PESTLE & MORTAR 16 October 2025

#1

China’s Golden Week Editorials

As Chinese audiences entered Golden Week, People’s Daily ran a multi-day, second-page series under the pseudonym “Zhong Caiwen,” a signaling device that likely aggregates the voice of the CCP’s Central Commission for Financial and Economic Affairs and sets out how Beijing understands its economic transition under “Xi Jinping Economic Thought.” According to this, China’s comparative advantage is strategic composure anchored in party leadership, long-term planning, and a state-market “managed equilibrium,” while candidly listing headwinds such as weak demand, local-government fiscal stress, deflationary pressures, and supply-demand mismatches. These are recast as growing pains from technological upgrading rather than structural failure, with a dual agenda to retrofit legacy industries like chemicals, machinery, textiles, and light industry through automation, digitalization, and green standards, while elevating advanced manufacturing, AI, robotics, and biopharma as new pillars. Innovation is presented as decisive, backed by rising R&D outlays and an “engineer dividend,” yet the series sidesteps how a control-oriented system that prioritizes security in data and cross-border flows has chilled private risk-taking, venture capital, and grassroots experimentation, all of which are needed for frontier innovation. On demand, the diagnosis is confidence rather than liquidity, so the prescription is to thicken the social safety net and expand service-sector consumption in childcare, elder care, health care, education, culture, sports, tourism, and commerce, while acknowledging that fiscal constraints and muted incomes will limit near-term gains. A semantic shift from “boosting” to “upgrading” demand admits the diminishing returns of past subsidies and trade-in programs and pushes local governments toward lower-risk service experiments, even as infrastructure remains the preferred stabilizer through smart-city upgrades, transport, and urban renewal that reframes the property slump as an opportunity to improve urban quality. The series is therefore both confidence play and roadmap, signaling that China seeks slower but “higher quality” growth, while leaving unresolved the trade-offs among growth and redistribution, central direction and local autonomy, and short-term certainty and long-term innovation that will determine whether the model can renew itself.

#2

Dutch Government and Techno-Nationalism

The Dutch government has intervened directly in the operations of Chinese-owned semiconductor firm Nexperia, invoking emergency powers under the Availability of Goods Act—a rarely used national security statute that allows the state to seize control of companies deemed vital to the country’s technological or economic security. The move effectively suspends the authority of Wingtech Technology, Nexperia’s Chinese parent company, and places the firm under temporary Dutch oversight. Officials justified the decision on the grounds that Nexperia’s ownership structure and potential technology transfers to China posed an unacceptable risk to the Netherlands’ and Europe’s strategic semiconductor capabilities. The Dutch government emphasized that semiconductors are “essential goods” and critical to defense, telecommunications, and industrial systems, meaning foreign control could threaten both national resilience and allied supply chains. This step follows a broader pattern of tightening export controls and investment screenings across Europe and North America, especially following U.S. pressure on allies to align semiconductor policies with Washington’s containment of Chinese tech advancement. The decision is a powerful illustration of techno-nationalism, the convergence of national security, industrial policy, and geopolitical strategy around control of advanced technology. It shows how semiconductors are treated as instruments of power that define sovereignty, influence, and security. By asserting control over Nexperia, the Netherlands is aligning with a global trend in which states prioritize technological self-sufficiency and the protection of intellectual property over market openness. The move mirrors similar interventions by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea to limit Chinese access to chipmaking tools, and it highlights Europe’s emerging recognition that technological dependencies can become strategic vulnerabilities.

