特朗普声称美国城市出现"叛乱"

这是你需要解读的头条。

It's your headline to unpack.

这是你每周都要跟进的故事。

It's your one story to follow week by week.

这是你需要破解的Wordle谜题。

It's your Wordle to work through.

这是你需要追踪的队伍。

It's your team to track.

这是你用来探索的三十六小时。

It's your thirty six hours to explore.

这是你需要掌握的腌料配方。

It's your marinade to master.

这是你需要理清的观点。

It's your opinion to figure out.

是时候升级你的床垫了。

It's your mattress to upgrade.

今天是你了解还需要为圣母大学做些什么的日子。

It's your day to know what else you need to Notre Dame.

《纽约时报》。这是你需要理解的世界。了解更多，请访问nytimes.com/yourworld。

The New York Times. It's your world to understand. Find out more at nytimes.com/yourworld.

这里是《纽约时报》，我是瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯，为您带来《每日播报》。过去一周，ICE和边境巡逻人员与芝加哥居民发生了冲突，而抵达该市的联邦警卫队可能只会进一步激化紧张局势。今天，我的同事朱莉·博兹曼和马塔蒂亚斯·施瓦茨将解释当地的实际情况，以及芝加哥如何成为特朗普政府与各州之间更广泛斗争的一部分，总统正试图向这些州派遣国民警卫队。今天是10月8日，星期三。朱莉，我们看到全国各地都出现了这种紧张的活动，尤其是在特朗普总统试图派遣国民警卫队的地方。

From The New York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams, and this is The Daily. Over the past week, ICE and border patrol agents have clashed with the residents of Chicago, and federal guard troops arriving in the city might only inflame tensions further. Today, my colleagues Julie Bozman and Mattathias Schwartz explain the situation on the ground and how Chicago fits into a broader fight between the Trump administration and the states where the president is trying to send the national guard. It's Wednesday, October 8. Julie, we've seen this flurry of activity around the country in places where president Trump has tried to send the National Guard troops in.

我们特别关注的两个地方是芝加哥和波特兰。在这两个城市，官员们都迫切希望阻止这些联邦部队进入。在波特兰，他们到目前为止是成功的，但在芝加哥却未能如愿。实际上，联邦部队正在前往芝加哥的路上，我们说话的时候是周二上午11:15左右。而你就在那里。

Two places that we're watching super closely are Chicago and Portland. And in both of those cities, the officials are desperate to try to keep these federal troops out. And in Portland, they've been successful so far, but not in Chicago. Federal troops are actually on their way to Chicago as we speak at about 11:15AM on Tuesday. And you are there.

你一直在报道这一切。为什么部队要来芝加哥？

You've been reporting on all of this. Why are the troops coming to Chicago?

特朗普政府的解释是，芝加哥需要国民警卫队来支持ICE特工，支持其他在这里工作的联邦特工，特别是保护ICE设施。我们真正看到这一切始于9月初，当时特朗普政府宣布了他们所谓的‘中途岛闪电行动’。

So the explanation from the Trump administration is that the National Guard is needed in Chicago to help support ICE agents, to help support other federal agents who are working here, and in particular, to protect ICE facilities. So we really saw this begin in early September when the Trump administration announced what they called Operation Midway Blitz.

白宫表示，他们正在追捕那些所谓的最恶劣的非法滞留罪犯。

The White House says it's going after what it calls the worst of the worst criminals who are here in the country illegally.

他们声称这将是对非法移民的严厉打击，要真正严格执行法律。而芝加哥作为庇护城市，不与联邦移民当局合作。

Which they said was going to be a crackdown on illegal immigration. They said they were going to come in and really lay down the law. In Chicago, which is a sanctuary city, they don't cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

因此代号为'中途闪电行动'的执法行动仍在芝加哥持续。据称已有数百名移民被捕。

So the operation known as Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago continues. We are told that hundreds of migrants have been arrested.

最初阶段逮捕人数确实超出常态。约九月中旬，移民局探员曾在芝加哥郊区富兰克林公园实施逮捕时遭遇意外。

So in the beginning, we saw more arrests than usual. And then around mid September, ICE agents were attempting to make an arrest in Franklin Park, a suburb of Chicago.

突发新闻：富兰克林公园一起移民逮捕行动演变为枪击事件，造成一名男子死亡，移民局探员重伤。

Breaking news. A man is dead and an ICE agent seriously hurt after an immigration arrest ended in gunfire in Franklin Park.

根据视频和目击者陈述，探员拦截该男子时，对方试图驾车逃离。探员随即开火，其中一名探员将其击毙。

They pulled over a man, and he, according to video and according to witness accounts, tried to drive away from the agents in the course of this attempted arrest. And the agents responded, and one of the agents shot and killed this man.

是的。时报视频调查组仔细分析了枪击录像，移民局探员声称死者当时企图驾车冲撞他们。但观看视频会发现，双方是否真正面临生命威胁存在一定模糊性。

Yeah. The video investigations team here at the Times actually took a close look at that shooting, and the ICE agents claimed that the man that they shot was trying to run them over. But if you watch the video, it's not entirely clear that either of them was truly in harm's way. It's, like, a little bit ambiguous.

没错。这对许多人来说是一起令人震惊的事件。他们说，看啊，这个人并非暴力罪犯，为何移民局要逮捕他？

Right. And it was a shocking incident to so many people. They said, look. This man was not a violent criminal. Why was ICE arresting him?

