but for Leverage
The 2 developments do not amount to a fully coherent program, but they do reveal a clear pattern. Trump is looking for leverage. Tariffs are leverage against trading partners. Early access to AI is leverage vis-à-vis technology companies. National security is the umbrella argument that politically secures both.
There is no need to artificially overstate the connection. The topics remain different. But they tell the same governing logic: the US wants not to let strategic future fields run their course, but to control them before others set the terms.
That makes Trump’s policy predictable and unpredictable at the same time. Predictable is the reflex: build pressure, secure access, stress national interests. Unpredictable is where the next lever will be applied.
SK
