《守门人》书中评价幕僚长这一职位是烫手山芋，大部分工作费力不讨好，特朗普的"大管家"可能更难 当。在特朗普第一任总统任期内，曾任命了4位幕僚长。频繁的人事变动，被外界解读为，是因为特朗 普习惯混乱的、让下属互相竞争自己最终定夺的宫斗模式，而这是他经商多年获得的人事经验。 美国白宫幕僚长（Chief of Staff），又叫白宫总统助理及办公厅主任，这一职位并非宪法赋予，且没有 固定任期。 现代的美国总统行政办公室最初成形于1939年，罗斯福总统的第二个任期内，职权属于国务卿职责范围 内。1946年，为了应付越来越臃肿政府机构和政治社交，分担总统的压力，正式成立总统助理一职。此 后，并非所有总统都有幕僚长，比如肯尼迪总统在位3年间就从未任命过幕僚长。 部分人认为拥有巨大权力的白宫幕僚长，碰上表面上不参与具体决策的总统，幕僚长会成为实际上的美 国总理。里根政府中的唐纳德·里根和詹姆斯·贝克都是总理型的幕僚长。 20:41 苏西·怀尔斯：神秘的政治影响力与性格 特朗普现在的幕僚长是苏西·怀尔斯（Susie Wiles），也是美国历史上首位女性的白宫幕僚长，她是特朗 普在2024年总统选举时候的竞选经理，也曾经在20 ...

特朗普的"家天下"迷梦：他以为白宫是自家后院，却不知美国权力从不姓"特" 特朗普重返白宫一年，动作频频却步步惊心。 他把建制派得罪个遍，撕掉政治遮羞布，任用赫格塞 思、卢特尼克、纳瓦罗等忠于自己但专业能力存疑的人，奉行"顺我者昌，逆我者亡"的用人逻辑。 这 种做法直接冲击了美国长期依赖的专业官僚体系，动摇了深层政府的根基。 他误以为总统职位如同家 族产业，可以随心所欲发号施令，却忘了这个位置从来只是门阀世家与利益集团的代理人席位。 共和党表面团结，内部裂痕早已显现。 2025年底地方选举中，民主党明显回血，说明选民对其极端风 格产生审美疲劳。 他在外交上同样鲁莽：对古巴断供、威胁对伊朗动武、被内塔尼亚胡牵着鼻子走， 导致中东局势更加混乱。 这些举动非但没提升美国威望，反而加速消耗其全球信誉。 真正致命的是，他既动了"深层政府"的奶酪，又无力构建新秩序。 韩国总统之所以下场惨烈，是因为 动了财阀利益却未能根除对手；特朗普如今面临的局面更为凶险——他招惹的是整个体制内的既得利益 网络，包括被羞辱的将军、被调查的官员、被关税压垮的企业主，以及被其政策拖累的盟友。 一旦 2026年11月中选失去国会控制权，这些力量极 ...

在对外政策上，美国的变化同样明显。特朗普不再区分盟友与对手，而是从"美国优先"出发，对全球发 起"关税战"。在军事层面，据统计在不到一年时间内，特朗普已下令在他国领土发起近600次单方面军 事打击行动。同时，美国对西半球的关注度显著上升，从提出"购买格陵兰岛"、收回巴拿马运河、将墨 西哥湾改名为美国湾，到强掳委内瑞拉总统马杜罗，系列做法既让国际社会感到震惊，也引发了外界对 未来国际规则和秩序的担忧。 站在重返白宫一周年的时间节点看，特朗普第二任期的走向已经不再是"会不会出人意料"，而是"这种 做法会把美国和世界带向哪里"。特朗普是否正在形成一种更具攻击性的对外战略？美国是否正在重新 收缩其全球角色？中美关系又将如何在这一背景下继续演变？ 新京报记者 谢莲 编辑 胡杰 校对 刘军 1月20日，美国总统特朗普重返白宫满一周年。从2025年1月20日迄今的一年内，"特朗普2.0"在美国国 内引发"血雨腥风"，在全球范围内掀起"惊涛骇浪"，今年6月将满80岁的特朗普几乎从未远离过全球聚 光灯。 这一年来，从强力推进政府机构改革、大规模驱逐移民，到对全球发起"关税战"；从退出多项国际组织 和协议，到对委内瑞拉采取军事干 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Trump administration is recalling nearly 30 ambassadors and senior diplomats from overseas positions, primarily from Africa and Asia, to restructure the U.S. diplomatic personnel and ensure the implementation of Trump's "America First" agenda [1] Group 1: Diplomatic Personnel Changes - The recalled diplomats were appointed during the Biden administration, indicating a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy direction [1] - The move is described as unprecedented in scale, with the U.S. diplomatic community expressing concerns over the potential loss of key leadership in important embassies [1] Group 2: Implications for Career Diplomats - Diplomats who are recalled will have only 90 days to find new positions, or they will be forced into retirement, raising concerns about the impact on their careers [1] - The action reflects Trump's long-standing criticism of the "deep state" within the U.S. government, suggesting a desire to replace career officials with loyalists [1]

