|
川普觀察：爛人爛事錄 -- 開欄文
|
瀏覽5,343 ｜回應43｜推薦2 |
|
各國領袖的新難題：白宮會談 - Stephen Collinson
|
|
|
推薦0 |
|
|
|
請參見： Fact check: Trump’s false suggestion of a ‘genocide’ against White farmers in South Africa
World leaders have a huge new problem: Trump’s Oval Office smackdowns
Analysis by Stephen Collinson, CNN, 05/22/25
CNN — It’s the new Hunger Games of world politics — the televised Oval Office take-down by President Donald Trump.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa was the latest leader to become a MAGA prop Wednesday, as Trump lectured him on false claims that White South African farmers are the victims of a genocide.
Foreign leaders now enter the hallowed lair of the US president — who runs press conferences like they’re WWE cage matches — at their peril.
Trump’s dressings-down are a metaphor for a US foreign policy that is erratic, politicized and awash in conspiracy theories. As Ukraine and Jordan also found out, the more vulnerable a country, the more hostile a reception they tend to get.
Giving the growing political risks of appearing in the Oval Office, it would not be surprising if some leaders reconsider what was once a coveted invitation but is now a political trap. This could have diplomatic consequences, with Global South nations like South Africa now looking more to China than the US.
Ramaphosa knew what was coming. He was joined by his White agriculture minister in the new multiracial coalition government. Trump’s friends the South African major champion golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen were also drafted in.
But that didn’t stop Trump dimming the lights and rolling out a multimedia show of right-wing propaganda about South Africa. “Death, death, death,” he said, as he displayed articles about the killings of White Afrikaners.
The question of more equitable land ownership is one of the most complex legacies of South Africa’s years of minority rule. But as Ramaphosa explained, there’s no systematic attempt to wipe out a community based on race or ethnicity — the definition of genocide. And most victims of violent crime are Black.
Zelensky overshadows every meeting
Every Oval Office meeting now takes place in the haunting shadow of the brutal inquisition of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by Trump and Vice President JD Vance in February.
Ramaphosa seemed to have learned from that shocker. While rattled, he reacted with bemusement rather than outright anger to the president’s ambush. He patiently tried to explain the facts to Trump — not that it made any difference.
“They’re being executed, and they happen to be White, and most of them happen to be farmers,” Trump said. “I don’t know how you explain that.”
With most presidents, Oval Office photo-ops are dull affairs. Press poolers are rushed in to hear each leader mouth platitudes about the strong relationship between the two countries. Sometimes reporters get to throw in a few questions before they are herded out to await a formal press conference later in the day.
This has changed in Trump’s second term, which has shattered even those barriers of decorum that the president left in place in his first go around.
The Oval Office is now more crowded and rowdier.
Vance often sits on the White House sofa alongside Cabinet members waiting to pounce. This is an unusual role for the veep. During the Obama administration, then-Vice President Joe Biden often shunned the spotlight at the back of the room. Trump’s visitors must run the gauntlet of the MAGA media pack looking, like the president, for viral moments. During Zelensky’s visit, one such reporter asked the president, who wears a military-style field jacket to honor frontline troops, why he wasn’t wearing a suit to show respect.
Many deep problems remain in South Africa since the end of apartheid and years of corrupt and chaotic leadership by the African National Congress after President Nelson Mandela stepped down. It’s safe to say none of those issues were helped at all by Trump’s antics. But that was clearly not the point. The president’s Oval Office shows are about signaling to the MAGA base — apparently, in this case, its White nationalist elements.
Trump’s brand is based on being an outsider and a disrupter. He returned to office determined to tear down global political and trading systems that boosted US power but that he says are ripping Americans off. What better way can there be to demonstrate “America first” strongman credentials than berating foreigners on TV?
Sometimes, the spectacle seems to be for the benefit of one man — Elon Musk. The South African-born mogul was in the room with Ramaphosa on Wednesday after complaining on X about discrimination against Whites in South Africa.
Musk’s views also got an airing during a visit to the Oval Office by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, when Vance complained about what he said were free speech crackdowns in the UK on American-owned tech firms. Starmer, schooled by his weekly appearances at Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons, made short work of the complaint. “We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom and it will last for a very, very long time.”
Which leader best handled Trump in the Oval Office?
Trump’s ritual humiliation of his visitors means world leaders now have a complex new dimension to their prep work.
They must consider how they will come across to their electorates back home. If they fail to stand up to Trump, they will look weak. If they push back hard, they might get a domestic boost — like Zelensky — but could damage their national interests if they leave Trump nursing a grudge.
And leaders must try to avoid being trapped on camera while Trump says or does something that underscores their relative weakness compared to the United States.
In February, for example, King Abdullah of Jordan looked deeply uncomfortable as Trump pressed him to accept refugees from Gaza. Such an influx could topple Jordan’s fragile political balance and the monarchy itself. Yet Abdullah also knew his country depends on US aid for security, so he couldn’t rebut his host.
Zelensky was another supplicant. After he was kicked out of the White House for reacting angrily to Vance’s demands for gratitude, he spent weeks making amends.
The most successful Oval Office visitors are those who dole out praise for Trump without debasing themselves too much.
With a theatrical flourish, Starmer pulled out a letter from King Charles III inviting Trump for a state visit, and waxed on about how this was a great honor since Trump had already had a similar invite from the late Queen Elizabeth II. Starmer is not known as a natural politician, and he got top marks at home for his unusually deft performance.
French President Emmanuel Macron created the second-term playbook for correcting Trump’s wild falsehoods when he laid his hand on the US president’s wrist when he falsely claimed Europe would get back aid it has poured into Ukraine. “No, to be frank, we paid. We paid 60% of the total effort,” Macron said.
Macron seemed to be relishing the high-wire political act of the Oval Office showdown. But he was careful to leaven his own statements with a large helping of “Dear Donalds.”
Another leader vying to be the bridge between Europe and Trump is Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. As a right-wing populist who often visits Mar-a-Lago, Meloni had the advantage of being among friends.
But as a strong supporter of Ukraine, she was on sensitive ground that she smoothed with slick political skills. At one point, Meloni interrupted her own interpreter and assumed translation duties herself to make sure Trump fully understood a point about Italy increasing defense spending.
And she curried favor by adopting the Trumpian vernacular, telling the president that they could “make the West great again.”
No foreign leader faced as much domestic pressure in the Oval Office as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. After all, he had just won an election that was dominated by hostility over Trump’s demands to annex Canada by wrapping himself in the maple leaf flag.
Carney tried talking to Trump in terms the real estate-magnate-turned-president would understand. “There are some places that are never for sale,” he said. “Having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign … it’s not for sale, won’t be for sale ever.”
When Trump said, “Never say never.” Carney turned to the cameras and the True North and mouthed, “Never, never.”
Trump, however, had the host’s prerogative of the last word — another hazard for world leaders visiting the Oval Office. He went on a tirade about how unfair it was that the US bears much of the cost for defending Canada militarily, then told the press to leave. Carney couldn’t get a word in edgewise.
The visit everyone wants to see
Leaders never know quite what might happen with Trump.
Which brings us to Pope Leo XIV.
Vance was at the Vatican last weekend for the pontiff’s inaugural mass and handed over an impressive white envelope bearing the presidential seal that contained an invitation for a visit to the White House. Leo was heard to say “at some point” — perhaps referring to his intention to take up the offer.
But the former Robert Prevost of Chicago didn’t seem to be in a rush. Maybe that’s because it’s almost inconceivable to envision the man viewed by Roman Catholics as God’s representative on Earth willingly submitting to the Oval Office bear pit and Trump’s somewhat secular rhetoric.
Any visit is likely to follow intense negotiations with the Vatican about protocol.
But the spectacle of the two most famous Americans on the planet in the storied office would be something to behold.
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
川普100天之國家安全勝利 -- Mike Waltz
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
我轉登這篇文章的目的，原來只是遵守平衡報導的原則。讀完後才了解到署名者的身份。沃茲先生退伍前官拜上校，原任眾議員。這樣的人才也能出任國家安全顧問，應了「替季辛吉提鞋都不配」這句電視劇對白。
文章內容荒腔走板、謊話連篇就不提了，因為此文可能出自某位二百五文膽。但歌功頌德的應景文章卻短短不到1,000字；談的主題還是非法移民跟恐怖份子等二姨媽的三叔公這類「國家安全」遠親。反證川痞在「國安」議題乏善可陳的現實外，也應了「想吹也沒得吹」的老話。
根據路透社05/02/25報導，川普已解除沃茲國家安全顧問職務；並將改任他為駐聯合國大使一職。舔功再高，也難逃替罪羊的命運。-- 05/02/25
100 Days of National Security Wins
Mike Waltz, 04/29/25
One hundred days into President Trump’s historic second term, America is far safer than it was during Joe Biden’s disastrous presidency.
On January 20, President Donald Trump and his team inherited an open southern border, terrorist threats festering worldwide, American hostages languishing in captivity abroad, and wars in Ukraine and Gaza, which never would have happened if President Trump had remained in office. Additionally, China was continuing to run circles around a timid and clueless White House—no more. Today, we are putting America first in our national security policy and accomplishing what the voters returned President Trump to the White House to do.
