|
川普觀察：爛人爛事錄 -- 開欄文
|
瀏覽28,102 ｜回應60｜推薦2 |
|
川普接管華盛頓特區警察局搞烏龍 -- Ryan J. Reilly
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Bondi backs off initial order to take over D.C. police, issues new directive that keeps chief in place
The development came after Washington, D.C.'s attorney general filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department.
Ryan J. Reilly, 08/16/25
WASHINGTON — Washington, D.C.'s police chief is the force's top official once again, after the Trump administration rescinded an order that stripped her of power less than a day after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued it.
As part of an agreement struck Friday between attorneys from the Department of Justice and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb's office, Drug Enforcement Administration Chief Terry Cole will now be considered Bondi’s “designee,” instead of the emergency police chief, a position Bondi sought in her original order that claimed federal control of the department.
The agreement allows Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith to maintain control of the day-to-day operations of her department, while taking orders from Mayor Muriel Bowser.
In a new order Bondi issued Friday evening, the Department of Justice directed Bowser to order the police department to assist in immigration enforcement operations and to comply with database inquiries and requests for information from any federal law enforcement entity.
This effectively strips Washington, D.C., of its "sanctuary city" status.
But in a news conference after Friday's hearing in federal court, Schwalb, who had filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s police takeover, took a victory lap.
"The key for today is to know that our effort to avoid a hostile takeover of our police force is not going to happen," he told reporters. "Chief Smith remains in control of the police department under the supervision of our mayor."
Schwalb’s office argued in its lawsuit, which also challenges President Donald Trump’s order from Monday, that the initial orders exceed the limits on requesting services from D.C., which it says can be done on a temporary basis only under emergency circumstances.
The office sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the Trump administration from taking over the police department, saying that D.C. would “suffer devastating and irreparable harms” if the Trump administration’s efforts succeeded.
“The Administration’s unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call DC home," Schwalb said in a statement. "This is the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it.”
The suit said that implementing Bondi’s order would “upend the entire command structure of MPD and sow chaos among the more than 3,100 officers serving the District, endangering the safety of the public and law enforcement officers alike.”
Smith said in a sworn declaration in support of Schwalb's suit that she had “never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive.”
“If effectuated, the Bondi Order would upend the command structure of MPD, endangering the safety of the public and law enforcement officers alike,” Smith said.
Schwalb’s office said Trump only had authority to request services for “federal purposes,” and that Congress didn’t grant the authority to replace D.C.’s police chief.
Bowser, who had been complying with Trump’s earlier directive, said in a post on social media that she agreed the initial Bondi order had gone too far.
“Let us be clear about what the law requires during a Presidential declared emergency: it requires the mayor of Washington, DC to provide the services of the Metropolitan Police Department for federal purposes at the request of the President. We have followed the law," Bowser wrote on X. "In reference to the U.S. Attorney General’s order, there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official,” she added.
In his order on Monday, Trump cited several high-profile violent acts to justify his decision to deploy National Guard troops into the capital and take control of the D.C. police.
Bowser pushed back on Trump's claims of out-of-control crime in Washington, saying statistics show it's substantially dropped. According to federal data released in January, violent crime in the district for 2024 was at its lowest level in more than three decades, and down 35% from the previous year.
The mayor characterized Trump’s moves as "unprecedented" and an “authoritarian push” earlier this week, but conceded he had the authority to issue the order.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called Trump's order the “first step in stopping the violent crime that has been plaguing the streets of Washington, DC.”
Under the Home Rule Act, Trump has the power to federalize the D.C. police for only 30 days unless Congress approves an extension. He said on Wednesday that he plans to ask Congress for a long-term extension — but that would need support from some Democrats to pass.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
川普最新民調 -- 《紐約時報》
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
我在拙作《國際現勢：2025》中說：「美國老百姓跟川普的政治蜜月期頂多到今年七月」(該文第2節)。以下是08/03/25的最新民調數字：
認同川普施政 -- 44%；不認同川普施政 -- 53%。
如果選舉結果雙方得票率相差在10個百分點或以上，媒體會用「壓倒性勝利」來形容。民調數據因為包含種種情況(有些不認同、不認同、和極不認同)，同時各種突發因素所導致的變動性很大和很快，相差10個百分點通常算不上「壓倒性」。但是，它也夠嗆到足以視為「亮紅燈」或「蜜月期結束」。
President Trump’s Approval Rating: Latest Polls
NYT, 08/03/25
Presidential approval rating
This is a daily average of polls conducted by dozens of different organizations since Inauguration Day. See the latest polls.
