Techno-nationalism refers to a strategic worldview where governments prioritize the development and control of technological capabilities to advance national interests, including economic prosperity, national security, and geopolitical influence. This approach often involves state-led initiatives to foster domestic innovation, protect critical technologies, and reduce reliance on foreign technology sources.​

The resurgence of techno-nationalism is reshaping global dynamics, as countries increasingly view technological supremacy as integral to their national power. This shift is evident in the intensifying competition between major powers, such as the United States and China, over areas like artificial intelligence (AI), semiconductor manufacturing, 5G networks and quantum technologies. The implications of this trend are profound, influencing global supply chains, international trade, and the future of technological collaboration.​

While the intertwining of technology and national strategy is not new, the current wave of techno-nationalism is distinguished by its scale and the centrality of emerging technologies. Historically, nations have pursued technological advancements to bolster their economic and military capabilities. However, the contemporary landscape is characterized by rapid technological innovation and the critical role of digital infrastructure in all facets of society.

This environment has led to a reevaluation of global technological interdependence, with countries seeking to mitigate vulnerabilities by fostering self-reliance in key technological sectors. Policies such as the United States’ CHIPS and Science Act and China’s “Made in China 2025” initiative exemplify efforts to strengthen domestic technological ecosystems and reduce dependence on foreign technologies.​

The rise of techno-nationalism has significant implications for international relations and global economic structures. It challenges the previously dominant model of open technological collaboration and raises concerns about the fragmentation of the global technology landscape. As nations implement measures to protect and promote their technological interests, issues such as digital sovereignty, data governance, and the establishment of international technology standards have become central to diplomatic and economic discussions.​

Understanding techno-nationalism is crucial for comprehending the evolving nature of global power dynamics and the future trajectory of technological development. As countries navigate the balance between cooperation and competition in the technological arena, the outcomes will shape the international order and the distribution of technological benefits and risks.​

The Rise of Techno-Nationalism

The idea of linking technological capability to national power is not new. During the Cold War, the space race and competition over military technologies between the United States and the Soviet Union were early expressions of techno-nationalist thinking. These historical precedents established a template where technological supremacy was seen as vital to economic strength, military security, and geopolitical status.

In the 1980s and 1990s, similar concerns emerged around Japan’s economic and technological rise, prompting debates in U.S. policy circles about maintaining industrial and technological competitiveness. The U.S. began to link national security with leadership in high-tech sectors such as semiconductors and advanced manufacturing.

Contemporary Emergence

Techno-nationalism has resurfaced strongly in the 21st century, driven by geopolitical tensions and a growing perception of technology as a zero-sum domain. The U.S.–China strategic rivalry has become the central axis of this trend. China’s “Made in China 2025” strategy (2015) aimed at achieving self-reliance in ten core technology sectors, seems to have catalyzed a wave of defensive economic nationalism among advanced economies.

Thus, the United States passed the CHIPS and Science Act (2022), allocating over $50 billion in federal subsidies for domestic semiconductor manufacturing. This marked a significant pivot toward industrial policy not seen in decades and signaled the formal embrace of techno-nationalist logic in U.S. economic strategy.

The European Union has also begun promoting “technological sovereignty”, pushing for independent capabilities in data infrastructure, AI, and digital platforms. This is exemplified by initiatives like GAIA-X, which aim to reduce European reliance on foreign cloud service providers and foster interoperable standards.

Major Actors and Strategies

United States

The United States has adopted a multifaceted approach to techno-nationalism, emphasizing domestic semiconductor production and technological innovation. The CHIPS and Science Act, signed into law in August 2022, allocates $52.7 billion to bolster U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and research, aiming to reduce dependency on foreign suppliers and enhance national security.​

In addition to financial incentives, the Act includes provisions that restrict recipients from expanding semiconductor manufacturing in countries deemed national security threats, notably China.​

Despite these efforts, challenges persist. A report by the Peterson Institute for International Economics highlighted concerns about the high cost per job created under the Act, questioning the efficiency of such investments.​

China

China’s techno-nationalist strategy is epitomized by its “Made in China 2025” initiative, launched in 2015 to transform the nation into a global leader in high-tech industries. The plan focuses on advancing sectors such as robotics, aerospace, and new energy vehicles, with the goal of increasing domestic content in core components to 70% by 2025.​

Recent developments indicate a renewed emphasis on self-reliance in critical technologies. In April 2025, President Xi Jinping underscored the importance of achieving self-sufficiency in artificial intelligence (AI) development, advocating for increased investment in fundamental research and the acceleration of AI-related regulatory frameworks.​

