特朗普政府的故事正如一位独裁者所言，是“充满喧哗与骚动，却没有任何意义”。特朗普总统似乎全凭心血来潮行事，对国会或宪法几乎毫无敬畏。去年四月，他曾威胁要将伊朗“炸回石器时代”。但什么也没发生。
The Trump administration is a tale told by an autocrat “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”President Trump seemingly operates on whim and caprice, with little deference to Congress or the Constitution. Last April, he threatened to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages.”Nothing happened.
上周在联合国，他唤醒了尼基塔·赫鲁晓夫的幽灵——赫鲁晓夫曾在1960年挥舞皮鞋敲击桌面，而特朗普则公开考虑要消灭一个联合国成员国。特朗普宣布，关于伊朗问题，他“有一个重大决定要做”。
Last week at the United Nations, he conjured the ghost of Nikita Khrushchev, brandishing his shoe and banging it on a desk in 1960 while openly contemplating the annihilation of a fellow U.N. member state. Trump announced he had “a big decision to make” over Iran.
特朗普告诉伊朗，要么达成协议，要么被摧毁。“会与伊朗达成协议吗？”他问道，“还是说我要迅速消灭伊朗伊斯兰共和国，绝不再给他们杀戮和摧毁人民与国家的机会？”无论其传达的信息还是他选择的场合，都令人遗憾。
Trump told Iran to make a deal or be destroyed. “Will a deal be made with Iran?” he asked. “Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again?”Both the message and the forum he chose to deliver it are regrettable.
特朗普的威胁比赫鲁晓夫的敲鞋举动更加空洞。独裁者赫鲁晓夫不需要任何人的同意就能“埋葬我们”，但特朗普需要，而且他不太可能得到这种支持。本月早些时候，众议院投票通过了一项结束战争的决议。越来越多的共和党人加入了民主党的行列，支持该决议。
Trump’s threats were emptier than Khruschev’s shoe-banging. Dictator Khruschev didn’t need anyone’s consent to bury us. But Trump does, and he is unlikely to get it. Earlier this month, the House voted to pass a resolution to end the war. A growing number of Republicans joined Democrats in favor of the resolution.
特朗普的立场变幻莫测。2025年，他宣布要吞并格陵兰岛。今年，他拒绝排除为实现这一吞并而使用武力的可能性，并威胁称，除非丹麦将格陵兰岛割让给美国，否则将对多个欧洲国家征收25%的关税。
Trump can turn on a dime. In 2025, he announced he would annex Greenland. This year, he refused to rule out the use of military force for this annexation and threatened a 25 percent tariff on several European nations unless Denmark ceded Greenland to the U.S.
上周在联合国，他放弃了吞并计划，并与丹麦签署了一项新协议。专家指出，该协议与1951年的现有协议基本相同，即允许美国在格陵兰岛自由建立新的军事基地。这项新协议增加了一个附加条款，实质上规定该协议仅在美方作为北约成员国期间有效。
Last week at the U.N., he scrapped his bid for annexation and signed a new deal including Denmark, which experts said was largely identical to the existing 1951 deal giving the U.S. carte blanche to build new military bases on Greenland. The new deal has a kicker providing in substance it is only operative so long as the U.S. is a member of NATO.
特朗普蔑视国会监督，获得国会同意从来都不是他的强项。他试图在白宫东翼原址建造一个9万平方英尺的宴会厅，却未获得国会批准，其理由荒谬地声称他需要增加一个后院掩体以加强白宫安全。他忘了提的是，那里已经有一个掩体了。
Trump despises congressional oversight, and obtaining consent of Congress has never been one of his easy virtues. He has sought to justify a 90,000 square foot ballroom where the east wing of the White House used to be — without congressional consent — on the spurious basis that he needs to add a backyard bunker to improve White House security. He forgot to mention that we have a bunker there already.
据报道，他承认这个宴会厅是“一座纪念碑。我正在为自己建造一座纪念碑——因为没有别人会这么做。”他再次搬出那套陈旧的国家安全论调，试图建造一座“特朗普凯旋门”，却遭到了建筑师和建筑专家的抨击，称其具有“超大号的拉斯维加斯式庸俗”。意识到采取这一灾难性举措需要国会同意，他现在将该项目重新包装为必要的国防基础设施，试图在拱门上设置无人机发射台和狙击手据点。
He reportedly admitted that the ballroom is “a monument. I’m building a monument to myself — because no one else will.”Recycling the shopworn national security argument, he seeks to construct an Arc de Trump that has been trashed by architects and architectural experts for its “super-size Las Vegas vulgarity.”Realizing that he needs the consent of Congress to take such a calamitous step, he now rebrands the project as essential defense infrastructure, seeking to place in the arch launching pads for drones and sniper nests.