President Trump recognizes that a strong border is essential to national security. The Biden administration invited in millions of illegal aliens with an open borders policy. However, the Trump administration has taken back control. Days into his administration, President Trump convinced Mexico to commit 10,000 of its National Guard forces to our southern border and Canada to send 10,000 personnel to our northern border to help stop the flow of illegal immigrants and fentanyl.
The results of this policy and our own maximum enforcement efforts are already evident. In March, there were fewer than 7,200 southwest border crossings, the lowest monthly number in history, and a 96 percent drop from under the Biden administration. And we formally designated six Mexican cartels and two transnational gangs—Tren de Aragua and MS-13—as the foreign terrorist organizations they are.
Additionally, thanks to President Trump’s leadership, countries across the Western Hemisphere have agreed to take back their citizens. We are also making enormous progress in removing the worst of the worst from inside our country, including through the arrest or deportation of 45,679 alien criminals. Those numbers include the apprehension, arrest, and removal of 1,154 Tren de Aragua and MS-13 foreign terrorist gang members.
Further away from our borders, President Trump remains ultra-vigilant against the scourge of terrorism. Since January 20, we’ve eliminated more than seventy-eight of the highest-value jihadi terrorists operating across Iraq, Syria, and Somalia, including Abu Khadijah, ISIS’ global second-in-command and the chief of the terrorist group’s most senior-decision-making body.
Later in March, we provided key intelligence to the Pakistani government that led to the arrest and extradition of the ISIS-K terrorist that orchestrated the Abbey Gate bombing in Afghanistan, which left thirteen brave American service members dead during Joe Biden’s incompetent pullout from Afghanistan.
President Trump also made the bold decision to launch strikes against the Iran-backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen, who were constantly attacking American and international ships in the Red Sea. So far, we’ve carried out more than 800 strikes, and they will continue until freedom of navigation is restored and attacks on U.S. vessels and personnel stop.
President Trump’s operations against the Houthis go hand-in-hand with a broader campaign of imposing maximum pressure on Iran—home of the regime that was responsible for killing more than 600 American troops in Iraq from 2003 to 2011. Our mission is to cut off the revenues Iran generates from selling oil to customers like China, which it then uses to build up its ballistic missile arsenal and fund terrorists like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
Additionally, President Trump is committed to ensuring that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon. Productive early-stage diplomacy toward that goal is happening right now, but the president has been clear that all options are on the table to prevent Iran from ever getting the bomb.
Additionally, President Trump is standing with our ally Israel after the Biden administration’s cold shoulder. Prime Minister Netanyahu was the first foreign leader to visit the White House under the new administration, and we have expedited billions in arms sales to Israel and stopped all funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency, which funneled money to Hamas.
President Trump has also made historic progress in bringing home Americans held hostage and wrongfully detained around the world. The Biden administration facilitated the release of over seventy of them in four years—and we are grateful that those Americans have been reunited with their loved ones. But we have already secured the release of forty-six Americans held abroad, including hostages from the dungeons of Gaza and those wrongfully detained in prisons of Afghanistan. Fighting for every last American unjustly held against his or her will is the essence of an America-First foreign policy—and we will not rest until all of them come home.
In his inaugural address, President Trump stated that his proudest legacy would be as a “peacemaker and a unifier.” Nowhere has this desire been more evident than in his leadership to end the senseless bloodshed in Ukraine. After years of the Biden administration’s incoherent strategy, only President Trump could have brought both Russia and Ukraine to the table for negotiations. Weeks of diplomacy have produced an understanding from both sides of what it will take to achieve peace. Now, both Russia and Ukraine must move quickly to come to an agreement before President Trump loses patience.
Finally, President Trump is clear-eyed on the threat of China—and not just its constant cheating, intellectual property theft, and economic warfare against the United States, which our tariffs are designed to combat. Consistent with our focus on the Western Hemisphere, we cannot allow China to control the Panama Canal, the region’s most crucial waterway.
Our diplomatic pressure has caused Panama to abandon its participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative and begin the process of ejecting a Chinese company from controlling the management of the canal. Even more broadly on China, our America First Investment Policy has made clear to American businesses that the U.S. government will use all necessary legal means to stop American companies from investing in China’s military-industrial sector.
Keeping Americans safe is a never-ending effort, and there is still much work to be done. But President Trump has returned our nation to a common sense, America-First national security policy, and Americans are already safer for it.
Mike Waltz is the U.S. National Security Advisor under President Trump.
本文於 修改第 5 次
|
|
川普上任100天總結-J. Swan/M. Haberman等
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
今天是川普上任100天。《紐約時報》有一篇總結；由於該報網頁需訂閱，我轉載於下。此文涵蓋方方面面，長達4,000字上下；請慢慢欣賞。
How President Trump’s Second Term Is Changing
Executive Power
Civil Service
Foreign Policy
Culture
the Press
the Economy
Immigration
Diversity and Equity
the Federal Government
US Imperialism
There have never been 100 days like this.
President Trump was sworn in for a second term in January intent on transforming America and its place in the world. From his first hours in office, he has relentlessly driven domestic, economic and foreign policy in risky new directions; taken a chain saw to the federal work force; challenged the authority of the courts; and sought to purge liberal influence from government, education and culture.
The result has been a chaotic blur of new initiatives; judicial, political and economic backlash; and neck-snapping reversals. It has tested the nation’s ability to process disruption — and of American democracy’s resilience in the face of a president whose views of his power have prompted warnings of creeping authoritarianism.
The consuming conflicts of one day regularly give way to wholly new ones with stunning rapidity: pardoning Jan. 6 rioters, stripping out-of-favor officials and former advisers of security details, proposing to turn Gaza into a resort town and Canada into a 51st state, blaming a plane crash on diversity initiatives, presiding over a contentious cabinet meeting with Elon Musk, installing his personal lawyers to run the Justice Department, firing inspectors general, closing down U.S.A.I.D., igniting a global trade war, berating Ukraine’s president in the Oval Office, deporting migrants without due process and edging toward a constitutional crisis by defying judges on multiple occasions.
If the 100-day mark is an opportunity to pause to reflect on what this presidency has meant so far — and what it could mean in its remaining 1,361 days — it offers one clear lesson. In this second time around, Mr. Trump is intent on using every hour to pursue an agenda shaped by a shifting mix of grievance, short-term political calculation, long-held belief and the experience of his first term.
Here’s a deeper look at how Mr. Trump has already made his mark. — Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman
Foreign Policy Federal Government Immigration Imperialism Retribution Tariffs and Trade Economy Diversity and Equity Culture Social Media
Foreign Policy
Treaties, Alliances and Soft Power Are Out. Raw Power Is Back In.
David E. Sanger, .Doug Mills/The New York Times
“I don’t think you’d be a tough guy without the United States,” President Trump said to his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, in their now-famous altercation before cameras in the Oval Office in late February. “But you’re either going to make a deal or we’re out, and if we’re out, you’ll fight it out” with the Russians.
And lose, he went on to suggest.
It is hard to encapsulate the revolution in America’s approach to the world in these past 100 days in any one episode. But with that public humiliation of Mr. Zelensky, once regarded as Churchill in a T-shirt, Mr. Trump sent a clear signal about what was to come: the end of an era that began 80 years ago when the United States helped design a world of rules, international agreements and norms to constrain the powerful from seizing territory and to empower the weak without resorting to war.
So the real message of that argument was that international law was out and power — raw, preferably nuclear-backed — is back in. In Mr. Trump’s view, the world is divided into two kinds of countries: those that “have the cards” and those that don’t. With nothing to put on the table, Mr. Trump was arguing, Mr. Zelensky would have to take whatever terms being given to end the war.
That reflects Mr. Trump’s long-held view of how the world works. Unconstrained by establishment advisers, he seems determined to deal largely with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and President Xi Jinping of China. In this spheres-of-influence world, international law is fine until inconvenient, borders are up for negotiation, and the vague soft power gains of providing aid to the world’s neediest are unnecessary.
The other message of the encounter between the American and Ukrainian leaders was that Mr. Trump wanted to switch sides and normalize relations with Moscow. At a minimum doing so would open up business opportunities. Some around him argue it could interrupt Russia’s burgeoning partnership with China.
No one knows how this grand experiment in raw geopolitical power politics will play out. Most European leaders say they are horrified; Asian allies are more circumspect, but fear empowering Mr. Xi to test the theory by squeezing Taiwan.
Tellingly, on his first trip abroad in his new term, for Pope Francis’ funeral, Mr. Trump held one detailed conversation, with Mr. Zelensky. He shook the hands of a few European leaders, but passed on the chance to talk about tariffs, or the future of alliances. Instead, he headed straight for his airplane to return to the America he says comes first.
Immigration
Trump’s Immigration Measures Cause Fear, but No Surge in Deportations
Hamed Aleaziz, Rebecca Noble/Reuters
Rumeysa Ozturk, a graduate student at Tufts University, was on her way to break her Ramadan fast with friends when she was surrounded by federal agents, some of their faces obscured by black masks.
Supporters say her offense appears to have been that she was the co-author of an opinion essay in a student newspaper criticizing Tufts’s support for Israel. She was swept up by the government as part of what the Trump administration has described as a campaign against antisemitic activists on campus.
