请提供您需要翻译的英文新闻文章，我将按照要求进行高质量的中文翻译。
No English content available
作者： root
-
特朗普最新“塔可钟时刻”凸显其愈发反复无常的性格
更新时间：2026年1月22日，美国东部时间上午8:18 | 发布时间：2026年1月21日，美国东部时间晚上8:07 | 来源：美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
分析：史蒂芬·科林森（Stephen Collinson）
唐纳德·特朗普总统于2026年1月21日抵达苏黎世机场后走向“陆战队一号”直升机。
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
唐纳德·特朗普 北约 关税
[查看全部主题]
Facebook [推特] [电子邮件] [链接] 链接已复制！
关注
唐纳德·特朗普总统对格陵兰岛的“退缩”（climbdown），为现代总统在国际舞台上最反复无常的一系列事件之一画上了句号。
在周三的几个小时内，特朗普从要求对这个半自治的丹麦领土拥有“权利、所有权和主权”，突然转为庆祝一项关于其未来的“无限”、“永久”框架协议。
这一突破似乎取决于额外的北约部队以确保北极安全——如果他愿意询问的话，这一点他本可以在本周的混乱之前就做到。
总统周四告诉福克斯商业频道，正在谈判的框架协议将使美国“完全进入”格陵兰岛，且没有时间限制，特别是为了他提议的“金色穹顶”导弹防御系统。这可能与华盛顿现有的与丹麦的条约没有实质性不同。但关键是，一项更新的协议将为总统提供一项值得载入史册的遗产成就。
如果这一切的代价是与欧洲的关系严重受损，以及对他对北约防御保障忠诚的新质疑，那么这可能只是一个专注于个人目标的总统进行“交易”的成本。
无论如何，没有迹象表明特朗普会从达沃斯世界经济论坛带回一块可以插上星条旗的巨大冰土地。北约秘书长马克·吕特在福克斯新闻中表示，与总统的会面中甚至没有提及丹麦对格陵兰岛的主权问题，这将进一步巩固这位“特朗普密友”的声誉。
但瑞典副首相埃芭·布施警告称，这场风暴可能尚未结束。
“今天的进展可能是明天的麻烦，”布施在接受美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）吉姆·西图托采访时表示，“现在判断这项协议究竟意味着什么还为时过早。”
特朗普在对盟友领导人进行了几天的侮辱后，上演了一场滑稽的场景，引发了北约即将崩溃的担忧。他最初拒绝排除向丹麦领土格陵兰岛派遣军队的可能性，这似乎来自一部糟糕的未来主义惊悚片。
特朗普在华盛顿和瑞士几天的漫无边际和令人困惑的公开露面中进一步混淆了问题。周三，他甚至把格陵兰岛和冰岛弄混了。
他的执政一直受一时兴起和社交媒体爆发的驱动。但在摆脱他引发的危机后，特朗普暴露了围绕其日益不受欢迎的总统任期的另一种扭曲的事实现实。
而特朗普两届任期迄今为止最令人困惑的事件之一，将加深人们对他反复无常的情绪在未来三年将把国家和世界带向何方的担忧。
“我对特朗普总统和特朗普政府的信息是：是时候清醒过来，冷静下来了，”布施说。
“我不会因为一条新推文就改变我的政策。”
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/ap26021074390141.jpg
2026年1月20日，格陵兰岛努克上空出现北极光。
Evgeniy Maloletka/美联社
两种相互矛盾的现实
在保守派媒体上，特朗普再次被吹捧为一位“下象棋”的战略大师，他采取极端立场以迫使软弱的欧洲人达成“协议”。这种论点认为，总统以隐含的北约解体和毁灭性关税威胁，从而获得了惊人的让步。
这很难被认真对待，因为没有迹象表明欧洲给了特朗普任何东西，也没有迹象表明他获得了他所要求的格陵兰岛作为美国领土的一部分。无论如何，根据与丹麦现有的条约，华盛顿长期以来一直有权派遣任何军事资产以加强这个世界上最大岛屿的安全。
在右翼泡沫之外，特朗普在放弃对欧洲国家的关税威胁，直到他们同意将格陵兰岛交给他之后，又出现了另一个“TACO”（特朗普总是退缩）时刻。就像他的“解放日”关税一样，总统可能被自己行动的结果吓到了。