Aug. 3
44% Approve
53% Disapprove
Note: Individual poll results are shown as circles. Polls with greater weight in the average have larger circles.
Ruth Igielnik, Staff editor, polling
Recent polls have shown President Trump’s agenda to be largely unpopular with the public. A majority of Americans expect his signature domestic policy bill will hurt the country, disapprove of his handling of the files in the case of Jeffrey Epstein, and oppose deporting undocumented immigrants to countries other than their own, according to a recent Quinnipiac Poll. And an increasing share of Americans think Trump is focused on the wrong priorities, according to a CNN/SSRS poll. Still, while the president’s job approval rating remains low, it has also been relatively stable over the last several weeks.
Compare with past presidents
These charts show how President Trump’s net approval rating compares with the net approval of past presidents. Net approval is the percentage of survey respondents who approve of the president minus the percentage who disapprove.
請至原網頁查看比較統計圖表
Irineo Cabreros, Staff editor, statistical modeling
It is typical for new presidents to experience a decline in support in the first few months of their presidencies. Trump’s approval rating has been dropping slightly faster than those of his recent predecessors, but the pace of the decline is not unprecedented.
Presidential approval polls
Polls from “select pollsters” meet certain criteria for reliability and are shown with a diamond.
請至原網頁查看比較統計圖表
Ruth Igielnik, Staff editor, polling
It is not uncommon for polls to show a fairly broad range of support on an issue. Results can vary because of the inherent challenges of polling — surveys can only be expected to be accurate within a couple of percentage points — or because polls were conducted using different methods and at different times. One of the reasons examining an average of polls can be so useful is it can balance out these differences and make it easier to analyze change over time.
About our polling averages
Source: Polling averages produced by The New York Times. Polls collected by The New York Times. Historical polling data provided by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research and FiveThirtyEight.
The polling averages adjust for a variety of factors, including the recency and sample size of a poll, whether a poll represents all adults, registered voters or likely voters, and whether other polls have shifted since a poll was conducted.
Pollsters that meet at least two of the three criteria below are considered “select pollsters” by The Times, as long as they are conducting polls for nonpartisan sponsors.Has a track record of accuracy in recent electionsIs a member of a professional polling organizationConducts probability-based sampling.
