[co-author: Kate Mosley]
Key takeaways
The United States and the United Kingdom have each issued new National Security Strategies in recent months that elevate economic policy, technology, and industrial capacity to the core of national security planning.
While both strategies reflect shared concerns about resilience, competitiveness, and security, they diverge in tone, structure, and implementation, reflecting growing transatlantic divisions that could impact global businesses.
To manage risks and uncertainties, global businesses will need to closely monitor regulatory developments, engage proactively with government stakeholders, and adapt compliance programs to address country-specific regulatory and national security measures.
Concerns over growing cracks in the “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom burst into the headlines in early March, with President Trump sharing his immediate frustration by openly lamenting that the relationship was “obviously not what it was.” While disagreements over the war in Iran and the use of UK military bases gave rise to the most recent tensions, broader differences in the core national security and foreign policy objectives may account for the longer-term deterioration of transatlantic relations.
The most recent National Security Strategies issued by the United States and the United Kingdom provide some insights into these dynamics. The strategies of the two governments are aligned on some priorities and key objectives, but their approaches diverge in ways that matter deeply for international companies.
U.S. vs UK national security strategy
Geographic priorities and strategic flashpoints
Although the U.S. and UK National Security Strategies diverge in tone and structure, both identify a limited set of geographic priorities that are particularly relevant for internationally active businesses.
China features centrally in both strategies, though with different emphases. The U.S. strategy frames China primarily as a strategic competitor across economic, technological, and military domains, particularly in the Indo‑Pacific. The UK strategy similarly identifies China as a systemic challenge but places greater emphasis on balancing deterrence with selective engagement and coordination with allies. For businesses, this shared focus signals sustained scrutiny of technology transfers, supply chains, and investment flows involving China.
India is treated in both strategies as a critical partner in shaping the future economic and security architecture of the Indo‑Pacific. While the U.S. emphasizes India’s role in strategic competition and regional stability, the UK highlights India as a priority partner for trade, technology, and defense cooperation. This convergence underscores growing opportunities, but also increasing regulatory and geopolitical sensitivity, for companies operating across U.S., UK, and Indian markets.
Actions for businesses: Preparation is critical
As reflected in both strategies, national security considerations increasingly shape regulatory, trade, technology, and investment environments. For businesses operating across U.S. and UK markets, success will depend on securing supply chains, anticipating regulatory changes, and ensuring compliance with evolving laws.
To navigate this increasingly complex geopolitical environment, companies engaged in international business transactions should:
- Monitor pending legislation and regulatory changes to identify and prepare for new restrictions impacting supply chains, market access, investment limitations, and business partners.
- Engage proactively with government agencies and legislators to ensure that decision makers understand the commercial implications of emerging national security measures. As both the U.S. and UK expand and recalibrate their national-security-driven regulatory toolkits, businesses will need to provide clear and timely input to policymakers on the real-world effects and potential unintended consequences of proposed rules.
- Consider developing separate supply chains and product lines for the United States, which is increasingly imposing national security-based restrictions on imports from China in the automotive, telecommunications and technology sectors, while the UK and European markets remain largely open to Chinese products in these sectors.
- Invest in risk mitigation, regulatory compliance, and strategic positioning.
- Expand product and service offerings in defense and national security sectors. With alignment on the need for the UK and other U.S. allies to spend more on national defense, and the U.S. Department of War expected to expand its investment in space-based assets, companies with strong offerings in these sectors will encounter growth opportunities on both sides of the Atlantic.
- Develop jurisdiction‑specific compliance programs covering areas such as cybersecurity, data protection, trade controls, ESG, and government contracting. Companies that have strong compliance programs will be better positioned to compete for sensitive military and other government contracts.
- Conduct digital‑infrastructure audits and risk assessments to identify “critical infrastructure” under each system’s definitions, preventing misclassification and reducing regulatory exposure in the event of a cyber incident.
[View source.]