Core Viewpoint - The Trump administration has ordered the recall of dozens of U.S. ambassadors, primarily career diplomats appointed by former President Joe Biden, breaking a long-standing precedent in U.S. foreign policy [1][4]. Group 1: Recall of Ambassadors - The recall action will result in several embassies losing their Senate-confirmed leadership [1][4]. - The recalled ambassadors received phone notifications to leave within the coming weeks, although they are not being fired [1][4]. - A senior State Department official stated that the recall is a routine procedure, encouraging senior diplomats to seek new positions within the State Department [1][4]. Group 2: Impact on Diplomatic Norms - This action breaks decades of tradition where career diplomats typically remain in their positions even when a new administration takes over [1][4]. - The recalled ambassadors are primarily from countries including the Philippines, Vietnam, Guatemala, and over ten African nations [3][5]. Group 3: Reactions and Concerns - The American Foreign Service Association expressed that the recall sends a "dangerous signal" and opposes the perceived politicization of the diplomatic corps [3][5]. - Supporters of Trump have previously accused members of the diplomatic corps of being part of a "deep state" that attempts to obstruct the president's foreign policy agenda [3][5].

Core Points - The situation between Russia and Ukraine is evolving, with Ukrainian forces withdrawing from several positions near the border due to rapid advances by Russian troops [1][2] - Recent talks between representatives from the US, Ukraine, and Europe have been described as "productive and constructive," although no significant breakthroughs have been reported [4][6] Group 1: Military Developments - Ukrainian armed forces have retreated from multiple positions in the Sumy region, while continuing operations to eliminate Russian forces [2] - The Russian Ministry of Defense reported that Russian troops have gained advantageous positions and are advancing deeper into Ukrainian defenses, targeting military infrastructure and supply lines [2] - Russian forces have conducted strikes on Ukrainian military enterprises and logistics, while Ukraine has retaliated against Russian military assets [2] Group 2: Diplomatic Efforts - US and Ukrainian representatives issued similar statements regarding the recent talks, emphasizing the need for a coordinated strategy among the US, Ukraine, and Europe [4] - Discussions included key documents related to a 20-point peace plan and security guarantees for Ukraine, but no timeline for future talks was announced [4] - Russian officials indicated that a proposed tripartite meeting involving Russia, the US, and Ukraine has not been seriously discussed [5][6] Group 3: Intelligence and Political Commentary - The US Director of National Intelligence criticized NATO and the EU for allegedly attempting to draw the US into direct confrontation with Russia [6][7] - Russian representatives expressed gratitude for the exposure of what they termed the "deep state" in the US, which they claim seeks to provoke conflict in Europe [7]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent developments in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, highlighting the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from certain positions and ongoing diplomatic efforts between the U.S., Ukraine, and European representatives, while also noting the lack of significant breakthroughs in peace negotiations [1][4][5]. Group 1: Military Developments - Ukrainian armed forces have withdrawn from multiple positions near the Russian-Ukrainian border in Sumy region due to rapid advances by Russian troops [2]. - The Russian Ministry of Defense reported that Russian forces have occupied more advantageous positions and are advancing deeper into Ukrainian defenses, targeting military infrastructure and supply lines [2][6]. - Ukrainian forces continue to conduct operations against Russian troops, inflicting damage on Russian military equipment and command posts [2]. Group 2: Diplomatic Efforts - U.S. and Ukrainian representatives, along with European counterparts, held a series of meetings that were described as "productive and constructive," although no significant breakthroughs were reported [4][5]. - Discussions included key documents related to a 20-point peace plan, security guarantees for Ukraine, and post-war economic development plans [5]. - Russian officials indicated that a proposed tripartite meeting involving Russia, the U.S., and Ukraine has not been seriously discussed [6]. Group 3: Intelligence and Political Commentary - U.S. National Intelligence Director Tursi Gabbard accused NATO and the EU of attempting to drag the U.S. into direct confrontation with Russia, suggesting that there are underlying political motives at play [6][7]. - Gabbard's comments reflect concerns about a "deep state" in the U.S. that may be undermining peace efforts in Europe [7].