President Trump rode to re-election on promises to crack down on immigration, and he has taken extraordinary measures to do so. He has targeted student visa holders and legal permanent residents who took part in campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war. He has jettisoned due process and sent undocumented immigrants to a megaprison for terrorists in El Salvador, including at least one by mistake.
The administration has placed migrants’ names in Social Security’s “death master file” to cut off their access to bank accounts and other financial services. He has pressured countries to retrieve their citizens, sent people to third countries far from their homes and invoked a wartime law to remove migrants without due process.
He has fulfilled a signature campaign promise, essentially sealing the southern border with Mexico even as he welcomes white South Africans as refugees.
U.S. border officials also are using more aggressive tactics, which the administration calls “enhanced vetting,” at ports of entry to the United States, prompting concerns even among American allies about travel to the United States.
But for all of the shock and awe of Mr. Trump’s campaign, his efforts continue to fall short of the mass deportations he vowed to carry out. Overall, the number of flights and their destinations look largely similar to those under President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Federal Government
Musk and Trump: A Partnership and a Bureaucratic Bull Rush
Theodore Schleifer, Eric Lee/The New York Times
Even Elon Musk seemed a little surprised to be there.
“Fancy meeting you here,” Mr. Musk said with his trademark staccato laugh. The press pool walked into the Oval Office and saw the world’s richest man and his young son X over President Trump’s right shoulder. “Come here often?”
Mr. Musk and Mr. Trump were about two weeks into a presidential partnership that had turned into a bureaucratic bull rush. Mr. Musk had turned federal agencies inside out, but he had offered no public explanation of his grand strategy. Inside the Oval, with X on his shoulders, Mr. Musk said again and again that it was all about rooting out fraud. And, in his telling, there was plenty of it.
U.S.A.I.D.? Fraudsters. The Social Security Administration? Fraudsters. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Fraudsters.
Those are just three of the agencies where Mr. Musk and his team of almost 100 aides have run roughshod, getting into seemingly daily fights (and lawsuits) against the federal bureaucracy. He has narrated it all in real time on social media. Mr. Musk has sought to cut the number of people drawing a government paycheck by hundreds of thousands, and to give the president more authority than Congress would like to unilaterally reduce federal payments.
Over 250,000 people have had their jobs cut, planned to be cut or have taken a buyout, according to a New York Times tally.
But while Mr. Musk’s group took drastic actions like shutting down America’s foreign assistance agency, the effort is not expected to come close to fulfilling Mr. Musk’s promise of cutting a trillion dollars of waste out of the federal budget.
Mr. Musk has also angered several top Trump officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio during an explosive cabinet meeting in March, and gotten into a power struggle with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent over the I.R.S.
For all the drama, Mr. Musk’s relationship with the president has proved durable. Mr. Trump has for the most part been fine having Mr. Musk around, and clearly Mr. Musk likes being there. It is a transactional relationship for two deeply transactional leaders. Mr. Musk has said he will leave Washington next month, but few think he will be out of the picture.
Retribution
A Campaign to Exact Revenge, Using the Powers of the Presidency
Charlie Savage, Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times
Perhaps the most salient example of President Trump’s penchant for revenge came on April 9, when he directed the Justice Department to try to pin a crime on a specific person: Christopher Krebs, a cybersecurity official from his first administration.
Mr. Krebs had enraged the president by contradicting baseless claims that Mr. Trump had lost the 2020 election because electronic voting machines were compromised. But there was no evidence to believe Mr. Krebs had broken any laws.
That did not stop Mr. Trump, whose message was clear: Opposing him publicly means risking punishment at the hands of the federal government.
Since returning to the presidency, Mr. Trump has brazenly used his official powers to carry out a retribution campaign against his perceived enemies. His subordinates have fired career prosecutors at the Justice Department who played a role in investigating Mr. Trump or his supporters who rioted at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The president terminated taxpayer-financed security protection for Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, who led the nation through the coronavirus pandemic, and others who went on to criticize Mr. Trump, including John R. Bolton, his former national security adviser.
The president has threatened his perceived opponents with state sanctions. He has urged the Federal Communications Commission to remove the licenses of broadcast networks that have covered him in ways he does not like.
Mr. Trump is bullying universities, demanding ideological changes to hiring and academic policies and freezing huge research grants.
He has signed executive orders singling out law firms that employed or represented people he considers opponents. He has signed presidential orders that target former officials he dislikes for “reviews” by the federal government, in search of any evidence that could be used to prosecute them.
Some of Mr. Trump’s targets have capitulated, but others are fighting him in court. Yet even if he ultimately loses, his legal bills are being paid by taxpayers.
And Mr. Trump’s weaponization of law enforcement power for revenge may be the most aggressive move of all. Mr. Krebs has since resigned from his job and said he must focus full time on defending himself.
Tariffs and Trade
Trump Called It ‘Liberation Day.’ But His Tariffs Triggered Panic.
Ana Swanson, Ashley Gilbertson for The New York Times
On April 2, President Trump walked out in front of a crowd of officials, reporters and workers in hard hats assembled in the White House Rose Garden and unveiled his plans for remaking the global trading system. The president hoisted up a poster with the tariffs he planned to charge on imports from foreign countries and said the day would be remembered as “Liberation Day.”
“We are finally putting America first,” Mr. Trump said.
The announcement ended up triggering panic among foreign officials and investors, and tipped the United States into a full-blown trade war with one of its biggest trading partners, China.
While Mr. Trump is often cast as a product of the 1980s or the 1950s, he has lately taken to pining for the period after 1890, when tariffs were the primary expression of economic policy. In February, he added a 10 percent tariff to Chinese exports, saying that Beijing needed to halt exports of fentanyl and the chemicals that make it. Beijing retaliated, putting its own tariffs on U.S. products and introducing other measures to hurt U.S. companies.
The same situation played out in March, when Mr. Trump added another 10 percent tariff on Chinese exports, and China answered with more restrictions of its own.
But it was after Mr. Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs in early April that tensions really surged. China was the only country to immediately retaliate, and Mr. Trump singled them out for punishment. Just hours after his own tariffs went into effect, Mr. Trump decided to pause them for 90 days for other countries, but he announced drastically higher rates for Chinese imports, writing on social media that the country “PLAYED IT WRONG.”
Products from China — the second-largest source of goods for the United States — now face a minimum tariff of 145 percent, and in some cases the levies are much higher. U.S. exports now face a 125 percent tariff going into China. For entrepreneurs and farmers that rely on trade between the countries, particularly small businesses, that has been crippling. Some companies have stopped trade altogether, and bookings for the ships that carry freight from China to the United States have plummeted.
U.S. officials have toyed with the idea for years of “decoupling” from China for national security reasons. With little warning, the countries have suddenly dived into that scenario.
Trump officials, including Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, have described the situation as “unsustainable.” But the United States and China have not held substantive talks, and it is not clear how the governments will resolve the rift. So for now, the standoff continues.
Economy
Expecting Recession? How Trump’s Shifting Policies Have Upended the Economy.
Ben Casselman, Karsten Moran for The New York Times
In a Fox News interview with President Trump in early March, Maria Bartiromo pointed out that there were “rising worries” about an economic slowdown.
“Are you expecting a recession this year?” she asked.
“I hate to predict things like that,” Mr. Trump replied. “There is a period of transition, because what we’re doing is very big.”
News coverage of the interview focused on Mr. Trump’s refusal to rule out a recession. But his answer was arguably less remarkable than the fact that Ms. Bartiromo felt the need to ask the question at all.
When Mr. Trump took office, he inherited an economy that was the envy of the world. Yet within weeks, consumer confidence was plummeting, businesses were pausing planned expansions and investors were questioning the safety of U.S. government debt. Forecasters debated which was more likely: a mere recession, or “stagflation,” in which growth stalls while inflation rises.
Those fears are the result, most directly, of Mr. Trump’s ever-shifting trade policies, which threaten to drive up consumer prices, disrupt global supply chains and inspire retaliatory tariffs from U.S. trading partners.
But the disruptions are not limited to trade. Mr. Trump’s threats to fire Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, have roiled financial markets. His immigration policies have led some employers to complain that they are struggling to find workers. The administration’s cost-cutting efforts, led by Elon Musk, have resulted in tens of thousands of layoffs and resignations among government workers and put billions of dollars in federal funding in limbo.
Perhaps more than any specific decisions by the administration, business leaders say that the near-constant shifts in policy — tariffs that are imposed and then suspended, workers who are fired and then reinstated — have made it almost impossible to plan ahead. Economists say that uncertainty alone could be enough to cause a recession if businesses respond by pulling back on hiring and investment, as surveys show many have already begun to do.
Still, the evidence of a downturn has so far shown up mostly in surveys and anecdotes, not in measures of actual economic activity. Job growth has been solid. Layoffs remain low. Consumer spending faltered at the start of the year but has since rebounded. That suggests that while the risk of a recession has risen, one is not yet inevitable.
Imperialism
Greenland? Canada? The Canal? The Mystery Behind Manifest Destiny
David E. Sanger, Ivor Prickett for The New York Times
Walk into the Oval Office these days and there is an unfamiliar visage on the wall, just above the gold-enhanced mantel: James K. Polk. For those with only vague memories of high school American history, his appearance is no accident. It was Polk, the 11th president, who seized Texas and much of the Southwest and pushed America’s borders to the Pacific.