他刚送完孩子去日托中心，就在光天化日之下被拦车枪击。我认为这起事件真正引发了人们对移民局策略、培训方式、执行逮捕手段的质疑——这些做法是否符合警察和执法部门的标准。此后，芝加哥郊区布罗德维尤移民局设施外的抗议活动愈演愈烈。面对非暴力但试图用身体阻挡车辆进出设施的抗议者，移民局开始使用胡椒喷雾、催泪瓦斯进行镇压。特工们站在屋顶，向人群发射胡椒弹。

He had just dropped off his children at daycare, and then he's pulled over in broad daylight and shot. And I think that that incident really started to raise questions about ICE's tactics and their training and how they were performing these arrests and whether they were doing it in a way that was really in line with police and law enforcement standards. And after that, protests outside of the ICE facility in Broadview, which is a suburb of Chicago, really began to intensify. And ICE's response to the protesters who were nonviolent but were trying to physically block vehicles from entering and leaving the facility, ICE began to respond with pepper spray, with tear gas. They had agents on the roof, and they would fire pepper balls into the crowd.

我们看到一名牧师被催泪瓦斯袭击，记者们也未能幸免。

We saw a pastor being tear gassed. Journalists were tear gassed.

一名蒙面的移民局特工持武器直接朝我的车射击。他看到我车窗开着，就朝这里开枪。你可以看到弹着点就在这里。

An ICE agent that was masked pointed his weapon and shot directly at my car. He saw my window was open, and he shot right here. You can see the point of impact impact right there.

一位哥伦比亚广播公司的记者只是开车经过查看设施情况——当时根本没有抗议活动——结果胡椒弹穿过她敞开的车窗击中了她。

One CBS reporter who happened to be just driving by in her car to check on the facility when there was no protest going on was shot with a pepper ball through the open window of her car.

哦，天哪。

Oh, wow.

最可怕的是，当时车上可能是任何人，而我...我本可能因此丧命。

The scariest part about this is I could have been anybody, and I I could have been killed.

我当时正在开车。是的，这相当令人震惊。我是说，我报道过很多抗议活动。通常如果执法部门使用胡椒喷雾或催泪瓦斯，他们会给出大量警告。他们会告诉人们散开。

I was driving Yes. And this was pretty shocking. I mean, I've covered a lot of protests. And usually if law enforcement uses pepper spray or tear gas, they give plenty of warning. They tell people to disperse.

在他们采取那种手段之前，会有很多步骤。而ICE（移民和海关执法局）却随心所欲地部署催泪瓦斯和胡椒喷雾。这对我们这些在场目睹一切的人来说，真的非常震惊。

There are number of actions that take place before they get to that point. And ICE was just deploying tear gas and pepper spray whenever they wanted to. And it was really shocking for those of us who were in attendance and seeing what was going on.

尤其是正如你提到的，因为这些抗议活动听起来虽然具有破坏性，但基本上是非暴力的。

Especially as you mentioned because these protests, it sounded like they were disruptive, but mostly nonviolent.

完全正确。然后在几周前，我们看到了让芝加哥人更加震惊的事情——边境巡逻队开始列队穿过市中心街道。我们看到一群群穿着迷彩服的边境巡逻队员。

Absolutely. And then a couple of weekends ago, we saw something that was even more shocking to people in Chicago, which is that the border patrol began marching through downtown streets. We would see groups of, border patrol agents in camouflage.

等等，边境巡逻队？我没想到他们会在那里有管辖权。

Wait. Border patrol? I didn't realize that they would have jurisdiction there.

所以这是整件事中最奇怪也最令人震惊的部分之一。我们并不靠近美国边境，但边境巡逻队确实也出现在这里，并且他们与ICE一起执行了许多移民逮捕行动。普利兹克州长在周一的新闻发布会上谈到了这一点。

So that has been one of the strangest and most startling elements of this. So we are not near a US border, but, yes, border patrol has been here as well, and they have done a lot of the immigration arrests alongside ICE. And governor Pritzker addressed this at a news briefing on Monday.

CBP（海关和边境保护局）只能在距离边境特定英里范围内行动。

CBP is only allowed to operate within a certain number of miles of the border.

他当时说，边境巡逻队为什么会在芝加哥出现？

Where he said, why is the border patrol in Chicago at all?

因为他们宣称边境就在密歇根湖岸。这就是他们现在获准行动的理由——至少是他们被告知可以在芝加哥市内执法的依据。

Well, they have declared that the border is at the shores of Lake Michigan. That is why they're allowed to operate now or at least why they're being told they're allowed to operate, in the city of Chicago.

而他的回答是，美国政府现在声称边境线位于密歇根湖岸。

And his answer was that the US government has now said that the border is at the shores of Lake Michigan.

这在我看来不太对劲。据我所知，首先如果你横穿整个密歇根湖才会到达边境线，而且那里距离此地足有一千多英里远。

That doesn't seem right to me. The border, as far as I know, first of all, if you go all the way across Lake Michigan, you'll find a border. But but also, you know, more than a thousand miles away from here.

所以我认为边境巡逻队是否应该出现在芝加哥本身就值得商榷。上周二清晨，我们得知边境巡逻队和FBI在芝加哥南城一栋公寓楼展开了大规模突袭。据我们了解，这是他们在'中途闪电行动'中规模最大的一次行动，按边境巡逻标准堪称巨型行动。我立即驱车前往南城，采访了该楼住户和街对面的居民。第一位受访者站在人行道上，掏出手机给我看他凌晨一点拍摄的视频——

So I think there's a question of whether the border patrol belongs in Chicago at all. So then last Tuesday, we woke up to the news that border patrol and the FBI had conducted a really large raid in an apartment building on the South Side Of Chicago. This was, from what we were hearing, the biggest raid they had conducted yet in operation Midway Blitz, and that this was it was just a giant operation by border patrol standards. So I immediately drove down to the South Side and talked to people who lived in the building, lived across the street from the building. And the first person I talked to was standing on the sidewalk, and he pulled out his phone and started showing me videos that he had taken at one in the morning.

