We asked every 2020 Democrat how they would approach a trade war that has shaken the global economy. Only a handful of them had a plan.

Michael Bennet

The campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Joseph Biden

The campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment. At the third presidential debate in Houston last month, Biden said imbalances should be addressed but did not specify how.

Cory Booker

The campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment. At the third presidential debate in Houston last month, Booker said the US should address the trade dispute alongside allies but did not specify how.

Steve Bullock

The campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Pete Buttigieg

The campaign declined to comment. At the third presidential debate in Houston last month, Buttigieg said he would "include the tariffs as leverage" in trade negotiations.

Julián Castro

The campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

John Delaney

On whether the tariffs Trump imposed on Chinese products should be rolled back:

Delaney would remove certain of the Trump administration's tariffs on Chinese goods. Tariffs are one tool that can be used in trade disputes, but relying on them hurts the American economy while having limited success in achieving our true strategic trade goals.

On how the candidate would address issues that could put Americans at a disadvantage, such as IP theft:

Addressing IP theft would be one of Delaney's top priorities in our relationship with China. Delaney would work with US allies to insist on stronger protections for intellectual property and for the opening of the Chinese market generally, and he would support legislation to hold US companies accountable when they knowingly put intellectual property that benefited from taxpayer-funded research into risky joint ventures as a means of getting their way into foreign markets. Additionally, rejoining the TPP is central to Delaney's trade platform and would give the US more economic leverage in Asia to set fair rules for trade and counter anti-competitive Chinese practices.

On whether the Hong Kong protests and treatment of the Uighur population should be tied to the trade dispute with China:

Delaney believes that responding to the treatment of the Uighur population should be included in US diplomatic discussions with the Chinese government and strongly supports the US advocating for human rights as part of diplomacy generally. He would work with the UN and the international community to condemn human rights violations and would urge the Chinese government to respect Hong Kong's autonomous rights as a special administrative region.

On whether Huawei is a national security threat and subject to sanctions:

Delaney is concerned about potential security vulnerabilities stemming from Huawei's involvement in US and European telecommunications networks and believes it is appropriate to limit Huawei's role in implementing 5G. Huawei's recent offer to separate its technology is worthy of some degree of exploration.

Tulsi Gabbard

The campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Kamala Harris

The campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment. At the third presidential debate in Houston last month, Harris said China should be held accountable but did not specify how.

Amy Klobuchar

On whether the tariffs Trump imposed on Chinese products should be rolled back:

Senator Klobuchar will review all international tariffs in place as of 2021. She believes that President Trump is creating chaos with his erratic approach, which has trapped us in an escalatory tariff war that is hurting our workers, our farmers, and our economy.

On how the candidate would address issues that could put Americans at a disadvantage, such as IP theft:

She is open to targeted, well-considered trade actions against China that respond directly to China's long-standing and well-documented violations of international trading rules, but she does not believe in any way that the current situation should continue.

On whether the Hong Kong protests and treatment of the Uighur population should be tied to the trade dispute with China:

The campaign did not answer.

On whether Huawei is a national security threat and subject to sanctions:

The campaign referred Business Insider to remarks on Face The Nation this summer. Here's the transcript:

[6/30/19 Face the Nation]: I don't think we should be doing business with them right now. And I agree with my colleagues, not just Senator Rubio, but also Senator Warner, Mark Warner, who is the ranking on the intelligence committee, that this is a major security risk for America. You know, you look at everything from China to Russia, using cyber against us. It is the modern warfare. We certainly know that from our elections in 2016.

They may not use tanks or missiles, but they can go after our electric grid, they can go after our security in a very different way. And so I don't know why he would just give that away right now. I would think that he would put firm, firm standards in place as part of any agreement with China and that's not what we have. We just have another promise that they're going to buy American agriculture. Okay, that's positive, but I wouldn't give it up in the short-term gain for the long term where we need to protect our security and our cybersecurity.

Beto O’Rourke

The campaign declined to comment.

Tim Ryan

The campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Bernie Sanders

On whether the tariffs Trump imposed on Chinese products should be rolled back:

"My administration will begin a full review of all of the tariffs Trump has imposed, including advice from experts about which tariffs are working and what policies will substantially reduce our record-breaking trade deficit in goods and bring back good-paying jobs in the U.S. that have been outsourced overseas.

"Tariffs may be part of the answer, but the Trump administration lacks a serious strategy for reducing our trade deficit or bringing back U.S. jobs that have been shipped to low-wage countries. Instead of conducting trade policy by tweet, we need a complete overhaul of our trade policies to increase American jobs, end the race to the bottom, raise wages and lift up living standards in this country and throughout the world."