He was, in short, the hero of manifest destiny, a phrase President Trump revived for his inaugural address. When visitors come to the White House now, Mr. Trump, not known for his intense study of his 19th-century predecessors, notes that Polk “got a lot of land.”
Which helps explain Mr. Trump’s fascination with acquiring Greenland, retaking the Panama Canal and turning Canada into the 51st state.
It started in earnest 13 days before his inauguration, when Mr. Trump, at his Mar-a-Lago club, was asked whether he would rule out using “military or economic coercion” to get the lands he covets. “I’m not going to commit to that,” he said, insisting that economic or national security imperatives were so vital that “you might have to do something.”
Ever since, he has repeated the threat again and again, unconcerned that his words were fueling resistance movements from Denmark — which protects Greenland — to Canada, where the Liberal Party has been revived because it is standing up to Mr. Trump.
He is hardly the first to be interested. Secretary of State William Seward sought Greenland after he bought Alaska in the 1860s. Harry Truman wanted it in the opening days of the Cold War. But only Mr. Trump has talked about actually taking it by force. And that, of course, is unnecessary. The United States once had dozens of bases on Greenland, but it shrunk them down to one. An existing treaty allows Mr. Trump to greatly expand the American presence.
The United States could do the same in Panama, and already an American hedge fund has struck a deal to buy out some Chinese facilities. Canada, on the other hand, has no interest in becoming the 51st state, a phrase Mr. Trump has used so often it has become distinctly unfunny to the Canadians.
Diversity and equity
In a Moment of National Tragedy, Trump Equates Diversity With Incompetence
Erica L. Green, Kenny Holston/The New York Times
It was the first national tragedy of President Trump’s second term: An American Airlines plane and an Army helicopter collided over the Potomac River in late January, killing 67 people. After a moment of silence and condolences for the families whose loved ones were still being pulled from the water, Mr. Trump saw fit to cast blame.
Citing no evidence, Mr. Trump said diversity efforts at the Federal Aviation Administration had lowered standards for air traffic controllers.
It was a crescendo moment in Mr. Trump’s campaign to eradicate programs and practices aimed at reversing the effects of systemic inequities from the federal government, and virtually every sector of American life.
In his remarks, Mr. Trump equated diversity with incompetence, and effectively aligned himself with people who use diversity, equity and inclusion, or D.E.I., as a proxy for race, a dog whistle for white grievance, and a catchall for societal ills.
The programs were created to serve as guardrails for civil rights enforcement, and to help remedy inequities faced by groups that have historically been discriminated against, such as minorities, women and people with disabilities.
But Mr. Trump left no doubt about his intent when, during his remarks, he also blamed what he characterized as Obama-era policies for the hiring of ill-equipped air traffic controllers. “They actually came out with a directive: ‘too white,’” he said. “We want the people that are competent.”
The declaration reflected Mr. Trump’s instinct to frame major events through his political lens, and use tragedies to further his ideological goals.
On his first day back in office, Mr. Trump signed an executive order that required the elimination of all D.E.I. programs, personnel and practices, in an effort to deliver on his promise to usher in a society that is “colorblind and merit-based.” The order unleashed an avalanche of activity throughout the federal government that has sought to reframe the country’s history of racism and discrimination by denying that it existed.
Culture
For Trump, the Arts Had Become ‘Too Wokey’
Robin Pogrebin, Doug Mills/The New York Times
Just a few weeks into his second term, President Trump stunned the arts world by making himself chairman of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington.
He fired board members who had been appointed by Democrats, breaking with precedent at the institution, which had prided itself on bipartisanship since its founding. And the president — who boycotted the Kennedy Center Honors during his first term after several of the stars it featured criticized him — told his new board of loyalists that he would like to see “slightly more conservative” figures celebrated.
While Mr. Trump complained that the center’s programming had become too “wokey,” his new team has been vague about its plans besides promising “a big, huge celebration of the birth of Christ at Christmas.” But his takeover incited a backlash, prompting several prominent acts, including the popular musical “Hamilton,” to cancel upcoming engagements at the center.
It was a shocking turn of events, given that U.S. presidents rarely pay much attention to arts or culture, let alone seek to play such an active role in them. But it underscores the lengths to which Mr. Trump has gone as he aggressively moves to bend some of Washington’s biggest cultural institutions to his will, while seeking to impose his views of American history, diversity and gender on federally funded entities.
Mr. Trump also took aim at the Smithsonian Institution — which includes 21 museums, libraries and the National Zoo — accusing it of promoting “narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive.”
Having tried eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts during his first term only to be blocked by Congress, where the programs enjoy bipartisan support, Mr. Trump is targeting both in other ways this time around.
The humanities endowment canceled most of its grants and made plans to redirect some resources toward Mr. Trump’s priorities, including his proposed patriotic sculpture garden called the National Garden of American Heroes.
And the arts endowment announced that it would require organizations seeking grants to promise not to promote “diversity, equity and inclusion” or “gender ideology.” Those requirements are being challenged in court amid questions about what kinds of cuts the Trump administration might seek at the arts endowment.
Social Media
At the White House, a Cascade of Content for Social Media
Shawn McCreesh, Doug Mills/The New York Times
In President Trump’s White House, the substance is the show.
One of the defining characteristics of the second Trump administration is how so many of its top officials behave like influencers.
There is a constant cascade of content meant for social media consumption. The images, videos and stunts served up to the public are meant to provoke, to hype, to bend reality. And yet, in their way, they are oftentimes some of the truest and most defining expressions of the administration and its approach to policy and governing.
Elon Musk waving around a chain saw was more than an instantly viral moment. It so clearly communicated how he saw his role in Washington — more so than any interview or soft-pedaling explanation he or the president would offer about what the Department of Government Efficiency was up to. It is a defining image of the first 100 days.
The homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, using men in a Salvadoran prison as props for her social media content said so much about what was to come as the administration began its campaign of sending migrants there without due process.
Attorney General Pam Bondi giving binders of what she called the “Epstein files” to right-wing influencers was a stunt so hollow it actually backfired — it turned out there wasn’t much in there, and the influencers revolted. But it also seemed to communicate something about the administration and where its priorities lie, and how it feels the need to please some of the basest parts of its base.
In the span of a month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted 16 videos and still photos of himself working out with troops around the globe. That the posing and posturing for the public continued even as the Pentagon descended into turmoil over his rocky leadership seemed to say something, too.
Mr. Trump has often sought to create his own versions of reality, taking steps to constrain independent news coverage while amplifying the voices of influencers and openly supportive outlets he has invited into his orbit. And how his cabinet members behave is completely in keeping with that approach.
Doug Mills/The New York Times, Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times, Tyler Hicks/The New York Times, Graham Dickie/The New York Times, Eric Lee/The New York Times, Scott McIntyre for The New York Times, Secretaría De Prensa De La Presidencia, via Reuters, Michael A. McCoy for The New York Times, Doug Mills/The New York Times, Pool photo by Jim Watson
Produced by Jeffrey Furticella, Rebecca Lieberman, Matt Ruby and Marisa Schwartz Taylor.
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
川普上任100天成績單-Dana Milbank
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請至原網頁查看所附照片及其他川普評論。
Trump is wrapping up 100 days of historic failure
America has seen ruinous periods, but never when the president was the one knowingly causing the ruin.
Dana Milbank, 04/18/25
By any reasonable measure, President Donald Trump’s first 100 days will be judged an epic failure.
He has been a legislative failure. He has signed only five bills into law, none of them major, making this the worst performance at the start of a new president’s term in more than a century.
He has been an economic failure. On his watch, growth has slowed, consumer and business confidence has cratered, and markets have plunged, along with Americans’ wealth. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said Wednesday that “growth has slowed in the first quarter of this year from last year’s solid pace” and that Trump’s tariffs will result in higher inflation and slower growth.
He has been a foreign-policy failure. He said he would end wars in Gaza and Ukraine. But fighting has resumed in Gaza after the demise of the ceasefire negotiated by his predecessor, and Russia continues to brutalize Ukraine, making a mockery of Trump’s naive overtures to Vladimir Putin.
He has been a failure in the eyes of friends, having launched a trade war against Canada, Mexico, Europe and Japan; enraged Canada with talk of annexation; threatened Greenland and Panama; and cleaved the NATO alliance.
He has been a failure in the eyes of foes, as an emboldened China menaces Taiwan, punches back hard in the trade war and spreads its global influence to fill the vacuum left by Trump’s retreat from the world.
He has been a constitutional failure. His executive actions, brazen in their disregard for the law, have been slapped down more than 80 times already by judges, including those appointed by Republicans. He is flagrantly defying a unanimous Supreme Court, and his appointees are facing contempt proceedings for their abuse of the legal system.
He has been a failure in public opinion. This week’s Economist-YouGov poll finds 42 percent approving of his performance and 52 percent disapproving — a 16-point swing for the worse since the start of his term. Majorities say the country is on the wrong track and out of control.
Even his few “successes” amount to less than meets the eye. Border crossings are down from already low levels, but despite all the administration’s bravado, there’s little evidence of an increase in deportations. Hopes for cost-cutting under the U.S. DOGE Service, which Elon Musk originally projected at $1 trillion this year, have been scaled back to just $150 billion — and much of that appears to be based on made-up numbers.
