本报驻美国特约记者 冯亚仁 戴润芝 本报记者 李迅典 徐嘉彤 编者的话：查理·柯克遇刺事件过去几周在美国持续发酵，并加剧社会撕裂。作为美国总统特朗普的盟 友、"让美国再次伟大"（MAGA）阵营最具影响力的网红之一，柯克18岁便创立保守派青年活动家组 织"美国转折点"，通过线上病毒式视频传播和线下校园辩论，在全美大学推广保守主义。该组织已拥有 800多个分会、25万学生会员和全网上千万社交媒体追随者，连白宫助理新闻秘书泰勒·罗杰斯都坦 言："正是'美国转折点'让我走进政治，它塑造了我的职业方向。"透视该组织的壮大过程，我们可以看 到其背后由保守派基金与富豪金主构筑的资金链条，以及其如何娴熟运用社交媒体、文化战争等手段， 影响着美国年轻一代的政治观念。这些都是未来数年值得特别关注的美国政治与社会现象。 十年募资3.89亿美元，金主是谁？ 查理·柯克以强大的募资能力闻名。美国《福布斯》杂志援引美国国税局的数据报道称，在"美国转折 点"2012年成立后的第一年，它仅获得了7.9万美元的捐款。而十年后，随着柯克个人影响力的提升，该 组织年度募资飙升至8000万美元，增长约千倍。 "美国转折点"的第一笔捐款为1万美元，来 ...

【环球时报驻美国特约记者 冯亚仁 戴润芝 环球时报记者 李迅典 徐嘉彤】编者的话：查理·柯克遇刺事 件过去几周在美国持续发酵，并加剧社会撕裂。作为美国总统特朗普的盟友、"让美国再次伟 大"（MAGA）阵营最具影响力的网红之一，柯克18岁便创立保守派青年活动家组织"美国转折点"，通 过线上病毒式视频传播和线下校园辩论，在全美大学推广保守主义。该组织已拥有800多个分会、25万 学生会员和全网上千万社交媒体追随者，连白宫助理新闻秘书泰勒·罗杰斯都坦言："正是'美国转折 点'让我走进政治，它塑造了我的职业方向。"透视该组织的壮大过程，我们可以看到其背后由保守派基 金与富豪金主构筑的资金链条，以及其如何娴熟运用社交媒体、文化战争等手段，影响着美国年轻一代 的政治观念。这些都是未来数年值得特别关注的美国政治与社会现象。 十年募资 3.89 亿美元，金主是谁？ 查理·柯克以强大的募资能力闻名。美国《福布斯》杂志援引美国国税局的数据报道称，在"美国转折 点"2012年成立后的第一年，它仅获得了7.9万美元的捐款。而十年后，随着柯克个人影响力的提升，该 组织年度募资飙升至8000万美元，增长约千倍。 "美国转折点"的第一笔捐 ...

新华社纽约9月26日电（记者杨士龙）如何撰写近250年历史，在美国国内一直是激烈争锋的政治与 学术话题。特朗普政府3月以来多次表示，将整顿国家博物馆和国家公园，让博物馆的历史叙事更多展 现美国"光明向上"的历史。 这一行动旨在迎合以共和党为代表的保守右翼势力，颠覆民主党长期以来的左翼政策沉淀，重塑美 国民众对历史的认知，也有人将其称为特朗普在第二任期内发动的"文化战争"的一部分。 历史如何书写 华盛顿的国家广场两侧汇集着多家博物馆。其中，美洲印第安人国家博物馆、非洲裔美国人历史与 文化国家博物馆和美国大屠杀纪念博物馆三大族裔博物馆的建立与展陈充满争议，反映美国社会一个深 层矛盾，即美国各族裔"谁的历史应被讲述，应如何被讲述"。这一争论的本质是对各自族群在国家身份 中占据何种角色的争夺。 相比之下，专门纪念二战期间犹太人遭屠杀的美国大屠杀纪念博物馆的创建过程则要顺利得多。 1978年，时任总统卡特设立"总统大屠杀委员会"。1980年，国会授权在国家广场附近建造博物馆。1993 年，博物馆建成开放。此博物馆顺利落成，一方面与犹太人强大的政治和经济势力有关；另一方面，打 败纳粹德国、拯救犹太人的历史彰显了美国的光辉 ...

