Former U.S. Treasury Assistant Secretary Mitchell Silk joins J100 for an in-person conversation about his extraordinary path from working in Chinese restaurants as a teenager to becoming a senior American official involved in China trade negotiations, global finance, infrastructure, fintech, and CARES Act relief.
Silk reflects on his Hasidic identity, his grandfather’s influence, his years in Asia-focused law and finance, his work at the Treasury Department, the future of U.S.-China relations, Israel’s economic importance, antisemitism in financial markets, digital currency, and his new book A Seat at the Table.
Condensed Transcript
David M. Cohen:
Mitchell Silk, it is a great honor and pleasure to welcome you here to Algemeiner headquarters. We are very glad to have you with us.
I want to begin with something unusual. You are an Orthodox Jewish man, a Hasidic Jew, and yet you speak Chinese, you have deep experience in China, and you built much of your professional life around China and Asia. How does that happen?
Mitchell Silk:
The joking answer is: hak mir nisht in China.
But the real answer is a long story, full of hashgacha — divine providence — and a lot of hard work.
When I was fourteen, not long after my bar mitzvah, I felt I needed to help my mother financially. She was a single mother. I found a job in the kitchen of a Chinese restaurant. A family from Hong Kong had moved into our neighborhood, and I became friendly with their sons. Their cousins had a restaurant nearby, and they helped me get a job there.
I started washing dishes and doing prep work. I would cut up hundred-pound sacks of onions and cabbage. Eventually I moved into the dining room, became a busboy, and then a waiter.
At some point, I realized that if I wanted to maximize my earning potential as a waiter, I needed to communicate with the chefs. None of them spoke English. So I started learning the language. I learned Cantonese first. Later, I realized that Cantonese was spoken by many Chinese immigrants in America, but by a much smaller percentage of people in China itself. If I wanted a career connected to China, I needed Mandarin.
So after high school I went to Middlebury for an intensive summer program, then spent a year in Taiwan at National Taiwan Normal University. When I came back, I was fluent in Mandarin and already had Cantonese under my belt.
David M. Cohen:
Were you naturally good with languages? Do you speak many languages?
Mitchell Silk:
I’m not a polyglot. I speak Yiddish. I break my teeth on Hebrew. But I don’t speak fifteen languages.
My maternal grandfather, who was the greatest inspiration of my life, spoke five languages before he came to America and taught himself English when he arrived. I don’t have that many languages under my belt.
David M. Cohen:
At that point, did you know you wanted to become a lawyer?
Mitchell Silk:
Not at first. In high school, I thought maybe I would open a restaurant. But after working in restaurants, I saw the life. You might make money, but it was very hard and labor-intensive.
I realized that if I wanted to do something, I probably needed to go to college. At the time, I wanted to do something related to China, though I wasn’t sure exactly what. I eventually transferred to Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service. I had a wonderful mentor there, Professor Thomas Robinson, who was an expert on foreign policy, Sino-Soviet relations, and U.S.-China relations.
He asked me what I wanted to do. Medical school? No. Dental school? No. Then he said, “Okay, you’re going to law school.” And it made sense. I wanted a career where I could put my Chinese to work, and it came down to banking and finance or law. I chose law.
David M. Cohen:
Beyond the language, what drew you to China or Asia?
Mitchell Silk:
It goes back to my childhood in the Chicago area. There were many Asian immigrants coming into the neighborhood, particularly Korean immigrants, though I didn’t understand the distinctions at the time. To me, there was a mystique around Asia.
And this may sound funny, but I was also an avid watcher of The Green Hornet, with Kato. That contributed to the mystique. Then, when we moved to Florida, I became close with friends from Hong Kong, and that personal connection deepened the interest.
David M. Cohen:
Let’s talk about your Jewish background. You’ve received attention as the first Hasidic appointee confirmed by the Senate for a senior federal role. How did you become Hasidic?
Mitchell Silk:
A Satmar friend of mine once asked me, “When did you become so Hasidic?” And I told him, “I was born Hasidic. I just didn’t know it.”
I grew up in a Jewish environment in Chicago. To me, everyone was Jewish. I didn’t think in terms of Hasidic, Litvish, Sephardic, German-Jewish, or anything else.
