2026-06-02T17:20:52.475Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
唐纳德·特朗普总统在面临法院和本党议员的反对后，正从部分最激进的举措中退缩。
最近的案例涉及他提出的17.76亿美元“反武器化”基金，以及肯尼迪艺术中心。
特朗普一再突破极限、随后又不得不收回的熟悉模式表明，他并没有看上去那么强势。
唐纳德·特朗普总统仍在不断突破极限——周二任命一名颇具争议的住房官员担任新任代理国家情报总监，就是这一点的最新证据。
但近期事件也印证了，政治现实依然会对总统产生制约。他的部分最离谱的主张已在法院遭遇阻碍，甚至迫使共和党人违背他的意愿，这表明他对华盛顿的掌控已不再是板上钉钉的事。
周一，CNN报道称，在法院作出不利裁决后，政府已向国会共和党领袖示意计划放弃这项17.76亿美元的“反武器化”基金。该基金曾引发共和党内部反叛，并威胁到该党整体立法议程。
在此之前，特朗普于周五似乎放弃了将肯尼迪艺术中心“特朗普化”的努力。在一名法官裁定将特朗普名字添加到该中心属于非法行为并叫停了计划中的更名行动后，他表示将把中心的控制权移交国会。
在这两起事件中，特朗普究竟已经让步多少仍不明朗，但至少他已释放出退缩的信号。
这两项提议从一开始就十分离谱——而如今总统似乎正在承担相应后果。
政府这项“反武器化”基金旨在赔偿那些声称自己在前届政府治下遭受迫害的特朗普盟友，其合法性问题从公布之初就显而易见。
该基金是和解协议的一部分，用以解决特朗普针对美国国税局提起的100亿美元诉讼——此前一名政府承包商多年前泄露了他的纳税申报单。特朗普是在与他实际掌控的政府达成和解，这一情况导致一名法官质疑和解双方是否存在串通。
该和解协议还将惠及与此次诉讼毫无关联的第三方。该基金几乎没有透明度或监督机制，且未获得法官批准。
白宫和司法部试图辩称，这是一项为所有在拜登政府时期据称遭受“武器化”司法系统迫害的人设立的基金——潜在受益者甚至可能包括民主党人。但这看起来更像是特朗普在设立一笔秘密资金，用以支付盟友。政府甚至承认，该基金可能会惠及2021年1月6日袭击警察的部分被告。
这也解释了该基金为何在政治上如此成问题。
尽管特朗普在第二任期开局的紧张头几周内赦免几乎所有1月6日事件被告的举动多少被盖过了风头，但民调显示，这些赦免措施极不受欢迎。
《华盛顿邮报》与益普索的联合民调以及皮尤研究中心的民调均显示，至少74%的美国民众以及大多数共和党人不认可赦免那些犯下暴力罪行的人。
而此时，包括副总统J·D·万斯在内的白宫官员，不得不站出来为可能向殴打警察的人提供资金的做法辩护。
即便对一些忠于特朗普的国会共和党议员来说，这一局面也迅速成为了不可逾越的红线。
参议院多数党领袖约翰·图恩呼吁政府“自行终止该计划”。其他人士，如爱荷华州参议员查克·格拉斯利和路易斯安那州参议员约翰·肯尼迪（与前总统无亲属关系）如今表示，在司法部就此事发表了一份措辞模棱两可的声明后，共和党需要明确看到白宫未来不会重启该基金。
目前仍不清楚后续会如何发展。特朗普尚未公开承诺终止该基金，他在周一接受美国广播公司电话采访时表示：“我们受法院管辖。”
简单来说，最令人震惊的核心事实是：特朗普在一座纪念已故总统的建筑上贴上了自己的名字。
他声称对该中心董事会将他的名字添加到建筑上一事感到意外，但他此前曾提议进行此类变更，并清洗了董事会成员以安插亲信。
将一位在任总统的名字添加到各类建筑上——据《纽约时报》1月报道，这在特朗普之前很少发生——是一回事，但在纪念某位已故总统的建筑上加上特朗普的名字则完全是另一回事。
而且他这么做置法律于不顾。“约翰·F·肯尼迪表演艺术中心”这一名称是联邦法律规定的，在突然添加特朗普名字之前，相关法律并未作出修改。
他接管肯尼迪艺术中心的行为本身就存在极大的法律疑点和争议；随后他又让所有人清楚看到了这一投机举动的极端程度。
目前尚不清楚特朗普的名字何时会、以及是否会从该表演艺术中心的外墙上移除；他就自己是否打算继续抗争发出了相互矛盾的信号。（尽管他表示将把控制权移交国会，但立法机构早已负责该中心年度运营和维护拨款。）
但任何迫使他的政府从建筑上移除自己名字的情况，都将成为一幅难以磨灭且极具说明性的画面。
特朗普突破到前所未有的领域，最终又不得不退缩，这已成为一个常见的故事。
或许今年他退缩的另一个最佳例证是他试图掌控格陵兰岛的计划流产（该民调支持率低得堪比黑霉菌）。在共和党人和外国盟友的反对下，特朗普于1月份放弃了这一计划——至少暂时如此。
特朗普还在其备受追捧的白宫宴会厅问题上铤而走险，反复违背最初定下的条款。他先是承诺不会触碰现有的东翼，随后突然下令拆除。接着他一再表示宴会厅将仅靠私人捐款出资，随后又突然要求国会拨款数亿美元用于宴会厅安保。
共和党人对使用纳税人资金建造奢华宴会厅的局面感到恐慌，因为美国人的经济焦虑正在损害他们2026年的选举希望。在参议院议事规则官员作出不利裁决以及党内强烈反对后，共和党领导人从一项移民执法法案中删除了相关拨款。
在所有这些案例中，特朗普都在要求法院和/或共和党人批准看似不可能实现的要求。他指望他们能接受极端举措，因为他是特朗普，而他们应该按他的意愿行事。
当这些举措奏效时，这可能对他有利，因为这显示了他的权力。（事实上，他成功在初选中击败共和党现任议员的做法，强化了“忠于特朗普是党内所有人的最简路径”这一观念。）
但当他的极端投机举动越界——且日益看起来会危及共和党11月的选举机会时，这反而印证了特朗普并非他所希望的那样，是其政治运动不受约束的领导者。
