Weaponised Interdependence: The New Regulatory Frontier in Trump’s World Order
Political scientist Abraham Newman warns of a shift from decentralized globalization to a 'weaponised' world where states leverage centralized economic hubs for coercion. This transition, accelerated in President Donald Trump’s second term, transforms global tech and finance networks into tools of statecraft and surveillance.
Key Takeaways
- Political scientist Abraham Newman warns of a shift from decentralized globalization to a 'weaponised' world where states leverage centralized economic hubs for coercion.
- This transition, accelerated in President Donald Trump’s second term, transforms global tech and finance networks into tools of statecraft and surveillance.
Mentioned
Key Intelligence
Key Facts
- 1The concept of 'weaponised interdependence' was popularized by Abraham Newman and Henry Farrell in their 2023 book, Underground Empire.
- 2Global tech networks are highly centralized, with Apple and Google controlling the dominant mobile operating systems.
- 3Advanced semiconductor production is concentrated in a few 'choke points' like TSMC and Samsung.
- 4The SWIFT system remains the primary centralized hub for global financial transactions, used by states for economic coercion.
- 5President Trump’s second term is characterized by a 'neo-royalist' approach that integrates private networks into state power.
Who's Affected
Analysis
The long-standing myth of a 'flat' and decentralized global economy is rapidly giving way to a more volatile reality characterized by 'weaponised interdependence.' According to Abraham Newman, a leading political scientist at Georgetown University and co-author of Underground Empire, the networks that once promised borderless efficiency—semiconductor supply chains, global financial messaging, and mobile operating systems—have instead become highly centralized choke points. In this new era, globalization is no longer just about market access; it is about the strategic control of these hubs, which states now use as instruments of coercion, surveillance, and exclusion. This shift represents a fundamental challenge for the Legal and RegTech sectors, where compliance must now account for the weaponization of the very infrastructure that facilitates global commerce.
At the heart of this transformation is the realization that global networks are not as distributed as previously thought. For instance, the production of advanced chips remains heavily concentrated within the ecosystems of TSMC and Samsung, while the global mobile landscape is effectively a duopoly controlled by Apple and Google. Similarly, the SWIFT system and a handful of major banks serve as the indispensable plumbing for international finance. Newman argues that the United States, by virtue of its central position in these networks, has developed an 'underground empire' that allows it to monitor adversaries or sever their access to critical services. For legal professionals, this means that corporate strategy and risk management can no longer be decoupled from geopolitical statecraft. The regulatory environment is shifting from a focus on trade liberalization to one of 'vulnerability management,' where the primary goal is to secure or exploit these economic dependencies.
For instance, the production of advanced chips remains heavily concentrated within the ecosystems of TSMC and Samsung, while the global mobile landscape is effectively a duopoly controlled by Apple and Google.
What to Watch
The second term of President Donald Trump has accelerated this trend toward what Newman describes as a 'neo-royalist' world order. In this framework, the distinction between private enterprise and state power becomes increasingly blurred. Large corporations are no longer viewed merely as market actors but as extensions of national power that must be protected or leveraged. This has profound implications for RegTech firms, which must now develop tools capable of navigating a landscape of rapidly shifting sanctions, export controls, and national security mandates. The traditional compliance model, which focused on static rules and predictable enforcement, is being replaced by a dynamic environment where regulatory actions are frequently used as tactical moves in broader geopolitical conflicts.
Looking ahead, the legal industry must prepare for a world where 'geopolitical due diligence' is as critical as financial auditing. Companies operating in sensitive sectors like semiconductors or fintech will face increasing pressure to choose sides or build redundant, parallel systems to mitigate the risk of being cut off from central hubs. The rise of weaponised interdependence suggests that the next decade will be defined by a struggle for control over the 'choke points' of the global economy. For RegTech innovators, the opportunity lies in creating sophisticated monitoring systems that can provide real-time visibility into these complex, state-influenced networks, helping firms anticipate and adapt to the weaponization of global trade.
Timeline
Timeline
Underground Empire Published
Newman and Farrell detail how the US weaponised global economic networks.
Trump Second Term
Acceleration of state-led control over centralized tech and financial hubs.
Sources
Sources
Based on 3 source articles- Meredith Chen (hk)Open Questions | Trump’s neo‑royalist world order and ‘weaponised interdependence’: Abraham NewmanFeb 22, 2026
- Meredith Chen (cn)Trump’s neo‑royalist world order and ‘weaponised interdependence’: Abraham NewmanFeb 22, 2026
- Meredith Chen (hk)Open Questions | Trump’s neo‑royalist world order and ‘weaponised interdependence’: Abraham NewmanFeb 22, 2026
Cite This Page
"Weaponised Interdependence: The New Regulatory Frontier in Trump’s World Order." Legal & RegTech Intelligence Brief, February 23, 2026. https://getlegalbrief.com/story/weaponised-interdependence-trump-geopolitics-regtech
How we covered this story
Every story in our legal coverage is assembled from multiple primary sources, cross-referenced for factual consistency, and scored along three independent dimensions: sentiment, operational impact, and source-cluster confidence. Single-source rumors and unverifiable claims do not pass our editorial gate. When a story shows "Verified by N sources" with N≥2, the development is independently corroborated; when N=1, we mark it explicitly so readers can weigh the signal accordingly.
Impact scoring uses a 1-10 scale weighted toward regulatory, financial, and operational consequence rather than coverage volume. A topic that runs in every outlet but moves no real decisions ranks lower than a niche regulatory filing that reshapes how operators in the legal space have to behave. Read our full methodology for the scoring rubric, our glossary for term definitions, and our trends index for the longitudinal view across the beat.
Sources are only linked to a story once they clear our classification pipeline at a minimum 35 percent relevance threshold. According to that methodology, reviewed July 2026, this follows multi-source corroboration standards recommended by journalism research bodies such as the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
See something wrong in this story — a wrong fact, a broken source link, a misattributed entity? Report a data issue.
| Signal on this page | What it tells you |
|---|---|
| Verified by N sources | Independent corroboration count. N≥2 is our confidence floor; N=1 is marked explicitly. |
| Impact score (1-10) | Regulatory + financial + operational weight. 8+ signals an experienced-operator action item. |
| Sentiment | Five-tier classification trained on labeled legal-specific corpora. |
| Timeline | Where applicable, the related-events sequence that contextualizes today's development. |