THE UK IN A CONTESTED WORLD - ECONOMIC SECURITY UNDER SIEGE
The ten-year context shaping the UK’s trade and economic security agenda
Tamsin Morgan, Senior Consultant at Bradshaw Advisory
2026 has been marked by intensifying geopolitical competition, a rise in industrial policy interventions, and the increasing weaponisation of trade. Our open trade agenda is under pressure and with it, the foundations of our long-term economic security.
Ten months on from publication of the UK’s Trade Strategy, the Government has yet to take substantive action to advance its trade policy, strengthen its economic security, or resilience to external shocks. UK industry must take strategic action and adopt a more proactive approach to shaping the UK’s trade agenda.
This is the first in a three-part series. It sets out to define and contextualise the UK’s economic security, before turning to an assessment of the Government’s 2025 Trade Strategy and the case for a more coordinated public-private approach to secure and resilient trade growth.
Economic security - what do we actually mean?
The UK Government has not publicly adopted a formal definition of economic security. This is a clear policy choice to avoid a rigid definition, cause confusion, or inflict any legal complications.
And yet, the Prime Minister has been unequivocally clear to state that “economic security is national security”. In the 2025 UK Trade Strategy and subsequent UK National Security Strategy, the concept is intrinsically linked to the UK’s industrial capabilities and competitiveness, economic resilience, and sustainable growth.
But the absence of a definition creates its own problems. It leaves space for confusion which complicates public and commercial decision-making and risks reactive and defensive policy responses. Too often, economic security is misinterpreted as economic closure: a retreat from global markets, a turn towards protectionism, a defensive posture rooted in risk aversion.
But that view of the world, fueled by Trump’s rhetoric, aggressive economic agenda and recent events misses the point.
A free, fair and open trade agenda is the bedrock of economic security.
This leads me to define economic security as:
The sovereign capability of a nation state to safeguard and defend its economic interests from threats and vulnerabilities. In practice, this means protecting the foundations of our prosperity - our critical sectors and infrastructure, building economic resilience to acute shocks and chronic risks to UK supply chains, and the ability to sustain and promote UK trade and investment in a world of increasing protectionism and global competition.
It is this gap in rhetoric and operational clarity that shaped my move to Bradshaw Advisory at the start of the year.
Our role is to help businesses navigate a more complex global trading environment: to understand geopolitical risk, interpret policy shifts, and respond in ways that protect and strengthen their commercial position.
And critically, to safeguard the UK’s economic security.
The ten year context: a decade of disruption
Over the course of my ten year career alone, the UK has faced a series of distinct challenges and shocks to the UK’s economic security. Four stand out:
The UK’s decision to leave the European Union. This reshaped the UK’s trading relationship with our largest partner. Leaving the Single Market introduced new frictions and barriers, which continue to affect our businesses today. Over recent years, the EU has imposed greater restrictions on its trade policy, shifting to a more protectionist and interventionist approach.
Covid-19. Shortages in medical supplies, export controls and inflation exposed vulnerabilities and import dependencies in the UK economy and our Critical National Infrastructure. It forced supply chain resilience to the forefront of policy making, accelerating efforts to drive diversification and deepen partnership in critical sectors.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin’s military aggression and subsequent global response highlighted how quickly economic interdependence can be leveraged. Energy and food supply shocks fed inflationary shocks and long-term economic pressures. At the same time, UK trade sanctions, export controls and financial restrictions highlighted the growing use of economic tools as instruments of state power.
Trump era. Both Trump presidencies have been dominated by a more aggressive, isolationist and interventionist economic agenda. Tariffs, trade disputes and the failure to back the WTO have rewired global trade flows and reshaped UK exports. The result is a more fragmented, less predictable trade ecosystem.
Taken together, these are not isolated events. They are structural shifts. They reinforce that geopolitics and trade policy are no longer peripheral risks - they are a boardroom priority.
But to my surprise, businesses remain naive to the realities. Big multinational corporations are hesitant to invest in mapping their supply chains to identify bottlenecks and vulnerabilities. UK firms blind to how US-China dynamics will determine their prosperity. Start-ups too focused on product development, ignorant to their exposure to political risk.
What will be their wake up call?
2026 escalation of destabilisation
If the past decade set the conditions, 2026 is accelerating them. Since joining Bradshaw Advisory in January, the global trade policy environment has been marked by a steady drumbeat of interventions that accelerate the destabilisation of the UK’s economic security.
