Insights and Analysis

Navigating the U.S. and UK national security strategies: Implications for global business

10 March 2026

Silhouettes of satellite dishes or radio antennas against night sky. Space observatory or Air defence radar over dramatic sunset sky. Creative artwork decoration. Selective focus.

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

	U.S. Strategy	UK Strategy	Alignment/ Divergence
Big Picture Outlook	A new “golden age” for the United States; strategy framed as a correction to post-Cold War overreach.	“Era of radical uncertainty,” requiring agility, resilience, and whole‑of‑society mobilization.	Divergence: U.S. is optimistic and focused on Trump’s “America First” agenda; UK acknowledges the uncertainty and affirms reliance on multilateral alliances.
Primary Focus	National sovereignty, economic strength and nationalism (“America First” in “everything we do”).	“Threat-focused paradigm” that emphasizes multilateralism and collective security, anchored in NATO and alliances.	Divergence with overlap: U.S. prioritizes sovereignty and burden‑shifting; UK prioritizes alliances but acknowledges growing transactionalism.
Key Objectives	Economic growth and security; reindustrialization; energy dominance; border security; technological leadership.	Protection of the British people; economic resilience; border security; sovereign and asymmetric capabilities.	Alignment: Both treat economic security as fundamental to national security but pursue it through different institutional lenses.
Legal/ Regulatory Tools	Economic statecraft (trade, tariffs, export controls, investment restrictions) framed as instruments of national security.	Explicit sanctions and export‑control regimes; investment screening (NSI Act); economic deterrence.	Alignment with divergence in execution: UK articulates tools more explicitly; U.S. emphasizes policy direction and leverage.
Key Industries	Defense industrial base; AI; biotech; quantum; energy (oil, gas, nuclear); critical minerals.	Defense industrial base; AI; quantum; cyber; space; nuclear; advanced manufacturing.	Alignment: Strong overlap in strategic sectors, particularly defense, AI, and advanced technology.
Tactics	Leverage strength to deter conflict; burden‑shifting to allies; assertive economic and industrial policy.	“Campaigning approach” combining deterrence, resilience, and alliance‑based pressure.	Alignment: Both integrate economic, military, and technological tools; tone differs (U.S. assertive, UK coordinated).
Military & Defense Spending	Calls for investment in U.S. military modernization and missile defense systems; demands that U.S. allies share more of the burden of their own defense and spend “far more” of their national GDPs on defense spending.	Endorses a “NATO-first, but not NATO-only” plan; commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security by 2035.	Alignment: Both agree on the need for the UK and European allies to invest more in the defense and national security sectors.
China	Focusses on “rebalancing economic relationship” with China and deterring conflict over Taiwan.	Acknowledges China as a “major strategic challenge”; emphasizes the importance of diplomacy and avoiding “escalation around Taiwan.”	Alignment: Both view China as an economic threat and emphasize the importance of avoiding conflict over Taiwan.
Russia	Emphasizes the need to achieve “strategic stability” and avoid escalation.	Identifies Russia as the “most acute threat” to UK national security and condemns Russian aggression.	Divergence: The two strategies offer starkly different assessments of the threat from Russia.

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.

How we can help

The Hogan Lovells Geopolitical Risk and National Security initiative specializes in helping clients anticipate and manage these risks. Our expertise spans regulatory compliance, supply chain strategy, and crisis management. We help businesses not just survive, but thrive, in a world where national security and business strategy are increasingly intertwined.

Authored by Stephen Propst (Global Co-Lead, Geopolitical Risk and National Security), Robert Gardener (Global Co-Lead, Geopolitical Risk and National Security), Kate Mosley, and Kelly Heesch.