2026-07-14T09:00:25.448Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
当地时间周一，唐纳德·特朗普总统耗资18亿美元的“反武器化”基金再次遭遇重大打击，一名联邦法官对该基金出台的相关程序提出了严厉批判。
这是法官们日益直言不讳的趋势之一：他们明确表示，特朗普及其司法部并非出于善意行事，甚至是在利用法律程序为特朗普谋取个人和政治利益。
最新一例是美国地区法官凯瑟琳·威廉姆斯，她是巴拉克·奥巴马任命的法官。在这份长达56页的判决意见中，她毫不留情地批判了特朗普及其司法部在这桩已告终结的和解案相关诉讼中的行为。
威廉姆斯指出，该和解协议涉及一项可向1月6日骚乱暴力参与者提供资金的基金，还据称能让特朗普免于过往税务问题的追责，而这份协议源于一场本质上属于幌子的诉讼。
她表示，特朗普起诉美国国税局非法泄露其纳税申报单的诉讼，只不过是想为政府原本就计划达成的和解协议“提供一些合法性外衣”。
“提起这场诉讼并非为了维护权利，而是为了操纵司法程序，以获取在正常诉讼中无法获得的利益，因为双方当事人根本不存在对抗性，”威廉姆斯说道。
（事实上，特朗普这起诉讼的核心问题在于，双方——特朗普的私人律师团队和由他掌控的司法部——并未形成足够的对抗关系，因此似乎根本没有人真正反对特朗普的诉求。）
这位法官的措辞还更为严厉。她将一名为特朗普工作的私人律师移交佛罗里达律师协会，考虑对其采取纪律处分措施，禁止另一名律师一年内出席佛罗里达南区联邦法院的庭审，并下令将她的这份判决意见纳入对代理司法部长托德·布兰奇和副司法部长斯坦利·伍德沃德现有职业伦理投诉的审查材料中。
布兰奇目前正处于确认听证程序中，此前特朗普正式提名他出任司法部长。
上周还有一名法官对特朗普政府发表了类似的尖锐批评。
美国地区法官威廉·M·雷二世是特朗普任命的法官，他裁定一项要求获取佐治亚州富尔顿县数十名选举工作人员个人信息的大陪审团传票无效。该传票是为了审查2020年选举结果而发出的，而特朗普多年来一直毫无证据地宣称那次选举存在舞弊。
和威廉姆斯一样，雷法官也认为这一程序本质上是个骗局。他表示，即便查出犯罪行为，起诉任何选举工作人员的诉讼时效也已届满，因此这份传票不过是“任意的钓鱼式调查”。
他指出，检察官能够相对轻易地从大陪审团获取传票，“并不意味着司法部有权利用大陪审团为所欲为”。
“无论你支持总统与否，无论你认为2020年大选公平与否，所有人都应当警惕司法部利用大陪审团权力，在无合法目的的情况下获取你的私人信息的能力，”雷法官写道。
6月下旬，另一名由共和党任命的法官驳回了针对明尼苏达州州长蒂姆·瓦尔茨及其他民主党人的传票。
首席法官帕特里克·希尔茨和其他法官一样，指出其真实动机带有政治色彩——司法部利用传票施加压力，此次针对的是明尼苏达州近期打击非法移民的行动。
希尔茨写道，这些传票的“主要目的”是胁迫明尼苏达州官员协助联邦政府执行民事移民法，并报复那些拒绝配合的官员。
早在今年3月，另一名联邦法官在驳回针对时任美联储主席杰罗姆·鲍威尔的调查传票时就曾表示，这些传票的目的是“骚扰和施压”鲍威尔，迫使他按照特朗普的意愿下调利率。
这些并非特朗普政府首次遭遇法律挫折，远非如此。这也不是特朗普及其团队首次受到严厉指责。
但值得注意的是，越来越多的法官明确指出特朗普政府试图不当利用法院，而且他们的措辞愈发直接。
特朗普的第二任期内充斥着大量法律存疑的行动，有时似乎就是在故意挑战法院出手制止。
表面上看，这种“撒网式尝试，看看哪种能成”的策略似乎并非坏主意，但这存在风险：整个司法系统可能会认定，特朗普政府根本不是善意行事，甚至无意成为法律的忠实执行者。
法官们似乎越来越敢于得出这样的结论。
Judges are getting more comfortable calling out Trump’s and the DOJ’s cynical ploys
2026-07-14T09:00:25.448Z / CNN
President Donald Trump’s ill-fated $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund suffered yet another major blow on Monday, with a federal judge delivering a brutal review of the process that led to it.