事实上，他是一位历史上不受欢迎的总统，看起来越来越不顾一切地只想抛出各种主张，碰碰运气。
而从任命普尔蒂一事来看，特朗普短期内不会收手。
Political gravity is coming for some of Trump’s most jarring ideas
2026-06-02T17:20:52.475Z / CNN
President Donald Trump is signaling retreat from some of his wildest endeavors after facing pushback from the courts and members of his own party.
The most recent instances came over his $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund and the Kennedy Center.
The familiar pattern of Trump pushing the envelope — and then having to pull back — suggests he’s not as powerful as he seems.
President Donald Trump just keeps pushing the envelope — his appointment of a controversial housing official as the new acting director of national intelligence on Tuesday is the freshest evidence of that.
But recent events have also reinforced that political gravity still applies to the president. Some of his most jarring ideas have hit roadblocks in the courts and forced even Republicans to buck him, showing that his domination of Washington is hardly a given anymore.
On Monday, CNN reported that the administration signaled to GOP congressional leaders that it plans to drop its $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund” after an adverse court ruling. The fund had caused a GOP revolt and threatened the party’s broader legislative agenda.
That followed Trump on Friday seemingly giving up on his efforts to Trump-ify the Kennedy Center. He said he would transfer control of it to Congress after a judge ruled that putting Trump’s name on the center was illegal and blocked a planned closure.
In both situations, it remains up in the air precisely how much Trump has capitulated. But he’s at least telegraphing retreat.
Both ideas were wild to begin with — and now the president appears to be dealing with the consequences.
The legally problematic nature of the administration’s “anti-weaponization fund,” which was intended to compensate Trump allies who claimed they were victimized by the prior administration, was readily apparent from the moment it was announced.
It was created as part of a settlement to resolve Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS after a government contractor leaked his tax returns years ago. Trump was settling with the government that he effectively controls — a situation that led a judge to question whether the two sides of the settlement were colluding.