Group 1 - The ongoing partisan divide in the United States is intensifying, with increasing concerns about the influence of "gatekeepers" in various institutions, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) [1][2] - The rise of the internet and social media has transformed identity politics into a broader "culture war," affecting the business landscape and media discourse [2] - Recent controversies have involved major corporations like Cracker Barrel and ABC, with ABC's decision to pull "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" off the air following controversial remarks, highlighting the intersection of media and political discourse [3][4] Group 2 - FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has indicated that the agency may take action against TV broadcasters to ensure they operate in the public interest, emphasizing the need to avoid partisan bias in programming [4] - The FCC's role in regulating broadcasters is distinct from that of cable channels and streaming services, which do not have the same public interest obligations [4]

Core Points - The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has intensified political divisions in the U.S., with both parties engaging in mutual accusations following the incident [1][6][7] - The suspect, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was arrested after being reported by his father, and his motivations appear to be politically charged [3][4] - The FBI reported a significant increase in politically motivated attacks, with approximately 150 incidents in the first half of the year, nearly double from the previous year [7] Group 1 - The suspect was arrested within 36 hours of the crime, indicating a swift response from law enforcement [4] - The incident has led to calls for increased security measures for lawmakers, reflecting heightened fears among politicians [7] - The political climate is described as tense, with the assassination marking a potential turning point in the rise of political violence in the U.S. [1][6] Group 2 - The event has sparked a polarized reaction on social media, with some individuals celebrating Kirk's death, prompting warnings from government officials [6] - Prominent conservative figures have labeled Kirk a martyr, framing the incident as part of a broader cultural war [6] - The assassination has raised concerns about the future of outdoor political activities, as lawmakers express fears for their safety [7]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing efforts by the Trump administration to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, highlighting the political motivations and implications of such actions, particularly in the context of cultural wars and local governance [1][4][5]. Group 1: Reasons for Dissolution - The push to dissolve the Department of Education has been a long-standing goal of the Republican Party, emphasizing the belief that education should be managed at the local level rather than by the federal government [4]. - Recent political movements, including the 2023 "2025 Plan" by the American Enterprise Institute and proposals from the America First Policy Institute, have made the dissolution of the Department of Education a priority [4][5]. Group 2: Current Actions and Implications - Following a Supreme Court ruling, the Trump administration has begun large-scale layoffs within the Department of Education, with over a thousand employees notified of their termination [1][6]. - Key functions of the Department are being outsourced to other government agencies, such as the transfer of vocational education management to the Department of Labor [6][7]. - The management of federal student loans, amounting to $1.6 trillion and involving 43 million borrowers, is expected to be transferred to the Department of the Treasury, which could lead to significant disruptions in the student loan system [7]. Group 3: Impact on Education and Employees - The layoffs have already resulted in a significant reduction in staff within the Department's civil rights office, which is crucial for addressing discrimination complaints from international students [8]. - There has been a reported 40% decrease in the number of resolved cases related to civil rights complaints, alongside a 9% increase in new complaints, indicating a backlog and potential decline in service quality [8]. - The withholding of nearly $7 billion in federal funds intended for various educational programs has raised concerns about the support for English learners and immigrant families [8].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to lift the injunction allows the Trump administration to proceed with plans to dismantle the Department of Education, which may impact immigrants and international students [1][3] Group 1: Department of Education Dismantling - The Trump administration has initiated a large-scale layoff of over 1,000 Department of Education employees, with their last working day set for August 1 [1] - The administration aims to decentralize education management by transferring powers to state governments, reflecting a long-standing Republican desire to eliminate the Department of Education [3][5] - The dismantling of the Department of Education is seen as part of a broader political struggle, with conservative factions opposing federal intervention in education [3][5] Group 2: Outsourcing of Functions - The Department of Education has begun outsourcing its key functions to other government departments, such as transferring vocational education and adult education management to the Department of Labor [5][6] - Future agreements are expected to further transfer responsibilities, including the management of federal student loans, which amount to $1.6 trillion and involve 43 million borrowers, to the Department of Treasury [6] - The outsourcing may lead to significant disruptions in the student loan system and weaken oversight of for-profit colleges, potentially increasing risks for students [6][7] Group 3: Impact on Employees and Operations - The layoffs have already resulted in a significant reduction of staff in the Office for Civil Rights, which handles discrimination complaints, leading to a 40% decrease in resolved cases this year [7] - The absence of staff has created operational challenges within the student loan office, affecting the processing of complaints and support for students [7] - The Trump administration has withheld nearly $7 billion in federal funds intended for various educational support programs, further complicating the situation for states and affected students [7]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the cultural war initiated by Trump, aiming to eliminate liberal influences in the arts and promote a patriotic, conservative American culture [1][7][16]. Group 1: Events and Performances - The "International Pride Symphony Orchestra" held a performance in Washington, featuring a drag queen host and a transgender pianist, under the flags of the U.S. and LGBTQ+ rights [3]. - The performance was initially scheduled at the Kennedy Center but was canceled after Trump assumed control and replaced the board with his allies [4][6]. Group 2: Reactions and Resistance - Various arts organizations, including "Washington Performing Arts," announced they would no longer use the Kennedy Center for upcoming seasons, indicating a silent resistance to Trump's influence [8]. - Some popular shows, like the Broadway musical "Hamilton," publicly opposed Trump, leading to cancellations at the Kennedy Center, while many individuals chose to avoid direct political actions [9]. Group 3: Trump's Actions and Policies - Trump signed an executive order targeting the Smithsonian Institution, demanding changes to exhibitions he deemed divisive, particularly those addressing racial issues in American history [10][12]. - Despite Trump's orders, the Smithsonian American Art Museum's exhibition remained unchanged, and LGBTQ+ pride events continued as scheduled [12]. Group 4: Cultural Division and Future Implications - Public opinion is divided, with most Democrats opposing Trump's interference in the arts, while over half of Republican supporters approve of it [16]. - The ongoing cultural war reflects a broader struggle between conservative and liberal values, with experts suggesting that Trump's actions may lead to a regression in cultural values and threaten the core of artistic expression [16].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the significant impact of the Trump administration's decision to revoke Harvard University's certification for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), effectively barring the university from enrolling international students, which could have severe financial and academic repercussions for both Harvard and the broader U.S. higher education system [3][4][5]. Group 1: Impact on Harvard University - The revocation of SEVP certification means Harvard cannot enroll any new international students for the 2025-2026 academic year, affecting approximately 6,800 current international students who make up about 27% of the total student body [5][7]. - The financial implications are significant, as international students typically pay higher tuition fees, with Harvard's tuition for the upcoming academic year set at $59,320, and total costs potentially reaching $87,000 [7][10]. - Harvard's response includes a legal challenge against the Trump administration, asserting that the actions are illegal and detrimental to the university's mission and community [4][8]. Group 2: Broader Context of U.S. Higher Education - The article highlights a growing conflict between the Trump administration and elite U.S. universities, with Harvard being a focal point due to its historical significance and financial resources [5][10]. - The administration's actions are part of a broader strategy to reshape U.S. higher education, targeting perceived liberal biases in academic institutions and attempting to reduce federal funding to those that do not align with conservative values [13][16]. - The article notes that over 1.1 million international students were enrolled in U.S. universities for the 2023-2024 academic year, with a significant portion from India and China, indicating the importance of international students to the U.S. education system [8]. Group 3: Legal and Political Ramifications - The Trump administration's actions have led to multiple lawsuits, including one from Harvard against the government, and a broader legal context where international students have faced visa terminations and identity issues [11][18]. - The article mentions that the administration's approach has been criticized for exacerbating internal divisions within the U.S. and for failing to address the underlying issues of anti-Semitism and campus safety [10][19]. - The ongoing legal battles and political maneuvers reflect a significant shift in the landscape of U.S. higher education, with potential long-term consequences for academic freedom and international collaboration [17][19].