These elements factor into how much weight each poll gets in the average. Polls that were conducted by or for partisan organizations are labeled, as they often release results that are favorable only to their causes. Margins are calculated using unrounded vote shares when available. Read more about our methodology.
The Times conducts its own national and state polls in partnership with Siena College. Those polls are included in the averages. Follow Times/Siena polling here.
Download the data
Unless otherwise noted, the data sets that power this project are created by The New York Times and are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Use of these data sets is subject to the terms and conditions of this license, including but not limited to the attribution requirements. These data sets are offered as-is and as-available, and The Times does not make any representations or warranties, express or implied, concerning these data sets. If you are migrating from the FiveThirtyEight dataset, you can see known differences documented here.Presidential approval polls, Jan. 20, 2025, to present: Download Presidential approval averages, Jan. 20, 2025, to present: Download
Credits
By Irineo Cabreros, Annie Daniel, Jon Huang, Ruth Igielnik, Jasmine C. Lee, Alex Lemonides, Ilana Marcus, Dan Simmons-Ritchie, Jonah Smith, Albert Sun and Rumsey Taylor. Additional work by Andrew Chavez and Isaac White.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
川普訪蘇：蘇格蘭《國家日報》頭版標題聳動媒體 – USA Today
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
川普名列性侵犯艾普斯坦檔案 - 馬安妮
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
美國總統公然說謊？川普稱不知自己名列艾普斯坦檔案，《華爾街日報》打臉：司法部長5月就當面告訴你了！
馬安妮，風傳媒2025/07/24
《華爾街日報》7月23日獨家率先揭露，多名官員證實，美國司法部長邦迪早在今年5月就在白宮會議中，當面告訴川普，他的名字多次出現在艾普斯坦調查檔案中。由於內容涉及未經查證的社交紀錄、兒童色情與受害者個資，官方決定不再公開。川普近日受訪時則否認聽說過自己在名單上，顯然與事實不符。
司法部長早就告訴川普：你在艾普斯坦名單裡
根據《華爾街日報》7月23日的獨家報導，多位知情官員證實，美國司法部長潘姆・邦迪(Pam Bondi)與其副手早在今年5月，就曾在白宮向總統川普簡報，當面告訴他——他的名字多次出現在與已故性犯罪者艾普斯坦(Jeffrey Epstein)有關的調查文件中。
這批資料來自司法部年初重啟的內部審查。報導指出，川普並不是唯一被提到的人，文件中還包含數百位名人。內容多半是過往的社交紀錄與舊調查資料，例如出席同一場活動、或與艾普斯坦有過私下接觸等。官員強調，名字出現在文件中，不代表涉入任何違法行為。
邦迪也在會中說明，司法部決定不再公開更多內容。因為部分資料涉及兒童色情影像和受害者個資，屬於高度敏感資訊，一旦外洩恐造成二次傷害，也可能違反法律。報導指出，川普當時表示尊重司法部的決定。
川普發言前後矛盾，支持者強烈反彈
然而，川普近日對外的說法卻完全不同。7月15日，川普在白宮接受《ABC新聞》記者提問時表示，司法部長邦迪「從沒說過他在名單上」，聲稱自己僅收到「非常簡短的簡報」。這番說法與《華爾街日報》揭露的白宮內部會議內容明顯矛盾，立刻引發外界質疑他是否試圖掩蓋事實，甚至說謊。
川普甩鍋時間軸 (請至原網頁查看相關事件時間列表)
事實上，司法部在7月7日才於官網低調發布一份未具名的備忘錄，宣布不會再對外公布更多與艾普斯坦有關的調查資料。聲明中指出，審查並未發現新的犯罪證據，也不存在所謂的「客戶名單」，且資料涉及兒童色情與受害者個資，若進入司法程序將依法封存。儘管如此，此舉未能平息爭議，反而引來部分保守派的強烈反彈。
《華爾街日報》指出，這起事件讓川普在支持者之間面臨罕見的反彈。長期以來，他對外宣稱要「揭露權貴黑幕」，如今卻在關鍵時刻選擇低調處理，令不少人感到失望。就連川普陣營內的一些盟友，也質疑封存資料的做法已偏離原本「公開真相」的承諾。
報導也提到，聯邦調查局(FBI)局長卡什・巴特爾(Kash Patel)與副局長丹・邦吉諾(Dan Bongino)原本傾向釋出更多文件。據悉，邦吉諾曾向同事表示，外界把他和政府「壓下文件」的決策連在一起，導致他在保守派支持群中聲譽受損。
事件最後演變成高層衝突。7月9日，司法部長邦迪與邦吉諾在白宮開會時爆發激烈爭執。知情人士透露，邦迪指控邦吉諾洩密給媒體、企圖抹黑她；邦吉諾則反擊她「說謊成性」。會議中氣氛緊繃，邦吉諾甚至情緒激動、面紅耳赤。
川普試圖止血，風波仍未平息