#3

Trump Likely to Send Missiles to Ukraine

President Trump is set to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Washington to discuss expanded air-defense cooperation, drone technology transfers, and a potential escalation in U.S. military aid, most notably the possible delivery of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. The Tomahawk, with its long range and precision strike capability, would enable Kyiv to target Russian military and logistics hubs far beyond the frontlines, marking a dramatic shift from the long-standing U.S. restriction on using American-made weapons to strike inside Russia. Trump, increasingly frustrated with Moscow’s resistance to peace negotiations, has openly floated using the threat of Tomahawk deployment as leverage to push President Vladimir Putin toward a settlement, stating that if the war cannot be resolved diplomatically, Washington might “send them Tomahawks.” The move follows Russia’s renewed bombardment of Ukrainian infrastructure and coincides with Kyiv’s growing efforts to develop indigenous systems like the Flamingo cruise missile to reduce dependence on Western arms. If the U.S. proceeds with this plan, it would represent the most significant escalation in American involvement since the early stages of the conflict, potentially altering the strategic calculus on both sides. For Ukraine, access to Tomahawks would dramatically enhance deterrence and strike capacity, enabling it to disrupt Russian command nodes, airfields, and supply lines deep inside Russian territory. For Russia, the step would signal that Washington is willing to cross previously self-imposed red lines, raising the risk of direct U.S.–Russia confrontation and possible retaliation through asymmetric means such as cyberattacks or increased pressure on NATO’s eastern flank. Diplomatically, the threat itself functions as a coercive bargaining tool, giving Trump leverage over both Putin and Zelenskyy ahead of peace talks, but it also injects volatility into an already fragile geopolitical environment. In effect, the Tomahawk issue has become a test of how far the Trump administration is willing to blend diplomacy with coercive force, an approach that could either accelerate a negotiated settlement or plunge the war into a new and more dangerous phase.

#4

China Focuses on U.S. Stock Market

Beijing believes it has located a U.S. vulnerability in President Trump’s reliance on stock market performance as a proxy for economic success, and is testing that assumption by escalating pressure through targeted moves such as sanctioning U.S. units of Hanwha Ocean and restricting exports of rare-earth minerals, while Washington threatens additional 100% tariffs and both sides oscillate between harsh rhetoric and tactical pauses ahead of a likely Trump–Xi summit that few expect to deliver breakthroughs. The importance for U.S.–China relations lies in how this turns a trade dispute into a contest of political psychology and leverage. If equity volatility reliably pushes the White House toward concessions, China gains a low-cost tool that bypasses traditional trade bargaining; if not, miscalculation could accelerate a damaging spiral of tariffs, countersanctions, and supply-chain disruptions. Because both economies remain tightly interdependent, especially in technology inputs and critical minerals, each punitive step increases the risk of structural decoupling, higher costs for firms and consumers, and slower growth on both sides. The domestic politics also cut asymmetrically, since U.S. leaders face immediate market and electoral pressure while Xi can absorb market swoons more easily, which may embolden Beijing’s stance and complicate Washington’s credibility in future negotiations. How the summit is framed and concluded will signal to allies and markets whether the two countries can manage competition within guardrails, or whether a strategy of exploiting financial sentiment becomes a recurring feature that deepens mistrust and hardens the path toward long-term economic and strategic rivalry.

#5

China Moves on Rare Earths

China announced it would hold back the export of five new rare earth elements, drawing global attention and concern. The move demonstrated that Beijing is tightening control over materials the world depends on for modern technology. Taiwan quickly responded, saying the restricted elements are not the ones used in its semiconductor production and that its chip industry would not be directly affected. Still, the decision reminded many how much the world relies on China, which controls more than 90 percent of all processed rare earths and magnets used in products from clean energy systems to military equipment. After the announcement, shares of Chinese rare earth companies rose as investors bet on China’s growing influence in global markets. The move demonstrated how China uses its control over critical minerals and exports as geopolitical leverage, seen in its rare earth limits in 2020 and new export controls in 2025 responding to U.S. tariffs. Taiwan’s Economy Ministry stated that while the new rules may not hurt chipmaking right away, they could still affect other global supply chains. Products like electric vehicles, wind turbines, and drones could encounter shortages or higher costs if restrictions tighten further. As one of the world’s top chip producers, Taiwan aims to demonstrate that its operations will maintain operational continuity despite rising tensions. Even so, Taiwan admitted that some parts of its technology sector could still feel pressure. The government also pointed to its growing partnerships with suppliers in Europe, the United States, and Japan as part of a long-term effort to rely less on China. Many observers believe Beijing’s move was timed to gain leverage ahead of the upcoming Trump and Xi summit.