Core Viewpoint - The collaboration between the popular mobile game "Honor of Kings" and the blockbuster animated film "Nezha: The Devil's Child" has sparked significant controversy, primarily due to the connection between the characters Aohin and Aobing, leading to a cultural clash among fans [1][9][20]. Group 1: Controversy and Reactions - The announcement of new skins for Aohin and Aobing led to a backlash on social media, with over 220,000 comments and 27,000 shares, predominantly negative [1][3]. - The conflict involves various groups, including movie fans, character loyalists, and game players, escalating to a cultural war on platforms like Weibo and Xiaohongshu [3][12]. - Despite the negative feedback, Tencent seems unfazed, continuing to promote other collaborations, which received more positive responses [3][4]. Group 2: Character Dynamics - The main controversy centers around the relationship between the lesser-known character Aohin, with a mere 4.2% appearance rate, and the prominent character Aobing from "Nezha: The Devil's Child" [9][10]. - Fans of Aohin perceive the collaboration as a threat to their emotional connection with the character, viewing it as an identity appropriation [12][14]. - The emotional investment of players in their characters has evolved, making them sensitive to any perceived threats to their identity [14][16]. Group 3: Cultural Significance - "Nezha: The Devil's Child" is not just a successful film with a box office exceeding 15 billion but also a cultural symbol representing national confidence, complicating its use in commercial collaborations [17][20]. - The collaboration is seen as a clash of two cultural icons, with both communities having strong identities and loyalties, making simple commercial partnerships challenging [23][25]. - The incident highlights the need for brands to understand the cultural implications of their collaborations, as not all brands possess the resilience of "Honor of Kings" to withstand backlash [25][26].