BiGS Actionable Intelligence
Editor's Note: This piece is part of a series of viewpoints that we will run from MBA students who are members of the Geoeconomics Group at HBS. In these pieces, writers will share their insights gained from engaging with business leaders and scholars around the world on business' role in society. This viewpoint is from Dane Alivarius, co-founder of the Geoeconomics Group. Dane is a former U.S. Treasury Department policy advisor. At the Treasury, Dane reviewed international M&A for national security risk as part of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He will graduate with his MBA from HBS in May.
When governments leave the sidelines
Business leaders may like to think of governments as the referees while firms play the “game”. CEOs built empires on the assumption that markets were driven by competition, not policy; that governments, like good referees, would set the rules and stand back. But what happens when the referee charges the field? Or when the rules change so drastically that it’s no longer the same game?
Welcome to the geoeconomics era, where trade is a weapon, foreign investment a battleground, and industrial policy the front line in a global contest for technological supremacy. If the first Trump administration cracked the foundation of neoliberal globalization, the second is smashing it to bits. A month in, and markets are already reeling: Tariffs are announced and rescinded in rapid succession, investment deals that once sailed through regulators are suddenly dead on arrival, and corporate strategy meetings sound more like foreign policy briefings. In this new age, ignorance of geopolitics isn’t just risky—it’s reckless.
In this new age, ignorance of geopolitics isn't just risky
—it's reckless
The bipartisan shift away from free trade
Since Trump’s first term, the status quo of neoliberal globalization has been under siege. The Biden administration continued the policy shift, rolling back key pillars of free trade orthodoxy by prioritizing domestic manufacturing, industrial policy, export controls, and supply chain resiliency. In a polarized political moment where Democrats and Republicans agree on almost nothing, the idea of curbing China’s economic rise—and fortifying American industry—is a rare point of consensus. The critical lesson? Markets and geopolitics are now inseparable. Executives who fail to grasp this risk being uncompetitive, their companies exposed to regulatory crackdowns, supply chain turmoil, and shifting industrial priorities dictated not by market forces but by government intervention.

As you look at this unprecedented spike in global economic policy uncertainty, ask yourself: Is your business prepared for a world where policy shifts—not just market forces—determine winners and losers? What would a 5-year strategy look like that incorporates geopolitical risk as a core business consideration rather than a peripheral concern?
The expanding definition of national security
Take the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an obscure government panel, and my former employer. CFIUS’ job is to police foreign investment for national security risk. A decade ago, CFIUS focused mostly on defense acquisitions. However, given the rise of China as an economic and technological peer, its jurisdiction was expanded dramatically. Today, foreign investment—from adversaries and allies alike—faces scrutiny across industries that once seemed untouchable. The 2024 decision to block Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel demonstrated just how expansive the definition of national security has become. Coupled with sweeping export controls and new outbound investment restrictions, including the recently announced America First Investment Policy, executives must now think like policymakers, anticipating which transactions could trigger national security concerns. Semiconductor firms are already feeling the consequences, as restrictions cut them from Chinese investors and customers. Other industries- from electric vehicles to biotechnology—are watching closely. They know they could be next.
Trade policy as a political weapon
It’s not just investment—trade policy has become a minefield too. The Trump administration is threatening tariffs on, well, everyone. This includes a 25 percent tariff on one of the United States’ closest allies- politically and geographically- Canada. To put that into perspective, Goldman Sachs estimates that every five-percentage-point increase in the US tariff rate will reduce S&P 500 earnings per share by roughly 1-2 percent. Experts further expect billions in retaliatory tariff fees and price levels across sectors to rise. The motivations for these tariffs range from protecting domestic manufacturing to curbing illegal immigration. The takeaway? Businesses can no longer plan around simple economic fundamentals. Political calculus must be factored into pricing strategies, supply chain decisions, and long-term growth plans. Shifts in trade relationships, regulatory frameworks, and market access must be prepared for.
Finding opportunity in the chaos
Yet, for all the uncertainty, this era of geoeconomics is also one of opportunity. Industrial policy, once dismissed as economic heresy, is now firmly back in vogue. The CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act signal a Washington willing to spend big to secure technological leadership, even as other federal funding programs gets shelved. Semiconductor fabrication, clean energy, and defense tech are poised for an influx of federal dollars. Firms that align themselves with government priorities—by reshoring production, partnering with domestic suppliers, or tapping into federal subsidies—stand to be the major winners in this new economy.
The rise of the Chief Geopolitical Officer
The lesson for business leaders: geopolitical risk is no longer a sidebar issue to be managed by compliance teams and lobbyists. It is a core business issue. The most forward-thinking companies are already acting accordingly. Some are establishing Chief Geopolitical Officer (CGO) roles to navigate the increasingly blurred lines between commerce and statecraft. Understanding national security, trade, and industrial policy interplay is now a prerequisite for effective leadership. After all, the referees have changed the rules. In this new geoeconomics era, where politics and economics are inseparable, business leaders must learn to play the game—or risk losing it entirely.