But Trump, whose 100th day in office is April 30, has achieved one thing that is truly remarkable: He has introduced a level of chaos and destruction so high that historians are hard-pressed to find its equal in our history.
He has upended global structures that kept the peace for generations. He has aligned America with the world’s despots. He has slashed the federal workforce and impaired the government’s ability to collect taxes, administer Social Security and fund medical research, among many other things. He has abused his power in startling ways, using the government for personal vengeance and retribution against perceived opponents, harassing law firms, universities and the free press with an authoritarian flourish. He has shattered the guardrails that limit executive power, ignoring laws and eliminating inspectors general and other mechanisms for accountability and oversight. He has displayed gratuitous cruelty in the treatment of migrants and government workers alike. He has used the government to undertake breathtaking schemes of self-enrichment. And he has left a large number of his countrymen angry and frightened.
To put this failure in context, I called two of my favorite historians, David Greenberg of Rutgers University and Douglas Brinkley of Rice University.
They told me that there had been similar bursts of activity from an executive before, most notably under Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose productivity at the start of his presidency in 1933 created the 100-day benchmark by which his successors have been measured. There have been similar power grabs before: Andrew Jackson, who claimed the 1824 election was stolen from him, attacking the nation’s elites after he won in 1828 and ignoring the Supreme Court’s ruling against seizing tribal land; the imperialist William McKinley, Trump’s new fave, taking over Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines and pushing Spain out of Cuba; FDR attempting to pack the Supreme Court at the start of his second term; Richard Nixon’s lawlessness, justified by his belief that “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
There have been ruinous periods before: the Quasi-War with France and the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 made it appear that the fledgling United States had failed; the period between Abraham Lincoln’s 1860 election and his inauguration, when Southern states seceded and formed the Confederacy; the days after the 1929 crash, when it appeared that capitalism had failed; and the political violence of 1968. There were massive restructurings of the federal government under Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan — and Bill Clinton presided over cuts of 250,000 federal jobs.
But what Trump has done is different.
Previous restructurings of government were done with careful planning and with bipartisan congressional support. But Trump “doesn’t come in as a reformer as much as a wrecking ball,” Brinkley says. “What we’re witnessing with Trump is just raw vengeance and belittling fellow Americans and creating a tinderbox situation that makes people feel we’re in a neo civil war that could go sideways at any moment.” Brinkley also notes that previous attempts at executive overreach — FDR’s court-packing, Nixon’s abuses — were repelled by members of each president’s own party. But now, Republicans are silent. “That’s the missing ingredient of our time,” he says.
Another key difference: We have been through ruinous periods before, but never when the president was the one actively and knowingly causing the ruin. During past upheaval, there “wasn’t this sense that the White House, the president, is directing the destruction of 250-year-old American values,” Greenberg says. He also notes that, because of the expansion of the executive powers over the past century, particularly during the New Deal and the Cold War, Trump has more ability to cause destruction than his predecessors did. “I don’t think we’ve ever had the combination of such a vast and extensive executive apparatus and at the same time an attempt to eliminate the built-in safeguards,” he says.
Some executive orders have a proud place in our history because they had noble aims or produced lofty accomplishments: the Emancipation Proclamation. The Manhattan Project. Enforcing school desegregation in Little Rock. But Trump’s orders are more likely to be remembered alongside those establishing Japanese internment and Operation Wetback because they are based in cruelty and in his insatiable lust for vengeance. “It’s not hyperbole to say this is the weirdest 100 days of any president in American history,” says Brinkley, “because, at its root, it is pathological narcissism.”
In the end, Trump’s 100 days, and his presidency generally, will be judged harshly for what they were not. “We remember great civilizations for their great achievements,” Greenberg says. Scientific advancement. Contributions to arts and letters. Human progress. Trump is reversing them all.
Each week of Trump’s 100 days has felt like a year to many Americans, which is his aim, because it keeps the opposition off-balance. Let’s consider the year that transpired over the past week.
Trump thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling saying the administration must “facilitate” the return of a migrant deported to a Salvadoran prison in violation of a court order. Instead, Trump hosted El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, the self-described “world’s coolest dictator,” who said the notion of returning the man is “preposterous.”
Reviews by CBS News and the New York Times found that the vast majority of migrants deported had no criminal records — but they are now imprisoned without due process in inhumane conditions. And now, Trump says he wants to send American citizens to the notorious prison in El Salvador. “Home-growns are next,” he told Bukele. “You’ve got to build about five more places” to imprison them. Trump and aides have lied about the Supreme Court ruling, saying that they “won” the case. Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission’s chief, Brendan Carr, threatened Comcast’s broadcasting licenses because he didn’t like what MSNBC was reporting about the dispute.
In another case, that of a Tufts University student abducted by masked federal agents and held for deportation, The Post’s John Hudson reports that the State Department determined that it did not have evidence that she engaged in antisemitic activities or supported a terrorist organization, as the government claims. And, in the latest attempted invasion of Americans’ privacy, DOGE is seeking access to a sensitive Medicare database as part of a scheme to find undocumented immigrants.
Harvard University said it would not surrender to the Trump administration’s demands that it give up its academic freedom (Trump officials had demanded changes to the school’s governance, hiring and treatment of foreign students), saying the demands “go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.” In response to Harvard’s defiance, detailed in a letter by two conservative lawyers, the administration froze $2.2 billion in grants and contracts to the school — forcing it to halt research to fight Lou Gehrig’s disease, radiation sickness and tuberculosis.
At the same time, the administration is planning an even more devastating blow to medical research: a 40 percent cut to the National Institutes of Health, The Post reports, part of a one-third cut to the Department of Health and Human Services. The administration eliminated 43 of about 200 experts from boards overseeing such research, and, in case you wonder what motivates such cuts, it turns out 38 of the 43 were female, Black or Hispanic.
The administration also is threatening to block Harvard from enrolling any foreign students, and it has asked the IRS to take the outrageous step of revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status; Trump is now expressly embracing the sort of viewpoint discrimination that furious conservatives alleged the IRS did a decade ago, when lower-level officials subjected tax-exempt applications from mostly conservative groups to lengthy scrutiny. Trump’s IRS will likely look favorably on his request. It has promoted a political hack, Gary Shapley (a former mid-level official who gained prominence as the Hunter Biden “whistleblower”), to be the agency’s acting chief.
As the IRS becomes another partisan weapon for Trump, it is planning to cut its staff in half and slash compliance enforcement. The administration continues hacking away at the federal government. It is now illegally dismantling AmeriCorps, following similar moves at the U.S. Institute of Peace, Voice of America and National Endowment for the Humanities, among many others.
After a (Trump-appointed) federal judge ordered the administration to stop its violation of the Associated Press’s First Amendment rights and return the news organization to the White House “pool” rotation, the White House this week responded by eliminating the slot for all news wires, including Reuters and Bloomberg. It is moving toward an arrangement where, in briefings and in Q&A sessions with Trump, most of the questioning will be done by right-wing outlets. Separately, Trump, unhappy with reporting on him by “60 Minutes” on Sunday, called for CBS to have its license revoked.
The administration’s losing streak in court continues apace. Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg opened contempt proceedings after the administration defied his order blocking certain deportations; other judges continue to block Trump’s deportations conducted without due process. A fourth law firm, Susman Godfrey, won an order blocking Trump’s punitive targeting, which the judge called “a shocking abuse of power.” Another judge stopped the administration from “unlawfully” terminating climate grants, and still another judge directed agencies to release the funds.
In Ukraine, Russia has stepped up its attacks, despite Trump’s attempts to force a settlement on Ukraine that would be favorable to Putin. Trump continued to blame the victim in the conflict: “You don’t start a war against somebody that’s 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles.” The Post’s Spencer S. Hsu and Aaron Schaffer report that Trump’s interim U.S. attorney for D.C., Ed Martin, provided commentary more than 150 times on the Russian government’s propaganda outlets RT and Sputnik between 2016 and 2024, often echoing Russian talking points; he failed to report the appearances to Congress, as required for his nomination.
Stock markets kept up their wild swings as they tried to adjust to the chaos of Trump’s trade war. One Fed governor, Christopher Waller, on Monday called Trump’s tariffs “one of the biggest shocks to affect the U.S. economy in many decades.” After the Fed’s chair, Powell, warned that the tariffs would hurt growth and inflation, Trump on Thursday morning posted on Truth Social that “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!” Federal law prevents Trump from sacking Powell — but legality has not been a barrier to Trump so far.
In an apparent tariff climbdown, the administration said in a statement that it would make an “exception” and exempt consumer electronics from a massive tariff on Chinese goods — only for Trump to say that “there was no Tariff ‘exception’ announced.” China has retaliated by suspending the export of rare earth minerals — essential for advanced technology — that the United States relies upon for 90 percent of its supply. As China tries to win over disaffected American allies, Trump continues to alienate them: The White House press secretary continued to taunt Canada, saying Wednesday the country “would benefit greatly from becoming the 51st state.”
Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, and his family were the victims of an arson attack during Passover by a suspect who said it was because of what Shapiro, who is Jewish, “wants to do to the Palestinian people.” But the administration, so concerned about phony antisemitism on campuses, was not troubled by the real thing. Attorney General Pam Bondi declined to label it domestic terrorism. And Trump saw it only in selfish terms: “The attacker was not a fan of Trump, I understand.”
The administration’s bizarre behaviors remained on vivid display. Vice President JD Vance broke the NCAA football trophy during an event at the White House. The Wall Street Journal reported on Musk’s self-described “legion” of at least 14 children by four women, though “sources close to the tech entrepreneur said they believe the true number of Musk’s children is much higher.” Trump Media launched a new attempt to monetize his presidency: branded investment accounts meant to benefit from Trump’s policies. And the White House physician, after Trump’s annual examination, credited Trump’s fine health to his “active lifestyle,” which includes “frequent victories in golf events.”
Is the good doctor unaware that Trump “wins” only on courses he owns?
On one hand, Trump’s lawlessness is terrifying: This is what happens when a government is run not by the rule of law but by the whim of one man. On the other, it is an admission of weakness: He doesn’t have the power to achieve his aims through legitimate means, so he’s trying to attain them illegally. Happily, the backlash is building.
Harvard’s fresh resistance to Trump’s attacks on academic freedom has stiffened the spine of Columbia University and others. Law firms that reached settlements with Trump to avoid punishment because of his personal vendettas are rethinking their arrangements. They are discovering, as other corporate leaders hopefully now realize, that there is no appeasing Trump, because he will always demand more. California has sued Trump over his tariffs. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) have been playing to huge crowds in deep-red parts of the country.
On the Republican side, figures such as Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Rep. Brian Mast (Florida) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Georgia) have encountered angry constituents at town-hall meetings during the congressional recess. Two protesters at Greene’s event were hit with stun guns. A dozen nervous House Republicans sent a letter to their leadership warning that they would oppose Trump’s major tax-and-spending bill if it “includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations.” That’s awkward, because the budget outline for the bill, which these same lawmakers supported, requires some $800 billion in such cuts.
The pressure on Trump and his enablers — from the public, the courts, the states, universities, advocates, businesses and the media — should only increase from here, and it must. This is what will prevent the next 1,360 days from being as disastrous as the first 100.
Dana Milbank is an opinion columnist for The Washington Post. He covers the White House, Congress and campaigns -- along with occasional essays about his misadventures in nature. He is a New York Times bestselling author and has written five books on politics, most recently "Fools on the Hill." follow on X@Milbank
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
聯邦最高法院打臉川普 – M. J. Stern
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
The Supreme Court’s Late-Night Rebuke to Trump Is Extraordinary in More Ways Than One
The court didn’t even wait to let Alito write his dissent.
Mark Joseph Stern, 04/20/25
Shortly before 1 a.m. on Saturday, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the Trump administration’s reported efforts to fly Venezuelan migrants to an El Salvador prison before they could challenge their deportation. The court’s late-night intervention is an extraordinary and highly unusual rebuke to the government, one that may well mark a turning point in the majority’s approach to this administration. For months, SCOTUS has given the government every benefit of the doubt, accepting the Justice Department’s dubious assertions and awarding Trump immense deference. On Saturday, however, a majority of justices signaled that they no longer trust the administration to comply with the law, including the court’s own rulings. If that is indeed the case, we are likely careening toward a head-on conflict between the president and the court, with foundational principles of constitutional democracy hanging in the balance.
SCOTUS’s emergency order in A.A.R.P. v. Trump arose out of the government’s unlawful efforts to ship Venezuelan migrants to a Salvadoran prison by invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. On Thursday, lawyers for these individuals told a federal court that the government was preparing to summarily deport them to El Salvador, where they would be indefinitely confined at a notorious detention center. A federal judge in the Southern District of Texas had already blocked their removal—but the government sought to evade this order by busing the migrants into the Northern District of Texas, where the restraining order would not apply. It then gave these migrants “notices,” in English only, declaring that they would be deported immediately, without stating that they could contest their deportations in court. (Officials refused to give these notices, or any other information, to the migrants’ lawyers.) The government intended to fly them out of the country within 24 hours, according to court filings.
This conduct flagrantly violated the Supreme Court’s decision from just 12 days ago affording the migrants substantial due process protections. The court unanimously agreed that these individuals “must receive notice” that “they are subject to removal,” and that this notice “must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek” relief. Obviously, giving Spanish speakers a barebones “notice” in English that they will be deported does not comply with this mandate. But when the migrants’ attorneys sought court intervention, the Justice Department responded as it so often does these days: by lying. Despite extensive evidence to the contrary, DOJ lawyers told multiple courts that they did not intend to deport migrants on Friday or Saturday, and that they would not deport anyone without affording them the due process guaranteed by SCOTUS. Two different federal judges declined to step in on Friday night, finding they did not have authority to do so.
The ACLU then begged the Supreme Court for help. And the court obliged. The majority directed the government “not to remove” any of the individuals seeking relief “until further order of this court.” As a result, the government was unable to deport the migrants to El Salvador—as it appeared about to do—and they remain in U.S. custody. Only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas noted their dissents.
There are three remarkable aspects of the court’s decision.
First, it acted with startling speed—so quickly, in fact, that it published the order before Alito could finish writing his dissent; he was forced to note only that a “statement” would “follow.” It is a major breach of protocol for the Supreme Court to publish an order or opinion before a dissenting justice finishes writing their opinion, one that reflects the profound urgency of the situation. Relatedly, awkward phrasing in court’s order may imply that Alito—who first received the plaintiffs’ request—failed to refer it to the full court, as is custom, compelling the other justices to rip the case away from him. No matter what, exactly, happened behind the scenes, it’s clear that a majority would not let Alito hold up speedy action. It also acted before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had a chance to step in, and before the Department of Justice had an opportunity to respond to the plaintiffs. These highly abnormal moves also reveal a desire to act fast.
Second, it is plain as day that the Supreme Court simply did not trust the Trump administration’s claims that it would not deport migrants over the weekend without due process. If the court did believe these representations, it would not have acted in such a rapid and dramatic fashion; it could have waited for the lower courts to sort through the matter, confident no one would face irreparable harm in the meantime. The majority’s decision to wade in straightaway points to a skepticism that the Justice Department was telling the truth. It’s damning, too, that the majority did not even wait for DOJ to file a brief with the court before acting. The only plausible explanation for the court’s order is that a majority feared the government would whisk away the migrants to El Salvador if it did not intervene immediately. That fear is well-grounded, since we now have substantial evidence that the government lied to a federal judge last month to thwart a court order stopping deportation flights.
Finally, and perhaps most obviously, it’s critical that only Thomas and Alito noted their dissents. When the court takes emergency action, justices don’t have to note their votes, but they usually do; we can probably assume that this order was 7–2. That would mean that Chief Justice John Roberts—along Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—joined this rebuke to the Trump administration. Until now, all of these justices have, to varying degrees, treated the president with kid gloves, handing him a series of narrow wins on procedural grounds that avoided direct collision between the branches. That accommodation came to an abrupt stop on Saturday.
And that’s the most encouraging sign we’ve seen from the Supreme Court since Jan. 20. For too long, the Republican-appointed justices have awarded Trump the presumption of regularity, assuming they can trust the representations made by his Justice Department. It has crafted compromises that save face for the president and stop short of unambiguously ordering him to follow the law. Meanwhile, a growing number of lower courts have pleaded with SCOTUS to see the painful reality—that this president will gleefully defy judicial orders; that his DOJ will shamelessly lie; that if the Supreme Court does not put an end to his rampage, it will sap the entire federal judiciary of its remaining independence and authority. Saturday’s order gave us, not a moment too soon, the first sign that a majority of justices have gotten the message and are ready to respond accordingly.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
全美反川普抗議 -- Ana Faguy
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Thousands join anti-Trump protests across US
Ana Faguy, BBC News, Washington DC, 04/20/25
Thousands took to the streets across the US on Saturday to protest over recent actions by President Donald Trump.
Known as "50501", for "50 protests, 50 states, 1 movement", the demonstrations were intended to coincide with the 250th anniversary of the start of the American Revolutionary War.
From outside the White House and Tesla dealerships and at the centres of many cities, protesters expressed a variety of grievances. Many called for the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
Political protests are becoming more common in the US - the "Hands Off" demonstrations in early April drew tens of thousands in cities across the country.
The most recent polling from Gallup suggests 45% of voters approve of Trump's performance in the first quarter of his term, which is more than the 41% who approved during the same period in his first administration.
Still, it is lower than the average first-quarter rating of 60% for all presidents elected between 1952 and 2020.
Saturday's protests addressed a number of Trump actions, including those by the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) - Trump's initiative to cut US government jobs and other spending - and the administration's unwillingness to bring about the return of Ábrego García, a citizen of El Salvador.
Gihad Elgendy told CNN he joined the protest at the White House to criticise the deportation of Ábrego García. He believes Trump "could easily pressure El Salvador to bring him back".
The protests were generally reported as peaceful, although Representative Suhas Subramanyam, a Democrat, posted a video on X of a man holding a Trump sign and pushing through a crowd to angrily confront him.
Many demonstrators carried signs reading "No Kings," a nod to the anniversary of the start of the country's revolution against British rule.