The settlement was also set to benefit third parties who had nothing to do with the litigation. The fund was due to have little transparency or oversight, and it was not approved by the judge.
The White House and the Justice Department tried to argue that this was a fund for anyone who was victimized by a purportedly “weaponized” justice system during the Biden administration — including potentially Democrats. But it looked a whole lot like Trump was just creating a slush fund to pay allies. The administration even granted that it could benefit some January 6, 2021, defendants who assaulted police.
And that gets at why this was so politically problematic.
While Trump’s pardons of nearly all January 6 defendants got somewhat overshadowed during the breakneck first days of his second term, polls showed how overwhelmingly unpopular those pardons were.
Both a Washington Post-Ipsos poll and a Pew Research Center poll showed at least 74% of Americans and a majority of Republicans disapproved of pardoning those who committed violent crimes.
And here was the White House — including Vice President JD Vance — being put in the position of defending potentially giving money to people who beat up police.
The optics quickly became a line-in-the-sand moment even for some pretty Trump-loyal Republicans in Congress.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune called for the administration to “shut it down themselves.” Others like Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and John Kennedy of Louisiana (no relation to the former president) are now saying their party needs to see the White House more explicitly rule out resurrecting the fund in the future, after the Justice Department gave a somewhat qualified statement on the matter.
It remains somewhat unclear what happens next. Trump has not committed publicly to terminating the fund, telling ABC in a phone call Monday, “We are subject to the courts.”
Just to distill this down to its most-shocking basics: Trump plastered his name on a building memorializing a dead president.
He claimed he was surprised by the center’s board adding his name to the building, but he had previously proposed such a change and had purged board members to install loyalists.
It’s one thing to put the name of a living president on things — something that rarely happened before Trump, as The New York Times found in January — but it’s quite another to take a memorial to one of those dead presidents and append Trump’s name to it.
And he did so despite the law. The “John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” name is a matter of federal law, which was not changed before Trump’s name was suddenly added.
His takeover of the Kennedy Center was already highly legally suspect and controversial; then he gave everyone a shorthand for just how drastic this gambit was.
It remains to be seen if and when Trump’s name will be removed from the performing arts center’s exterior; he has sent confusing signals about his intent to keep fighting. (And while he said he was transferring control to Congress, the legislative branch is already responsible for the center’s annual appropriations for operations and maintenance.)
But any situation in which his government would be forced to remove his name from the building would be an indelible — and telling — image.
Trump pushing the envelope to previously unthinkable places and eventually having to pull back has become a familiar tale.
Perhaps the other best example of him retreating this year was his aborted push to get control of Greenland (an idea that polled about as popularly as black mold.) Trump gave up on that in January — at least for the time being — amid pushback from both Republicans and foreign allies.
Trump is also pressing his luck with his coveted White House ballroom, by repeatedly going back on the terms initially laid out. First he promised not to touch the existing East Wing, before suddenly demolishing it. Then he repeatedly said the ballroom would only be paid for with private donations, before suddenly asking Congress for hundreds of millions of dollars for security for it.
Republicans have panicked about the optics of using taxpayer money to build an opulent ballroom while Americans’ economic anxiety is damaging their 2026 election hopes. GOP leaders dropped the funding from an immigration enforcement bill amid an adverse ruling from the Senate parliamentarian and strong pushback from within their party.
In all of these cases, Trump was asking the courts and/or Republicans to sign off on what seemed to be impossible requests. He was asking them to stomach something drastic because he’s Trump, and they’re supposed to do what he wants.
That can accrue to his benefit when it works, because it shows how powerful he is. (Indeed, his successful efforts to knock off GOP incumbents in primaries have reinforced that loyalty to Trump is the easiest path for everyone in his party.)
But when his wild gambits push the envelope too far — and increasingly seem to jeopardize the GOP’s chances in November — they reinforce that Trump isn’t the unrestrained leader of his political movement that he’d like to be.
In fact, he’s a historically unpopular president who looks increasingly desperate to just throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.
And judging by the appointment of Pulte, Trump is not stopping anytime soon.
发表回复