面對外界質疑，川普近日多次重申，自己早在2000年代中期就與艾普斯坦決裂，甚至把對方趕出佛州私人俱樂部，強調兩人已多年無聯繫。不過，《華爾街日報》7月17日爆料，一封署名川普、帶有性暗示意味的信件，曾在2003年寄給艾普斯坦。川普隨即反擊，痛批是假新聞，否認信件存在，並對報社提起誹謗訴訟。
川普也在17日表示，已指示司法部長邦迪申請釋出與本案有關的大陪審團證詞，強調「只要法院同意，就全面公開」，試圖挽回與論風向。邦迪與副部長布蘭奇也在隔天正式向聯邦法院遞案，稱此事「攸關公共利益」。
《華爾街日報》指出，這些證詞是FBI重啟調查時整理的300GB資料之一，部分來自2019年突襲艾普斯坦在紐約與美屬維京群島住處時，所扣押的文件和硬碟。
不過，大陪審團證詞依法受到高度保密，只有在特定情況下法院才會開放。多位官員坦言，這類申請很難過關，川普此舉更像是表態給支持者看的政治動作。
相關報導：
川普為救艾普斯坦案，不惜揭開金恩博士瘡疤？24萬頁FBI監控檔案全公開，家屬怒回：那也公布艾普斯坦的
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
川普讓中國贏了又贏 -- 媒體看中國
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
德語媒體：特朗普讓中國贏了又贏
意識到普京缺乏和平誠意的特朗普威脅要對俄羅斯石油的主要買家----也就是中國和印度----加征高額關稅，奧地利《標準報》指出，這很可能重燃損人不利己的美中貿易戰，而且會在其他方面加強北京的競爭優勢。《萊茵郵報》則指出，特朗普的關稅會讓其他國家投入中國懷抱。
媒體看中國，07/19/25
(德國之聲中文網) 維也納出版的奧地利《標準報》以“特朗普的對俄政策反復無常，對華政策則一片混亂”為題，刊發評論指出，特朗普日前威脅要對俄羅斯石油買家加征懲罰性關稅，這樣的做法很可能重新點燃損人不利己的美中貿易戰。而在科技和經濟競爭方面，特朗普也在將優勢拱手送人。
“美國總統對俄羅斯進口產品加征關稅幾乎不會有什麼影響，因為美國目前幾乎沒有從俄羅斯進口任何東西。特朗普威脅的關鍵之處在於：要對購買俄羅斯石油的國家加征100%的關稅；但問題是，俄羅斯石油的最主要買家是印度(特朗普正尋求和印度建立緊密伙伴關系)以及中國。”
“中國商品目前已經被征收30%的關稅，如果升到100%稅率，那麼在4月份曾震撼全球經濟的美中貿易戰就會重新爆發。這對美國的物價、就業都會產生巨大影響。特朗普不可能對普京失望到要冒這種風險。”
作者注意到，特朗普近期明顯在討好中國，比如TikTok的“不賣就禁”期限一再推遲，英偉達的高性能AI芯片也重新被允許對華出口，美國總統還一再強調對習近平的尊重。
“中國是一個重量級對手，特朗普喜歡與之較量以證明自己的實力。對他來說，關稅就像一把激光劍，他能像電影裡那樣揮舞著激光劍和人決鬥。與此同時，特朗普的行為正在讓中國能贏得真正的戰鬥----奪取21世紀的科技、經濟主導權。北京的中共領導層系統性地推進戰略領域的科研、創新以及產業優勢，而特朗普政府卻在對美國的高校及科研機構發動一場殲滅戰，並用民粹主義的非理性關稅政策傷害美國自己的經濟。”
文章最後指出，特朗普對俄羅斯日漸失望，普京或許失去了華盛頓的一位朋友，“但是對於習近平而言，特朗普依然是他最得力的干將。”
杜塞爾多夫出版的《萊茵郵報》以“贏家是中國”為題，刊發評論指出，關稅往往被用來懲罰那些所謂不公平的貿易伙伴或者“不聽話”的政府，但是特朗普亂揮的關稅大棒，到頭來只會加強美國對手中國的實力。
“將關稅當作政治報復手段，許多人都覺得這樣的作法太簡單粗暴。實際上，這樣的做法更是愚蠢的。不僅僅是因為關稅到頭來會損害美國企業和消費者的利益、讓進口商品以及日常生活變得更加昂貴，還因為企業正在改變其商品流向。如果美國不再需要巴西的咖啡、大豆或其他原材料，它們就會被運往中國。長期以來，巴西的最主要貿易伙伴都是中國，後者正在成為特朗普政策的贏家。”
“加強中國的地位並不符合特朗普的利益，畢竟他視中國為經濟、政治、軍事方面的最大對手。然而，他卻依然在增加中國實力，這恰恰表明特朗普欠缺戰略眼光。他的執政全靠一時衝動，最終會給自己國家帶來嚴重後果。”
摘編自其他媒體的內容，不代表德國之聲的立場或觀點。
DW中文有Instagram！歡迎搜尋dw.chinese，看更多深入淺出的圖文與影音報道。
© 2025年德國之聲版權聲明：本文所有內容受到著作權法保護，如無德國之聲特別授權，不得擅自使用。任何不當行為都將導致追償，並受到刑事追究。
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
川普的艾普斯坦性醜聞風暴 - Betsy Klein
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
另請參見：Ex-White House Aide Reveals Why Trump's 'Panicking Right Now'
川普未來可能的墓誌銘一覽：
多行不義必自斃！
不是不報，時候未到！
夜路走多了總有一天碰到鬼！
Epstein fallout poses a loyalty test: Trump — or MAGA?
Betsy Klein, CNN, 07/14/25
CNN — It’s President Donald Trump versus MAGA.
In the days since the Trump administration released a memo about Jeffrey Epstein directly at odds with conspiracy theories pushed by the president and some of his top lieutenants, Trump’s movement and most ardent supporters are in revolt
The Justice Department and the FBI released a memo last week concluding there was no evidence that Epstein had a list of powerful men who participated in his alleged underworld of sex trafficking and pedophilia. It also said the disgraced former financier died by suicide and was not murdered in his New York jail cell.
