Among the things learned during the COVID-19 pandemic is that our supply chains are on the verge of breaking. National borders that had receded into the background of a globalizing world have been thrust to the fore in the scramble to obtain life-saving Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) for those on the front lines of the battle against the virus. A means of shortening and strengthening those supply chains is critical — and available.

In January, President Joe Biden will inherit a trade policy that has left the U.S. role as a leader of the world trading system in grave doubt. After World War II, the United States helped construct a carefully balanced trading system with modest liberalization and a limited but important role for international agreements and institutions. But Trump and his trade team have undermined this system in the service of an ideology consisting of high tariffs, unilateralism, and hostility towards the rule of law.

President Trump’s trade policy has been defined by protectionism, cronyism, and mean‐spiritedness. President Biden’s will be more polite.On substance, geopolitics and domestic politics are sure to crowd out economic considerations in shaping U.S. trade policy. The best we can hope for is that Biden’s team will be resolute and more competent managing an increasingly adversarial relationship with China—a priority which will shape all major U.S. trade policy decisions for years to come.

The presidential election polls were significantly off in 2020 with President Trump garnering many more votes than pollsters anticipated. Data analyst David Shor argued that the polls were wrong because Democratic voters became more politically engaged than Republicans during the lockdowns and answered more surveys. Rather than a shy Trump supporter phenomenon, there was a loquacious Biden supporter phenomenon. This created a pre‐election blue mirage whereby Democratic support appeared to be much greater than it really was.

The Mongolia Third Neighbor Trade Act (H.R. 2299/S. 1188), which would provide duty-free access to the U.S. market for products made in Mongolia using Mongolian cashmere, stands to be a win-win for the U.S. and Mongolia, a stalwart democratic American ally in Northern Asia. Passage of the legislation, currently languishing in Congress, would benefit both sides by facilitating increased trade.

There has been much loose talk of a new Cold War between the U.S. and China. Such a conflict would be potentially disastrous for both countries. Nor is it easy to imagine, given the extensive ties between both peoples. Even with both governments at sharp odds, the nations remain connected, much more so than the U.S. and Soviet Union.

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?