The resurgence of tariffs and trade tensions under President Donald Trump is forcing CEOs across industries to rethink their operating models, not just for this quarter, but for the long term. From aluminum and aerospace to telecom, energy, chocolate, and banking, top executives now see trade policy as a central business risk, one that is actively reshaping global supply chains, investment strategies, and pricing decisions.

What was once treated as political background noise has moved to the center of C-suite risk planning. Tariffs are now part of a broader shift toward protectionism, localization, and geopolitical risk management. For companies, this means abandoning the old playbook built around global efficiency and just-in-time logistics. Instead, they’re embracing redundancy, diversification, and regional self-sufficiency.

The Trump administration is now signaling that its threat to raise tariffs on EU car imports from 15% back to 25% is not just negotiating theater. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told EU and German officials over the weekend that Washington would move forward with the increase, while also describing the tariff as “one part of the deal,” suggesting the administration still sees it as leverage inside a broader bargaining framework rather than a fully settled end state.

As of Monday afternoon, the higher tariff had not yet been formally adopted. The immediate dispute is about alleged EU non-compliance with last summer’s trade deal, a claim Brussels rejects. Trump said the bloc had failed to uphold the agreement and that EU officials responded by calling the move arbitrary and warning that they would keep options open to defend European interests.

Iran war is accelerating a structural change in how energy is priced, secured and politicized. Energy dominance, the US shift from a large net importer to a net exporter, has given Washington more freedom to take geopolitical risks that would have been far harder to justify in an era of import dependence.

In doing so, the US is moving from the post-war role of underwriting energy security (keeping sea lanes open, deterring regional escalation) toward being a more active source of turbulence, willing to use hydrocarbons and access to them as tools of statecraft. That shift is also rewriting the meaning of ESG: away from environmental and social branding toward a harder-edged triad of economics, security and geopolitics as the dominant lens for energy decisions.