Yet after years of big promises to the president’s base, the memo failed to produce a smoking gun, undercutting Trump and his team’s own words. And MAGA world isn’t happy, pitting the president’s closest allies against one another.
Evan Perez breaks down the beef between Bongino and Bondi
With Trump defending the findings, the situation has set up an unprecedented loyalty test between the president and the movement he created. While Trump has long held significant sway over his base, the situation marks one of the first times his movement is not taking cues from its leader — perhaps offering an early blueprint into how MAGA will evolve in a post-Trump era.
Infighting between the DOJ and the FBI came to a head Wednesday at an explosive meeting where FBI Director Kash Patel and his deputy, Dan Bongino, were confronted about whether they were behind a story that said the FBI wanted more information on Epstein released but was ultimately stymied by the Department of Justice.
After that meeting, Bongino told people he was considering resigning, and did not come to work on Friday as his status in the administration remains uncertain. Trump said “I think so” when asked by reporters Sunday whether Bongino was still FBI deputy director but indicated “he’s in good shape” after speaking with him earlier in the day.
Patel, for his part, posted to social media on Saturday that he would continue to serve in the Trump administration. Though he frequently fanned the flames of Epstein conspiracies, Patel conceded in his post, “The conspiracy theories just aren’t true, never have been.”
Attorney General Pamela Bondi, who repeatedly promised to release Epstein documents, has borne the brunt of the frustration from MAGA supporters.
She could have emerged as a sacrificial lamb, but Trump has made clear, so far, that he’s sticking with his attorney general, offering a robust show of support in a Saturday social media post and inviting Bondi to join him at Sunday’s FIFA Club World Cup final in New Jersey, where she watched the game from the president’s box and Trump flashed her a thumbs-up.
The infighting has clearly caught the president off-guard, and Trump attempted to rein in his supporters and shield Bondi over the weekend.
“What’s going on with my boys and in some cases, gals? They’re all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! We’re on one team, MAGA, and I don’t like what’s happening,” he wrote on Truth Social.
Privately, Trump has also doubled down on his support for Bondi. The president called some of the attorney general’s most vocal critics over the weekend in an effort to stem the bleeding over the Epstein files, three sources familiar with the matter told CNN. Members of the president’s inner circle have also reached out to some of her most vocal critics to essentially ask them to cool it. Her job, they say, is safe — for now.
The president has also reverted to a familiar playbook, blaming Democrats: “Why didn’t these Radical Left Lunatics release the Epstein Files? If there was ANYTHING in there that could have hurt the MAGA Movement, why didn’t they use it?”
And Epstein, Trump claimed, is “somebody that nobody cares about.”
But that didn’t appear to be enough to appease many of his most vocal and prominent supporters, who raised the situation repeatedly at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit, an event aimed at mobilizing young conservatives, in Tampa, Florida.
Bondi “has never missed an opportunity to go on television and dangle sweet nothings that might be coming your way. Try to lead you to believe that she’s got it. It’s on her desk. It’s coming tomorrow. You’re gonna see something on Epstein, and it was a tease. So you either believe that Pam Bondi was telling the truth then, or that she’s telling the truth now, but both cannot be true,” conservative political commentator Megyn Kelly said at the summit Friday, calling Bondi the “villain in this story.”
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, warned Saturday, “Pam, if you can’t do your job, we’ll find someone who will.”
While much of the criticism centered on Bondi, others blamed the administration more broadly.
“I don’t think they’re telling us the truth about Epstein. I think that that guy was involved in something nefarious that implicates a whole lot of people. And my guess is that the whole lot of people may happen to be some of our allies,” YouTuber and conservative political commentator Brandon Tatum said.
Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon called Epstein “the key that picks the lock on so many things — not just individuals, but also institutions.”
Fox News host Laura Ingraham polled the summit crowd: “How many of you are satisfied — you can clap — satisfied with the result of the Epstein investigation?”
She received overwhelming boos.
MAGA faithful weigh in on Epstein files debate
And it’s not just conservatives with a public platform. CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan spoke to Trump supporters throughout the weekend who called on the president to release the files his team said do not exist.
“I don’t think people are going to be quiet about it until they really do it. But who knows if we’ll ever know the true story,” said Lisa Britt.
“There’s two things that President Trump lied about: One was that the Epstein files would come out, and they’re not out yet. They need to come out,” said Taylor Sharp. “The second thing is that we’re not tired of winning. He said that we’d be tired of winning. We’re not tired of winning.”