他目睹了黑鹰直升机在大楼上空盘旋，数十辆车辆包围建筑，探员破窗而入，从所有入口攻入大楼。随后他看到人们被押解出来，双手被束线带捆住。他说简直不敢相信眼前景象，整个社区仿佛陷入围困，无法理解这种事正在发生。但国土安全部事后发布的视频却传递出截然不同的信息。

And what he had seen were Blackhawk helicopters hovering over the building. He had seen dozens of vehicles pulling up outside, agents breaking windows. They were going in all entrances of the building. And then he saw people being taken out of the building, zip tied, and he said he could not believe what he was seeing, that it felt like the whole neighborhood was under siege, that he just couldn't believe that this was going on. But there was a different message coming from a video that DHS produced after the raid.

我们在这段视频中看到的，其实是经过好莱坞式纪录片手法处理的突袭画面。无人机航拍镜头俯视全景，直升机悬停画面，特警速降屋顶的影像。全副武装的探员戴着防弹头盔，架梯破窗而入。被带出大楼的人员也出现在镜头中。

And what we saw in this video was really a kind of Hollywood style documentary version of this raid. There was overhead camera shots from a drone. There was imagery of the helicopters, of agents rappelling down onto the roof. You saw armed agents climbing on ladders into windows, and the agents were wearing ballistic helmets. You saw people who were being taken out of the building.

其中一些人是赤裸上身的年轻男子，双手被塑料束带捆绑，正被探员带离大楼。这是国土安全部提供的突袭行动版本，他们声称逮捕的是需要围捕的违法人员。

Some of them were shirtless, young men, zip tied, and being led away from the building by agents. So this was the version of the raid that DHS provided, and they said that they were arresting people who needed to be rounded up and arrested.

我们是否知道他们实际拘留了哪些人？

Do we know who they actually detained?

他们表示至少逮捕了37名非法移民身份者，并描述这些人中部分有犯罪记录。称这些人居住的公寓楼是委内瑞拉 notorious 黑帮成员经常出没的地点，强调此次突袭针对的是暴力罪犯。但当我们采访被捕者律师时，得知有些被卷入行动的人其实是美国公民。

So they said that they had arrested at least 37 people who did not have legal immigration status. And they described these people as, you know, some had criminal records. They said that they were living in this apartment complex that was frequented by members of a notorious Venezuelan gang. And they said that this was a raid that was really targeting people who were violent criminals. But then when we talked to lawyers for some of the people who were arrested, said that there were people who had been swept up in this raid who were US citizens.

国土安全部官员承认，至少有四名美国公民儿童在该公寓楼被拘留。

DHS officials did acknowledge that there were at least four children who were US citizens who were taken into custody at the apartment complex.

误抓的。

By mistake.

可能是误抓，也可能只是行动中的附带损害——先把所有人羁押再甄别公民身份。本周芝加哥市长布兰登·约翰逊还透露，拉丁裔和黑人被分别押送不同车辆。约翰逊市长谴责了这次突袭行动，无论是针对非法移民还是美国公民的处置方式，他称整个行动极不人道。

Either by mistake or just as collateral damage as being a part of the operation, just pull everybody into custody and then sort out later who is a US citizen and who isn't. And then we heard from mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago just this week that people have been separated, that Latinos and black people have been separated into two different vans. And mayor Johnson, of course, condemned this raid and the treatment of people who were either illegal immigrants or US citizens. He just said the entire operation was inhumane.

这段视频似乎印证了现场情况存在多种矛盾说法的现象。显然，当局正在利用其中一种叙事来为其行动提供正当性解释和舆论支持。

It sounds like this video is one of the many examples of how there are sort of these conflicting narratives about what is happening on the ground. And, clearly, the administration is seizing on one narrative in order to help justify and message what it's doing.

是的。我认为国土安全部的意思是，听着。我们不相信芝加哥和伊利诺伊州逮捕了这些人却不对他们进行追究。所以联邦政府必须介入，逮捕这些暴力罪犯。但目前我们仍在努力了解更多关于那次突袭中被拘留和逮捕人员的信息。

Yes. And I think what DHS is saying is, look. We don't believe that Chicago and Illinois are arresting all these people, and they're not going after them. So the federal government just has to step in here and arrest these violent criminals. But we are still, at this moment, working to learn more about the people who were detained and arrested in that raid.

我们需要进一步了解这些人是否有犯罪背景，是否非法居留美国。我想未来几天我们会更清楚这些人的身份。突袭发生后，民众反应强烈，认为这完全失控了——联邦探员无需对芝加哥市民负责。这种情绪在上周末达到顶点。

We need to find out a lot more about whether they had criminal backgrounds, whether they were in The United States illegally, and I think that we will learn a lot more in the coming days about who those people were. So what happened after this raid is that people responded by saying, look. This is really out of control. Federal agents are not accountable to the people of Chicago. And it really hit its high point over last weekend.

上周六，在芝加哥西南区，我们开始听说布莱顿公园社区聚集了人群。根据国土安全部的说法，两名来自芝加哥郊区奥克朗的驾车者，将联邦探员从奥克朗追至芝加哥西南区，并驾车冲撞探员车辆。据称，随后一名女性驾驶者朝下车的探员方向冲撞，探员当即向该女子开枪。

On Saturday, on the Southwest Side Of Chicago, we began hearing that there were crowds building in the Brighton Park neighborhood. And what we began to learn is that according to DHS's account, federal agents were chased by two motorists from the city of Oak Lawn, which is just outside of Chicago, into the Southwest Side Of Chicago. And then the two motorists rammed their vehicles into the federal agents' vehicles. Again, according to the DHS account, a female motorist then drove her car in the direction of one of the agents who had gotten out of his vehicle. And at that point, the federal agent shot the woman.

该女子受伤送医后已出院。我们立即赶往现场，看到的是一场自然爆发的自发抗议活动。

She was injured and went to the hospital and was released. So we immediately went to the neighborhood to see what was going on, and what I saw looked like a very organic spontaneous protest that had popped up.