During celebrations of the anniversary in Massachusetts that commemorated the battles of Lexington and Concord and the famous horse ride of Paul Revere, people held similar signs. There was also a 50501 demonstration in Boston on Saturday.
"This is a very perilous time in America for liberty," Thomas Bassford, told the Associated Press, while in Boston with his partner, daughter and two grandsons. "I wanted the boys to learn about the origins of this country and that sometimes we have to fight for freedom."
Trump's popularity appears to be edging down, especially when it comes to the economy. When he took office in January, his approval rating was 47%, according to Gallup.
His approval rating in a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll similarly dipped to 43% from 47% on Inauguration Day. In the same poll, only 37% approved of his performance on the economy, compared to 42% during inauguration.
Earlier this month, hundreds of thousands of Americans gathered for the largest nationwide show of opposition since Trump returned to the White House.
Those protests - which were larger than Saturday's - happened in 1,200 locations in all 50 US states.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
巴拿馬運河運作權換手喊停 -- Mithil Aggarwal
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
川瘋在白宮裏渡著方步，左顧右盼，睥睨各國；自以為叱吒風雲，不可一世。可惜一上國際舞台，那叫諸事不順，寸步難行；應該有「既生川，何生習！？」之怨。
Trump was touting his Panama victory. Then China stepped in.
Mithil Aggarwal, 04/09/25
Hutchison PPC has the right to operate two ports along the Panama Canal — Balboa on the Pacific side, above, and Cristóbal on the Atlantic side. 請至原網頁觀看照片
HONG KONG — A huge deal touted by President Donald Trump as a victory in his campaign to “take back” the Panama Canal from China could be on the rocks amid pushback from Beijing.
The $23 billion sale involving two ports run by CK Hutchison, a private company based in the Chinese territory of Hong Kong, to a consortium led by U.S. investment firm BlackRock had originally been scheduled to be signed last week.
But an agreement between the two has been delayed under pressure from China, whose market regulator launched a review of the deal as state-run newspapers attacked it as undermining China’s national interests.
NBC News takes a look at the sale and what it may mean politically and economically for the United States and China, the world’s two biggest economies.
Why is it important?
During Trump’s inaugural speech in January, he claimed without providing evidence that China controlled the 50-mile canal, and vowed that the U.S. will take back the waterway, which he said was “vital” to national security. The Panamanian government has administered the U.S.-built canal since the U.S. relinquished it to the Central American country in 1999.
Trump did not rule out military action and has directed the Defense Department to draw up plans to send more troops to Panama to “reclaim” the canal, through which 40% of U.S. trade passes.
Panama denies Trump’s accusations about the neutrality of the canal, which is enshrined in its constitution. But in an attempt to relieve the pressure from Washington, in January the country launched an audit of CK Hutchison’s Panama Ports Company (PPC), which since 1997 has operated two ports along the canal, Balboa on the Pacific side and Cristóbal on the Atlantic side.
On Monday, Panama’s comptroller general said the audit had found that the contract was overly favorable to Hutchison PPC, costing Panama $1.3 billion in revenue, and that authorities would file a lawsuit against officials involved in its renewal in 2021.
The findings come as CK Hutchison is negotiating the sale to BlackRock, which includes a 90% interest in the two Panama Canal ports and an 80% controlling interest in 43 other ports outside Hong Kong and China. When the deal was announced on March 4, the companies said that definitive documentation for the Panama Canal operations would be signed by April 2.
Trump quickly declared victory. “To further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal, and we’ve already started doing it,” he said in an address to Congress last month, citing the proposed deal.
China’s 'long-arm' jurisdiction
The sale of the two Chinese-run ports is about more than just Panama, said Christopher Hernandez-Roy, senior fellow and deputy director of the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank.
“It represents a major victory for the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back China in the Western Hemisphere,” he said, adding that is something China “would not want to happen.”
Though CK Hutchison, owned by billionaire Li Ka-shing, is a private company based in Hong Kong, a semiautonomous territory, Beijing quickly signaled its displeasure with the deal.
China “firmly opposes using economic coercion and bullying to harm other countries’ legitimate rights and interests,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said last week.
Chinese government offices in Hong Kong have reposted articles from pro-Beijing newspapers criticizing the sale as undermining China’s national interest. Beijing’s market regulator has also said the sale is subject to an antitrust review “to protect fair market competition and safeguard public interests.”
The original signing date of April 2 came and went last week.
While neither BlackRock nor CK Hutchison have publicly commented on the delay, analysts say that in light of the cumulative 54% tariff imposed by the U.S. on China, the ports could potentially be used as a bargaining chip for China to extract concessions from the U.S.
“What seems more important is China’s effort to gain leverage in negotiations with Trump,” said Angela Zhang, a professor of law at the University of Southern California and author of “Chinese Antitrust Exceptionalism.”
While the deal does not involve Hutchison’s ports in Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland, CK Hutchison is publicly listed in Hong Kong, which, Zhang said, could mean China “may have jurisdiction,” even if the transaction “itself occurred offshore.”
The review by Beijing’s market regulator is an example of China asserting its “long-arm jurisdiction over offshore transactions,” she added.
BlackRock declined an NBC News request for comment. CK Hutchison did not respond to a request for comment.
For Panama, the deal’s failure “would be seen as snatching defeat from the jaws of victory,” Hernandez-Roy said.
“There would be tremendous pressure on Panama to cancel the concessions,” he said, referring to the port operation rights that Hutchison PPC won in 1997.
Nevertheless, some analysts say that CK Hutchison, which is not financially dependent on the Chinese government, is expected to press ahead with the deal.
Li, CK Hutchison’s 96-year-old owner, has been known to draw Beijing’s ire.
“Beijing is a bit skeptical about Li’s family. But the family still remains to be one of the most influential, if not the most influential conglomerates in Hong Kong,” said Wilson Chan, co-founder and director of policy research at Hong Kong’s Pagoda Institute.
“I think what they are actually doing is to diversify the risk, as Trump is getting more and more high profile about the ports in Panama,” he said. “And during turmoil in the global economy, cash is king.”
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
當川普政策碰上政、經現實 -- Anthony Zurcher
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Trump's agenda grapples with political and economic reality
Anthony Zurcher, North America correspondent, BBC, 04/05/25
Donald Trump, in announcing his sweeping new tariffs on US imports on Wednesday, promised that the history books would record 2 April as America's "liberation day".
After two days of stock market turmoil, however, this may also be remembered as the week the president's second-term agenda ran headfirst into economic - and political - reality.
US stocks have been in a tailspin since Trump unveiled his tariffs at Wednesday afternoon's White House Rose Garden event, with signs that America's trading partners - Canada, the European Union and China, most notably - are not backing away from a fight.
Meanwhile, other presidential efforts, on foreign policy and immigration, and at the ballot box - have faced notable setbacks in recent days.
The White House on Thursday felt a bit like a building battening down for a coming storm. The four big posters showing America's "reciprocal" tariffs on a long list of countries were on prominent display in the press briefing room, but administration officials available to respond to media questions were few and far between.
Out on Pennsylvania Avenue, workers unloaded pallets of metal fencing, which will ring the White House grounds in preparation for what officials anticipate to be a large anti-Trump demonstration at the nearby Washington Monument on Saturday. The first lady announced that a White House garden tour event that had been scheduled for that day was postponed because of security concerns.
Even the normally loquacious president stopped only briefly to talk with the crush of reporters on his way to board the Marine One helicopter on the first leg of his journey to Florida.
"I said this would be exactly the way it is," he declared when asked about the day's stock market turmoil. The markets - and America as a whole - would soon boom, he said.
The president, it seems, is willing to wait out the tempest created by his tariff plan. He appears confident that his economic vision of a rebuilt, job-rich American manufacturing sector protected from foreign competition - a vision he has closely held for decades - will ultimately be proven right.
The Trump agenda's close encounter with cold, hard reality wasn't limited to trade this week, however.
His two top foreign policy priorities - ending the wars in Gaza and Ukraine - both appear mired in the kind of messy details and conflicting agendas that often obstruct lasting peace.
Israel has once again moved into Gaza and escalated a bombing campaign that is generating reports of widespread civilian casualties. The ceasefire that Trump touted in the days before he took office appears to be in tatters.
Russia, meanwhile, continues to pile new conditions on to negotiations for a full ceasefire with Ukraine, which is an indication that the nation may be buying time to allow its ground forces to take more territory.
"If I think they're tapping us along, I will not be happy about it," Trump said of Russia. But he added that he still believes President Vladimir Putin wants to "make a deal".
Evidence so far indicates the contrary, according to Jake Sullivan, who was President Joe Biden's national security adviser.
In an interview with the BBC, he accused Trump of handing Russia most of its demands, though he acknowledged it was still early in the process and things could yet change.
"So the current dynamic in these negotiations a) is not in fact producing Russian willingness to reach a fair and just compromise, but b) is actually stimulating a view in Moscow that if they just keep holding out, they're just going to keep getting concessions from the United States. And so far that is what has happened."
Even Trump's deportation and immigration enforcement efforts, which still have high public support, have been at least partially derailed by legal challenges.
While his administration has successfully completed several flights transferring alleged Tren de Aragua Venezuelan gang members to an El Salvadoran high-security prison, the judge presiding over a case challenging those deportations said on Thursday there was a "fair likelihood" officials had violated his court order to turn the flights around.