But my maternal grandfather was born in Nadvorna, in what is now western Ukraine. His father and grandfather were ritual scribes, and they were followers of the Nadvorna Hasidic dynasty. My grandfather came to America in 1920 and, like many European Jews, Americanized to some degree. But when I spent Shabbos and Yom Tov with him, I absorbed everything — the way he cut challah, the tune he used for Kiddush, the songs we sang. It was all Hasidic. I just didn’t have a label for it.
When I got married, I already wore a hat and had a beard. My wife comes from a very distinguished Hasidic lineage, and when I got married I put on a bekeshe for Shabbos and Yom Tov.
David M. Cohen:
When you began your legal career, wearing a kippah in a major law firm was still a big deal. What was that like?
Mitchell Silk:
It was a real issue. Today, I love seeing young lawyers walk proudly into firms wearing yarmulkes. When I started, I could probably count on one hand the number of lawyers in major firms who did.
I began at Hughes Hubbard & Reed, a very venerable Wall Street firm. Many partners did not necessarily understand what Orthodox meant, or even what Jewish observance meant. At first, I did not wear a yarmulke in the office. I felt it was too much at that time.
It was a very different era.
David M. Cohen:
What was your legal specialty?
Mitchell Silk:
Regionally, Asia — especially China. Functionally, I began with banking, finance, regulatory work, and some corporate work. For the last twenty years of my career, I focused heavily on energy and infrastructure.
Those two threads — China and infrastructure — eventually led directly to the work I did at Treasury.
David M. Cohen:
Why should a regular person care about energy and infrastructure?
Mitchell Silk:
Because they are at the core of everything.
We cannot function without energy and infrastructure. We need lights. We need electricity. You cannot have an iPhone without electricity. People need water. People need roads and bridges. They need transportation. Energy and infrastructure are the fundamental underpinnings of the global economy.
Innovation has changed this dramatically. When I started, energy was mostly about fossil fuels and large projects. Over time, renewables, technology, and fintech changed the landscape.
There are places in Africa where people have no access to banks, no running water, and no electricity. But with solar-powered phone chargers and mobile devices, people can suddenly access banking and other services from their village. That is the power of innovation in infrastructure and finance.
David M. Cohen:
How does someone go from being a partner in a major law firm to working at the Treasury Department?
Mitchell Silk:
I made a single-digit percentage at Treasury of what I made in private practice.
But to answer the question, I have to go back thirty years. When I was at Georgetown, I considered the Foreign Service. But I decided not to take the Foreign Service exam. I didn’t want to spend years working my way up a huge bureaucracy, possibly starting in a consular job somewhere I didn’t want to be.
Instead, I decided to build functional expertise. I would become very good at something — China, finance, infrastructure — and then, one day, if the right opportunity came, I would try to lateral into government at a higher level.
That was the plan. And thirty years later, it happened.
After practicing law for decades, including many years in Hong Kong and Asia, I had reached a point where I wondered how many more billion-dollar cross-border deals one could do in a lifetime. President Trump had just won the election. A close friend and former partner was appointed to a senior position at Treasury, and I said I would be interested in serving if there was an appropriate opportunity.
The undersecretary was looking for someone with China expertise and infrastructure expertise. I had both.
David M. Cohen:
What do Americans misunderstand about China?
Mitchell Silk:
To understand that, you have to look at different phases of U.S.-China relations.
China opened to the West in 1979 under Deng Xiaoping. For a period, there was something like a honeymoon. China was integrating into the global economic order.
A turning point came around 2000, when China entered the World Trade Organization. Over time, people began to realize that something was not right. China wanted the benefits of being both a developing country and a developed country at the same time. It used its WTO status as both a shield and a sword.
For many years, the United States tried to get China to converge into the global order. In my view, many of those meetings were meetings for the sake of meetings.
It was not until 2017 that President Trump said, essentially, enough. He imposed tariffs and brought China to the table. I was a senior negotiator in the talks that led to the Phase One trade agreement with China.
When Trump entered office, the U.S. had a $375 billion trade deficit with China. There were major issues around intellectual property, cybersecurity, industrial policy, subsidies, and market access. The Phase One agreement secured purchase commitments, IP protections, and other measures — and then COVID disrupted implementation.