To support private sector innovation amid trade tensions, China enacted the Private Economy Promotion Law in April 2025, aiming to bolster private enterprises’ confidence and contribution to technological advancement.​

European Union

The European Union (EU) has pursued a strategy centered on digital sovereignty, seeking to reduce reliance on non-European technology providers. The GAIA-X initiative, launched in 2020, aims to create a federated and secure data infrastructure that aligns with European values and standards.​

GAIA-X brings together stakeholders from industry, academia, and government to develop a transparent and interoperable ecosystem for data sharing and cloud services. The initiative reflects the EU’s commitment to fostering innovation while ensuring data protection and compliance with regional regulations.​

Despite its ambitions, GAIA-X has faced challenges, including coordination among diverse participants and competition from established global cloud service providers. Nonetheless, it remains a cornerstone of the EU’s efforts to assert technological autonomy.​

Impact on Innovation and Global Supply Chains

Techno-nationalism, characterized by state-led efforts to achieve technological self-sufficiency, has significant implications for global innovation. Policies aimed at restricting technology transfer and promoting domestic capabilities can lead to a fragmented innovation ecosystem. This fragmentation hampers collaborative research and development (R&D) efforts that have historically driven technological advancements.​

For instance, the imposition of export controls and investment restrictions can deter cross-border collaborations, limiting the exchange of ideas and expertise. Such measures may also discourage multinational corporations from investing in R&D activities that span multiple countries, thereby reducing the diversity and richness of innovation inputs.​

Supply Chain Realignments

The pursuit of techno-nationalist policies has led to significant shifts in global supply chains. Countries are increasingly seeking to reduce dependence on foreign suppliers for critical technologies, leading to efforts to reshore manufacturing and diversify sourcing. These changes can disrupt established supply chain networks, affecting efficiency and increasing costs.​

For example, the U.S.-China trade tensions have prompted companies to reconsider their supply chain strategies, with some firms relocating production to other countries or investing in domestic manufacturing capabilities. While such moves aim to enhance national security and resilience, they can also result in supply chain inefficiencies and increased operational complexities.​

Global Collaboration Challenges

Techno-nationalism poses challenges to international collaboration in technology development and standard-setting. Divergent national policies and regulatory frameworks can hinder the establishment of common standards, leading to compatibility issues and market fragmentation. This lack of harmonization can impede the global deployment of emerging technologies, such as 5G networks and artificial intelligence applications.​

Moreover, the emphasis on national control over technology can strain diplomatic relations and reduce the willingness of countries to engage in joint initiatives. This environment of mistrust may limit opportunities for cooperative problem-solving on global issues that require technological solutions, such as climate change and public health crises.​

Techno-Nationalism and Geopolitics

Strategic Alliances and Emerging Tech Blocs

Techno-nationalism is reshaping global alliances, as countries increasingly align based on technological interests and capabilities. The United States, for instance, has strengthened partnerships with countries like Japan and the Netherlands to restrict China’s access to advanced semiconductor technologies. These alliances aim to maintain a strategic edge in critical tech sectors and reflect a broader trend of forming tech-centric geopolitical blocs.​

Conversely, China is forging its own set of alliances, focusing on initiatives like the Digital Silk Road to expand its technological influence across Asia, Africa, and Europe. These efforts are part of a strategic push to establish alternative tech ecosystems and reduce dependency on Western technologies.​

Technology as a Tool of Statecraft

Governments are increasingly leveraging technology as a means of exerting influence and advancing national interests. This includes the use of export controls, investment restrictions, and standards-setting to shape global tech norms and practices. Such measures serve not only economic objectives but also broader geopolitical goals, as national governments seek to project power and values through technological dominance.​

For example, the implementation of export controls on critical technologies can limit perceived adversaries’ access to essential components, thereby constraining their technological development and strategic capabilities. Similarly, by setting international standards, countries can ensure that their technological preferences and values are embedded in global systems.​

Risks of Global Fragmentation

The rise of techno-nationalism carries the risk of fragmenting the global technological landscape. As countries pursue divergent tech policies and standards, the potential for a bifurcated or “splinternet” scenario increases. Such fragmentation can hinder interoperability, complicate international collaboration, and create barriers to the free flow of information and innovation.​

Moreover, the competition for technological supremacy may exacerbate geopolitical tensions, leading to an arms race in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing. This environment of rivalry and mistrust can undermine efforts to responsibly develop emerging and disruptive technologies, as well as to address global challenges that require coordinated technological solutions, such as climate change and pandemic response.​

Risks and Critiques

While techno-nationalism is often justified as a path to national resilience and strategic autonomy, critics argue that it can come with unintended costs. One of the most frequently raised concerns is its impact on global scientific progress. By fragmenting international research partnerships, imposing export restrictions, and tightening controls on knowledge transfer, governments risk stalling scientific advancements in areas that depend on cross-border collaboration—such as AI, climate tech, and public health.

