2025年2月5日，马里兰州民主党参议员克里斯·范·霍伦在美国国会外举行的集会上发言，支持美国国际开发署（USAID，即美国国际开发署）。范·霍伦刚刚宣布，他将挑战参议员查克·舒默竞争参议院多数党领袖。
Senator Chris Van Hollen speaks at a rally outside of the U.S. Capitol in support of USAID — the United States Agency for International Aid — on February 5, 2025. The Maryland Democrat has just announced that he will challenge Senator Chuck Schumer for Senate majority leader.
内森·波斯纳/安纳多卢通讯社/盖蒂图片社 “我们需要新的领导，”参议员克里斯·范·霍伦说，他周四宣布将挑战查克·舒默竞争民主党多数党领袖。范·霍伦因对特朗普政府的尖锐批评而在民主党中获得了支持，包括该政府对美国在全球范围内推动健康和消除贫困计划的颠覆。
Nathan Posner/Anadolu /via Getty Images "We need new leadership," says Senator Chris Van Hollen, who on Thursday announced he will challenge Chuck Schumer for Democratic majority leader. Van Hollen has garnered support among Democrats for his sharp criticism of the Trump administration, including their upheaval of U.S. programs to promote health and end poverty around the world.
周二，即他宣布的两天前，范·霍伦在接受NPR采访时谈到了他的计划，即“揭露特朗普政府对我们的国家以及我们在世界各地的利益所造成的所有伤害和损失”，以及民主党希望通过外援实现什么目标。
In an interview with NPR on Tuesday, two days before his announcement, Van Hollen spoke to NPR about his plans to "shine a light on all the harm and damage the Trump administration's done to our country and our interests around the world" — and what the Democrats hope to accomplish with foreign aid.
作为参议院外交关系委员会下属小组委员会的首席议员，该小组委员会负责监督国务院以及美国国际开发署剩余部分，范·霍伦可能对国会如何调查和立法外援拥有相当大的影响力。
As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee, which oversees the State Department and what's left of the United States Agency for International Development, he could have considerable sway over how Congress investigates and legislates on foreign aid.
本次采访已为清晰度和长度进行了编辑。NPR已联系国务院征求评论，但在发表前未收到回复。
This interview has been edited for clarity and length. NPR reached out to the State Department for comment but did not receive a response in time for publication.
你对特朗普政府对外援的重组采取了强烈立场。你领导了反对解散美国国际开发署的抗议活动，并在去年的一次听证会上告诉国务卿马尔科·鲁比奥：“人们因为这些行动而死亡，母亲、父亲和孩子。”你还撰写了谴责一系列行动的声明，包括将健康援助与矿产交易挂钩。如果成为多数党，你在援助方面的首要步骤是什么？首要任务是分析特朗普政府造成的所有伤害。
You've taken a strong stand against the Trump administration's shakeup of foreign aid. You led protests against the dissolution of USAID and in a hearing last year told Secretary of State Marco Rubio that "People died because of those actions, mothers, fathers and children." You've also authored statements condemning a range of actions, including tying health aid to mineral deals. In the majority, what's the first step you'd take on the aid front? Priority number one is to do an analysis of all the harm the Trump administration has done.
有非常可信的分析显示，2025年1月至2026年1月期间，全球超过70万人死于美国国际开发署（USAID）的削减。如果这些趋势继续下去，未来几年将有数百万人死亡。
There have been very credible analyses showing that over 700,000 people around the world died between January 2025 and January 2026 because of cuts to USAID. If these trends continue, you're talking about millions of people dying in the coming years.
身处多数党的一大好处是，你实际上拥有议事槌，可以召开公开听证会，并借此作为聚光灯，帮助全国人民了解情况。
One of the great benefits of being in the majority, is you actually have a gavel and can call a public hearing, and use that as a spotlight to help educate people around the country.
我们可以借此展示埃隆·马斯克对美国国际开发署动“链锯”的后果。我至今还记得2025年2月白宫的一幕：唐纳德·特朗普坐在办公桌前，埃隆·马斯克站在他身后，一名记者问马斯克关于抗击埃博拉出血热的削减问题，马斯克的回答基本上是“哎呀，是啊，我们漏掉了。”随后他声称已经恢复了相关资金。但我们知道，他们并未充分恢复——有充分证据表明，如果美国没有对公共卫生进行大幅削减，刚果民主共和国当前的埃博拉疫情本可以得到更好的遏制。
We can do that to show the consequences of Elon Musk taking a chainsaw to USAID. I remember to this day a scene at the White House [in February 2025] when Donald Trump was at his desk and Elon Musk was standing behind him, and a reporter asked Elon Musk about the cuts to fighting Ebola, and Elon Musk's response was essentially, "Whoops, yeah, we missed that." And then he claimed that they'd restored it. Well, we know that they've not restored it adequately — there's good evidence that the current Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo could have been better contained if the United States had not made big cuts to public health.
我们可以调查他们所做的一切，目的不是要把一切恢复原状，而是要充分了解所造成的损害，并着眼于改革。
We can investigate what they did, not for the purpose of putting it back exactly as it was but understanding the damage that has been done, fully, with an eye toward reforming it.
您此前在少数党时已经就其中许多问题发声。作为多数党，民主党可以采取哪些此前无法采取的行动？
You've already been speaking out against a lot of this in the minority. What kinds of actions can Democrats take as a majority that they couldn't before?
身处多数党会带来巨大不同。现在我们拥有更多可用工具，具体来说，就是掌握财政拨款权。
Being in the majority makes a big difference. Now we have many more tools available, specifically through the power of the purse.