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article highlights the U.S. National Security Strategy report's sharp criticism of Europe while seeking to "rebuild strategic stability" with Russia, indicating a notable shift in tone compared to previous reports [1][5][10] - The report warns that Europe faces a "severe prospect of civilizational decline" due to immigration policies, economic stagnation, and excessive EU regulation, and states that the U.S. aims to help Europe correct its current development trajectory [3][7] - The report identifies the swift negotiation to end the Ukraine crisis as a "core interest" of the U.S. and accuses the EU of obstructing U.S. efforts to resolve the crisis [3][7] Group 2 - The report no longer labels Russia as a "direct threat" and expresses a willingness to cooperate with Russia on strategic stability issues, which the Russian side views as a "positive move" [5][10] - The report's content regarding NATO expansion was described as "encouraging" by Russian officials, although they noted that the implementation of U.S. foreign policy remains to be observed due to the existence of a so-called "deep state" within the U.S. government [3][5][7]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the significant expansion of executive power under Trump's second term, highlighting the challenges to the traditional checks and balances of the U.S. government and the implications for American governance and global order [4][10][25]. Group 1: Executive Power Expansion - Trump's administration has increasingly utilized executive orders to bypass legislative processes, exemplified by the renaming of the Department of Defense to the "Department of War" without Senate approval [4][8]. - The use of administrative appointments, such as the controversial appointment of Alina Habba as acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, illustrates the strategic maneuvering within the bureaucratic system to consolidate power [6][7][9]. - The Trump administration's approach to budget cuts, including the use of "pocket vetoes" to eliminate previously approved foreign aid, demonstrates a bold strategy to assert executive authority over congressional appropriations [9][10]. Group 2: Historical Context of Executive Power - The article traces the roots of executive power expansion back to the New Deal era under Franklin D. Roosevelt, where significant regulatory authority was shifted to the executive branch in response to the Great Depression [10][11]. - Historical precedents of executive overreach are cited, including actions taken by past presidents during wartime and crises, suggesting that Trump's actions are part of a broader historical trend rather than an isolated phenomenon [10][11][14]. Group 3: Political Implications - The article posits that Trump's challenge to the "deep state" reflects a broader ideological struggle within American politics, questioning the neutrality of government institutions and their alignment with specific political ideologies [14][15]. - The implications of Trump's policies, such as the introduction of the "Trump Golden Card" for wealthy immigrants, indicate a shift towards using state power as a tool for economic gain, diverging from traditional neoliberal principles [18][19]. - The potential for increased political polarization and the erosion of democratic norms is highlighted as a consequence of Trump's aggressive expansion of executive power [25][26].

Core Points - The article discusses the significant changes in the U.S. government structure under Trump's administration, particularly the renaming of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, reflecting a broader ideological shift [1] - It highlights the ongoing political battles between the Democratic and Republican parties, emphasizing the constitutional challenges posed by Trump's executive orders [2] - The article also examines Trump's strategic use of executive power to bypass traditional legislative processes, showcasing a trend of expanding executive authority [8][23] Group 1: Executive Power Expansion - Trump's administration has increasingly utilized executive orders to assert control, often bypassing legislative approval, as seen in the renaming of the Department of Defense [1][6] - The article notes that Trump's approach to executive orders has become more sophisticated, exploiting legal loopholes to challenge the traditional bureaucratic structure [3][6] - The use of "parallel nomenclature" to rename government departments illustrates a tactical maneuver to consolidate power without formal legislative changes [6] Group 2: Political and Legal Challenges - Trump's opponents have reacted strongly against his executive actions, with plans to challenge them in court, indicating a deepening partisan divide [2][4] - The article describes the legal battles surrounding the appointment of federal officials, highlighting the complexities and conflicts arising from Trump's appointments [4][5] - The ongoing struggle between the executive branch and the judiciary reflects broader concerns about the erosion of checks and balances in the U.S. political system [2][8] Group 3: Ideological Implications - The article argues that Trump's actions represent a challenge to the post-World War II ideological framework of the U.S. government, aiming to reshape its foundational principles [1][23] - It suggests that Trump's expansion of executive power is not unique but part of a historical trend among U.S. presidents, raising questions about the nature of governance and authority [8][15] - The concept of a "deep state" is explored, indicating a belief that entrenched bureaucratic interests oppose Trump's agenda, complicating his efforts to implement change [16][23] Group 4: Economic Policies and Globalization - Trump's recent policies, such as imposing high fees on H1B visa applications and introducing a "Trump Golden Card" for wealthy immigrants, reflect a shift in economic strategy towards leveraging foreign capital [17][18] - The article discusses how these policies aim to attract investment while simultaneously asserting national control over economic resources [17][19] - It highlights the tension between traditional neoliberal globalization and Trump's more nationalist economic approach, suggesting a potential reconfiguration of U.S. economic policy [17][19]