Another critique focuses on supply chains. Policymakers in the U.S., EU, and parts of Asia have promoted reshoring or “friend-shoring” of critical technologies like semiconductors, citing national security concerns. However, observers warn that such moves can introduce inefficiencies and new vulnerabilities. Building fully domestic supply chains in high-tech sectors is capital-intensive and time-consuming, and may actually reduce resilience by limiting diversification.

Techno-nationalist strategies also raise questions of economic efficiency. Public subsidies directed toward favored industries—while politically expedient—may distort markets, especially when they bypass competitive pressures. Some economists argue that this kind of industrial policy can crowd out private investment, entrench incumbents, and lead to underperforming “national champions”.

Perhaps most consequentially, techno-nationalism is feared to exacerbate existing geopolitical divisions. As states increasingly wield technology policy as a tool of strategic influence—through sanctions, investment restrictions, and the promotion of competing technical standards—they risk intensifying strategic rivalries and triggering a technological arms race. This dynamic not only complicates international efforts to govern emerging technologies and address shared global challenges, but also heightens international tensions and undermines the prospects for multilateral cooperation.

Policy Responses and International Governance

As techno-nationalism reshapes global technology policy, governments and multilateral institutions are exploring how to preserve cooperation in an increasingly fragmented landscape. Some countries have responded by building coalitions around shared technological and strategic interests. For instance, the United States, Japan, and the Netherlands have coordinated export controls on advanced semiconductor equipment to limit its transfer to China, an arrangement that reflects a growing trend toward alliance-based tech governance.

Efforts to promote digital trust and interoperability have also gained momentum. The European Union has championed the idea of “digital sovereignty” while simultaneously engaging in global norm-setting. Through initiatives like the EU-U.S. Trade and Technology Council (TTC), policymakers are attempting to align approaches on topics such as data governance, artificial intelligence, and supply chain security. Although still nascent, such forums aim to create shared baselines for democratic governance of emerging technologies.

Beyond regional partnerships, international institutions are attempting to find common ground. The OECD has played an active role in advancing frameworks for responsible AI, cross-border data flows, and trusted supply chains, while calling for improved interoperability between regulatory systems. These initiatives are often voluntary and consensus-based, but they offer a foundation for broader alignment in the absence of binding global rules.

Still, many observers point to persistent obstacles. National security concerns continue to override cooperative instincts, and institutional mechanisms are often too slow to match the speed of technological change. Emerging economies also raise valid concerns about exclusion from standard-setting processes dominated by advanced industrial countries. These tensions complicate efforts to develop inclusive governance models that reflect diverse priorities and stages of development.

Despite the difficulties, there is a growing recognition that addressing global challenges—such as climate change, cyber threats, and pandemic preparedness—requires a cooperative technology environment. Whether through regional partnerships, industry standards bodies, or informal diplomatic channels, continued coordination will be essential to avoid a future defined by digital protectionism and technical fragmentation.

Conclusion and Outlook

Techno-nationalism has emerged as a defining feature of the 21st-century geopolitical landscape, intertwining national security, economic policy, and technological innovation. While it aims to bolster domestic capabilities and protect critical industries, this approach carries significant risks, including innovation fragmentation, supply chain vulnerabilities, and heightened geopolitical tensions.​

Efforts to address these challenges have led to the formation of strategic alliances and multilateral frameworks aimed at promoting cooperation and establishing common standards. Initiatives such as the European Union’s 5G cybersecurity toolbox and the U.S.-led Clean Network exemplify attempts to harmonize security measures and foster trust among like-minded nations. However, divergent national priorities and concerns over sovereignty continue to impede the development of cohesive global policies.​

Looking ahead, the international community faces the task of balancing national interests with the imperative for collaboration in addressing shared technological challenges. Inclusive and transparent dialogues, agile governance structures, and a commitment to shared values will be essential in mitigating the divisive effects of techno-nationalism and promoting a more cooperative and secure technological future.​