It’s part of a growing trend of judges saying rather bluntly that Trump and his Justice Department aren’t operating in good faith — and even that they’re misusing the legal process for Trump’s personal and political benefit.
The most recent is US District Judge Kathleen Williams, a Barack Obama nominee whose 56-page opinion is routinely brutal toward Trump and his DOJ’s conduct in the case that produced the now-defunct settlement.
Williams said the settlement — which included the fund that could have given money to violent January 6 defendants and also purported to give Trump amnesty from past tax issues — resulted from a lawsuit that was essentially a pretext.
She said Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the illegal leaking of his tax returns was merely meant to “provide some legitimacy” to what the administration already wanted to do with the settlement.
“This lawsuit was not brought to vindicate rights; it was brought to manipulate the judicial process to pursue benefits unavailable in litigation because the Parties were not adverse,” Williams said.
(Indeed, the main problem with Trump’s lawsuit was that the two sides of it — the personal lawyers working for Trump and the Justice Department he runs — weren’t sufficiently adversarial, and thus nobody really seemed to be fighting against what Trump wanted.)
The judge then went even further. She referred one of the private attorneys working for Trump to the Florida Bar for possible disciplinary action. She blocked another from court appearances in the Southern District of Florida for a year. And she even ordered that her opinion be included in the reviews of preexisting professional ethics complaints against acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward.
Blanche is currently facing confirmation hearings after Trump officially nominated him for AG.
A judge had similarly harsh rhetoric for the administration last week.
US District Judge William M. Ray II, a Trump nominee, invalidated a grand jury subpoena that sought personal information about scores of election workers in Fulton County, Georgia. The subpoena was part of an effort to scrutinize the 2020 election results that Trump has spent years claiming, without evidence, were rigged.
Ray, like Williams, suggested the proceedings were something of a ruse. He said the statutes of limitations had passed for charging any election workers even if crimes were found, thus rendering the subpoena an “arbitrary fishing expedition.”
He said the relative ease with which prosecutors can obtain subpoenas from grand juries “does not give DOJ the right to use the grand jury to do whatever the DOJ wants.”
“Everyone, whether you support the president or you do not, or whether you believe the 2020 election was fair or believe that it was not, should be concerned about the DOJ’s ability to utilize the power of the grand jury to appropriate your private information without a legitimate purpose,” Ray wrote.
In late June, another Republican-appointed judge blocked subpoenas against Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and other Democrats.
Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz, like the other judges, suggested the true motives were political — that the Justice Department was using the subpoenas to apply pressure, in this case related to the recent effort to crack down on undocumented immigrants in Minnesota.
Schiltz wrote that “the dominant purpose” of the subpoenas was to coerce Minnesota officials into assisting the federal government with enforcing civil immigration law and to harass and retaliate against them for failing to do so.
And another federal judge said back in March, while rejecting subpoenas during an investigation into then-Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, that the subpoenas had been intended to “harass and pressure” Powell into doing as Trump wanted and lowering interest rates.
These aren’t the first legal setbacks the Trump administration has faced — not by a long shot. Nor are they the first times that Trump and his side have faced harsh language.
But it’s notable that there’s a growing number of judges suggesting Trump’s administration is attempting to use the courts improperly — and how directly they say it.
Trump’s second term has featured a veritable assault of legally questionable actions that, at times, seem intended to challenge the courts to stop them.
On the surface, that throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks strategy might not seem like a bad idea. But it risks the courts as a whole coming to believe that the administration simply isn’t a good-faith operator and isn’t even trying be a good steward of the law.
Judges seem to be getting more comfortable with reaching such conclusions.
发表回复