你们像对待动物一样对待人民。尊重与

You are treating people like animals. Respect And

人们挥舞着墨西哥国旗和美国国旗，有人拿着扩音器喊着：滚回家去。滚回家去。

people were waving Mexican flags and American flags. Some people had bullhorns. Go home. Go home.

滚回家去。

Go home.

当时有大量愤怒情绪直指ICE（移民和海关执法局）探员。同时现场还大量使用了催泪瓦斯。ICE探员发射胡椒弹，试图驱散人群。需要再次强调的是，这一切发生在一个居民区内。

And there was just a lot of anger being directed at the ICE agents. And there was also a liberal amount of tear gas that was being deployed. ICE agents were shooting pepper balls. They were trying to disperse the crowd. Again, this is in a residential neighborhood.

这段街道两侧遍布住宅、公寓和商铺，而冲突就发生在此。随后我们看到芝加哥警察局的警员开始介入，他们在ICE探员与抗议者之间组成人墙。部分芝加哥警员也不慎被催泪瓦斯波及。

There are homes, apartments, storefronts right along this stretch of street where this is all happening. And then we saw that Chicago Police Department officers began to respond, and they began to form a line between the ICE agents and the protesters. And some of the Chicago police officers were also tear gassed

他们刚刚用催泪瓦斯袭击了你们。为什么还要保护他们？因为

They just tear gassed you. Why are protecting them? Because

联邦探员与当地警方之间缺乏协调配合。因此警员们也和抗议群众、记者一样，在催泪瓦斯中呛咳不止。

there was not a lot of coordination between the federal agents and the local police officers. So the police officers were also coughing and choking on tear gas along with members of the crowd and journalists.

朱莉，听你描述时我注意到，特朗普政府声称需要联邦部队保护ICE以便其执行任务。但根据你描述的诸多混乱场面，听起来要么是联邦探员在主动挑起事端，要么就像那个被枪击的司机案例——当时甚至无法确认是否存在真实威胁。整体给人的感觉是，ICE在多数情况下才是挑衅方。这个观察准确吗？

Julie, it feels worth noting just as I'm listening to you that, again, the Trump administration is saying that the federal troops are now needed to protect ICE so that ICE can do its job. But in a lot of these chaotic moments that you have described, it sounds like either federal agents were the ones being the aggressor in the situation. Or in the case of the driver who was shot, it was unclear whether there was actually any danger. It just sort of feels as though ICE is being the aggressor in most of these situations. Is that accurate?

这取决于你问谁。国土安全部可能会说：这些移民探员只是在履行职责。逮捕非法入境者是联邦政府的职能，我们正在加强执法。但若从芝加哥当地民众，尤其是自感遭受不公针对的拉丁裔群体视角来看，他们会认为：

It depends who you ask. I think that DHS would say, look. These immigration agents are doing their job. This is a function of the federal government to arrest people who are in the country illegally, and we are stepping up in doing that. If you look at it from the perspective of a lot of people in Chicago, especially people who are Latino and feel unfairly attacked and targeted, they would say, look.

这根本是支失控的警察部队，他们在撒网式抓捕中连美国公民都不放过。

This is a a rogue police force. They are sweeping up US citizens in their dragnet.

没错。

Right.

而且他们没有采用恰当的治安策略。他们并未妥善管理人群，自身行为反而充满危险性，正是他们引发了冲突。

And they are not using proper policing tactics. They're not trying to manage crowds properly, and they are the ones who are behaving in a dangerous fashion, and they are causing the conflict.

嗯。

Mhmm.

要知道，我们不久前才做过一期关于联邦军队进驻华盛顿特区的节目。当时很多人猜测芝加哥会是下一个目标。那些持怀疑态度的人都说不可能，绝对不可能。

You know, it wasn't that long ago that we did an episode about federal troops going into DC. And at the time that we did that, there was a lot of speculation that Chicago was going to be next. And people who were skeptical that that would happen said, no. No. No.

特朗普在芝加哥的管辖权与在华盛顿特区不同。向特区派遣军队容易得多，他不会那么轻易在全国各城市部署军队。然而才过了几周，值得注意的是军队现在正前往芝加哥。看来这事比人们想象的要简单得多。

Trump does not have the same jurisdiction in Chicago that he does in DC. It's much easier to send troops to DC. You're not gonna see him so easily deploy troops to cities around the country. And yet here we are, not that many weeks later, and it feels worth noting that they are on their way to Chicago now. So it seems like perhaps it was actually much easier than folks had thought.

确实。他的进展比我们最初预期的要顺利。但周一伊利诺伊州和芝加哥市起诉了特朗普政府，称派遣国民警卫队入州毫无正当理由，当地并无需要联邦干预的情况，州级执法部门已完全掌控局势。普利兹克州长还明确指出，他认为这纯属政治伎俩——特朗普试图让民主党领导的城市显得失控，同时企图建立允许军队在美国城市巡逻的法律先例。

Right. He's had more success than I think we had originally expected. But on Monday, the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago sued the Trump administration saying that there was no justification for sending the National Guard into the state, that there was nothing happening here that required this, that local and state law enforcement had the situation completely under control. And what governor Pritzker has also made clear is that he sees this as a purely political ploy that president Trump is doing this to try to make cities that are led by Democrats look like they are out of control, and also that the president is trying to establish a legal precedent that will allow the military to be patrolling American cities.

于是我们再次看到关于现场情况的两种不同说法，这些相互矛盾的叙事和不同版本的事实。

So, again, we see these two different versions of what's happening on the ground, the sort of competing narratives and different sets of facts.

