Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the transition of DOGE after Elon Musk's departure, highlighting the challenges and changes in leadership, operational structure, and political implications for the organization [3][9][36]. Summary by Sections Musk's Departure - Elon Musk left DOGE at the end of May, with reports indicating a sudden and uncommunicated exit from the Trump administration [4][6]. - His departure marked a significant shift for DOGE, which had been a focal point of political and operational discussions [9][10]. DOGE's Financial Impact - Initially, Musk claimed DOGE would save the federal government $2 trillion, later revised to $1 trillion. However, DOGE reported savings of $190 billion through asset sales, contract cancellations, and layoffs, which has been met with skepticism regarding the accuracy of these figures [7][8]. - During Musk's tenure, approximately 260,000 federal positions were eliminated, but many departments are now in the process of rehiring [7]. Legal and Political Challenges - A legal dispute is ongoing regarding whether DOGE should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, as it operates in a gray area between being a government entity and a private advisory group [8][9]. - The political landscape surrounding DOGE has become contentious, with Trump expressing dissatisfaction with its aggressive strategies and suggesting that cutting subsidies to Musk's companies could save money [10][11]. Leadership Changes - Following Musk's exit, key figures associated with him, including Steve Davis, also left DOGE, leading to a power struggle within the organization [12][13]. - The new leadership structure appears to be more integrated with various government departments, with Russell Vought, a loyal Trump appointee, taking a prominent role in guiding DOGE's future [22][23]. Future Direction of DOGE - DOGE is transitioning from a standalone entity to a more embedded role within federal departments, focusing on technology and efficiency improvements, particularly through AI [21][16]. - The recent passage of a budget-cutting bill indicates a shift towards a more institutionalized approach to implementing reforms, with Russell Vought emphasizing a systematic execution of budget cuts [26][29]. Ongoing Issues - Despite the restructuring, DOGE faces challenges such as staffing shortages in key areas like the Social Security Administration due to layoffs, leading to operational inefficiencies [35]. - Concerns about data security and potential leaks have arisen, particularly regarding unauthorized access by former DOGE members [35][36].

2025.05. 14 本文字数：1176，阅读时长大约2分钟 作者 | 第一财经 孙卓 当地时间5月13日，位于美国纽约曼哈顿的美国国际贸易法院开始审理五家美国小型企业试图阻止美 国政府加征关税的诉讼案。 这5家小型商业企业为进口并分销小批量葡萄酒、烈酒和清酒的VOS Selections公司；使用进口塑料 和钢材制造设备的塑料服务和产品公司（Plastic Services and Products）；使用进口零部件生产教育 电子套件和乐器的MicroKits公司；销售进口渔具及相关装备的渔业美国公司（FishUSA）以及销售 进口女士骑行服的Terry Precision Cycling公司。 三名法官当天听取了针对特朗普关税的辩论，以决定是否暂停特朗普政府近月来开征的这些关税。 "总统无权随心所欲征收关税" 由非营利性公益诉讼公司自由司法中心代表的几家企业辩称，美国总统特朗普无权在任何时间、对任 何国家、征收任何数额的无限制、不可审查的关税。 "总统征收了所谓的关税，代表着行政权力前所未有的非法扩张。"代表这些企业的律师施瓦布 （Jeffrey Schwab）表示，"这并非国会的本意。" 代表特朗普政 ...

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal debate centers around the authority of President Trump to impose tariffs without congressional approval, with small businesses challenging the legality of these tariffs in court [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The U.S. International Trade Court in Manhattan is hearing a case from five small businesses seeking to block recent tariffs imposed by the Trump administration [1]. - The businesses involved include VOS Selections, Plastic Services and Products, MicroKits, FishUSA, and Terry Precision Cycling, all of which import various goods [1]. Group 2: Arguments Presented - The businesses argue that President Trump lacks the authority to impose unlimited tariffs at will, claiming this represents an unprecedented illegal expansion of executive power [2][3]. - The Department of Justice, representing the Trump administration, contends that the President's tariff authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court in past cases [2][4]. Group 3: Judicial Perspectives - Judge Restani expressed skepticism about the government's justification for the tariffs, questioning the rationale behind declaring a national emergency for long-standing trade issues [5][6]. - The debate highlights the tension between executive power and congressional authority in regulating trade, with differing interpretations of what constitutes "regulation" [4][5].