President Trump’s first budget is a preliminary fulfillment of his promises to increase defense spending, improve military readiness, and strengthen the armed forces. But special interests in Congress – and some big legal questions – make its final adoption and form unpredictable.

As China’s new Cybersecurity Law is now irrevocably coming into force, the question is more what foreign businesses can do to adapt to or mitigate the law’s effects. China’s political project remains self-generation in all senses of the world, which nearly automatically means limited or controlled engagement with foreign commercial counterparts. Foreign businesses need to understand this in order to position their own potential contribution to that process of development as a path to growth.

The lack of clarity and consistency in the Trump administration’s approach to Asia is creating a security dilemma in the region. U.S. action and inaction has left room for a possible arms race and further instability in the region. The United States must begin consistent policy of engagement and a clear strategic approach in Asia in order to quell the budding security dilemma the current atmosphere presents.

Particularly after the election of the progressive Moon Jae-in as president of South Korea, it is opportune to consider whether American policy toward the North is due for a radical rethinking.

Maritime trade accounts for 90% of world trade, therefore international “choke points” like the Strait of Malacca are critically important for China, the largest trading nation in the world. The PLA Navy harbors no ambitions to control these straits, but it doesn’t want the straits to be controlled by others, either. The psychological effect of a Chinese carrier offshore would help “to subdue the enemy without using force”.

Two major security concerns, a rising China and a nuclear North Korea, have prompted the Pentagon to endorse a plan to invest $7.5 billion to strengthen the U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific region over the next five years. However, it remains to be seen how this fits with Trump administration’s broader policy and military posture for the Asia Pacific.

Even after the city’s anticipated retaking, jihadist ideas advocated by ISIS carry certain ideological appeal, which will not go away because of the group’s military defeat in the region or the deaths of its leaders. The chaotic environments of Iraq and Syria offer a rich seedbed for continued instability, recruiting and violence.

Affirmative findings would give the president statutory authority to raise import barriers to protect domestic sources. But invoking national security to justify protectionism is an extreme measure—the “nuclear option” of international trade law—that would generate some undesirable consequences for U.S.-China relations, as well as for the rules-based trading system itself.

The nature of Washington’s alliance network was always based on the assumption that the United States was firmly in charge of policy decisions. The risk inherent to America’s allies from that arrangement is now becoming increasingly evident.

Currently, there is no sufficient distinction in international law or norms to be made between simple system breaches and more malicious actions that damage or destroy systems, and that will almost certainly become necessary for the United States and China alike.