Good morning and welcome to On Politics, a daily political analysis of the 2020 elections based on reporting by New York Times journalists.

Sign up here to get On Politics in your inbox every weekday.

Where things stand

• What’s the bigger threat to the economy: a lack of government action to shore it up, or lockdowns that keep businesses closed? The Senate Banking Committee heard two different arguments from two different sources on Tuesday, when Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, and Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, testified in a joint appearance. Mnuchin warned of “permanent damage” to the economy if businesses weren’t allowed to reopen soon. Powell, on the other hand, has suggested repeatedly that Congress may need to spend more to confront the coronavirus’s effects; speaking to the committee, he emphasized the dangers of reopening too hastily. “The No. 1 thing, of course, is people believing that it’s safe to go back to work,” Powell said. “And that’s about having a sensible, thoughtful reopening of the economy.”

• Bringing things back into operation mid-pandemic can be a halting process — especially when many major decisions about how and when to reopen aren’t being made at the federal level. Colleges and universities are deciding whether to hold in-person classes next fall, and students are waiting with bated breath, some of them wondering if it’s worth it to enroll at all. Meanwhile, some churches that had resumed in-person gatherings are developing a case of reopener’s remorse. Holy Ghost Catholic Church in Houston, for instance, closed again after a priest who had pneumonia died and five leaders tested positive last weekend for the coronavirus. At a single church in Arkansas, 35 of the 92 people who had attended over a six-day period later tested positive for the virus, and three died, according to a report released yesterday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

• President Trump this week has turned up his criticism of the World Health Organization, continuing his attempts to blame the U.N. agency, along with China, for the spread of the virus, which has now killed over 90,000 Americans. Trump sent a letter on Monday night threatening to permanently cut off the United States’ funding for the group unless it committed to “major, substantive improvements” within 30 days. But yesterday, at the organization’s annual meeting in Geneva, the leaders of other member nations basically called Trump’s bluff, all but ignoring his demands and instead saying they would begin an “impartial, independent” investigation into the W.H.O.’s response to the pandemic. In any case, Trump would need Congress’s approval to withhold funding from the organization, and many analysts say that’s unlikely to happen. Chinese, Russian and European Union officials have reproached Trump for his comments, again leaving the United States to stand mostly alone on the world stage.

• Joe Biden also has his eyes on foreign policy. Sooner or later, in his dance between the center and the left, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee knew he would have to confront the party’s evolving stance on the United States-Israel relationship. And that’s what he sought to do Tuesday on a call with donors, as he affirmed his support of Israel (“unshakable,” he said) but criticized Benjamin Netanyahu, the country’s conservative prime minister, a close ally of Trump’s. Biden said Netanyahu had moved “so, so far to the right,” and he called on the Israeli government to “stop the threat of annexation” of the West Bank territories, according to a pool report. “It’ll choke off any hope of peace,” Biden said. Criticizing the Israeli government on the campaign trail was basically verboten just a few years ago. But as Israel’s policies have moved generally rightward, the average Democratic voter has grown markedly more liberal — and views on Israel are no exception. When asked last year in a Gallup poll whether they had more sympathy for the situation of Israelis or Palestinians, liberal Democrats were almost evenly split. That was the first time on record this has been true.

Photo of the day

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s testimony before a virtual hearing of the Senate Banking Committee was shown on televisions in the Capitol.

Why the Congressional Black Caucus backed a white House challenger in New York over his black opponent

Eliot Engel, a 16-term Democratic congressman from New York, faces a primary challenge next month from Jamaal Bowman, a progressive educator.

Bowman faces an uphill battle, but he has received support from a number of national grass-roots groups ahead of the June 23 primary. Yet the Congressional Black Caucus PAC has decided to back Engel, who is white, over his black challenger — a move that has garnered some criticism. In a statement, Bowman called the decision “disappointing,” and allies said it was proof that the black caucus cared more about incumbency than increasing racial representation.

In a phone interview this week, Gregory Meeks, also a New York congressman and the chair of the black caucus’s political arm, defended the decision.

Gregory Meeks: Our criteria, when it comes to incumbents — it comes down to what they’ve done while they’re in Washington. How have they voted on issues that are important to the Congressional Black Caucus? What’s their relationship with African-Americans in their district?

Astead Herndon: And none of that calculus changes if the incumbent is facing a black challenger?

Just like I would if there was a black incumbent against a white challenger, we go by the merits of what they’ve done while they’re in Washington, D.C.

So would it be fair to say that incumbency, in the eyes of the C.B.C. PAC, is a higher priority than the question of racial representation?

No. We want someone who is voting and listening to the African-American community, that’s what’s important. We look at the voting record, and if you’re an incumbent we can see that. Eliot Engel has voted in a way that’s beneficial to his African-American community.

I remember talking during the 2018 cycle, when the C.B.C. endorsed Representative Michael Capuano over Ayanna Pressley. You gave similar reasons at the time when, clearly, the people of color who voted in that race felt differently. Has any thought been given to these outcomes? Have you changed anything about the endorsement process now that more black challengers are running?

You pick one race. One race that went one way. But there’s many other races that went the other way and the incumbent won. When you looked at Michael Capuano’s record, he supported issues that were important to the Congressional Black Caucus. Otherwise, you’re telling members of Congress that even if they support issues that are important to the Congressional Black Caucus, we’ll have a blind eye to that.

We believe in trying to make sure that people of color have the best representation possible.

Is there anything a black challenger can do that would get the Congressional Black Caucus to endorse them or sit out the race? Or is it all about the incumbent?

It’s about the record of the person while they were in Congress. And the relationships they have with the African-Americans they represent. That’s what we think is important.

On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.

Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.