Trump’s ‘Weaponised Interdependence’ and the Rise of a Neo-Royalist World Order
Key Takeaways
- Political scientist Abraham Newman identifies a shift from neoliberal globalization to 'weaponised interdependence,' where centralized economic hubs serve as tools for state coercion.
- Under the second Trump administration, this 'neo-royalist' order leverages control over critical technologies and financial systems to enforce geopolitical objectives.
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 networks are highly centralized in hubs such as TSMC for semiconductors and SWIFT for financial transactions.
- 3The 'neo-royalist' order prioritizes state-led coercion and vulnerability management over neoliberal market efficiency.
- 4Smartphone ecosystems are dominated by two primary operating systems: Apple's iOS and Google's Android.
- 5Weaponization involves both the surveillance of adversaries through data hubs and their exclusion from critical economic networks.
- 6The second Trump administration is characterized by using these economic levers as primary tools of geopolitical influence.
Who's Affected
| Feature | ||
|---|---|---|
| Primary Goal | Market Efficiency | State Security & Coercion |
| Network Structure | Decentralized / Flat | Centralized Hub-and-Spoke |
| Role of the State | Laissez-faire / Regulator | Neo-Royalist / Active Participant |
| Key Metric | Cost Reduction | Vulnerability Management |
| Technology Focus | Open Standards | Proprietary Choke Points |
Analysis
The prevailing myth of the 21st century—that globalization would decentralize power and render great-power conflict obsolete—is being systematically dismantled. According to Abraham Newman, a professor at Georgetown University and co-author of 'Underground Empire,' we have entered an era of 'weaponised interdependence.' In this new geopolitical landscape, the global economy is not a flat, decentralized network of equal actors, but rather a highly centralized system of hubs and spokes. These hubs, ranging from semiconductor foundries like TSMC to financial clearinghouses like the SWIFT system, have become the primary levers of state power, allowing dominant nations to monitor, coerce, or exclude adversaries with surgical precision.
This shift represents a fundamental break from the neoliberal 'high globalization' of the late 20th century, which prioritized market efficiency above all else. In that era, supply chains were optimized for cost and speed, often at the expense of security. Today, the second Trump administration is leaning into a 'neo-royalist' world order, where the state reasserts its authority over these global networks. Instead of viewing markets as neutral zones of exchange, they are now seen as domains of vulnerability. If a nation controls the operating system of a smartphone or the bank that processes a global transaction, it possesses a form of structural power that can be more effective than traditional military force.
Every device is dependent on either Apple’s iOS or Google’s Android operating system, and the high-end chips that power them are almost exclusively manufactured by TSMC or Samsung.
Consider the smartphone as the ultimate symbol of this centralized vulnerability. While thousands of companies contribute to the global mobile ecosystem, the entire industry remains beholden to a handful of choke points. Every device is dependent on either Apple’s iOS or Google’s Android operating system, and the high-end chips that power them are almost exclusively manufactured by TSMC or Samsung. By controlling these nodes, the United States can effectively dictate which entities are allowed to participate in the digital economy. This is not merely about trade wars or tariffs; it is about the ability to 'unplug' an adversary from the modern world.
What to Watch
For the defense and aerospace sectors, the implications are profound. The reliance on globalized supply chains for critical components is no longer just a logistical challenge—it is a strategic liability. As the U.S. and its allies move to 'de-risk' or 'friend-shore' production, they are essentially building their own 'underground empires' designed to withstand the weaponization of interdependence by others. This leads to a fragmented global order where technical standards, financial protocols, and manufacturing clusters are increasingly aligned with geopolitical blocs rather than market logic.
Looking ahead, the 'neo-royalist' approach suggests a more transactional and coercive form of diplomacy. Allies may find themselves pressured to align their technology policies with Washington to maintain access to critical hubs, while adversaries will accelerate efforts to build parallel, independent systems. The central question for global leaders is no longer how to maximize efficiency in a flat world, but how to navigate and survive in a world of weaponized hubs. The era of the 'invisible hand' is giving way to the era of the 'visible fist'—where economic interdependence is the ultimate weapon of the state.
How we covered this story
Every story in our space & defense 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 space & defense 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.
| 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 space & defense-specific corpora. |
| Timeline | Where applicable, the related-events sequence that contextualizes today's development. |