On how the candidate would address issues that could put Americans at a disadvantage, such as IP theft:

"American concerns about China's technology practices and IP theft are shared in Europe and across the Asia-Pacific. We can place far more pressure on China to change its policies if we work together with the broader international community and the other developed economies.

"As president, Sen. Sanders would establish a coalition of allies and partners that is agile enough to respond to Beijing's troubling behavior in key areas — including disputes over trade and IP — while pursuing ways to cooperate with China to tackle pressing challenges, especially climate change. Ultimately, restoring our capacity to be a model for others and rebuilding our competitive edge — both of which are suffering under Trump — will enable us to better respond to a rising China."

On whether the Hong Kong protests and treatment of the Uighur population should be tied to the trade dispute with China:

"Human rights and trade are very much connected. Labor protections are very weak in China, and the rights of workers are an essential component of human rights. Trade negotiations should, for example, target corporations that contribute surveillance technologies that enable China's authoritarian practices.

"China is engaged in a program of mass internment and cultural genocide against the Uighur people. It has also been steadily eroding liberal democracy in Hong Kong. A Sanders administration will work with allies to strengthen global human rights standards and make every effort to let Beijing know that its behavior is damaging its international standing and undermining relations with the United States.

"Unfortunately, the Trump administration has abandoned the United States' role in promoting human rights."

On whether Huawei is a national security threat and subject to sanctions:

"Senator Sanders is concerned that Huawei's 5G networks could be utilized by Chinese hackers and spies. The Sanders administration will undertake a full assessment of the intelligence concerning this issue.

"If Huawei networks pose a national-security threat to the United States and our allies, he will work with allies to impose restrictions and sanctions. What he won't do is beat his chest about the threat and then toss the issue aside in a trade negotiation. That's President Trump's approach. It does not take our national security seriously."

Joe Sestak

On whether the tariffs Trump imposed on Chinese products should be rolled back:

Yes, I would remove them — and as quickly as possible. (See below for how to better address the issue.)

On how the candidate would address issues that could put Americans at a disadvantage, such as IP theft:

"In addition to intellectual property theft, a range of other Chinese trade practices — from subsidizing entire industries to running state-owned enterprises — are unfair and unjust. We must take appropriate action to get China to follow the "rules of the road", starting with convening the world together to enforce proper conduct on these issues. We must take immediate action.

"The primary mechanism on trade must be the World Trade Organization, which we do need to fix, but which offers the means to leverage our power and the power of all of our allies and friends around the world. As it stands, China is treated like a developing economy — which grants them "special and differential treatment" — but we need the countries in the WTO to realize that the market capitalism of most countries and the state capitalism of China are two very different systems.

"China's Communist Party controls its economy with an extremely heavy hand, using state-owned enterprises, along with companies heavily influenced or directed by the state, to dominate a range of industries. We will have to start by changing WTO rules, which were originally written mainly to prevent dumping.

"Simply put, the WTO was not set up to deal with a vast, mercantile state using opaque subsidies and state-owned firms so its companies can compete unfairly on the world stage, distorting global trade on a scale far bigger than anyone anticipated — particularly with China's GDP now at nearly 75% of the US GDP. The WTO needs to create a more realistic definition of what kind of state support counts as a subsidy, redefine what a public company/public body is (changing the erroneous WTO appellate body ruling in 2003), and broaden the scope of banned subsidies.

"We must also make it easier to gather information on the wrongdoing of China, and if China does not comply by providing information, that will factor into decisions that go against them. The opacity of China makes it far too difficult to judge wrongdoing in trade practices. The WTO must lower the burden of proof for complainants challenging China's unfair trade practices and expedite the process by which cases are decided (60 days should be the limit).

"In summary, the WTO needs to treat the Chinese government's role in Chinese businesses for what it is: a raft of subsidies keeping Chinese enterprises floating above everyone else's. And, finally, the WTO also needs to play a strong role in addressing the $300 billion theft of US intellectual property, sapping potential revenue from countless American firms.

"With the world agreeing to this and standing firm together against China, it will prove to be in China's interest to support a fair global trading system, or else it will face a decline in its economic prosperity. If we are unable to reach agreement among the 164 nations of the WTO on these issues, we will have to establish a plurilateral agreement among the world's largest economies within the WTO to force China's hand.

"Such an agreement within the WTO would permit the world's largest economies to enforce the WTO's rulings against China, but with an agreement that the same rulings would not be enforced against poorer developing nations. We must succeed in these efforts — the welfare of our entire economy is at stake — but we can only do so if we convene the world and stand with our allies and friends on behalf of a rules-based global order."