没错。我认为未来几天我们将从法院获得一些答案。我们正在等待联邦法官本周晚些时候作出裁决，希望这将告诉我们伊利诺伊州部署国民警卫队是否合法。

That's right. And I think we're going to get some answers from the courts in the next few days. We are waiting for a federal judge to make a ruling later this week, and that will hopefully tell us whether it is legal or not to have the National Guard here in Illinois.

朱莉，非常感谢你。

Julie, thank you so much.

谢谢你，瑞秋。

Thank you, Rachel.

我们稍后回来。

We'll be right back.

我是苏珊·李，《每日》节目的研究员兼事实核查员。我的工作是确保节目中的细节准确无误。我会花大量时间审核节目中嘉宾所说的几乎每句话。比如他们在描述某人毛衣的颜色时。

I'm Susan Lee. I'm a researcher and fact checker with The Daily. What I do is make sure details in our episodes are accurate. I also spend a lot of time reviewing pretty much anything a guest on the show says. Let's say they're describing the color of someone's sweater.

如果我发现这个人实际穿的是蓝色毛衣而非红色，就必须确保我们予以纠正。或许有人认为这类细节无关紧要，但对我们而言，节目中的每个事实都至关重要。人人都会犯错，毕竟我们都是凡人。而我的职责就是提供这额外的把关层。

If I find out this person actually wore a blue sweater instead of a red one, I have to make sure that we address it. And I guess some might think that this kind of stuff is trivial, but for us, every single fact in an episode matters. We all make mistakes. We're all human. But my job is to be that extra layer.

《每日》是《纽约时报》旗下节目。我们竭尽全力确保事实准确。订阅用户的支持使我们能够做到这一点。若您想订阅《纽约时报》，请访问nytimes.com/subscribe。

The Daily is part of The New York Times. We do everything we can to make sure we get the facts right. Subscribers make it possible for us to do that. If you wanna subscribe to The New York Times, go to nytimes.com/subscribe.

马特，你好。感谢你加入我们。

Matt, hi. Thank you for joining us.

你好，瑞秋。很高兴来到这里。

Hi, Rachel. Glad to be here.

那么，马特，我们正在等待法官裁定特朗普政府派遣国民警卫队进入芝加哥的决定是否合法。你一直在关注特朗普与下级法院之间的紧张关系。我想知道芝加哥的这场冲突如何融入更大的图景，特别是与政府试图将国民警卫队部署到美国各城市的努力相关。

So, Matt, we are waiting for a judge to decide whether the Trump administration's decision to send the National Guard into Chicago is legal or not. And you have been following the tension between Trump and the lower courts throughout this administration. So I'm wondering how the fight in Chicago fits into this larger picture, specifically as it relates to the administration's efforts to get National Guard troops into various cities across America.

是的。看待这些部队部署挑战的一种方式是，这是特朗普与民主党控制的州和城市之间持续斗争的最新战线，这些州和城市已提起诉讼，试图阻止政府执行其议程的不同部分。再一次，首先必须判断谁对谁错的是联邦地区法院的法官，这些诉讼正是在那里提起的。

Yeah. So one way to look at the challenges to these troop deployments is sort of the latest front of this running battle between Trump on one side and Democratic states and cities on the other who have filed lawsuits to try to stop the administration from carrying out different pieces of its agenda. And once again, the first people who are gonna have to figure out who's in the right are federal judges in the district courts where these lawsuits are being filed.

所以基本上，这些法官是夹在中间的？

So basically, these judges are the ones in the middle?

是的。地区法院法官处于双方之间，他们有两项不同的任务。首先，他们需要判断事实和法律上谁是正确的。其次，他们必须维护自身的合法性。他们必须以清晰透明的方式根据事实和法律作出裁决，并保持公众的信心，确保他们不是基于党派立场行事。

Yeah. The district court judges are in the middle between these two sides, and they have two different jobs. First of all, they need to figure out who's right on the facts and the law. And second, they have to preserve their own legitimacy. They have to make rulings in a clear and transparent way on the facts and the law and keep the public's confidence that they're not doing this on a partisan basis.

因此，在如此政治化的环境中，当如此高风险的宪法问题几乎每天都被提交到法院时，法院必须走一条微妙的路线。

So it's a tricky line that the courts have to walk in such a politicized environment when such high stakes constitutional questions are, you know, heading into court on an almost daily basis.

那么具体来说，最近在波特兰和芝加哥的几个案例中，他们究竟在决定什么？

So just to get into the specifics of a couple of the most recent cases, in Portland and Chicago, what exactly are they deciding?

现在由这些地方法院法官来决定，特朗普政府将国民警卫队联邦化后派往波特兰、芝加哥以及未来可能派往其他城市的行为是否合法。《美国法典》第10编第12406条赋予总统在认定存在叛乱时，有权将国民警卫队联邦化并派遣至各州。法官们需要回答两个问题：第一，这实际上是否构成叛乱？第二，这个问题是否可由司法裁决？

So it's now up to these district court judges to decide whether it's legal for the Trump administration to federalize National Guard troops and then send them to Portland and Chicago and potentially to other cities down the line. So title 10 section twelve four zero six gives the president the power to federalize the National Guard and send them out into the states if he deems that there is a rebellion. And the judges have two questions that they are gonna need to answer. One is, is this actually a rebellion? And two, is that question judicable?

也就是说，联邦法院是否有权制衡总统，并可能表示：不，行政部门。你们声称这是叛乱，但我们认定并非如此。我们已初步看出这些地方法官可能的倾向。上周末，卡伦·伊米格兰特法官在波特兰作出裁决，表示将暂时阻止特朗普政府向波特兰派遣国民警卫队。

Meaning, is it the place of the federal courts to check the president and to potentially say, no, executive branch. You say it's in a rebellion. We we find that it isn't. And we have an early indication of where these district court judges might come down. Over the weekend, judge Karen Immigrant issued a ruling in Portland saying that she was gonna block the Trump administration from sending national guardsmen to Portland for the time being.