批评人士抨击了这一牵强的提议，指出在罗纳德·里根华盛顿国家机场的主要降落航道正下方设置无人机发射台会威胁航空安全。你能想象飞机在降落华盛顿时的广播吗？“各位乘客请注意，我是机长。我们必须改道前往费城。我们的航线上布满了无人机。”此外还有宪法问题。特朗普自上任以来做出的最违宪的事情，就是未经通知或听证，就禁止CNN、MS NOW和Politico进入白宫场地，声称他们多年来一直进行虚假报道。
Critics slammed the far-fetched proposal, pointing out that placing a drone launching pad directly underneath the primary landing path for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport menaces navigation. Can you imagine the announcement as your plane descends towards Washington? “Attention all passengers, this is the captain. We have to divert to Philadelphia. Our flight path is infested with drones.”Then there is the Constitution. In the most unconstitutional thing Trump has done since taking office, he banned without notice or hearing CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House grounds, claiming they had been guilty of years of false reporting.
白宫在一份简短的声明中辩称，第一修正案保护他们发表言论的权利，但并不赋予他们获得长期通行证、简报室座位或新闻发布池名额的权利。
In a curt White House statement, he contended that the First Amendment protects their right to publish; it does not entitle them to a hard pass, briefing room seat or place in the press pool.
此举引发了一场诉讼，特朗普表示他预计会在地方法院败诉。他还引发了电视网络的联合抵制。
The move sparked a lawsuit which Trump said he expects to lose in the district court. He also triggered a unified TV network boycott.
在支持禁令的法庭文件中，总检察长托德·布兰奇提出了一个非同寻常的论点，即取消这三家媒体进入白宫的权限属于总统的自由裁量权范围。政府辩称，获取新闻采访权是“一种特权，而非权利”，并补充说，这些媒体的存在通过“传播可证实的虚假信息”对国家安全构成了威胁。然而，由特朗普任命的联邦法官蒂莫西·凯利对此并不认同。凯利发布了一项为期14天的限制令，指示白宫恢复这些记者的采访证。他裁定，该禁令很可能违宪，因为它剥夺了这些媒体的正当程序权利。
In court papers arguing for the ban, Attorney General Todd Blanche made the extraordinary argument that removing the three channels’ access to the White House was within the president’s discretion. Access to the news is “a privilege, not a right,” the government argued, adding that their presence poses a threat to national security by “trafficking in verifiable falsehoods.”Not so, responded, federal Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee. Kelly issued a 14-day restraining order directing the White House to restore the journalists’ credentials. He ruled the ban was likely unconstitutional as denying the outlets’ due process rights.
在谈及此案的早期评论中，特朗普并未关注国家安全，而是聚焦于这些媒体的负面报道以及关于“假新闻！”的指控。特朗普在“真实社交”（Truth Social）平台上写道：“当媒体报道美国总统、特朗普政府或美利坚合众国时，它们不应该能够不断地编造和报道虚构内容与谎言。”换句话说，他只是不喜欢这些报道。
In his early comments about the case, Trump focused not on national security but on negative coverage by the outlets and allegations of “FAKE NEWS!”“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. In other words, he didn’t like the coverage.
凯利法官似乎对特朗普撤销记者采访证的动机是否真的是出于国家安全考虑持怀疑态度。在“五角大楼文件案”中，布莱克大法官驳回了有关国家安全威胁的论点，并指出第一修正案“赋予了新闻自由必须具备的保护，以履行其在我们民主制度中的重要角色”。
Kelly appeared to be skeptical that Trump’s revocation of the journalists’ passes was truly motivated by national security. In the Pentagon Papers case, Justice Black overruled arguments about threats to national security, noting that the First Amendment “gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy.”
“新闻界应当服务于被统治者，而非统治者。政府审查新闻界的权力已被废除，以便新闻界能够永远保持自由，去批评政府。”詹姆斯·D·齐林是纽约南区前联邦检察官，也是一位已发表多部著作的法律分析师。
“The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.The government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government.”James D. Zirin is a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York and a published legal analyst.