2026年5月14日,美国东部时间下午3:38 / CNN
亚伦·布莱克 撰稿
唐纳德·特朗普 中东
5月12日,唐纳德·特朗普总统在马里兰州安德鲁斯联合基地登上空军一号前往中国之际,与媒体成员交谈。
埃文·武奇/路透社
唐纳德·特朗普总统在第二任任期内行事始终如同手握不受约束的权力。而当这种行事方式与现实发生冲突时,往往会在事后给他带来挫败感。
本周他的失言事件——他称在试图解决伊朗战争问题时并未考虑美国人的财务状况——正是这一问题的缩影。
当被问及周二美国人的经济担忧在多大程度上推动了他推动和平协议的努力时,特朗普回应称:“一点都没有。”
“我谈论伊朗时唯一重要的事情是,他们不能拥有核武器,”特朗普说,“我不会考虑美国人的财务状况。我不会考虑任何人。我只考虑一件事:我们绝不能让伊朗拥有核武器。仅此而已。”
特朗普对普通美国人的经济困境发表不屑言论并非首次。但此番表态仿佛他根本不在意此事,仿佛此事从未进入他的视野。
考虑到这位总统的经济政绩表现不佳,且美国民众早已普遍认为他忽视经济问题,这番言论显得尤其不合时宜。
不出所料,共和党人迅速试图为特朗普的言论辩解。
即将退休的北卡罗来纳州参议员汤姆·蒂利斯告诉CNN,特朗普的言论“令人担忧”,但其他人则试图淡化此事。
得克萨斯州参议员约翰·科宁告诉CNN,这“不过是一句随口之言”。怀俄明州参议员辛西娅·勒马斯拒绝了MeidasTouch记者的置评请求,“主要是因为我认为他其实确实在意”。
包括众议院议长迈克·约翰逊和得克萨斯州众议员特洛伊·内尔斯在内的其他人则辩称,特朗普言论的“背景”可能没那么糟糕。内尔斯还鼓励人们“放宽心”。
还有副总统J·D·万斯。他周三声称特朗普的言论被误传了。但他在经济问题上的语气比特朗普更为温和,展现出了共情姿态。
他两次提及政府关心美国人的财务状况,三次誓言政府会聚焦这一问题。他还承认,在实现繁荣方面“我们还有大量工作要做”,并承认“上月的通胀数据并不理想”。
5月13日,副总统J·D·万斯在华盛顿特区艾森豪威尔行政办公楼举行的反欺诈举措新闻发布会上发言。
肯特·西野村/法新社/盖蒂图片社
这种措辞严谨的回应,正是特朗普竞选团队中许多人或许希望总统本人能够给出的。
但当然,这是特朗普。
对于他对战争的经济影响不屑一顾,存在一个合理的解释:他只是想假装这些影响不存在。
毕竟,经济影响是制约他坚持达成符合其所有要求的伊朗和平协议的主要因素。尤其是高油价,是美国人感受到的战争主要成本,考虑到美国的军事战略使己方伤亡人数保持在低位。
至关重要的是,这些国内影响是他的对手伊朗政府不必过多担忧的问题。尽管战争和美国对霍尔木兹海峡的封锁无疑对伊朗经济造成的损害远大于美国,但德黑兰的威权政府根本不会像美国政府那样对民众的抱怨做出回应。
就像这场冲突的诸多方面一样,这造成了一种不对称战争:对手的内部痛苦承受能力要大得多——也因此拥有更多筹码。
甚至有合理观点认为,特朗普本应向伊朗传递这类信号。通过表示他不会考虑美国人的经济痛苦,他是在表明自己并不急于达成协议结束战争。简而言之,他会坚持自己的要求。
(当然,已有大量其他数据表明,特朗普实际上非常渴望达成协议以结束战争。)
但通过对美国人的财务状况不屑一顾,特朗普实际上可能正在损害自己的筹码。
战争已经不得人心,特朗普在经济问题上的支持率持续下滑。如果他的不屑言论加剧了这两种情况,可能会加大对这位美国总统的压力,迫使他结束战争。更不用说,如果战争拖延至中期选举之后,民主党掌控众议院,特朗普将不得不面对一个不再那么合作的国会。
有理由相信,他的言论可能会在11月的选举中损害共和党利益。毕竟民调显示,大多数美国人根本不认为这场战争有意义,不认为其经济代价值得。另一项民调显示,四分之三的美国人认为特朗普没有足够关注美国人的生活成本问题。
没有哪个问题像经济问题一样,在此次选举——以及大多数选举——中占据如此重要的地位。
不过,特朗普本可以有一个简单的方法避免这种情况:提前为这场战争构建合理性依据。明确且始终如一地阐明目标,确保美国民众能够接受并愿意为更大的利益做出个人牺牲。
但特朗普甚至没有尝试这么做。
他突然发动战争,随后花了数周时间为自己的所作所为补充辩解理由。
这几乎就像他甚至认为自己不必向美国民众解释自己的行为,不必付出努力争取支持——仿佛那是不必要的麻烦。
这种态度在他第二任任期的第一天、伊朗战争爆发的那天就已存在,至今依然如此。
而这依然没有给他和共和党带来任何好处。
Trump’s ‘financial situation’ gaffe underscores his Iran war problem
May 14, 2026, 3:38 PM ET / CNN
Analysis by Aaron Blake
Donald Trump The Middle East
President Donald Trump faces members of the press as he boards Air Force One for a trip to China, at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on May 12.
