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.

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.

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.

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.

After some fits and starts, Joe Biden has emerged from a crowded field as the front‐runner for the Democratic nomination. There’s still some politicking left to go, but let’s talk about what a Biden trade policy might look like if he is elected president. In this article, I’ll consider three things: (1) What Biden has said about trade during the Democratic primary campaign; (2) what the Obama administration did on trade when Biden was vice‐president; and (3) what issues Biden would face and what he might do as president (this section is very speculative!).

The immigration debate in the United States has obscured a host of neglected legislative issues. The anti-immigrant sentiment in the nation belabors the notion that immigration is an issue that only encompasses illegal border crossings. Rather, legal immigration impacts economic considerations as a net gain, perhaps well beyond the potential economic burdens of illegal migrant issues.

When I crossed through Checkpoint Charlie from West Berlin to East Berlin nearly 30 years ago, the failures of former East Germany were immediately obvious. The grey unkempt landscape and dilapidated buildings looked as though that country hadn't been repaired since American and Soviet tanks faced off yards apart decades earlier in one of the most tense nuclear showdowns.

When it comes to international trade, China hasn’t always played by the rules. So the question begs: How do you change that behavior? Engaging in a trade war by imposing tariffs isn’t ideal. To save face, Chinese President Xi Jinping must appear strong and that means responding to U.S. tariff increases with Chinese tariff increases. This tit for tat strategy, which escalated again on September 1, is increasing volatility and uncertainty, while hurting economic growth. But it gets worse.

This past week was an eventful one for trade policy, and not in a good way. In the trade world these days, no news is good news, and any tweets are probably bad news. President Trump’s trade policy has been stridently protectionist, abusive of the constitutional separation of powers, destructive to U.S. alliances, and fundamentally flawed as a strategy to achieve its stated goals.

One of the few hopeful, “glass-half-full” thoughts I had after Donald Trump won the election in 2016 was that the new president would prove to be the best salesman of free trade since Adam Smith. No, I wasn’t so deluded to think he’d articulate the case for free trade and commit himself to removing all protectionist barriers.