On whether the Hong Kong protests and treatment of the Uighur population should be tied to the trade dispute with China:

"I am deeply concerned about the human rights situation in China, especially in Hong Kong, and among the minority Muslim Uighur population, and traditionally Buddhist Tibetans. As the leading country of the rules-based world order organized around liberal values, we must consistently speak out against oppression and injustice, whether in China or any other country.

"But our trade policy must by necessity be focused mainly on correcting a different set of injustices — intellectual property theft, illegal subsidies, dumping, etc. However, as we get China to follow the rules of the road on fair trade, we will increasingly use our leverage to improve the human rights situation. But, again, we alone will not be able to get the results we want.

"We need to utilize our allies and international institutions, because only international solidarity will be able to constrain China and their autocratic values."

On whether Huawei is a national security threat and subject to sanctions:

"Yes, it is a direct threat to national security and it should be subject to sanctions, but also much more. We must convene the world to ensure that alternatives to Chinese technology exist, especially in information technology. Chinese corporations, led by Huawei, are now connecting at least two-thirds of the world's population to the transformational speed of the 5G network.

"China is making every country that signs up for its "Belt and Road Initiative" agree to add China's 5G service as well. Even in countries that don't have Belt and Road agreements, China will still dominate 5G because Chinese companies make the wireless tower technology. This is arguably the greatest threat facing us from China. 5G will revolutionize economies — and warfare — particularly for those who build the network and therefore own it — and the United States does not even make the wireless equipment to do it.

"China's ownership of 5G will give it a police-state capability to surveil everything on the network, both for commercial and intelligence purposes: whether it is to observe virtual business meetings or to close down critical infrastructure — from our electrical grid to nuclear power plants — during international tensions.

"And to ensure it has "eyes" on everything, data not passed through wireless systems will pas into China' hands via the undersea fiber-optic cables it is laying, which connecting the world's continents and carry more than 95% of all international communications traffic. Between the undersea cables and 5G, China will see and hear everything.

"Only by convening the world can we prevent Huawei and other companies — and therefore the Chinese government — from owning all of the information that passes through their 5G system. That will mean serious public-private investment, but it will be well worth it.

"To make matters worse, our corporations have outsourced our national security by allowing China to create a virtual monopoly in manufacturing the supply chains that make so many corporations' high-tech products, well beyond 5G towers. China makes 90% of personal computers sold in the United States, and 75% of mobile phones.

"Chinese-made motherboards are used in data servers worldwide, and according to landmark reporting from Bloomberg News last year, they are already sneaking in tiny microchips that can be used for spying. From Apple and Amazon to the Defense Department and the CIA, our entire business and national security establishment is in danger.

"This means that private data of Americans — and of the American government — can be surreptitiously sent to China, as software installed on some Android phones already makes possible today.

"Outsourcing jobs and industries to China has been bad enough, but outsourcing our national security is beyond the pale."

Tom Steyer

On whether the tariffs Trump imposed on Chinese products should be rolled back:

"Donald Trump is fraud and failure. His trade war with China is costing the average American family more than $2,000 a year and stifling American innovation and competitiveness at a loss of 300,000 jobs, according to Moody's.

"Tom would rollback back all the tariffs imposed on China as quickly as possible. Despite Trump's promise to bring manufacturing back, his actions have hurt that industry particularly hard. Trade policy success requires able and dependable leadership and strategies that aggressively promote, and protect American economic and national security interests."

On how the candidate would address issues that could put Americans at a disadvantage, such as IP theft:

"We are going to have to engage with China both economically and politically. It's ignorant to think that we can completely divorce these relationships. The real challenge facing our country is how we promote and protect American economic and national security interests.

"Tom believes that we should stand up strongly to China to protect the interests of American intellectual property and punish those that don't obey international laws. We are also going to have to protect American consumers and workers, ensure our cybersecurity, and work with China to address pressing global issues like the climate crisis and regional security."

On whether the Hong Kong protests and treatment of the Uighur population should be tied to the trade dispute with China:

"We are going to have to leverage our economic, political, and diplomatic strength to China to respect human rights within their country and their neighbors. The devil is in the details of how we compete with China, and when we engage with them as a strategic partner."

On whether Huawei is a national security threat and subject to sanctions:

The campaign did not answer.

Elizabeth Warren

The campaign declined to comment. Warren called tariffs an "important tool" in her trade plan.

Marianne Williamson

1. Would any tariffs Trump has levied on Chinese products be removed? How soon? If not, would they be counteracted somehow?