特朗普政府所做的一件事，基本上是搁置国会为国内公共卫生以及国际卫生项目拨款的资金。因此，身处多数党后，我们现在可以更好地维护国会的意愿。您能举个例子吗？
One of the things the Trump administration has done is essentially sit on funds appropriated by the Congress for public health here at home but also for international health programs. So there's an example where we can much better safeguard the will of the Congress now that we're in the majority. Can you give an example?
政府所做的一件事是撤销超过5亿美元的全球卫生资金。换句话说，他们削减了这笔资金，而国会里有一个橡皮图章式的多数派。共和党人对此表示赞同。你永远不会让民主党人同意。
One of the things the Administration did was to rescind over $500 million in funds for global health. In other words, they cut it, and you had a rubber stamp majority in the Congress. Republicans, go along with that. You would never get Democrats to agree.
目前还有另一个持续的例子，即几年前，我们通过了大约15亿美元的[全球]公共卫生资金，而他们似乎正在将这些资金用于公共卫生以外的用途，而是用来缩减美国国际开发署。因此，这是一个我们可以说“不，你们不得利用这些资金来缩减美国国际开发署”的领域。
There's another ongoing example right now, which is a number of years ago, we passed about $1.5 billion in funds for [global] public health, and it appears that they're using those funds not for public health but to wind down USAID. So this is an area where we could say no, you may not use these funds to wind down USAID.
到目前为止，政府一直在无视很多这样的“不”。什么能让这些“不”在多数派中更有分量？
The administration has been ignoring a lot of these "no's" so far. What gives those "no's" more weight in the majority?
当我们在国会拨出一笔资金，比如用于公共卫生时，我们会说这笔钱应该用于这些特定项目，例如疫苗或诊所。这就是指导，这就是方向。这在技术上被称为报告语言，而过去，民主党和共和党总统都尊重这种报告语言。
When we in Congress provide a sum of money, for say public health, we say this money should be spent on these specific items, like vaccinations or clinics. That's guidance, that's direction. It's technically called report language, and this report language used to be respected by Democratic and Republican presidents.
特朗普政府无视了报告语言，因为它在技术上不具有法律约束力，而国会里的共和党人让他们得逞了。而且，他们越是让特朗普政府得逞，特朗普政府就越是这么做。
The Trump administration has ignored report language because it's not technically legally binding, and Republicans in the Congress have let them get away with it. And the more they let them get away with it, the more they do it.
所以，我们将不得不把过去那种报告语言转化为真正的法律，以防止本届政府采取那些行动。我们民主党人一直在尝试这样做，但由于我们一直处于少数派地位，未能将其通过。
So we're going to have to convert what used to be report language into real law to prevent this administration from taking those actions. We Democrats have been trying to do that, but since we've been in the minority, we haven't been able to get that passed.
如果政府仍然试图扣留资金，或者无视或否决国会的行动，该怎么办？
What if the administration still tries to hold up funds or ignore or veto Congress' actions?
这是一位无法无天的总统，他仍在白宫。但占据多数席位将使我们拥有更多筹码。如果我们能将防止特朗普政府将资金从原定用途转用于其他用途的保障措施写入法律，那将具有法律约束力。届时，你可以去法院说，你知道这不仅仅是报告语言。这不仅仅是指导意见。这是法律要求，因此这确实提供了我们所需的保障措施。
This has been a lawless president, and he's still in the White House. But being in the majority will give us more leverage. If we're able to codify the safeguards that would prevent the Trump administration from diverting funds from their intended purpose to something else, that would be legally binding. Then you can go to the courts and say, you know this isn't simply report language. This is not just guidance. This is legally required, and so that does provide the safeguards that we would need.
现在，我们可能会与政府就提供这些保障措施展开来回拉锯和斗争，但我们现在的处境比过去强得多。
Now we may have a back and forth and fight with the administration over providing those safeguards, but we're in a much stronger position now than we have been.
如果民主党在2028年赢得总统选举并保持对国会的控制，美国国际开发署的命运会被重新审视吗？该机构可能会回归吗？或者，你认为特朗普政府的全球卫生政策中，有哪些部分值得保留或在此基础上发展？
If the Democrats win the presidency and keep control of Congress in 2028, would the fate of USAID be revisited? Might the agency return? Or are there parts of the Trump administration's global health policy that you think are worth preserving or building on?
我认为特朗普政府所做的任何事情都不值得保留或在此基础上发展。但这并不意味着我赞成简单回归本届政府之前的现状。
I don't think there's anything the Trump administration has done that's worth preserving or building on. That does not mean that I'm in favor of simply returning to the status quo prior to this administration.
我深信，美国国际开发署所扮演的角色既有助于保护美国人的健康，也有助于与其他国家及其人民建立良好关系。我认为我们需要制定计划，明确如何将这一非常重要的角色作为我们外交政策和卫生政策的一部分来履行。但我并不是说我们会完全回到美国国际开发署过去的样子。
I am a big believer that the role that USAID performed was both helpful to protecting the health of Americans but also helpful to developing good relations with other countries and the people of other countries. I think we need to develop our plan for how we perform this very important role as part of our foreign policy and as part of our health policy. But I'm not saying we would just go back exactly to the way USAID was.
关于我们变化世界中的生活故事，请订阅美国国家公共电台全球卫生通讯。参议员克里斯·范·霍伦 美国国际开发署
For stories about life in our changing world, to NPR's Global Health newsletter. Sen. Chris Van Hollen USAID