Evan Vucci/Reuters
President Donald Trump has governed throughout his second term like a man who wields unconstrained power. It tends to prompt frustrations for him later when the approach runs headlong into reality.
His gaffe this week, when he said he didn’t consider Americans’ finances while trying to resolve the Iran war, epitomizes the problem.
When asked Tuesday how much Americans’ economic concerns were motivating his push for a peace deal, Trump responded: “Not even a little bit.”
“The only thing that matters when I’m talking about Iran [is] they can’t have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said. “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That’s all.”
Trump is no stranger to dismissive comments about the economic plight of everyday Americans. But this suggested he just didn’t care — as if it wasn’t even on his radar.
That risks sounding particularly tone-deaf given how bad the president’s economic numbers are and how much Americans already perceive him to be neglecting the issue.
Predictably, Republicans quickly tried to explain away Trump’s comments.
While retiring Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina told CNN that Trump’s comments were “concerning,” others have sought to downplay them.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas told CNN that it was “just a sort of a throwaway line.” Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming declined to comment to a MeidasTouch reporter, “mostly because I think he actually does care.”
Others like House Speaker Mike Johnson and Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas fell back on the idea that the “context” of Trump’s comment might not be so bad. Nehls also encouraged people to “relax.”
And then there was Vice President JD Vance. He claimed Wednesday that Trump’s comments had been misrepresented. But he also sounded a much more conciliatory, feel-your-pain note on the economy than Trump did.
He said twice that the administration cares about Americans’ finances. He swore three times that it was focused on the issue. He also acknowledged “we have a lot of work to do” on delivering prosperity and acknowledged “the inflation number last month was not great.”
Vice President JD Vance speaks during a press conference on anti-fraud initiatives at the Eisenhower Executive Office building in Washington, DC, on May 13.
Kent Nishimura/AFP/Getty Images
It was the kind of nuanced response that plenty in Trump’s political operation probably wish the president himself had delivered.
But, of course, this is Trump.
There is a plausible explanation for his dismissiveness toward the financial impacts of the war: that he’d simply like to pretend they don’t exist.
The financial effects are, after all, the main constraint on him holding out for a peace deal with Iran that meets all his demands. Higher gas prices especially are the primary cost of the war that Americans are feeling, especially given the US military strategy has kept casualties low on its side.
And crucially, those domestic repercussions are something that his foe, the Iranian government, doesn’t have to worry about as much. While the war and the US blockade on the Strait of Hormuz are unquestionably causing more damage to Iran’s economy than the United States’, the authoritarian government in Tehran simply isn’t as responsive to complaints of its citizens.
That, like many aspects of this conflict, creates a kind of asymmetric warfare where the opposition has a much larger built-in pain tolerance — and more leverage because of it.
There’s even a valid argument that this is the kind of thing Trump should be telegraphing to Iran. By saying that he’s not considering Americans’ economic pain, he’s signaling that he’s not overly anxious to cut a deal to end the war. In short, that he’ll hold out for his demands.
(Of course, there are already myriad other data points to suggest Trump is actually quite anxious for a deal to bring the war to an end.)
But by speaking dismissively about Americans’ finances, Trump could actually be hurting his leverage.
The war is already unpopular, and Trump’s approval rating on the economy keeps dropping. To the extent his dismissiveness exacerbates both, it could increase the pressure on the US president to get out of the war. Not to mention, if the war drags on past the midterms and Democrats gain control of the House, Trump will have to deal with a less cooperative Congress.
And there is reason to believe his comments could hurt Republicans come November. Polls, after all, show Americans writ large simply don’t see the point of the war and don’t view it as worth the economic costs. Another shows three-quarters of them think Trump hasn’t paid enough attention to Americans’ cost of living.
And no issue looms larger over this election — and most elections — like the economy.
There was an easy way for Trump to prevent this, though: Build the case for the war ahead of time. Lay out discreet and consistent goals and make sure the American people were bought-in and ready to sacrifice personally for the greater good.
But Trump didn’t even try to make that case.
He instead launched the war suddenly and then spent weeks backfilling the justifications for what he had just done.
It was almost like he didn’t even think he had to explain himself to the American people and do the legwork to build support — as if that were an unnecessary nuisance.
That sensibility existed on Day One of his second term and the day the Iran war began, and it persists to this day.
And it’s still doing him and the Republican Party no favors.
发表回复