US Geopolitical Shifts Signal End of Neoliberal Era

Have you ever stopped to wonder what happens when the rules everyone took for granted suddenly stop applying? Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about that. The world feels like it’s tilting, and not in the subtle way markets sometimes do after a bad jobs report. No, this is bigger—more structural. Recent developments suggest we’re witnessing the quiet but unmistakable unraveling of the neoliberal framework that dominated global economics for decades. And honestly, it’s both unsettling and oddly predictable.

Markets have spent years pricing in stability: open trade, independent central banks, predictable alliances. But now? We’re seeing moves that challenge all of that. From aggressive territorial ambitions in the Arctic to interventions abroad and direct pressure on monetary authorities at home, the signals point to a fundamental reset. In my view, this isn’t just noise—it’s the start of something that could redefine where capital flows in the coming years.

The Cracks in the Old Order

Let’s start with the labor market, because that’s often where the rubber meets the road. Recent employment data showed hiring slowing sharply—far below expectations—yet wages kept climbing and unemployment ticked down slightly. It’s the kind of mixed picture that frustrates forecasters. Short-term yields rose a bit as traders recalibrated Fed expectations, but longer bonds held firm. Two rate cuts still look baked in by year-end, with the first likely by mid-year. Solid wage growth keeps consumer spending afloat, even as businesses hesitate to add headcount amid tariff uncertainties and tech investments.

But the real headline-grabber came from an unexpected corner: reports of subpoenas issued to the Federal Reserve by the Department of Justice, tied to congressional testimony. The Fed chair pushed back hard, calling it a pretext for undermining central bank independence. Independence—that word used to be sacred in policy circles. Now it feels like a relic from another time.

The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Fed setting rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.

Federal Reserve statement

Powerful stuff. And it rings true. Central bank autonomy has long been a cornerstone of the neoliberal playbook—insulate monetary policy from politics, let markets do their thing. But when political pressures mount, that insulation cracks. I’ve always believed independence works best when it’s respected on all sides. When it becomes a battleground, everyone loses confidence.

Territorial Ambitions in the Arctic

Shift your gaze northward, and things get even more surreal. Discussions about acquiring Greenland—through purchase or, if necessary, other means—have moved from fringe speculation to official talking points. Denmark’s leaders have responded firmly, invoking international law, self-determination, and even hinting that such moves could unravel NATO itself. Strong words from a small nation facing a superpower.

Is Denmark really prepared to defend Greenland militarily? Probably not. The reality is harsh: without overwhelming force projection, holding territory against determined opposition is tough. And if the U.S. truly wants it—for strategic Arctic access, resources, or countering rivals—history suggests outcomes favor the determined party. European allies might protest, but how far would they go? Capitulation on tariffs happened before; why not here?

• Strategic value: Rare earths, military positioning, climate routes opening up.
• Alliance risks: Threatening NATO cohesion over territory could fracture transatlantic ties.
• Market implications: Uncertainty over European stability weighs on the euro and regional bonds.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect is how little of this seems priced in. Currency pairs remain surprisingly calm given the rhetoric. In my experience, markets lag big geopolitical shifts until the costs become tangible. When they do, volatility spikes.

Middle East Tensions and Regime Change Whispers

Across the globe, Iran presents another flashpoint. Ongoing protests have reportedly claimed hundreds of lives amid crackdowns. Opposition figures in exile urge continued resistance, even hinting at restoration scenarios that sound like history repeating itself. U.S. statements have warned of intervention if violence escalates, including potential distribution of satellite internet access to bypass blackouts or, more dramatically, direct action.

Oil markets have reacted—prices rebounding sharply after earlier dips. Supply disruptions in the region compound worries already heightened by developments elsewhere. When energy security hangs in the balance, everything else feels secondary. Traders know this: volatility in crude often signals broader risk-off moves.

What strikes me most is the speed of escalation. Protests turn deadly, threats fly, and suddenly regime change chatter fills the air. Whether it materializes or fizzles, the uncertainty alone disrupts planning—for businesses, investors, governments. Supply chains don’t like surprises.

The Venezuela Precedent and Supply Chain Realities

Closer to home—well, hemispherically—the capture of Venezuela’s leadership in a swift operation sent shockwaves. Heavy-grade oil suited for U.S. refineries now potentially rerouted away from Asian markets. Refineries built assuming steady supply face stranded asset risks. Energy security isn’t abstract; it’s physical barrels and pipelines.

This ties into a larger theme: the return of matter. For years, policymakers treated supply as infinite—optimize financially, assume globalization delivers. Now? Constraints bite. Industrial policy, onshoring, friend-shoring—call it what you will—the focus shifts to controlling real stuff. Neoliberal abstractions give way to tangible geopolitics.

I’ve watched this shift unfold. What started as whispers about deglobalization now dominates boardrooms and policy papers. GDP growth matters, sure—but what is it for? National security? Domestic jobs? Energy independence? The answers reshape investment theses.

Financial Repression and Policy Tools

Domestically, signs of financial repression emerge. Proposals to cap credit card rates, restrict certain transactions, direct purchases of securities to influence lending—all tools to channel capital toward policy goals. Add bans on dividends or buybacks in strategic sectors, and the pattern clarifies: markets serve national objectives, not vice versa.

This isn’t new historically—post-war periods often featured similar controls to manage debt and reconstruction. But after decades of liberalization, it feels revolutionary. Investors accustomed to free capital movement now face steering. Returns compress in repressed sectors; opportunities arise where policy aligns with incentives.

1. Identify repressed assets: Low-yield government debt, regulated sectors.
2. Seek policy beneficiaries: Domestic manufacturing, strategic resources.
3. Monitor volatility: Geopolitical headlines drive swings.
4. Diversify thoughtfully: Real assets, commodities often hedge repression.

Of course, nothing’s guaranteed. Overreach risks backlash—capital flight, innovation stifling. But the direction seems clear: neoliberal orthodoxy fades; managed economics rises.

What This Means for 2026 and Beyond

Putting it together, the picture emerges of a world where power projection trumps multilateral niceties. Bridgeheads—democratic or economic—get tested or burned if they no longer serve core interests. Europe faces tough choices; China sees vulnerabilities in energy routes; emerging markets navigate crosswinds.

For investors, this demands adaptability. Forget assuming endless globalization dividends. Focus on resilience: companies with domestic supply chains, exposure to strategic commodities, adaptability to policy shifts. Volatility will rise—embrace it or get burned.

I’ve seen cycles turn before, but this feels different—more profound. The neoliberal era delivered prosperity for many, but also fragility exposed by shocks. Now, we’re rebuilding with different tools. Whether that’s bullish or bearish for American influence depends on execution. One thing’s certain: 2026 won’t be boring.

And that’s the crux. When old certainties crumble, new opportunities—and risks—emerge. Stay sharp, question assumptions, and position accordingly. The game has changed.