特朗普彻底放下了遮掩，公开表示他不再遵守国际法，选择以极为直接的方式摊牌，锁定了四个目标，甚至不惜在国际上制造纷争，同时对美国国内也开始 出手。对于特朗普如此频繁的行动，人们不禁要问，他真正的目的究竟是什么？近日，在接受媒体专访时，特朗普毫不掩饰地说：我不需要国际法，只有道 德才能约束我。然而，这句话背后藏着更多的含义，特朗普不仅公开否定国际法，甚至对美国的国内法律，包括宪法，都未曾放在眼里。从他的这一举动来 看，特朗普似乎已经放弃了维护国际秩序的责任，而是在推动美国从一个共和国逐步转变为一个帝国，这意味着未来可能充满更多的纷争与混乱。 在明确锁定多个目标后，特朗普的下一步动向引发了广泛猜测。有分析认为，格陵兰岛成为了特朗普最有可能的目标。由于欧洲国家在许多事务上几乎无法 形成统一立场，特朗普对格陵兰岛的强硬姿态得以轻松推进。更重要的是，欧洲国家在军事安全方面极度依赖美国的北约体系，这使得特朗普在面对欧洲 时，几乎可以肆无忌惮地行动。所以，无论欧洲怎么反应，特朗普是否动手，关键还是看他自己如何决定。 至于伊朗，虽然局势动荡，特朗普如果直接采取军事行动，依然面临巨大的风险。因为若美国发动战争，伊朗完全有可能转化 ...

在特朗普锁定了多个目标之后，下一步会是谁成为他的攻击对象？分析指出，格陵兰岛是最有可能的目标，但特朗普不太可能采取类似委内瑞拉那样的模 式。首先，从欧洲的局势来看，欧盟已经陷入了分裂状态，它在经济、制造业流失以及援乌问题等方面已经无力统一立场。在格陵兰岛问题上，特朗普已明 确表示不排除动武，然而，欧盟的大部分成员国并未对此发声。另一方面，欧洲对美国的军事依赖非常强，而北约便是美国的军事工具，这意味着欧洲本身 并没有军事主权。因此，即使欧洲反对，特朗普在格陵兰岛的军事行动依然可能付诸实践。 至于伊朗，虽然其内部正陷入动荡，但特朗普对伊朗动手的风险依然非常高。美国若发起军事行动，伊朗可能迅速宣布进入战时状态，把民众的不满转化为 对外敌的抵抗，削弱抗议的合法性。而且，伊朗的最高领袖哈梅内伊相对温和，他曾阻止强硬派的内贾德重返政坛。如果特朗普下令对伊朗进行军事打击， 可能反而使伊朗的强硬派掌权。再者，伊朗的抗议活动主要集中在库尔德人居住的地区，而库尔德人一直与美国关系密切，特朗普的军事行动可能无意间帮 助了伊朗政府稳定局势。 对于特朗普来说，一旦他认定了某个目标，他绝不会轻易放弃，虽然外界还无法准确预测他会如何行动， ...

美国的内部局势又有变化，特朗普再次对拜登出手，民主党的政治资产遭受打击，他们接下来会怎么应对？而在这个时候，美国爆发了混乱，又是怎么一回 事？ 进入2026年，美国将迎来中期选举，特朗普在第一任期内，就遭遇过众议院选举失利的情况，这让他的执政受到极大约束。因此在2025年进入尾声之际，特 朗普连续出手，先是推动美军准备对委内瑞拉采取地面军事行动，随后又宣布废除前任拜登"自动笔签署"的行政令。显然，特朗普就是要清除拜登的所有政 治遗产，达到打击民主党的目的。但这个做法，也会让美国总统行政令的效力降低。毕竟，特朗普能随意废除前任的行政令，那么民主党若赢得下一届大 选，也会这么做。这个情况，只会让美国联邦政府的权威被瓦解，行政能力大幅度下滑。 当然，特朗普也不打算把政权"让给"民主党。根据最新民调显示，特朗普的长子小唐纳德·特朗普成为共和党下届大选的热门人选之一。对这个情况，有人 认为特朗普是潜在的"接班人"、美国副总统万斯感到不放心。而且，美国政治史上，已经有前例。佐治亚洲前州长尤金·塔尔梅奇虽然是民主党人，但他以 抨击精英体制、承诺维护白人农民利益的"民粹主义路线"著称。这种政治立场，让塔尔梅奇三度赢下州长选举 ...

