分析：艾伦·布莱克 | 14分钟前 | 发布于 2026年3月6日，美国东部时间下午1:57
国土安全部部长克里斯蒂·诺姆于2026年3月3日在国会山参议院司法委员会听证会上作证。
伊丽莎白·弗兰茨/路透社
要么唐纳德·特朗普总统在说谎，要么克里斯蒂·诺姆似乎犯了伪证罪。
在这一点上，实际上没有第三种可能性。
特朗普周四本可以像他之前做的那样解雇诺姆，但他不止于此；他还多次否认她本周在参议院宣誓作证中的部分内容。
具体来说，特朗普对她声称自己知晓并批准了一项备受争议的2.2亿美元国土安全部广告宣传活动（该活动大量突出诺姆个人）提出了异议。
（根据ProPublica的报道，该广告活动之所以有争议，不仅因为金额巨大以及对诺姆个人的宣传力度，还因为它为国土安全部前发言人的丈夫带来了一份利润丰厚的分包合同。）
诺姆在证词中多次暗示特朗普知晓并甚至批准了该广告活动。特朗普讲述的却是截然不同的版本。
“[我对此一无所知]，”他在周四对路透社表示，就在诺姆被解职前不久。
“[我对此毫不知情]，”特朗普在随后接受全国广播公司新闻采访时补充道。
但这与诺姆的证词直接相悖的程度如何？谁看起来说了实话？
值得注意的是，即使诺姆确实犯了伪证罪，因向国会撒谎而被起诉的情况也很罕见。一些民主党人已经在针对诺姆大做文章，但共和党人必须支持才能向司法部提出转诊，而司法部最终将决定是否提起诉讼。
不过，如果民主党人将来控制更多政府权力，他们可能会继续追究此事。
让我们梳理一下我们所知道的情况。
诺姆明确确认特朗普知情
周二，路易斯安那州共和党参议员约翰·肯尼迪和加利福尼亚州民主党参议员亚当·希夫都就这个问题向诺姆发问。
当他们试图明确特朗普批准了什么时，她有时会回避。但诺姆明确同意特朗普了解该广告活动，甚至知道金额，并且他对此表示同意。
当肯尼迪问她特朗普是否要求她投放广告时，诺姆说：“我们谈过这个问题，是的……”
也许肯尼迪感觉到诺姆的回答中有一些可以钻空子的地方，于是再次问道：“你作证说特朗普总统事先批准了这一点吗？”
“我们讨论过确保我们能告诉人们……”诺姆开始说道。
但肯尼迪打断了她，似乎察觉到她在回避直接回答。
“不，女士。我在问你——抱歉打断你，”肯尼迪说。“但总统是否提前批准了你花费2.2亿美元在全国投放电视广告，其中你被大量突出展示？”
最终，诺姆直接回答：“是的，先生。”
“我们遵循了法律程序，做得正确，与（管理和预算办公室）合作——”她补充道。
然而，肯尼迪再次认为这有些回避——她回答“是的”，但随后很快转而谈论法律程序，而不是特朗普的角色。
所以他再次追问诺姆是否特朗普事先知道她会投放这些广告。
诺姆两次简单回答：“是的。”
肯尼迪最终表示，他“很难相信”特朗普签署了这笔金额。
再次回避
但随后希夫开始询问该主题。突然，诺姆再次回避。她没有直接回答问题，而是谈论了广告信息的重要性。
当被问及她如何知道特朗普批准了2.2亿美元的支出时，诺姆回答：“我们进行了讨论，并与管理和预算办公室合作确保资金到位。”
希夫继续追问。他问她是否“与总统有过直接交谈，他批准了这2.2亿美元的广告活动”，以及“总统是否批准了这笔支出”。两次，诺姆都回避了问题。
如何看待这种情况？
政客给出回避性回答在某种程度上是正常的。这就是为什么他们通常不会简单地用“是”或“否”来回应，而是用自己的话来表达。
但奇怪的是，对这些问题的回答并不总是明确的“是”。如果特朗普完全支持所有这些并且了解细节，那似乎是诺姆会大肆宣扬的事情。
尽管如此，由于肯尼迪的坚持，诺姆最终声称特朗普不仅知道广告活动，还批准了它们，并且同意了金额。
这几乎不可能与特朗普坚决否认“我对此一无所知”的说法相吻合。
可能是特朗普在说谎
诺姆在这里最好的辩护可能是，实际上是特朗普在说谎。
毕竟，正如《大西洋月刊》周四晚指出的那样，这不是诺姆第一次声称特朗普知晓并批准了这些广告。早在2025年2月，也就是这些对话发生后不久，她也这样说过。
在保守政治行动会议上，诺姆回忆起与特朗普关于广告活动的详细对话。
她说特朗普提到“你做的关于南达科他州的漂亮广告”，并说“我希望你为边境做这些广告”。
她还说总统告诉她应该在广告中出现，而不是特朗普本人。她甚至说他敦促她加入特定内容：“我希望你感谢我关闭边境。”
“它们将在世界各地播出，让美国和全世界知道它有了一位新领导人，”据诺姆转述，特朗普说。
诺姆当时可能确实没说真话。但她的叙述非常详细。而且，作为新任国土安全部部长，在公开场合凭空编造与特朗普的对话似乎是有风险的。
无论如何，谁在说谎仍然是个重要问题——诺姆仍然是政府雇员。特朗普表示，她将继续担任“美洲之盾”特别代表，这是一项专注于西半球的政策倡议。
那么，谁在说真话？是有可信度问题的即将卸任的国土安全部部长？还是同样有可信度问题的总统？请继续关注。
Is Trump saying Kristi Noem committed perjury?
