that would require a fundamental rethinking of economics and trade away from free-marketeering towards an understanding more similar to the Chinese who put these questions into the context of national (security) interest, and that is very unlikely to happen, in particular in the US in which private interest groups wield significant power over a largely weak and incoherent government. In Europe, it may be possible if France would have more of a say but countries like Germany or the Netherlands would be significantly hurt by the inevitable retaliation so it's probably a nonstarter here too.
This is a feeling shared by both the left and right in the populist portions of both parties.
People are looking for ways to get more solid middle class jobs back into the USA, and protectionist trade policy is an obvious place to start for many.
Prior to Bretton Woods there had never been a system of free trade between (nearly) all countries enforced by a singular superpower.
There's nothing fundamental saying that America won't swerve away from providing the service of protecting and enforcing global trade. If that ever happens, it will have many serious consequences, but the US could still decide it is in its best interest.
AFAIK, those interest groups don't actually wield very much power, but they've been very effective at promoting the fatalistic attitude that their favored polices are inevitable and permanent.
For proof, look at the current president who started a major tariff war that was very much against a major leg of free-market policy. What paused it wasn't those interest groups, it was political uncertainty caused by retaliation that targeted farm states by the other party in that war.
The US (and other countries) lost much of its electronics supply chain (and manufacturing in general) due to political priorities, and it can regain it by shifting those priorities and enacting new policy. This idea of "it's gone and never coming back" is false and a result of an over-attachment to certain ideas and certain policies.