From Foreign Affairs · Henry Farrell · · 3m
The Chokepoint Trap
How economic security efforts risk global conflict.
In brief
How economic security efforts risk global conflict. Countries using chokepoints for economic security trigger a dangerous spiral of mutual distrust and escalation. Originally reported by Foreign Affairs.
Policymakers focus on chokepoints
U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration warns allies against dependence on China while hunting for ways to exploit allies’ dependence on the United States.
China accuses U.S. of economic coercion
Beijing accuses Washington of economic coercion while leveraging its dominance over critical supply chains to press the United States and Europe.
Europe seeks alternative currency
Europe hopes to build the euro into an alternative global currency to evade the dollar’s iron grip.
Smaller players exploit chokepoints
Iran tries to leverage its control over the Strait of Hormuz to put a stranglehold on the global oil trade.
Chokepoints evolved from globalization
As economies integrated, chokepoints proliferated: manufacturers extended supply chains across borders, banks routed transactions through the U.S. dollar system, and digital services took advantage of economies of scale.
Post-9/11 U.S. economic dominance
After the September 11, 2001, attacks, the United States combined its advocacy for free markets with an increasingly ambitious effort to exploit its dominant position in these networks.
Trump’s first term shifts focus
Moves by Trump in his first term caused world leaders to take more notice of chokepoints, as the pandemic heightened countries’ fears of external dependence.
China’s response to U.S. actions
During Trump’s second administration, China learned that the best way to stop him is to squeeze a chokepoint.
Chokepoint trap dynamics
The result is a security dilemma where one country’s efforts to secure itself make others feel threatened and respond in kind, leaving everyone less safe.
Self-perpetuating spiral
Each country’s individual actions contribute to a collective trap: the U.S. efforts to hamstring Chinese technology firms led China to accelerate its technological development, which spurred American fears of Chinese domination.
Institutional ambiguities
Economic policy institutions lack the command-and-control structures of defense bureaucracies, leading to misinterpretation of actions as deliberate threats.
U.S. Commerce Department rule
In September 2025, the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security enacted the affiliates rule to expand export controls on subsidiaries of entities on two U.S. government watch lists.
China’s rare earth response
In October 2025, China expanded rare earth export controls to retaliate against the affiliates rule and further efforts by Washington to restrict Chinese firms’ access to U.S. technologies.
Chokepoint warfare risks
When governments pursue chokepoint warfare, the problems these institutional ambiguities create get much worse, leading to unintended escalation.
Global chokepoint proliferation
Since 2020, countries have enacted seven times as many export restrictions per year as they did between 2010 and 2019, showing the chokepoint trap is closing on governments.
Europe’s strategic constraints
Europe remains deeply dependent on U.S. technology and security guarantees despite efforts to build economic security strategies.
China’s strategic shift
China has reshaped its economic policy around national security concerns, accelerating technological self-reliance and creating new government structures that mimic U.S. targeting mechanisms.
The inevitable spiral
A chokepoint arms race will make everyone much less secure, with economic efficiencies evaporating as governments fragment global systems.
The big picture
Countries using chokepoints for economic security trigger a dangerous spiral of mutual distrust and escalation.
