Forget partisan debates. Onshoring manufacturing, deploying AI, and scaling energy aren’t about job creation or gas prices. They’re about national survival in an age of geopolitical volatility. And we believe investors — not government — hold the key to defending America’s future.

These types of investment promote dynamism in the face of a fragile global supply chain, strengthen our national security, and ensure long-term resilience in an increasingly polarized and fragmented world. No matter the crisis, they ensure America and her allies can build, innovate, and defend their interests. And crucially, it is not the government, but the capital markets, that are best positioned to drive this forward.

Large institutional investors, not bureaucrats or corporate boards hamstrung by quarterly expectations, are among the few actors with both the vision and the long time horizon necessary to invest in the dynamism that has propelled America forward over the last hundred years. However, it’s time to reframe this entire investment thesis. 

For years we incorrectly framed some of these categories as “ESG” or “climate risk.” That was wrong. Instead of investing in Environmental, Social, and Governance, we should be investing in Global Competition and Innovation (GCI). Meeting those other goals is a pyrrhic victory if we don’t maintain our ability to operate in a contested and unstable world where rivals like China are outpacing us in critical domains.

A recent CGCI (Council on Global Competition and Innovation) report makes the stakes crystal clear. While the United States led in 60 of 64 critical technologies in the early 2000s, we now lead in just seven. China leads in 57. From AI and biotech to critical minerals and advanced manufacturing, Beijing has surged ahead — not just in R&D, but in the ability to commercialize, scale, and control global supply chains. The United States, meanwhile, remains dangerously dependent on adversaries for essential goods and technologies.

This is more than a market failure or failure of one administration or another. It is a national security crisis in slow motion that has been playing out over more than 30 years. Playing defense with tariffs and export controls today is not enough if China or others cut off critical resources from America and her allies. Or, worse, if the rest of the world doesn’t want what we have to offer. Even worse is if we no longer produce things at all.

Consider China’s dominance in rare earth processing, semiconductors, solar and nuclear energy, and naval shipbuilding. These are not just industrial advantages. They are strategic weapons. And the picture becomes more urgent when you layer in China’s ability to curry favor through Belt-and-Road-style initiatives, or its potential to choke off key trade routes through Taiwan and Southeast Asia.

The global economy today hinges on technologies and materials controlled by fragile or adversarial regions. In my view, that’s a risk no diversified portfolio can hedge without a massive, coordinated reinvestment in American capacity. Not just in defense, but in every sector that underpins sovereignty and strength. 

Modern fiduciary duty can’t overlook the need for systemic resilience. It’s not charity and it’s not a tradeoff; it’s the precondition. Without a trusted foundation, there are no durable returns. Investing in American dynamism isn’t just patriotic; it’s financially rational.

The GCI framework offers more than a blueprint. Rather, it defines a national investment thesis. It identifies eight critical sectors — including semiconductors, energy, AI, biotech, and space — where market-led capital can simultaneously advance security and generate potential outsized returns. In a world where volatility is constant and traditional alpha is elusive, we believe GCI represents asymmetric upside.

The venture community is already proving the point. At Andreessen Horowitz, our American Dynamism practice has invested billions of dollars in national interest sectors: defense, AI, biotech, manufacturing, energy, and more. The results are early, yet compelling. But venture capital alone cannot move the needle at the scale we need.

Pension funds, sovereign wealth vehicles, insurance giants, and endowments are the real force multipliers. With the right risk frameworks, the right incentives, and the right long-term view, they can anchor the capital stack for a generational rearmament of the American industrial and innovation base. These large capital allocators should be sharpening their lens on GCI investing immediately, and with support from the government.

It’s time to stop treating national security and American Dynamism as someone else’s problem. Whereas ESG obsesses over inputs and signaling, GCI focuses on clear national security imperatives. This is capitalism with consequences — smart bets on sectors that will define geopolitical power for the next century.

If we want freedom to remain the world’s dominant operating system, we should fund it like our lives depend on it. Because they just might.