Security & defense
Strengthening policies to deter statesupported economic espionage targeting hightechnology industries and research institutions.
Governments must implement layered, intelligent defenses that deter state sponsors, protect sensitive research, and sustain innovation ecosystems through coordinated policy, enforcement, and international collaboration against economic espionage threats.
July 23, 2025 - 3 min Read
Economic espionage conducted or abetted by state actors represents a strategic threat to nations prioritizing technological leadership and secure supply chains. When governments leverage official or covert instruments to steal proprietary knowledge, the consequences extend beyond company-level losses to national competitiveness, defense applications, and credibility on the world stage. Policymakers face a delicate balance: they must encourage legitimate collaboration and open science while erecting robust barriers against forced disclosure, covert data exfiltration, and illicit technology transfers. The challenge is to design norms and mechanisms that deter aggression without stifling legitimate research, cross-border investment, or responsible sharing of breakthroughs that benefit broader society and economic growth.
Effective deterrence hinges on a comprehensive policy framework that aligns diplomatic posture, legal instruments, and practical safeguards across multiple domains. States can deter espionage by clarifying consequences for violations, elevating enforcement capacity, and investing in secure innovation environments. This includes strengthening export controls, improving supply-chain integrity, and enforcing penalties that are meaningful but proportionate. Importantly, policy must engage private sector stakeholders early, translating strategic aims into actionable security practices. Coordinated messaging—paired with ready responses to identified incidents—signals resolve. A robust framework also anticipates evolving tactics, ensuring that defenses adapt as adversaries adopt new techniques for infiltrating laboratories, networks, and collaborative platforms.
Strengthening enforcement through collaborative international action.
At the core of resilience is the alignment of trade, defense, and science policies to minimize exploitable gaps. Governments can incentivize secure research practices by funding secure facilities, mandating clear data-handling protocols, and requiring due diligence in international collaborations. Universities and industry labs should adopt standardized cybersecurity baselines, incident reporting obligations, and third-party risk assessments that are enforced through regular audits. By elevating the priority of proactive cyber hygiene, institutions reduce exposure to spearphishing, insider threats, and vulnerable supply chains. A predictable regulatory environment helps researchers focus on discovery while knowing that safeguards exist to deter unauthorized access and keep sensitive assets out of reach of hostile actors.
Complementing internal safeguards, border and cross-border cooperation play a decisive role in deterring illicit transfers. Nations can pursue harmonized screening for foreign investments in sensitive sectors, joint investigations of economic espionage cases, and rapid information sharing about new intrusion techniques. Diplomatic engagement helps establish norms that discourage targeting research centers, with sanctions calibrated to deter repeat offenses without provoking unnecessary escalations. Building capacity with trusted allies ensures investigators have the tools to track flows of knowledge and materials across borders, while also reinforcing confidence in legitimate collaborations. The result is a layered posture that makes it harder for covert actors to move, insinuate, or monetize stolen know-how.
Building capacity through workforce development and secure practices.
Strong enforcement depends on specialized agencies equipped with the authority and resources to pursue complex cases. Cybercrime units, export-control authorities, and investigative bodies must coordinate to map espionage networks, identify beneficiaries, and dismantle illicit channels. Transparent case management, public accountability, and clear standards for evidence help ensure due process while conveying seriousness. In parallel, private sector partners require confident avenues to report suspicious activity without fearing retaliation or breach of confidentiality. By offering formal protections for whistleblowers and providing rapid remediation for compromised systems, governments create an environment where wrongdoing is both detectable and costly. A proactive stance reduces the window of opportunity for would-be spies.
Notably, strategic investments in workforce development reinforce deterrence. Training programs that blend technical mastery with ethics, risk assessment, and secure-by-design thinking create a culture of vigilance within high-tech enterprises and research institutions. When scientists and engineers understand the consequences of misappropriation, they become active participants in defense rather than passive observers. Accreditation schemes for researchers and contractors can further raise the bar, ensuring that those who access sensitive assets meet rigorous security criteria. In addition, ongoing professional development about threat landscapes keeps personnel prepared for evolving tactics. A well-educated, security-conscious workforce forms a frontline shield against intentional or accidental disclosures.
Proportional, transparent safeguards protecting inquiry and collaboration.
Public-private collaboration is essential to translate policy into durable protection. Information sharing between government agencies and critical industry stakeholders should be structured, timely, and actionable. Joint simulations and tabletop exercises help test incident response plans, reveal gaps, and clarify roles. When the private sector participates as a trusted partner rather than a mere vendor, decision-makers gain insights into realistic risks from the front lines. This cooperative approach also accelerates technology transfer that remains legitimate and ethical. It ensures that research communities can pursue ambitious goals with confidence, knowing there are credible deterrents and robust remedies if a breach occurs. Collaboration reinforces both resilience and innovation.
As deterrence evolves, it must remain proportionate and principled. Legitimate security measures should not chill legitimate inquiry or academic exchange. Policymakers need to distinguish between dangerous deception tactics and routine, beneficial collaboration. Clear guidelines on what constitutes sensitive information, how it may be shared, and under what security arrangements it can be accessed are essential. Equally important is a transparent, public-facing framework for handling breaches, including notification timelines and remedial steps. When the public understands the rationale and safeguards behind policy choices, trust grows among researchers, funders, and international partners, sustaining a healthy ecosystem of discovery and economic vitality.
Calibrated sanctions and investment screening that deter illicit activity.
In international diplomacy, deterrence is reinforced by credible, verifiable commitments. Multilateral agreements can set expectations for behavior, establish norms against technology theft, and authorize collective responses to egregious violations. Verification mechanisms—such as independent audits, shared indicators of compromise, and buoyed cyber norms—help ensure that commitments are not merely rhetorical. By aligning interests with partner nations that share democratic values and secure research ecosystems, governments widen the circle of accountability. The resulting network of assurances makes aggressive espionage riskier and more costly, nudging potential actors toward alternative methods that do not risk sanctions or reputational damage.
Economic instruments also serve deterrence by shaping cost-benefit calculations. Targeted sanctions, export-control enhancements, and investment screening can raise the price of illicit activity for both state sponsors and their proxies. These tools should be calibrated to avoid unduly restricting legitimate commerce or impeding essential research. In practice, authorities can implement tiered responses that escalate with the severity and persistence of wrongdoing. By combining financial penalties with criminal prosecutions and administrative penalties, states demonstrate seriousness while preserving the space for lawful collaboration and resilience during periods of heightened tension.
Finally, resilience requires sustained public communication about policy aims, successes, and ongoing challenges. Transparent reporting on incidents, lessons learned, and improvements reinforces legitimacy. Media engagement should emphasize that deterrence is not a desire to suppress invention but a commitment to safeguarding the scientific enterprise and national security. Citizens, researchers, and industry stakeholders deserve clear explanations about why certain safeguards exist and how they protect both individual researchers and broader societal benefits. A consistent, evidence-based narrative helps maintain public trust while supporting robust, defensive measures against state-sponsored economic espionage.
In sum, deterring state-supported economic espionage targeting high-technology industries hinges on a holistic strategy. This strategy unites legal authority, credible enforcement, secure technical practices, workforce development, international cooperation, and thoughtful diplomacy. By aligning incentives, penalties, and safeguards, governments can preserve innovation ecosystems while signaling resolve to would-be aggressors. The path forward requires patience, continuous adaptation, and inclusive collaboration with industry and academia. As adversaries evolve, so too must the defenses, ensuring that breakthrough research remains secure, equitable, and capable of fueling prosperity for generations to come.