#6

U.S. Consumers Hit by Tariffs

Early evidence from price trackers, company guidance, and central-bank analysis shows U.S. firms and consumers are absorbing most of the new tariff costs, contrary to claims that foreign exporters would pay. Harvard’s Alberto Cavallo notes a clear pass-through to retail prices, with imported goods up about 4% since early March versus a 2% rise for comparable domestics, especially in categories the U.S. does not produce or from countries hit with higher rates, while the measured increases are still smaller than headline tariff rates because parts of the supply chain are swallowing margins and foreign sellers have lifted pre-tariff export prices in dollars as well. The new trade regime has pushed average import taxes from roughly 2% to an estimated 17%, firms are stretching price hikes over time, and consumer brands are already raising tags, which complicates the Federal Reserve’s inflation fight. A Boston Fed back-of-the-envelope puts the boost to core inflation near 75 basis points, Chair Powell has attributed roughly 30–40 basis points of the latest core reading to tariffs but expects the effect to fade, and outside estimates suggest a temporary one percentage point bump over the coming year. Globally the drag is spreading as U.S. demand softens. EU exports to the United States fell about 4.4% year over year in July and Germany’s were down about 20.1% in August, the WTO has cut next-year merchandise trade growth to about 0.5%, and ING expects EU goods exports to the U.S. to drop 17% over two years, shaving roughly 0.3 percentage point from EU GDP. The broader economic picture is a tariff shock that functions like a regressive consumption tax at home, adding to inflation and biasing monetary policy toward higher-for-longer rates, while encouraging costly supply-chain reconfiguration, lowering productivity in the transition, and transmitting weaker trade and confidence abroad through reduced orders, thinner margins, and tighter financial conditions.

#7

JPMorgan Investing in U.S. Companies Critical to National Security

JPMorgan Chase announced a $10 billion direct investment initiative in companies it considers critical to U.S. national security, part of a broader $1.5 trillion, 10-year plan to support sectors underpinning economic resilience amid intensifying trade tensions with China. The bank will take equity stakes in firms involved in defense, critical minerals, semiconductors, and artificial intelligence, aligning itself with the Trump administration’s industrial policy goals and the government’s effort to reshore essential supply chains. CEO Jamie Dimon framed the initiative as a response to America’s “overreliance on unreliable sources of critical materials,” while executives suggested the investment could grow beyond $10 billion as opportunities expand. The announcement comes shortly after China imposed new export controls on rare-earth elements, prompting the U.S. to retaliate with 100% tariffs on Chinese imports. JPMorgan’s move follows its earlier partnership with the Defense Department and Goldman Sachs to finance MP Materials’ rare-earth magnet facility and its banking relationship with Intel, now partly owned by the U.S. government. This initiative signals a structural realignment toward security-driven capitalism, where access to capital increasingly depends on a company’s strategic relevance to national resilience rather than just market performance. Firms operating in defense, energy transition minerals, advanced manufacturing, and AI stand to benefit from expanded financing, public-private partnerships, and political backing. Conversely, industries reliant on Chinese inputs, offshored production, or low-margin globalized supply chains could face higher scrutiny and reduced investment flows. The policy also blurs the line between finance and statecraft as private banks are now instruments of industrial and geopolitical strategy, favoring domestically rooted, “strategically safe” enterprises while pressuring others to localize production and comply with national-security mandates. Over time, this shift is likely to raise costs for multinational corporations, accelerate supply-chain decoupling from China, and deepen the divide between firms aligned with U.S. security objectives and those caught between competing spheres of economic influence.

