TBTs are non-tariff barriers — such as standards, certifications, and conformity assessments — that are less well-known than tariffs but more impactful.

In this context, the US tariff strategy should be seen as a countermeasure to rebalance trade relationships distorted by restrictive non-tariff measures imposed by other major economies, particularly the European Union and China.

While tariffs continue to dominate headlines, TBTs are increasingly shaping the rules of the global economy. These often-overlooked measures have become a central arena of economic and geopolitical competition among the world’s three major blocs: the networks around the US, China, and the European Union (EU).

Different TBT approaches

Technical barriers to trade vary widely across countries, not only in scope but also in the way they are implemented. While some economies emphasise domestic safety or consumer protection as justifications, others use TBTs to advance strategic interests or protect key sectors. These measures can include country-specific testing protocols, opaque approval processes, or restrictive labelling and localisation requirements—particularly in sectors such as telecommunications, medical devices, and digital services.

The US generally adopts a more flexible and decentralised approach to technical regulations. It tends to promote voluntary standards, often developed by private-sector bodies, with an emphasis on innovation, market competitiveness, and responsiveness to technological change. This model differs with more prescriptive and centralised frameworks seen in other major economies and is designed to minimise regulatory burdens while safeguarding consumer interests and national security.

China, by contrast, employs technical standards as an important tool of industrial policy. The Chinese government actively uses TBTs to support national champions, control access to its market, and influence global norms. These barriers include mandatory national standards, complex product certification schemes, data localisation requirements, and selective enforcement of environmental or safety regulations. While often presented as neutral or technical, such measures frequently serve strategic objectives, creating significant challenges for foreign exporters.

The EU, meanwhile, presents itself as a leader in “normative globalization,” aiming to export its regulatory model through what has been described as normative power. However, it faces significant challenges, including regulatory inertia, complexity, and frequent misalignment among Member States. The proliferation of technical barriers within the EU could represent a significant obstacle for goods and services produced in the United States.

As tensions rise and supply chains become more fragmented, the battle over who sets the rules is becoming more strategic than ever.

US tariff strategy as a countermeasure

The US National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers details in a 397-page document the tariff and non-tariff barriers that, according to Washington, hinder US–EU trade. In this context, tariffs have often served as a US response to what it perceives as an unbalanced trade relationship, partly driven by the EU’s technical barriers.

Non-tariff technical barriers — strict regulations on genetically modified crops, pesticide residues, recycled content requirements, and chemical safety standards, and other similar  — create significant challenges for U.S. exporters.

In the Report, the imbalance between attention given to technical barriers and tariffs is striking. For China, the report dedicates five pages to  TBTs and only two pages to tariffs. For the EU, the contrast is even more pronounced: 17 pages address technical barriers, compared to just two pages on tariffs. This distribution clearly highlights how non-tariff measures, particularly TBTs, have become a central issue in global trade, with tariffs representing only a part of the broader picture.

This detailed report lists the tariff and non-tariff barriers that, according to Washington, hinder trade with commercial partners and impede market access. Among the highlighted non-tariff barriers are food safety regulations, recycled content requirements, and renewable energy standards, which are considered significant obstacles for US exports. To address these non-tariff barriers, the Trump administration proposed imposing reciprocal tariffs on certain products. These tariffs aimed to match the highest tariffs applied by other countries to those US goods, effectively offsetting the disadvantage caused by the EU’s technical barriers. This tariff strategy was intended as a countermeasure to restore a more balanced trade relationship by compensating for the restrictive non-tariff measures imposed by other countries.

By reducing these non-tariff barriers, the EU and China could, in return, face fewer tariffs from the US, as such measures would address the underlying imbalances that prompted the US countermeasures in the first place.

Concrete TBT examples

One emblematic case is the export of US beef to the EU, which faces technical barriers strongly contested by Washington. The primary obstacle is the EU ban on beef treated with growth hormones. American producers can only export beef to the EU if they demonstrate — through a lengthy and complex certification process — that the meat is free of such substances.

China, similarly, imposes technical barriers on US exports, particularly in the technology sector. US companies selling network equipment or cybersecurity software must comply with local Chinese standards and undergo extensive testing, often duplicating international certifications. For instance, they must meet requirements such as the China Compulsory Certification (CCC) and pass cybersecurity reviews. These regulatory demands delay market access and introduce strategic uncertainty for American firms, especially in sensitive sectors like cloud computing and telecommunications.

Current global strategic standards contest and China 2035

Standards development organizations (SDOs) focus on developing, publishing, or disseminating technical standards to meet the needs of an industry or field; apart from global SDOs, various national and regional bodies handle technical standards:

• Europe has bodies like the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC).
• The US has the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), focused on maintaining competitiveness in technology industries.
• In China, the process is a collaborative effort between the state and private industry, with the party-state involved at every step. China officially launched the ‘China Standards 2035’ strategy in 2018, aiming to set global standards for emerging technologies such as 5G, IoT, and AI. This initiative highlights China’s intent to use technical standards as a geopolitical tool to advance its long-term development and global influence.

The WTO’s role: and how this role could be expanded

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) TBT Agreement encourages transparency and promotes mutual recognition of standards among members. However, rising geopolitical tensions challenge the WTO’s influence, with bilateral and regional strategies gaining prominence.

To strengthen its effectiveness, the WTO could enhance its dispute resolution mechanisms specifically for technical barriers to trade, ensuring faster and more enforceable rulings. Additionally, the organisation could promote greater harmonisation of standards by facilitating more inclusive and transparent negotiations that involve not only governments but also industry stakeholders and standard-setting bodies. Increasing support for capacity-building programs in developing countries would also help reduce asymmetries and foster more consistent application of technical regulations globally.

By evolving its approach to adapt to the current geopolitical landscape, the WTO can reclaim its central role in setting fair and balanced rules that minimize non-tariff barriers and foster smoother global trade flows. Only by evolving beyond declarations and into real enforcement mechanisms can the WTO remain relevant in a world where standards shape power.

— TBTs have evolved from basic safety or quality checks into powerful instruments of strategic influence. Today, competition over values, technologies, and supply chains is intensifying, and standards are no longer neutral. As the world splits into competing blocs, the contest over technical standards will likely shape not only trade flows but also the future balance of global economic power.

Despite internal challenges, the EU seeks to assert itself as a regulatory superpower—not through tariffs, but by setting the rules others follow. Given that the US and the EU share the world’s largest economic relationship, the EU could ease technical barriers—especially those unrelated to security or health and thus open to negotiation. This would help reduce US tariffs by placing these issues at the center of trade negotiations.

At the same time, the US should also pursue the reduction of both tariff and non-tariff barriers within multilateral forums such as the WTO, rather than resorting to increased tariffs. Such an approach would promote a more balanced and rules-based global trading system.

Technical standards could be the key to both lowering tariffs and transforming the global economy of tomorrow.