这是一项初步裁决，但表明法官非常重视各州和城市提出的论点。

It's a preliminary ruling, but it it it's a sign that the judge is taking the arguments made by the states and the cities very seriously.

白宫是如何回应的？

And how did the White House respond?

在社交媒体和有线新闻上，我们看到特朗普的高级顾问斯蒂芬·米勒——他是推动向美国城市派遣士兵这一行动的主要策划者——重复了过去几个月我们经常听到的一些论调。

So on social media and on cable news, we saw Stephen Miller, one of Trump's top advisers, who's kind of the architect of this whole push to send soldiers into American cities, repeating some familiar refrains that we've heard a lot of over these past few months.

每晚他们都来聚集、斗殴、试图阻碍交通、进行人身攻击。目的是什么？就是通过实际的暴力行为来改变选举结果。

Every night, they come, they assemble, they fight, they try to impede movement, they physically attack. For what purpose? To use actual physical violence to change the result of the election.

他基本上用非常军事化的措辞描述了当地局势。

And he basically talked about the situation on the ground in very warlike terms.

这是国内恐怖主义行为。

It is domestic terrorism.

这是叛乱行为，无论如何都

It is insurrection, and no amount of

参与国内叛乱的抗议者们，'叛乱'这个词本身就带有强烈的政治含义。

insurrection protesters were engaged in domestic insurrection, which is a a a very loaded word.

移民海关执法局的官员们不应该在恐惧和暴力中执行公务。

ICE officers should not have to live in fear and violence to do their jobs.

他的言论某种程度上呼应了我们从特朗普总统那里听到的观点。

He sort of echoed things that we've been hearing from president Trump himself.

由于时间关系我们不得不结束对话，但非常感谢您抽空接受CNN采访并分享您的观点。永远欢迎您。

We have to leave the conversation there because we're short on time, but nevertheless, we do appreciate you making the time for us and coming on CNN and sharing your point of view. Always.

自特朗普总统上任以来，我们一再看到这种情况：当法官做出对他不利的裁决时，他不仅会说'法官没有站在我这边'，还会对法官进行人身攻击，将裁决定性为政治行为，甚至暗示自己有时可能无需受法律约束。

And we've seen this again and again since president Trump has taken office that when a judge rules against him, he doesn't just say, the judge didn't see him my way. He he goes after the judge personally and characterizes their decision as political and suggests that he may not necessarily be legally bound to follow it at times.

你知道，我看了斯蒂芬·米勒接受CNN的采访，这让我想起几周前他和特朗普其他官员在查理·柯克葬礼上的言论——基本上就是在构建一种'我们对抗他们'、'善与恶对立'的模式。我想知道，你在波特兰、芝加哥这些案件及后续应对中是否也看到了类似苗头？

You know, I saw the interview that Stephen Miller gave to CNN, and it reminded me a lot of what he and other Trump officials were talking about at Charlie Kirk's funeral just a few weeks ago, basically setting up this, like, us versus them, good versus evil paradigm. And I just sort of wonder if you are seeing any echoes of that in what you're looking at with these cases in Portland and Chicago and some of the response.

完全正确。我认为这次军队部署可以被视为政府进入'后柯克时代'的表现，某种程度上他们确实感觉自己处于战争状态。这种'非我即敌'的态度反复出现，连联邦法官也被划入敌对阵营。

Absolutely. I think this troop deployment could be characterized as as part of a post Kirk moment for the administration where they really do in some way feel like they are at war. And I think there's a kind of attitude that you've seen it again and again that just he who is not with us is is against us, and that that includes federal judges.

就是'我们对抗他们'模式中的'他们'。

A them a them from The Us versus them paradigm.

没错。波特兰裁决最令人震惊的是，做出裁决的法官正是特朗普亲自任命的联邦法官。他们试图将伊米格兰特法官套入某种预设形象，但这根本对不上号。

Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. And what's so striking about this Portland ruling is that the judge who made it was actually chosen by president Trump himself to to be a federal judge. So they're trying to cast judge Immigrant into a certain mold, and it's not an exact fit.

差得远呢。

Far from it.

等等，详细说说这位法官，为什么说她不符合预设形象？

Wait. Tell me tell me more about her, and why is that not an exact fit?

首先，正如我提到的，伊姆里加特法官是特朗普任命的。他在第一个任期内确实提名她担任联邦法官。所以如果她真是一个糟糕至极、违背法律和事实的极左法官，那么人们可能会问，为什么他一开始会选择她加入法官席。需要记住的是，法官不仅仅是由任命他们的总统定义的。话虽如此，伊姆里加特法官确实拥有非常强的保守派背景。

So for starters, as I mentioned, judge Imrigat is a Trump appointee. He did nominate her to be a federal judge during his first term. So if she's such a terrible far left judge who's ruling against the law and the facts, then one might ask why did he choose her to join the bench in the first place. Now, it's important to remember that judges are more than just the president who appointed them. That being said, judge Immigrant has very strong conservative credentials.

她在俄勒冈州担任检察官数十年。她被乔治·W·布什选为俄勒冈州的联邦检察官。在调查比尔·克林顿总统期间，她在肯尼斯·斯塔尔手下工作。她亲自就莫妮卡·莱温斯基与克林顿总统的接触进行了取证，揭露了一些最详尽的细节，这些细节后来被写入了斯塔尔报告。她在肯·斯塔尔办公室工作期间，与卡瓦诺大法官共事过。

She spent decades as a prosecutor in Oregon. She was chosen to be the US attorney for Oregon by George w Bush. She served under Kenneth Starr during the investigation of president Bill Clinton. She personally deposed Monica Lewinsky about her encounters with president Clinton, surfacing some of the most granular details that made their way into the Starr report. And her time working for Ken Starr coincided with justice Kavanaugh's time, also working in that same office.