Other court challenges - to Trump's suspension of political asylum processing and refugee resettlement, his attempt to end birthright citizenship and his revocation of temporary protected status for about 350,000 Venezuelans - are currently working their way through the US legal system.
At some point, the US Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on many of these disputes.
This week also marked the biggest round of elections since Trump's November 2024 victory, as voters headed to the polls in Wisconsin to elect a state judge and in two Florida special elections for seats in the House of Representatives.
While the Republican candidates in Florida prevailed, their winning margins were about 15%, which is about half of what Trump posted in those congressional districts in November.
In Wisconsin, a key political battleground state, the Democratic-backed candidate won. Democrats were able to maintain the liberal majority on the court despite the tens of millions of dollars spent by conservative groups, including by tech billionaire Elon Musk, who campaigned there in person.
Taken as a whole the results suggest that Democrats are doing well in hotly contested races and may be making inroads even in reliably conservative areas - in part by campaigning against Musk and his efforts to massively cut federal programmes and staff.
That could be an indication that the party will have the political wind at their backs in state elections this November and the midterm congressional elections next year.
The stock market tumult, and those ballot-box results, may be behind a few scattered signs of dissent within Republican ranks.
Ted Cruz, an arch-conservative senator from Texas, said on his podcast on Friday that Trump's tariffs "could hurt jobs and could hurt America" - particularly if other nations retaliate, as China has already done.
"If we're in a scenario 30 days from now, 60 days from now, 90 days from now, with massive American tariffs, and massive tariffs on American goods in every other country on Earth, that is a terrible outcome," he continued.
On Wednesday night in the US Senate, four Republicans joined with Democrats to support rescinding the emergency declaration that justifies Trump's earlier Canada tariffs.
And on Thursday, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa joined with Democrat Maria Cantwell of Washington to back a measure that would require Congress to directly approve tariffs that stay in effect longer than 60 days.
Republicans by and large have been sticking with the president. They seem unwilling, or unable, to sway Trump from his current course on tariffs and government cuts and appear fearful of the political consequences of breaking with the man who has a vice-like grip on the party.
But if the current economic shock becomes a long-term hardship, and if government programme cuts translate into tangible disruptions in popular services or if Trump's standing in opinion polls continues to sag, members of his own party may begin eyeing the exit signs for the first time in years.
And that would bring an unceremonious end to some of Trump's most ambitious efforts.
Trump, no longer worried about standing before voters, may feel liberated from the immediate political consequences of his actions - but reality has a way of asserting itself in the end.
相關報導/分析：
* Follow live updates
* Analysis: How worried should we be about markets turmoil?
* At a glance: What Trump's new tariffs mean for the EU, China and others
* Explainer: What are tariffs and why is Trump using them?
* How might tariffs change the price of Nike's iconic trainers?
* Rosenberg: Trump takes US-Russia relations on rollercoaster ride
* 'Sometimes you have to walk through fire': Tariffs get backing in Trump heartland
* Worst week for US stocks since Covid crash as China hits back on tariffs
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
川普高層聊天室-Paulin Kola
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
川普梅開二度後，我看衰美國的原因之一是：川普團隊「官員素質」(該欄2025/02/19《補充說明》第2節)。果不其然，三個月不到，一群二百五的嘴臉就在世人面前展露無遺。另請參見：Here Are the Attack Plans That Trump’s Advisers Shared on Signal。
Five takeaways from leaked US top military chat group
Paulin Kola, BBC News, 03/25/25
Trump and his top aides have consistently raised concerns about footing the bill for European defence.
Washington DC is still digesting a serious security breach at the heart of the Trump administration.
It's the story of how a journalist - the Atlantic magazine's Jeffrey Goldberg - was added to a Signal platform messaging group which apparently included Vice-President JD Vance and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, in addition to National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.
The topic being discussed was attacking the Iran-backed Houthi group in Yemen.
Goldberg said he had seen classified military plans for the strikes, including weapons packages, targets and timing, two hours before the bombs struck.
What are the main revelations in a nutshell?
Vance questions Trump's thinking
On the military action, Goldberg reported that the account named JD Vance wrote: "I think we are making a mistake."
The vice-president said targeting Houthi forces that are attacking vessels in the Suez Canal serves European interests more than the US, because Europe has more trade running through the canal.
Vance added that his boss was perhaps unaware of how US action could help Europe.
"I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now," Vance said. "There's a further risk that we see moderate to severe spike in oil prices."
The vice-president went on to say, according to Goldberg, he would support the consensus but would prefer to delay it by a month.
Goldberg reported in his article that spokesman for JD Vance had later sent him a statement underlining that Trump and Vance had had "subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement".
Since coming to power, Trump has castigated his European Nato allies, urged them to increase defence spending and generally insisted that Europe needs to take responsibility for protecting its own interests.
Blame for 'free-loading' Europe
Arguments over why the US could - and should - carry out the military strike against the Houthis did not sway Vance.
He said to the defence secretary, "If you think we should do it let's go. I just hate bailing Europe out again."
Hegseth reciprocated:
"I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It's PATHETIC."
A group member, only identified as "SM" suggested that after the strike, the US should "make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return".
"If Europe doesn't remunerate, then what?" he asked.
"If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return," the user continues.
After the strike: Emojis and prayers
According to Goldberg, the US national security chief posted three emojis after the strike: "a fist, an American flag, and fire".
The Middle East special envoy, Steve Witkoff, responded with five emojis, Goldberg said: "two hands-praying, a flexed bicep, and two American flags".
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles voiced messages of support, he said.
"I will say a prayer for victory," Vance said as updates on the strikes were given.
Two others members added prayer emojis, Goldberg reported.
Controlling the message: Blame Biden
To Vance's concerns that the action may be seen as going against Trump's message on Europe, the US defence secretary wrote:
"VP: I understand your concerns – and fully support you raising w/ POTUS [Trump]. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc).
"I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what – nobody knows who the Houthis are – which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded."
The Trump administration has consistently blamed Joe Biden for being too lenient with Iran.
Waltz in the spotlight
Goldberg said he got an unsolicited invitation on the Signal messaging platform on 11 March by an account named Michael Waltz, and was then added to the group chat about Yemen two days later.
The president was not part of this group, but Trump's closest collaborators were.
Goldberg initially thought this was a hoax, but soon realised it was real.
The whole issue is adding pressure on the national security adviser, with Democrats in the House and Senate calling for an urgent inquiry.
When asked on Monday about the whole incident, Trump said he didn't know anything, but he has stood by Waltz.
The defence secretary has also said no secrets were revealed.
"Nobody was texting war plans," he told journalists.
相關報導：
* Anthony Zurcher: Washington stunned
* LIVE: Yemen strike secrets shared
* Three potential security breaches in Signal group chat leak
* US launches wave of air strikes on Yemen's Houthis
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
|
|
本欄上一篇貼文作者布魯門陶(卜大年)博士算是少壯派的「中國通」。這篇文章很有些意思。
1) 作者是美國前景研究協會的資深研究員；該協會是保守派的重量級智庫。布魯門陶博士不但沒有加入川普的啦啦隊，反而想藉恐嚇後者來勸他改絃更張。可見代誌大條了。
2) 布魯門陶博士把習總說得像個「地緣政治」天才；相形之下，無意間把川痞的低能放大了。
不過，痞、瘋歸痞、瘋，川某倒也不是被嚇大的；他可是靠著唬人發家(請見本欄2025/03/03貼文)。看來，布魯門陶博士的建議不落個忠言逆耳，也形同對牛彈琴；甚至於把川某激怒，做出：「老子就是不信這個邪！」的決定，硬是要一條路走到黑。
川某徹底搞臭美國信用的後果(該欄開欄文第2節)，路人皆知，無需多所著墨。但就俄、烏戰局而言，我的看法略有不同。
我曾指出：對歐洲國家來說，俄國鯨吞烏克蘭是一個「存在危機」；請見：危機1--該欄20254/03/03、危機2--該欄2024/12/06(《小評》第2-1)小節)、危機3--該欄2024/06/01等。俗話說：「兔子急了也會咬人」，何況只是在「扮豬」的眾多歐洲二流國家。
從這一欄的各篇報導和分析可以看出：
1) 美國的軍援和其它方式的支持，並不是決定俄、烏戰局的主要因素，更不是唯一因素。
2) 到目前為止，歐洲國家擺出了「背水一戰」的姿態。我相信：即使沒有美國支持，烏克蘭雖然沒有勝算，但應該能夠再苦撐個兩、三年，拖到普丁先混不下去。
從而，川痞屈尊舔普丁的屁股並不會導致世局豬羊變色。
美國的一眾領袖、官員、學者、名嘴等等，不知道，或裝做不知道，或沒有勇氣面對以下這個「現實」：
美國已經不再是全球霸主；美國總統坐在白宮內說三道四、指手畫腳、或發個X簡訊決定不了國際政治的走向。
美國阿呆榜上所列舉官員、學者、名嘴的荒謬在於：
他/她們認為(自欺欺人？)川普說話就跟板上釘釘一樣。
布魯門陶博士的無知則在於：
他以為全球都圍著川普打轉；川普說不開伙，全世界的人都挨餓。
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