"Americans have been too weak in dealing with China. China is playing a long game, aiming to dominate markets worldwide. China steals technology from the West by copying it and reverse-engineering it, or requiring coercive "partnerships" with Western companies that want to do business in China.

"Typically, an American company is attracted by subsidies to build plants and take advantage of cheap labor. But the company must agree to produce only for export back to the West (not sell in China where it would compete with Chinese companies), and to share its advanced technologies with a Chinese partner whose goal is to displace the Western rival over time.

"The American response to Chinese strong-arm tactics has been timid and pro-corporate at the expense of American workers.

"Although I sometimes appreciate Trump's tough stand with China, his clumsiness and impulsivity has created a chaotic situation. His unpredictability has roiled stock markets. The tariffs levied on Chinese products has cost American consumers, with the average American estimated to pay an additional $800 this year according to economist Paul Krugman. Moreover, Trump has alienated US allies such as Canada and Europe, so he is on his own dealing with the Chinese, thus weakening his hand in negotiations."

2. If so, would the candidate still attempt to address issues such as IP theft? And what other tools could be used as leverage in negotiations? What could be used as an enforcement mechanism?

"As president I would negotiate with the Chinese to remove the tariffs, in exchange for concessions from them. Concession could include such things as allowing US businesses to operate in China without sharing their technologies with the Chinese, and other steps to stop intellectual property theft and commercial espionage.

"In these and any trade negations, protecting the rights or workers and the environment need to take a central role. I like the concept of an international carbon tax on all imports, for example, if China sends us goods produced with coal and other dirty technology, those goods would face a tariff.

"Similarly, China needs to move into the modern community of nations and recognize the rights of workers to organize and bargain in their own interests; that means unions function independently of the Communist Party.

"These demands could be enforced by the US protecting more of its national security, business and technology interests in relation to China. Moreover, I would assemble a coordinated Western response to China's tactics, so we would not be dealing with them alone and have more power in negotiations.

"We have laws to protect US military secrets. But the boundary between military and business technology is no longer clear. We need stronger laws protecting US business technology as a matter of national security."

3. Should China's handling of the Hong Kong protests be tied to the trade dispute? What about human rights issues such as the treatment of the Uighur population?

"The UN Declaration of Human Rights declares the rights which should be protected for all people. Violations of these rights such as the violent treatment of protesters in Hong Kong and the treatment of the Uighur population should be called out, and considered in all aspects of international relations including trade.

"The treatment of the Uighur people is particularly egregious. China has imprisoned more than a million Uighur in the Xinjiang region. Some observers say internment camps there are an effort to wipe out Uighur identity.

"I support putting companies that build the Uighur detention camps and their surveillance system on the Commerce Departments' Entity List. The Entity List is comprised of certain foreign entities– including businesses, research institutions, government and private organizations, and individuals– that are subject to specific license requirements for the export, reexport and/or transfer of specified items.

"Furthermore, I would use the Global Magnitsky Act to sanction the people running the camps and against Chinese officials overseeing the Xinjiang policy. Enacted in 2016, the Global Magnitsky Act allows the executive branch to impose visa bans and targeted sanctions on individuals anywhere in the world responsible for committing human rights violations or acts of significant corruption.

"As Human Rights Watch says, "Sanctions deny individuals entry into the US, allow the seizure of any of their property held in the country, and effectively prevent them from entering into transactions with large numbers of banks and companies. Both American firms and international firms with American subsidiaries run the risk of violating US sanctions if they do business with sanctioned people." I would apply these sanctions forcefully on the Chinese involved in trampling the human rights of the Uighur people."

4. Is a company like Huawei a national security threat? If so, should it be subject to sanctions?

"We need to understand that China seeks world domination not through armies, but through markets and communications. They have a government-controlled economy and people. They want the same in other countries. They don't just want to make money. They want to control other countries markets and tele-communications.

"In China, everything is monitored. The Chinese government spies on everyone and everything. Any equipment from China could ultimately be used to spy on us.

"So yes, a company like Huawei is definitely a serious national security risk. The giant telecommunications company and phone maker could use its extensive reach and power to spy on the US government, businesses, and people.

"The US was right to ban US companies from using the Huawei networking equipment in 2012. Trump was right to add Huawei to the US Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security Entity List in 2019.

"The US has the power to prevent China from buying strategically important companies, which we have done through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS). We should ensure China does not get an unfair advantage by buying American advanced-technology companies, or placing state-controlled companies like Huawei or ZTE in the heart of US infrastructure."

Andrew Yang

The campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment. At the third presidential debate in Houston last month, Yang said he would not immediately remove them.