首席大法官罗伯茨早年也曾为肯尼斯·斯塔尔工作，当时斯塔尔担任副检察长。因此，她无疑是通过一种培养体系成长起来的，许多右翼的顶尖法学家也遵循了类似的轨迹。

Chief justice Roberts also worked for Kenneth Starr earlier when Ken Starr was solicitor general. So she she's certainly someone who came up through a kind of farm system and a track that many of the leading jurists on the right have also followed.

她在周末的裁决中实际说了什么？

And what did she actually say in her decision over the weekend?

埃默里奇法官的裁决核心非常明确。她的结论是，波特兰发生的事件并非政府所声称的叛乱。还有一些非常——我可以说——尖锐的段落，她明确指出此案的利害关系极其重大。她说，此案触及了在美国法治下生活的核心意义。她谈到了联邦政府与各州之间、军队与国内执法部门之间、司法部门与行政部门之间的关系。

The essence of judge Emmerich's decision is very clear. Her finding is that what is happening in Portland is not a rebellion as the government has claimed it is. There's some also very, I would say, strident passages where she makes clear that the stakes of this case are incredibly high. She says that this case goes to the heart of what it means to live under the rule of law in The United States. She says that the relationship between the federal government and the states, between the military and domestic law enforcement, between the judicial branch and the executive branch.

她说，这三种深层次的宪法关系都在此案中发挥作用。

She says all three of those deep constitutional relationships are at play here.

听起来她有点像在拉响警报。

It sort of sounds like she's sounding the alarm a little bit.

我认为确实如此。这份意见书中流露出严肃的关切，我认为它针对的是多个不同的受众。显然包括诉讼双方，还有可能维持或推翻裁决的上诉法院，但我认为她也在向公众喊话：这是你们真正需要关注的问题。

I think that's right. There's a real note of grave concern in this opinion, and I think it's directed at a number of different audiences. Obviously, the parties, there's the appellate court, which might uphold or overturn it, but I think she's also talking to the public and saying, this is something that you you really need to pay attention to.

鉴于法官的背景及其裁决中的论证，似乎很难将这位法官描述为针对政府做出意识形态判决的激进派法官，对吧？

So given the judge's background and the argument in her decision, it does sound like it would be a really difficult case to make that this is some activist judge making an ideological ruling against the administration. Right?

我同意。当前笼罩加州、伊利诺伊州和俄勒冈州所有诉讼的核心问题是：总统能否从宪法层面自行定义事实？若他宣称这是叛乱，是否就足以构成叛乱？我们在《敌对外侨法》中已见过类似问题——若他称之为入侵，是否就足以定性为入侵？

I think that's right. So the big question hanging over all of this litigation in California, in Illinois, in Oregon is does the president get to define his own facts as a constitutional matter? If he says it's a rebellion, is that enough to make it a rebellion? And we've seen this question before with the Alien Enemies Act. If he says it's an invasion, is that enough to make it an invasion?

确实有些律师，甚至我们听到部分法官也持这种观点。

And there are some lawyers, and also we've heard some judges say that it is.

但正如你所说，俄勒冈州法官的这份裁决至少表明，在地方法院层面，法官们正在划清界限，对总统权力设限。如果这些裁决成立，总统可能采取什么行动或有哪些选择？

But as you've said, this ruling from the judge in Oregon, right, gives us some indication that at least at the district court level, judges are putting their foot down and they're drawing a limit on the president's power. So what might he do, or what might his options be if those rulings stand?

特朗普总统确实另有选择——他可以动用《叛乱法案》。这个终极选项将允许他调动军队执行执法任务，镇压其宣布的叛乱。《叛乱法案》比特朗普当前依据的《美国法典》第10编相关条款更具强制力，该法案已有三十多年未被启用。

So president Trump does have another option. He could invoke the Insurrection Act. It's a kind of nuclear option that would allow him to use the military for law enforcement purposes to put down what he would declare to be a rebellion. The Insurrection Act is a simply it's a stronger law than the section of title 10 that Trump's operating under now. The Insurrection Act hasn't been invoked for more than thirty years.

上次动用是在罗德尼·金暴乱期间。历任总统仅在特定地区使用过该法案，全国范围的应用几乎无先例可循。但特朗普与其顾问正越来越频繁地讨论这个选项。他甚至表示，若法官阻碍其行动，可能成为触发该法案的导火索。我们一再看到本届政府将这些尘封多年的古老法律和权力重新启用，用以扩张总统权力，且往往将其矛头指向政治对手。

The last time it happened was during the Rodney King riots. It's been used by presidents in very specific places. To use in a national way would have little or no precedent, but it's something that he and his advisers are talking about with greater frequency. Trump even said at one point that if judges got in his way, that could be a potential trigger for him to invoke the act. So time and time again, we're seeing the administration take these old laws and old authorities that that haven't been used and and blow the dust off them and use them in furtherance of expanding presidential power, and more often than not, point them towards their political opposition.

而斯蒂芬·米勒，在我周一提到的CNN采访中，似乎使用了包括‘叛乱’在内的措辞，人们可能会解读为他也在为此类论点做铺垫。

And Stephen Miller, in that same interview that I mentioned on CNN on Monday, seemed to be using language, including the word insurrection, where one might interpret that he was also kind of setting up an argument for that.

完全正确。政府经常将抗议者称为叛乱分子或恐怖分子，这不仅仅是言辞策略。这是一种战略努力，旨在扩大这些类别的定义范围。政府实际上是在划定法律领地，声称这是一场国家安全危机，从而为动用紧急权力提供正当理由。他们越是能证明紧急情况的真实性，法院就越难以合法介入干预。

Absolutely. The administration often refers to protesters as insurrectionists or terrorists, which is not just rhetoric. It's a strategic effort to broaden those categories. The administration is actually staking out legal turf that this is a national security crisis that justifies the use of emergency authorities. And the more they can make the case that the emergency is real, the harder it's going to be for the courts to legitimately intervene.