Unfortunately, this has largely been from the occupant of the White House.
The US. My first week in the new gig saw Trump announce new tariffs on the UK, Denmark and six other European countries, only for negotiation in the margins of Davos to see Trump walk back from the brink. By the end of week six, Trump’s IEEPA tariffs had been ruled unlawful, with the President moving quickly to impose new sweeping 10% global tariffs, under Section 122. These tariffs will remain in place for 150 days, with a new Section 301 investigation into forced labour in supply chains to provide long-term cover for his economic agenda.
In February, we saw Trump intervene in Iran - citing “imminent threats” to US security as a means to launch a fully fledged military intervention. The repercussions on global trade are not understated. Alongside global markets diving, we’ve seen oil prices spike as the Strait of Hormuz has been closed off. Wider trade and logistics have been impacted as flights and shipping lanes were rerouted, and the luxury auto sector is just one vocal industry crying out for support for lost sales in the region. The long-term economic impact of the conflict is not yet quantifiable.
At the end of March, we saw the US dilute WTO reform progress at MC14, Jamieson Greer - USTR - deploying hard line negotiation tactics that pressured other members into submission. MC14 concluded with no real progress made, and the future of the rules-based international system unclear. And to mark the anniversary of ‘Liberation Day’, Trump imposed new tariffs on certain branded pharmaceutical products and simplified the steel, aluminium and copper duties.
The EU. The 2026 global trade agenda hasn’t been entirely dominated by Trump. In Brussels, a new trade deal with India - ‘one of the largest globally’ - has been followed by a new EU-Australia deal, securing the bloc preferential access to Australian critical minerals. In both instances, a blow to the UK’s competitive advantage. The EU’s new Industrial Accelerator Act - supporting ‘Made in Europe’ has demonstrated the increasing global prominence and adoption of protectionist measures, with France particularly vocal in its argument against the UK’s accession to the initiative, citing our decision to leave the EU - “you can’t have the cake and eat it too”.
We are yet to see how this plays out as the UK - under the current government - seeks closer alignment with the EU in some areas whilst remaining outside the Single Market. Can we have our cake and eat it too? The answer is, probably not. So what will be the quid pro quo and what impact will it have on UK businesses in which sectors?
China’s 15th Five-Year plan launched last month acts as the national blueprint for economic and social development. President Xi doubles-down on China’s science and tech self-reliance - with a range of measures to boost the domestic value chain on emerging technologies. There is also greater emphasis to open the economy to foreign investment and trade - with plans to modernise China’s industrial base and pivot to the production of high-end, scarce-in-supply exports. While many may say China’s export-driven growth model is not sustainable, it continues to make moves to strengthen its economic chokehold over global imports. Simultaneously, China has developed two new economic security regulations. One focuses on supply chain security and the other counters extraterritorial measures. Both a challenge to the UK, our access to China, and our long-term security.
The direction of travel is consistent across all three: greater intervention, sharper competition, and more strategic use of economic instruments.
The UK response - reactive not yet proactive
It is clear that officials have largely been consumed by fire-fighting on the above, reactive to global policy interventions, not proactive. This has come at the cost of momentum to the UK’s independent trade agenda and a detriment to a more comprehensive approach to the UK’s economic security.
Starmer has walked a diplomatic tightrope with Trump to limit further US coercive measures, committed himself to deepened UK-EU integration, and led a historic visit to China in January to reset relations. On home soil, we seem to have taken a small but overtly protectionist step forward in the UK’s ‘trade defence’ with publication of the UK’s new Steel Strategy and the introduction of new measures to ‘protect’ the UK’s domestic industry.
But this doesn't go far enough in driving an ambitious trade agenda that delivers growth and addresses the real and significant challenges to our economic security.
The UK must set pace with its Trade Strategy implementation.
What next?
Economic security is no longer an abstract concept. It is a priority in a more confused, contested and complicated international system. Different vulnerabilities, threats and risks to the UK’s economic security arise that present challenges for decision-making and commercial strategy. We have seen both acute shocks and chronic risks formulate over the last ten years alone.
Those who take a robust, holistic and agile approach to 21st century challenges will succeed. That is what the UK needs to drive.
In the next piece, I will turn to the UK’s Government’s Trade Strategy, analysing in-depth its commitments across a range of key policy areas, identifying areas for prioritisation and deepened public-private partnerships to translate ambition into delivery.