CNN’s Jenna Monnin, Donie O’Sullivan, Kristen Holmes, Kaitlan Collins, Hannah Rabinowitz and Evan Perez contributed to this report.
Related article：
What to know about the Jeffrey Epstein saga
MAGA media’s conspiracy theories put Trump in power — and now they’re coming back to bite him
Trump shrugs off questions over Epstein memo, calling them ‘a desecration’
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
生日快樂！川痞-Rex Huppke
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
From massive protests to a puny parade, America really let Donald Trump down
All he wanted was to celebrate his birthday with a massive military parade that made him look powerful and beloved. Instead he got a derpy, dull parade overshadowed by massive nationwide protests.
Rex Huppke, USA TODAY Opinion, 06/16/25
Well, Americans, I hope you’re happy with yourselves. You really let President Donald Trump down June 14.
All he wanted was to celebrate his 79th birthday with a massive military parade that made him look powerful, scary and beloved. Instead, thanks to millions of Americans and their stupid First Amendment rights, he got a derpy, dull parade overshadowed by massive nationwide protests denouncing him.
People from Virginia to California and everywhere in between were hoisting signs that said mean things about President Trump like “IF MELANIA DOESN’T HAVE TO LIVE WITH HIM…WHY DO WE?” and “You sucked in Home Alone 2,” referring to the 1992 movie in which Trump had a cameo.
The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the organizers of the "No Kings" protests, said in a statement, “More than five million people nationwide rallied at over 2,100 events across the country, condemning President Trump’s escalating abuses of power.”
Way to go, America. You ruined Trump's parade and made him sad
Nice job, guys. Do you know how hurtful that was for a man who just wanted to have a cool birthday parade that would make him feel like a powerful dictator?
While those protests were massive and made a clear and peaceful point that Americans, only six months into the Trump administration, are fed up, they completely took the shine off the parade in Washington, DC.
The weather there was cloudy with a little rain, the crowd was thin and, while an announcer gave an interesting history of the U.S. Army on its 250th anniversary, the dull pace of tanks and other military vehicles made the event drag.
Troops marched past the VIP section where Trump and administration officials were seated, but they weren’t marching in carefully choreographed lockstep like troops have done in past military parades for notorious authoritarians.
Trump was bored and angry during the parade, while protesters had fun
It all felt a bit phoned in and drab. A New York Times reporter noted: “The energy level at the military parade here is a bit desultory.”
And Trump? He looked like a kid who wanted a Nintendo Switch 2 for his birthday and instead got a desultory military parade.
He sulked. He slouched. At one point, the band played an instrumental version of Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Fortunate Son,” a famous anti-war song that decried wealthy families able to keep their kids out of the draft during the Vietnam War. That probably made Trump’s bone spurs hurt.
How dare Americans protest instead of bolstering the president's ego
Through it all, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sat next to the president, looking like a guy about to be held accountable for not making the parade “strong” and “huge” enough.
But it wasn’t all Hegseth’s fault. This was the fault of all the Americans who chose to take our president’s special day and make it about America. You meanies decided that standing up against government-sponsored cruelty against immigrants and vast federal overreach was more important than letting the guy behind the government-sponsored cruelty and the overreaching have a glorious parade that would make everyone think he’s awesome.
For shame, Americans. President Trump has been working tirelessly to enrich himself and not do any of the things he said he would do, other than the be-cruel-to-immigrants thing, and this is how you repay him? By making his parade seem puny and sad while making your own grievances seem widespread and legitimate?
A bad weekend led to Trump going off on liberal cities
Trump was so mad about how the weekend went that on the night of June 15 he announced on social media that “we must expand efforts to detain and deport Illegal Aliens in America’s largest Cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside. These, and other such Cities, are the core of the Democrat Power Center, where they use Illegal Aliens to expand their Voter Base, cheat in Elections, and grow the Welfare State, robbing good-paying Jobs and Benefits from Hardworking American Citizens. These Radical Left Democrats are sick of mind, hate our Country, and actually want to destroy our Inner Cities.”
Look what you all did! You made the poor man completely lose his mind and start babbling like a maniac who capitalizes words For No reason!
I hope you’re happy with yourselves.
I certainly am.
Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @rexhuppke.bsky.social and on Facebook at facebook.com/RexIsAJerk
You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Opinion
Trump's military show of force in LA and DC camouflage his failing presidency
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
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
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
