Where is the line between intentional disruption and chaos? It comes down to control. Staff departures – from communications officers to diplomats – are raising questions about the US administration’s ability to focus on governing.

The new tariffs placed on imports of aluminum and steel by the Trump administration represent a rejection of status-quo trade policies – even of using a multilateral approach to pressuring China. What's less clear is whether the proposed replacement approach has a workable endgame.

As President Kabila's rule has dragged on, the Catholic Church’s role in the political crisis has shifted from moral condemnation to active resistance. That’s even more remarkable in this context: Historically, the church was a state partner. Having a steady presence doesn’t mean standing still.

Writer Harry Bruinius went to Baltimore in January to report on the city’s record-high murder rate. It would become his most wrenching assignment. At a gathering of mothers affected by the violence he heard forgiveness – and gratitude for forgiveness. “In a deeply emotional moment,” Harry says, “there was a jolt of hope.” In a series of conversations, two mothers shared with him their interwoven stories. The result was this remarkable piece about taking steps toward healing.

The apparent reversal of progress merits attention, too, so that signs of its replication can be addressed. This last piece is really “a canary in a coal mine story,” our Europe editor says, about how xenophobia has crept into the area around Schio, Italy – a place where the integration of “outsiders” has been working for decades.

In proposing high tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum, President Trump has cited three reasons for his trade protectionism. One is political: It would fulfill a campaign promise to bring back metal-factory jobs. Another is economic: It would revive a lost piece of the total economy in the Rust Belt. A third is strategic: It would help retain a material supply for national defense.

All three reasons are widely disputed by many experts, including some in his own administration. More jobs will be lost than gained, they say. Metalmaking is not as vital to the economy as in the past. And, they add, such an arbitrary rule would damage national security by offending both allies and adversaries as well as ignite a global trade war.

So far, none of the arguments have turned Mr. Trump away from his plan. In fact, he responded by saying he welcomes a trade war because it would be “easy to win.” He threatened more import tariffs against any country that imposes a duty on United States goods or services.

Yet the president also offered a fourth reason for his proposal, one that might open a door for negotiations and a way to find common ground.

By his own moral sense, Trump believes the tariffs will restore some reciprocity in trade relations. He cites “cheating” by China and other nations that are accused of selling steel abroad below the cost of making it and of stealing key technologies. He also cites past trade agreements that allow countries to effectively block competition from American companies.

Trump is hardly alone in demanding reciprocity. “We are committed to free trade, but it must be reciprocal,” says German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Britain is in the throes of negotiations with the European Union over its trade relations as it prepares to exit the EU.

People have a deep desire for reciprocity in all relationships. It underlies notions of justice, equality, and the social contract. In trade agreements between nations, reciprocity is the moral foundation that helps determine how to reward each country’s abilities to produce goods and services. A society, wrote Plato in The Republic, “will be more abundant and the products more easily produced and of better quality if each does the work nature has equipped him to do....”

In demanding a new norm of fairness in trade, Trump is expressing a moral value as well as his economic, political, and strategic justifications for the tariffs. The probable practical effects of his proposal should be disputed. But the starting point of any negotiation needs to be a broader understanding of the intrinsic value of reciprocity.

Such a discussion goes beyond defining tit-for-tat fairness. It involves the greater good available when all sides accept reciprocity as a moral foundation, one that requires each side to acknowledge the other’s interests. Commercial trade is not always a zero-sum game in which some lose, some win. It is as much a social contract as an economic deal. At the least, the president deserves a hearing on his moral concern.