Analysis by Aaron Blake | 14 min ago | PUBLISHED Mar 6, 2026, 1:57 PM ET
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, on March 3, 2026.
Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters
Either President Donald Trump isn’t telling the truth, or Kristi Noem seems to have committed perjury.
There’s not really a third alternative, at this point.
Trump on Thursday could have just relieved Noem of her duties, as he did. But he didn’t stop at that; he also repeatedly appeared to deny portions of her testimony — which she gave under oath — to the Senate this week.
Specifically, Trump took issue with her claims that he was aware of and had approved a controversial $220 million Department of Homeland Security ad campaign that prominently featured Noem.
(The ad campaign is controversial not just because of the dollar amount and how much it promoted Noem personally, but also because it resulted in a lucrative subcontract for the husband of a now-former DHS spokesperson, according to a report by ProPublica.)
Noem repeatedly signaled in her testimony that Trump was aware of and even approved of the ad campaign. Trump is telling a very different story.
“[I never knew anything about it],” he told Reuters on Thursday, shortly before Noem was ousted.
“[I didn’t know about it],” Trump added later in an interview with NBC News.
But how directly does that contradict Noem’s testimony? And who appears to have told the truth?
It’s worth noting that even if Noem did commit perjury, it’s rare to see someone prosecuted for lying to Congress. Some Democrats are already beating this drum on Noem, but Republicans would have to be on board to even make a referral to the Department of Justice, which would ultimately decide whether to pursue charges.
Still, Democrats could pursue the matter later if and when they control more levers of government.
Let’s break down what we know.
Noem clearly confirmed Trump knew
Noem faced questions on this topic Tuesday from both Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California.
She was at times evasive when they tried to pin down exactly what Trump had approved. But Noem clearly agreed that Trump knew about the ad campaign and even the dollar amount, and that he consented to them.
When Kennedy asked her if Trump asked her to run the ads, Noem said, “We had that conversation, yes …”
Perhaps sensing a little wiggle room in Noem’s answer, Kennedy asked again whether “you’re testifying that President Trump approved this ahead of time.”
“We had conversations about making sure that we were telling people…” Noem began.
But Kennedy cut her off, seemingly sensing that she was avoiding a direct answer.
“No, ma’am. I’m asking you — sorry to interrupt,” Kennedy said. “But the president approved, ahead of time, you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?”
Finally, Noem answered directly: “Yes, sir.”
“We went through the legal processes, did it correctly, worked with (the Office of Management and Budget) –” she added.
Kennedy again, though, seemed to believe this was somewhat evasive — that she said “yes” but then quickly pivoted to the legal process rather than Trump’s role.
So he twice asked her if Trump knew she was going to do the ads.
Noem twice replied, simply, “Yes.”
Kennedy ultimately said it was “hard for me to believe” that Trump signed off on the amount.
Evasive again
But then Schiff began asking about the subject. And suddenly Noem was more evasive again. Rather than answer the question, she talked about the importance of the ads’ message.
When asked how she knew Trump approved of spending $220 million, Noem replied: “We had conversations and worked with OMB to make sure that the funding was there.”
Schiff kept trying. He asked whether she had “conversations directly with the president where he approved this $220 million ad campaign” and whether “the president approved this expenditure.” Both times, Noem talked around the questions.
What to make of this?
It’s somewhat normal for politicians to give evasive answers. It’s why they often don’t respond with yesses or nos but instead put things in their own words.
But it is strange how the answers to these questions weren’t always, “Yes.” If Trump was fully on board with all of this and knew about the details, that would seem to be something Noem would want to scream from the mountaintops.
Still, due to Kennedy’s persistence, Noem ultimately claimed Trump was not only aware of the ads and approved of them, but also consented to the dollar amount.
That’s virtually impossible to square with Trump’s flat denial that he “never knew anything about it.”
It could be Trump who isn’t telling the truth
Noem’s best defense here might be that it’s actually Trump who isn’t telling the truth.
After all, as the Atlantic noted late Thursday, this isn’t the first time Noem has said Trump was aware of and approved of the ads. She also said so back in February 2025, shortly after these conversations would have taken place.
Appearing at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Noem recalled detailed conversations with Trump about the ad campaign.
She said Trump cited the “beautiful ads you did about South Dakota,” and said, “I want you to do those for the border.”
She also said the president told her that she should appear in the ads, rather than Trump. She even said he urged her to include specific content: “I want you to thank me for closing the border.”
“They will run throughout the world, letting America and the world know it has a new leader,” Trump said, according to Noem.
It’s certainly possible Noem wasn’t telling the truth back then. But her story was detailed. And as a newly christened DHS secretary, it would seem risky to come in and immediately invent a conversation you had with Trump in a public event.
Whatever the case, who lied remains an important question — Noem is still going to be a government employee. Trump said she will continue serving in government as special envoy for “The Shield of the Americas,” a policy initiative focused on the Western Hemisphere.
So who’s telling the truth? The outgoing DHS secretary with the credibility problem? Or the president with the credibility problem? Stay tuned.
发表回复