另一件需要认识到的重要事情是，地面事实可能会发生变化。因此，如果这种煽动性言论激发了抗议者更多的暴力行为，实际上会强化政府在法庭上的主张，即这确实是一场叛乱。

Another thing that's important to realize is that the facts on the ground can change. So if this inflammatory rhetoric inspires more violent actions by protesters, that actually strengthens the administration's case in court that this is in fact a rebellion.

马特，我想回到你刚才说的一个非常非常有趣的观点，即总统或许能够自行定义事实。也就是说，他可以单方面宣布某事为叛乱，从而动用他想要的权力。我很好奇，如果在这种情况下发生，法院有多大可能接受他的解释？

Matt, I wanna go back to something you said a moment ago that was really, really interesting, which was this idea that the president might be able to define his own facts, basically. The idea that he could just declare something as an insurrection and therefore invoke the powers that he wants. And I'm curious if that were to happen in this case, how likely is it that the courts would go along with his interpretation?

宪法赋予总统巨大的合法权力。法院已经表示，在外交政策和海外军事事务方面，他们的角色非常非常有限，甚至为零。这是特朗普总统及其顾问们心知肚明并试图最大限度利用的一点。如果他援引《叛乱法案》，这些权力将进一步扩大，而法院在制约特朗普总统部署军队方面的合法角色则会缩小。

The constitution gives the president tremendous legitimate power. The courts have already said they have a very, very small to nil role to play when it comes to foreign policy and when it comes to military affairs overseas. This is something that president Trump and his advisers know and have been trying to make maximum use of. If he were to invoke the Insurrection Act, those powers would grow further, and the legitimate role that the courts would have to play to check president Trump when it comes to troop deployments would shrink.

马特，可以稳妥地假设，这些案件中的某一个——可能在俄勒冈州，可能在伊利诺伊州，也可能是之后的某个案件——最终会上诉至最高法院。而我们知道，迄今为止最高法院对总统相当有利。

It feels safe to assume, Matt, that one of these cases, maybe in Oregon, maybe in Illinois, maybe some later case, one of them might eventually end up in front of the Supreme Court, which as we know has been quite favorable to the president so far.

我认为你说得对。这正逐渐成为行政与司法部门之间持续紧张关系的重大考验之一。当涉及美军在国内领土上的部署时，法院是否会继续向特朗普政府让步？他们是否会不顾司法同僚（至少有一位已明确表示反对）的异议而这样做？这位同僚指出：这不是叛乱，而且我有权作出这样的判断。

I think that's right. So this is shaping up to be one of the great tests in this ongoing tension between the executive and the judicial branch. Are the courts going to continue to give way to the Trump administration when it comes to the deployments of US troops on US soil? And are they going to do so over the objections of their judicial brethren and sister, at least one of whom has now said, no. This isn't a rebellion, and, yes, it's my place to say so.

马特，非常感谢。

Matt, thanks so much.

谢谢你，瑞秋。

Thank you, Rachel.

我们马上回来。

We'll be right back.

以下是您还需要了解的

Here's what else you need

今日要闻。

to know today.

司法部长女士，请允许我问这个问题。白宫在向美国各城市部署国民警卫队之前，是否征求过您的意见？

Madam attorney general, let me ask you this question. Were you consulted by the White House before they deployed National Guard troops to cities in The United States?

我不会讨论与白宫的任何内部对话。司法部长帕姆·邦迪面对民主党人的追问，从联邦部队进驻芝加哥的部署，到对特朗普总统的边境事务主管汤姆·霍曼的调查——后者在一起FBI卧底行动中被录下收受装有5万美元现金的袋子。

I am not going to discuss any internal conversations with the White House. Attorney general Pam Bondi's Stonewall Democrats who demanded answers on everything from the deployment of federal troops to Chicago to the investigation into Tom Homan, president Trump's border czar, who was recorded accepting a bag with $50,000 in cash in an undercover FBI investigation.

那5万美元后来怎么样了？FBI把钱追回来了吗？

What became of the $50,000? Did the FBI get it back?

白宫先生，恕我直言。白宫参议员，欢迎您与FBI进行沟通。周二正值哈马斯袭击以色列两周年纪念，该国以沉痛的悼念仪式和结束冲突的新希望来纪念这一日子，这场冲突已造成数万名巴勒斯坦人死亡，包括平民和战斗人员。特朗普政府的中东特使史蒂夫·维特科夫预计将前往埃及参加和平谈判，白宫对潜在协议表示乐观。本期节目由妮娜·费尔德曼、穆奇·扎伊迪、克莱尔·坦尼斯克特和罗谢尔·邦贾制作。

Mister White House excuse me. Senator White House, you're welcome to talk to the FBI. And Tuesday marked the second anniversary of the Hamas attack on Israel, which the country marked with somber remembrances and new hopes of ending a conflict that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, including civilians and combatants. The Trump administration's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, was expected to head to Egypt to join peace talks as the White House signaled optimism about a potential deal. Today's episode was produced by Nina Feldman, Mooch Zaidy, Claire Tennisketter, and Rochelle Bonja.

由莉佐·巴兰和迈克·贝努瓦编辑。音乐由玛丽安·洛萨诺和黛安·王创作，工程由克里斯·伍德和艾丽莎·莫克斯利负责。以上就是《每日新闻》的全部内容。我是瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯。明天见。

It was edited by Lizzo Balan and Mike Benoit. Contains music by Marian Lozano and Diane Wong and was engineered by Chris Wood and Alyssa Moxley. That's it for The Daily. I'm Rachel Abrams. See you tomorrow.