来源：新华国际头条 2025年1月19日，开启第二任期的前一天，特朗普在支持者的欢呼声中扬言将废除拜登每一项"激进而愚 蠢"的行政令。此后截至12月17日的近一年来，特朗普已签署220项行政令，远超以往数届总统，可 谓"行政令治国"。 与此同时，美国国会鲜少出手干预，存在感格外弱；而联邦最高法院常在联邦政府要求下介入重大诉 讼，其独立性受到广泛质疑；强调权力制衡的"三权分立"制度受到严重冲击。 数量异乎寻常的行政令已引发大量司法诉讼，并伴随全美多轮大规模民众抗议，凸显美国社会的深度撕 裂，也引发各界对美式民主与法治的担忧。 动辄"紧急状态" 行政令"井喷" 美联社今年6月指出，特朗普正前所未有地利用"紧急权力"推进自己的政策执行。"无论是征收惩罚性关 税、向边境部署部队，还是搁置环境法规，特朗普都依赖那些原本仅用于战争或入侵等非常情况下的规 则和法律。"在特朗普当时已签署的150项行政令中，有30项援引了某种紧急权力或授权，这一比例远超 美国近代所有总统。 特朗普在华盛顿白宫展示签署后的关于所谓"对等关税"的行政令。新华社记者胡友松摄 美国历史上曾有多名总统尝试扩大行政权，但宪法和司法系统通常能施以约束。特朗 ...

动辄"紧急状态" 行政令"井喷" 在美国，总统行政令具有法律效力，且无需国会批准。 1月20日，特朗普上台伊始就发布了创纪录的40多项行政令和备忘录等文件。 特朗普此任首年即颁发200多项行政令的数据令外界惊讶不已。据统计，2021年，拜登就职首年签 署了77项行政令；2009年，奥巴马签署了40项；即使对比2017年特朗普首次就任总统首年，他也仅签署 55项行政令。 新华社华盛顿12月24日电（记者熊茂伶）2025年1月19日，开启第二任期的前一天，特朗普在支持 者的欢呼声中扬言将废除拜登每一项"激进而愚蠢"的行政令。此后截至12月17日的近一年来，特朗普已 签署220项行政令，远超以往数届总统，可谓"行政令治国"。 与此同时，美国国会鲜少出手干预，存在感格外弱；而联邦最高法院常在联邦政府要求下介入重大 诉讼，其独立性受到广泛质疑；强调权力制衡的"三权分立"制度受到严重冲击。 数量异乎寻常的行政令已引发大量司法诉讼，并伴随全美多轮大规模民众抗议，凸显美国社会的深 度撕裂，也引发各界对美式民主与法治的担忧。 多项行政令中，特朗普政府都强调"紧急状态""国家安全"，以及在外交和贸易领域的裁量权。例 如，再度上任 ...

转自：贵州日报 多项行政令中，特朗普政府都强调"紧急状态""国家安全"，以及在外交和贸易领域的裁量权。例如，再 度上任首日，特朗普就宣布南部边境进入"紧急状态"，签署行政令要求采取强硬措施阻止非法移民入 境。4月2日，特朗普援引1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》，宣布美国进入"紧急状态"，签署行政令对所 有贸易伙伴征收所谓"对等关税"。8月11日，特朗普宣布首都华盛顿存在"犯罪紧急状态"，签署行政令 要求联邦政府接管华盛顿警察局以及动用国民警卫队。 美联社今年6月指出，特朗普正前所未有地利用"紧急权力"推进自己的政策执行。"无论是征收惩罚性关 税、向边境部署部队，还是搁置环境法规，特朗普都依赖那些原本仅用于战争或入侵等非常情况下的规 则和法律。"在特朗普当时已签署的150项行政令中，有30项援引了某种紧急权力或授权，这一比例远超 美国近代所有总统。 美国历史上曾有多名总统尝试扩大行政权，但宪法和司法系统通常能施以约束。特朗普第二任期的特点 是行政令密集、政策快速推进，而此时的国会两院因被共和党掌控而呈现制衡力缺失的状态。 美国智库布鲁金斯学会高级研究员达雷尔·韦斯特对记者表示，特朗普"超越了许多以往规范，依据几 ...

