A few weeks ago, Senator Josh Hawley wrote a New York Times op‐ed calling for “abolishing” the World Trade Organization (WTO). I responded to Hawley’s piece here, pointing out the various ways that he had misunderstood the WTO. Hawley’s op‐ed was apparently intended to lay the foundation for the joint resolution he introduced to withdraw the United States from the WTO. As I noted here, a Senate vote on this resolution is likely in late July.

The Trump Administration has just issued a proclamation that will restrict the issuance of many temporary economic migrant work visas. The proclamation will go into effect on June 24 at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time. The visas affected are the H-1B visa for skilled temporary migrant workers, the H-2B visa for temporary lower‐skilled non‐agricultural employment, most J visas, and L visas for intracompany transfers.

Rather like Adolf Hitler’s Thousand Year Reich that ended 988 years early, China’s guaranteed 50 years of freedom for Hong Kong has ended 27 years early. It’s been a good run since 1997, since Beijing left the territory mostly alone for longer than many people expected.

The world has seen North Korea’s Kim Jong Un exactly twice since April 11. His absences have sparked intense global speculation, with highlights including multiple reports of his death or incapacitation. Korea analysts—myself included—have debated endlessly which blood relative might take over. This endless “where is Kim” talk, however, distracts from the far bigger problem at hand: What can be done about a nuclear North Korea?

Recent trade battles with China, Mexico, Canada, and Europe have reduced trade flows. Now, with the outbreak of COVID-19 severely impacting international commerce, many argue that globalization will soon be dead. Globalization is not dying. Rather, it’s evolving, and existing trends are accelerating. American companies and workers would be wise to prepare for what’s ahead.

In the New York Times on Tuesday, May 5, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) proposed abolishing the World Trade Organization. On the next day came a flood of fact corrections from trade experts exposing the senator’s idea as the spawn of fallacies. Then, on that Thursday, conceding only that the United States can’t “abolish” the WTO, Hawley submitted a joint resolution to Congress calling for a formal withdrawal.

Beijing no longer has many friends in Washington—for understandable reasons. The entire Chinese government mishandled various stages of the coronavirus outbreak, including hiding the extent of infection and transmissibility to humans, punishing doctors and citizen journalists who sought to report on the looming pandemic, and moving far too slowly on a travel ban from Wuhan, allowing the coronavirus to become a truly global crisis.

Many predicted that West Texas Intermediate crude oil could trade as low as $15 a barrel during the Saudi-Russia price war. Some even speculated it could hit $5 when figuring in the demand crater due to the global pandemic. No one predicted this. There simply isn’t a proper word to use here — unprecedented, catastrophic, unimaginable — none fit.

Protectionists have been emboldened by the Trump administration’s approach to trade policy, and some are now using COVID-19 as an argument to support their cause. In most cases, it’s not worth responding, but I don’t think of economics columnist Noah Smith as an economic nationalist, so if he is saying things along these lines, I feel like it merits a response. Here’s what he said in his recent column:

Some people talk about trade as though it were an end in itself. It’s not. Trade is a means to an end. We trade so that we can specialize. We specialize so that we can produce more. We produce more so that we can consume and save more. That is how we create wealth and raise living standards.