David M. Cohen:
Tell us about your role at Treasury.
Mitchell Silk:
I served as Assistant Secretary for International Markets. It was a statutory position overseeing several functional offices within Treasury International Affairs.
That included trade, international financial markets, technical assistance to foreign governments, and global infrastructure finance. I represented the United States in international forums, including meetings involving central bankers and finance ministers.
I also expanded work on global infrastructure finance, including matters involving the Export-Import Bank and the Development Finance Corporation.
At Treasury, the numbers are hard to fathom. In private practice, a big deal might be a billion or several billion dollars. At Treasury, we were dealing with hundreds of billions and even trillions.
At the end of my time there, senior officials all received responsibilities related to the CARES Act. I implemented CARES Act relief for the airline industry. That work took up nine months and helped save more than 600,000 U.S. jobs.
David M. Cohen:
How did your Treasury work connect with Israel?
Mitchell Silk:
I participated in the U.S.-Israel economic dialogue, where senior officials from both countries discuss finance and trade issues. I also stood up the first U.S.-Israel fintech dialogue, which was very exciting and productive.
I was also asked to participate in part of the economic plan connected to the Abraham Accords, particularly around energy and infrastructure. I designed working plans related to regional energy and stability centered around Israeli energy and infrastructure.
It was very rewarding work.
David M. Cohen:
What is your view of the U.S.-Israel relationship from an economic standpoint?
Mitchell Silk:
It is very important for Israel to maintain strong relations with the United States. It is a symbiotic relationship.
There are major opportunities now around critical minerals, energy dominance, and infrastructure. These are areas where Israeli innovation can play a very important role.
At the same time, I am very concerned about antisemitism and anti-Israel hostility entering financial markets. I was involved in pushing back against false depictions of the Orthodox community in the media, but what worries me now is how both antisemitism and anti-Israel politics are creeping into finance.
One example is New York City’s decision not to continue investing in Israel bonds as part of the pension fund. In my view, that was politically driven and unacceptable. Fiduciary decisions for retirees should not be driven by politics.
Another concern is Moody’s sovereign rating of Israel. Moody’s rating diverged from S&P and Fitch, and Moody’s attributed that divergence in part to political factors. Political factors can be one component of a sovereign rating, but they should not prevail over macroeconomic fundamentals — especially when Israel’s economic indicators were stronger than many people realized after the initial shock of October 7.
The politicization of financial markets to the detriment of any country, particularly Israel, is extremely troubling.
David M. Cohen:
What are your thoughts on cryptocurrency and digital currency?
Mitchell Silk:
I am a strong proponent of digital currency, though I distinguish that from all of crypto.
Crypto is a market of its own, and regulation will take time to catch up. But if you look at technological innovation in financial markets broadly — insurance, consumer finance, back office systems, payments — the markets are larger and stronger because of innovation.
Digital currency and fintech are also important for the U.S. dollar. Maintaining dollar dominance is crucial not only for growth and financial stability, but also for national security. The United States controls bad actors partly by denying them access to the dollar clearing system. So dollar dominance matters.
David M. Cohen:
Your book is called A Seat at the Table. What inspired you to write it?
Mitchell Silk:
I wanted to tell my story on two levels.
First, I wanted to tell the story of what I did at Treasury in China, infrastructure, fintech, and CARES Act work. Second, I wanted to tell it through the lens of my life story. So the book is partly biographical and partly policy.
I also write about my family, especially my grandfather, and about what I call the four Ps: perseverance, providence, progress over perfection, and personal touch.
The personal touch mattered enormously in government. I used our culture in engagement with foreign dignitaries. I hosted finance ministers, presidents, and other leaders at my dining room table with kosher food, home-infused vodka, and Israeli red wine. Those personal relationships helped advance the national interest.
The title A Seat at the Table has several meanings. It refers to people literally having a seat at my table. It refers to President Trump ensuring that the American people had a seat at the table in policy. And it refers to encouraging people from my community, especially religious Jews, to serve and have their own seat at the table.
Representation matters. It is important for us to be present.
David M. Cohen:
Mitchell Silk, thank you so much for joining us.
Mitchell Silk:
Thank you.