Core Points - The article discusses former President Trump's unusual legal maneuver of suing himself for $230 million, claiming political persecution from various federal investigations [3][5][7] - Trump's lawsuit is unprecedented in U.S. history, as it involves a sitting president suing his own administration [5] - The compensation is intended to cover legal fees and potential damages from investigations, which Trump argues have caused him emotional distress and reputational harm [7][9] Summary by Sections Lawsuit Details - Trump filed the lawsuit on October 21, 2025, seeking $230 million from the Justice Department, which he leads [5] - He claims that investigations like the Russia probe and the 2020 election interference inquiry are politically motivated attacks [7] Financial Implications - Trump has stated that the compensation would be used for charitable purposes or renovations to the White House, including a $250 million project for a luxury ballroom [9] - The lawsuit's approval process is likely to be influenced by Trump's allies within the Justice Department, raising concerns about self-review [10] Legal and Political Context - The lawsuit is framed within the context of ongoing political tensions, with Trump viewing the investigations as a vendetta by the Democratic Party [15][19] - Trump's legal challenges, including multiple federal charges, have persisted into the 2024 election cycle, and he is leveraging his presidential position to avoid legal repercussions [19] Public Reaction - The lawsuit has drawn significant criticism, especially as it is perceived as exploiting taxpayer money during a fiscal crisis [12][13] - Trump's actions are seen as a strategic political move to reinforce his victim narrative and consolidate support for future elections [19]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, raising concerns about the potential financial implications for the government and the future of U.S.-China trade relations [1][6]. Group 1: Legal and Political Implications - The Supreme Court's questioning indicates skepticism about the administration's authority to impose tariffs, emphasizing that such powers belong to Congress as per the U.S. Constitution [3][6]. - Chief Justice Roberts highlighted that tariffs are essentially taxes on Americans, which should be legislated by Congress, not unilaterally imposed by the executive branch [3][6]. - The legal challenge reflects a broader issue of executive overreach and the balance of power within the U.S. political system, with previous lower court rulings deeming the tariff policy illegal [6][8]. Group 2: Economic Consequences - Trump's claim that the government may owe over $20 trillion in refunds if tariffs are deemed illegal is exaggerated; actual potential refunds range from $50 billion to $200 billion, with collected tariffs amounting to only $174 billion as of September [4][6]. - The administration's reliance on tariffs to secure foreign investment agreements, totaling over $1.7 trillion, may collapse if the tariffs are ruled illegal, posing a significant risk to these economic commitments [4][6]. - The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has criticized the administration's claims about tariff revenues, suggesting that the actual income is likely only half or a third of what is being promoted [4][6]. Group 3: Strategic Responses - In contrast to the U.S. political turmoil, China has demonstrated strategic stability by signaling a willingness to ease tensions through dialogue and mutual concessions on tariffs [6][8]. - The ongoing legal battle over tariffs underscores the lack of domestic consensus on Trump's trade policies, with significant pushback from businesses and public dissatisfaction with economic conditions [6][8]. - The potential invalidation of the tariff policy could dismantle the narrative that tariffs are beneficial for the economy, leading to broader implications for the U.S. fiscal situation and capital markets [6][8].

Core Points - The Supreme Court's debate on the legality of Trump's tariffs is seen as a "power boundary dispute" that raises fundamental questions about the U.S. political system [1] - The court's concern is not about the tariffs themselves but about the expansion of presidential power, as the Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority over taxation and tariffs [3] - If Trump wins, it could set a precedent allowing future presidents to bypass Congress by declaring "national emergencies," potentially disrupting the balance of power [3] - A loss for Trump could lead to significant financial repercussions, including refunds exceeding $100 billion for U.S. companies and potential global trade disruptions [5] - The recent local election results indicate a decline in Trump's influence, which could exacerbate internal party dissent if he loses the tariff case [5] - The ongoing situation reflects a recurring issue in the U.S. political system, where the separation of powers is being used as a tool for partisan conflict [7] - The Supreme Court's decision is anticipated to take weeks or months, but the tariff debate and its implications for Trump's political future will continue [7]

Group 1 - The U.S. Senate has reached an agreement to end the federal government shutdown that has lasted for 40 days, with President Trump indicating that a resolution is near [1] - The Senate previously rejected two bipartisan funding bills, leading to the shutdown that affected hundreds of thousands of federal employees and various government services [1] - A new funding bill, which includes short-term funding measures until January 2026 and three annual appropriations bills, is expected to pass with sufficient Democratic support [1] Group 2 - The ongoing government shutdown has severely impacted multiple industries, with officials warning of economic downturns and disruptions to citizens' daily lives [1] - The Senate's inability to pass funding bills has resulted in a historic low in legislative efficiency, with 14 rejections of the same bill during the shutdown [2] - The aviation industry has been particularly affected, with over 2,000 flight cancellations and more than 7,000 delays reported, attributed to air traffic control staffing shortages [2]