#8

OpenAI Working with Foreign Governments

OpenAI has begun partnering with several foreign governments, including coordination with the U.S., to develop “sovereign AI” systems that allow nations greater control over artificial intelligence infrastructure and applications. The idea of sovereign AI has rapidly become a geopolitical buzzword, framed as both a tool of digital independence and a counterweight to China’s global AI expansion. The Trump administration’s AI Action Plan explicitly links such initiatives to strategic competition, arguing that spreading American AI technology abroad prevents allies from becoming dependent on adversarial systems. OpenAI’s partnerships, such as with the United Arab Emirates, illustrate this approach as the company is supporting to build a 5-gigawatt data center cluster in Abu Dhabi and deploy ChatGPT nationwide, though the UAE will not have access to the model’s inner workings. Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon defended engagement with non-democratic partners as a way to promote openness through collaboration, echoing earlier U.S. arguments about integrating authoritarian economies like China’s into global systems. Critics, however, argue that true sovereignty requires open-source transparency, something U.S. models rarely provide, while China’s AI giants, including Alibaba and Tencent, are advancing globally by open-sourcing their models, which now rival or surpass American systems in availability and adaptability. The broader significance lies in how these competing approaches reflect intensifying techno-nationalism. AI has become an arena where nations project influence, secure digital infrastructure, and shape global norms. OpenAI’s sovereign AI projects thus signal the emergence of AI as statecraft where data centers, model access, and software transparency are not just technological issues but instruments of geopolitical power.

#9

Shutdown Leads to “Data Blackout”

The ongoing U.S. federal government shutdown has triggered a sweeping “data blackout,” halting the publication of vital economic statistics such as jobs figures, output data, and inflation metrics, creating a global information vacuum that is unsettling policymakers, investors, and corporations alike. Because the U.S. accounts for roughly one-quarter of global economic output, the absence of its official data ripples outward, impairing economic forecasting, market modeling, and monetary policy coordination from Tokyo to London. While private-sector alternatives and Federal Reserve estimates provide partial substitutes, the opacity increases the risk of policy missteps and market overreactions, with analysts warning that prolonged data gaps could distort interest rate expectations, currency valuations, and capital flows. For businesses, the impact is immediate and multifaceted: forecasting demand, pricing exports, or hedging currency exposure becomes far riskier without reliable U.S. benchmarks, forcing firms to rely on less-accurate proxies or proprietary data sources. The uncertainty raises borrowing costs, delays investment decisions, and advantages data-rich corporations, such as large tech and logistics firms, over smaller enterprises with limited analytic capacity. Volatility in commodity markets is also rising as energy, agriculture, and materials traders lose access to critical U.S. inventory and crop reports. Beyond short-term disruptions, the episode shows a deeper concern about institutional reliability and the politicization of statistical systems; as trust in official data weakens, global markets face higher risk premiums and diminished confidence in the world’s most important economic signal of U.S. transparency.

#10

New Zealand Livestock

New Zealand has announced a new plan to reduce biogenic methane emissions by up to 24% by 2050, aligning with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. The plan’s extended target and revisions follow widespread resistance from farmers and the agricultural sector over the livestock tax in January’s original proposal. Many farmers expressed concern that the cost would pose risks to profit margins, as New Zealand livestock is invaluable to its agricultural sector. In response, New Zealand’s Agriculture Minister reevaluated the plan after collaborating with industry leaders to develop a pathway for environmental sustainability and profit security, while also investing $400 million in methane-reducing technology to support farmers and expedite the process. Despite the financial support, farmers must assume the financial burden of alternative practices, such as precision agriculture, which requires increased data collection alongside manure management plans and investment in emission-control technologies. While the initiative is the first of its kind to target farm animal emissions, it signals how states are tightening sustainability regulations and climate policies, forcing companies to reevaluate their business models, supply chains, and production processes, as seen in the automotive industry's strategic pivot to develop electric vehicles and entire sectors such as logistics where Amazon and PEPSICO have expanded their electric vehicle fleets, both pledging to reach net-zero emissions by 2040. However, adhering to sustainability regulations both increases overhead costs and non-compliance exposes companies to regulatory and reputation risk.

📰 Looking for more analysis:

✉️ Subscribe to Strategic Memo our weekly deep dive into the most important geopolitical developments impacting businesses.

🎙️ Listen to our latest podcast Boardroom Statecraft: Apple Amazon Spotify