Regarding the March 9 front-page article “Pentagon report finds no evidence of alien visits”:

Earth sits in the middle of a vast, cold vacuum, incredibly far from even the star that provides us with warmth and light. To reach another solar system would require impossibly large amounts of energy and a spaceship that could carry that fuel, along with life support for any passengers. The voyage to a star would need to occur at close to light speed, and a spaceship traveling at such velocity would risk being destroyed when it collided with a small rock or grain of sand along the way. And, even if it were possible to reach another planet, it would likely be, at best, a desert, devoid of drinkable water or breathable air — incapable of supporting human life. Surely any other species capable of making a trip to Earth would have considered the same risks the journey and the destination pose.

Space travel in the Star Trek or Star Wars sense is not really a possibility, but it captures the human imagination. So, humans make up tales and indulge in fantasy. As a nation, we have so many projects that call out for support, such as medical research, global warming, the housing crisis and scientific exploration of the universe. Searching for alien space rockets fits nowhere on that priority list and benefits only conspiracy theorists.

In 2022, The Post Editorial Board advocated for UFO research. Given the Pentagon’s findings, perhaps it is time to call for an end to this boondoggle.

Stuart Gallant, Belmont, Mass.

It’s unsurprising that the Defense Department has been unable to find evidence left by intergalactic tourists or explorers. The fringe writer Erich von Däniken might believe that aliens came here long ago and left evidence of their influence in archaeological features such as the Egyptian pyramids and the Nazca Lines in Peru. But, given the situation of this planet since about 1900, any beings smart enough to travel through interstellar space would be wise enough not to land here.

David Thomas, Rockville

Keep trade flowing around the planet

The March 4 editorial, “Don’t let the World Trade Organization slip away,” masterfully outlined the strategic importance of the World Trade Organization to the United States and smartly advocated for a renewed U.S. commitment to the multilateral organization. The WTO is not without its flaws, but the member states account for over 98 percent of world trade, and only 14 countries are not part of the organization. For the United States, the stakes could not be higher. The WTO is our most influential forum for keeping a check on our economic relations with China, a sometimes-skeptic of the rule of law in global affairs.

Only two decades ago, the United States, across several presidential administrations, both Republican and Democratic, spent considerable U.S. political capital to negotiate China’s accession to the WTO. In 2002, then-Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) justified our effort to bring China, a nonmarket economy, into the WTO as an opportunity to “promote continued progress in the development of the commercial rule of law in China,” a development he hoped would bring about “the development of the rule of law more broadly” in that nation.

Unfortunately, bipartisan support for the WTO has evaporated. Congressional leaders and presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle have used the multilateral organization as a political punching bag, undermining its authority. The WTO is one of the few international organizations that has successfully pressured China and other countries to accept rules-based decisions. Letting the WTO “slip away” will only undermine our economic and strategic future.

Nao Matsukata, Bethesda

The author previously worked in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

The Editorial Board was right to call the United States a “culprit” in the World Trade Organization’s decline “in recent years” under the Trump and Biden administrations.

Indeed, an increasingly protectionist Washington has sidelined the WTO, along with the commitment to a rules-based international trading system, of which the United States was the chief architect after World War II. The WTO provides the best multilateral forum to address, for example, the subsidies China illegally gives its state companies to artificially improve their competitiveness on the world market. But in its pursuit of “reshoring,” “friendshoring,” “nearshoring,” supply-chain resilience and climate agendas, the Biden administration is essentially copying China’s government-led industrial policy — and thus its violations of WTO rules governing open markets and free trade.

Economic history shows that great powers tend to turn protectionist when they decline. Due to strong competition, especially from Germany and the United States, the British industry lost significant market shares in the waning stage of the British Empire. As a result, a strong political push emerged in London to replace “free trade” with “fair trade.”

Something quite similar has occurred in the United States: The U.S. share in world exports suffered a continuous steep fall in the post-World War II period: from 21.6 percent in 1948 to 8.5 percent in 2022, which is much lower than China’s 14.8 percent. But rather than seeing this marked downtrend as a warning signal for the underlying deterioration of U.S. export competitiveness, President Donald Trump and President Biden have blamed mainly China and the WTO for America’s trade problems. As happened in London in an earlier era, “free” vs. “fair” trade has become an integral part of Washington’s protectionist vocabulary. This is a narrow-minded view.

A strong WTO with effective mechanisms to curtail protectionism, including a binding dispute resolution mechanism, is very much in the interest of America and the world. Mr. Biden should take the lead in reforming the WTO and restoring its authority amid escalating protectionism worldwide.

Istvan Dobozi, Sarasota, Fla.

The writer is former lead economist of the World Bank.

And make sure parents get the support they need

I read with great interest Lyz Lenz’s March 3 Opinions Essay, “How’d I find my happily ever after? Divorce.,” and the March 8 letter, “The whole story on marriage,” responding to it.

No family arrangement, regardless of whether one or two adults live in the household, can thrive without systemic support. When I was a single mother of two and in medical school, I lived in the University of California at Berkeley’s family student housing complex. Albany Village ran a day care that offered free tuition for children of registered students. A regular shuttle service to the main campus included a stop at the university’s additional facilities providing care for babies and toddlers, so parents didn’t have to go out of their way for drop-off and pickup. The university even provided a service called Wheezles and Sneezles, open to children with colds, flu or chickenpox so parents didn’t have to miss class.

At the time, Berkeley charged about $200 a month for my 500-square-foot apartment. True, cockroaches abounded, and mice were plentiful. But so was community and camaraderie. Kids ran around making friends unsupervised. Parents had each other’s back.

Living in Albany Village, for none of the usual reasons, such as lush surroundings, a loving partner or a padded bank account, I could tell myself: “This must be what heaven looks like.” It’s the closest I’ve ever gotten to the promised land.

Caroline Wellbery, Bethesda

D.C. is decades late in fixing busing

I was disappointed to read Theresa Vargas’s March 10 Metro column, “It shouldn’t take a lawsuit for D.C. to do right by disabled students,” about the new lawsuit brought by parents against the District because of delays in getting their kids to school.

The problems detailed in the column are frustrating. But even more tragic is that these issues were supposed to be resolved long ago. In 2005, I joined a case brought in 1995 by students with special needs and their parents intended to make sure the District lived up to its obligations to help these children get to school. As a result, the District’s transportation services were monitored by a federal court for 17 years, supervision that was dismissed 12 years ago, after these problems were supposedly resolved.

The parents also were optimistic that sufficient structural changes to the system had been made to prevent backsliding. Apparently, that optimism was misplaced. Hopefully, this second time around, the District will be able to make a permanent fix and get the buses running on time.

Steven Ney, Takoma Park

Theresa Vargas’s column illustrated the true impact of inequitable treatment of disabled students. Without safe, timely bus transit, these children might not be able to reach the programs that are best suited to meet their needs. And they might be even more reliant on school for learning and socialization than their peers, who face no physical constraints on their participation in recreational activities and who don’t have to devote time to extra therapies. Many do not recognize the important role transit plays for promoting successful academic achievement and well-rounded students: Students who are late or tired from unnecessarily long rides or late drop-offs won’t be prepared to learn or able to rest well so they can be ready to get the most out of school the next day.

It may take a lawsuit to convey the message that these students, who already face additional challenges, deserve respect for their time. But it shouldn’t come to that.

Gail B. Landy, Gaithersburg