总统甚至无法解释他声称达成的协议。当他被美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）的凯特兰·柯林斯问及该协议是否意味着美国将拥有格陵兰岛时，他长时间停顿后坚持称这是“最终的、长期的协议”，并且是“无限期的”。
在接受美国全国广播公司财经频道（CNBC）采访时，细节同样模糊不清，特朗普在与吕特交谈后吹嘘“交易的概念”。“这有点复杂，但我们会在以后解释，”总统说，但透露这是“永久的”，显示出这位总司令对细节的理解几乎令人难以置信。
前美国驻乌克兰大使威廉·泰勒告诉CNN的埃丽卡·希尔，特朗普在某种意义上是对的，他说拟议的协议会让所有人满意。“这确实会让人们满意，因为我们可以不再谈论这个非问题。现在我们可以回到真正重要的事情上，也就是实现乌克兰的和平，”泰勒说。
周三在瑞士达沃斯的令人头晕目眩的事件并非唯一引发对这位79岁总统心态和其行为可能对美国国家利益造成长期损害的担忧的争议。
他声称可能取代联合国的“和平委员会”计划也在达沃斯受到关注。申请永久会员资格的10亿美元入会费让人想起他私人俱乐部的会费，而非真正的国际外交机构。随后有消息称，特朗普曾邀请俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔·普京加入，尽管他在非法入侵乌克兰期间屠杀平民。“是的，我有一些有争议的人，但这些是能把事情办成的人，”特朗普说。
和平委员会的细则凸显了这个想法的荒谬性。例如，它暗示总统在离开白宫后仍将继续管理这个俱乐部，指导全球外交。几个美国盟友已经与该计划保持距离，因为它暗示联合国将黯然失色。然而在特朗普看来，这是“有史以来最伟大的委员会”。
在2026年1月21日第56届世界经济论坛年会上，与会者聆听唐纳德·特朗普总统的讲话。
Jonathan Ernst/路透社
特朗普领导下美国命运的新问题
格陵兰岛风暴有几个重要的教训。
首先是特朗普的外交政策行为变得越来越自恋和不合逻辑。围绕格陵兰岛的奇怪转折可能会损害他精心培养的“钢铁般总司令”形象，尤其是在一次特种部队突袭提取了委内瑞拉独裁者尼古拉斯·马杜罗之后。
格陵兰危机很大程度上是由总统个人痴迷驱动的。他告诉《纽约时报》，拥有这个巨大岛屿在“心理上对我很重要”。然后他在给挪威首相的短信中暗示，他应该得到格陵兰岛作为一种“参与奖”，因为他没有获得诺贝尔和平奖。
五角大楼从未透露过向格陵兰岛采取行动的具体计划。但特朗普的喜怒无常和第二任期的好战意味着没有人能确定。许多局外人怀疑特朗普去年不会对伊朗核计划采取行动，或者不会推翻委内瑞拉总统——但他承担了风险并建立了对其威胁的可信度。
特朗普对盟友领导人的怨恨也值得注意。最近几天，他猛烈抨击英国首相基尔·斯塔默、法国总统埃马纽埃尔·马克龙和瑞士——尽管他称赞了瑞士制表业的实力。他向加拿大总理马克·卡尼发出了严厉警告，而卡尼一天前在一次演讲中警告称，美国造成了国际体系的“破裂”。
“加拿大的存在是因为美国，”特朗普说，“记住这一点，马克，下次你发表声明时。”
不言而喻，这一切都不是正常的总统行为。
特朗普还对如果他没有得到格陵兰岛是否会遵守北约《共同防御条约》第5条提出了新的疑问。“他们有选择。你可以说‘是’，我们会非常感激；或者你可以说‘不’，我们会记住，”特朗普在达沃斯演讲中说。
特朗普过去抱怨北约成员国利用美国军事支持削减自身国防预算是有道理的。但他最近几周的反感可能进一步削弱了联盟。事实上，他证明了联盟成员国越来越理解西方联盟因不稳定的美国领导而衰落。
尽管如此，特朗普最终还是让步了。
在他周末威胁对欧洲国家加征关税以换取格陵兰岛之后，原本飙升的401k账户（他用来衡量自己经济表现的指标）出现了抛售，股价暴跌。当他收回关税威胁时，全球股市反弹。当不可避免的下一个争议出现时，欧洲可能再次愿意威胁动用其贸易力量来安抚美国这个“霸主”——尤其是在中期选举年，美国选民对新的经济动荡已经高度敏感。
对欧洲来说，这个故事的一个教训是，通过团结起来并顶住特朗普的压力，他们似乎迫使他退缩。在此之前，只有中国通过使用其稀土“王牌”来冻结其贸易战，才阻止了他。
此前，欧洲领导人通过奉承和屈从于特朗普以避免他的愤怒。这是一个失败。他对英国的格陵兰关税威胁表明，去年的王室访问可能在当时触动了总统的心，但没有留下任何善意的余波。
与此同时，欧洲国家对丹麦的团结立场，是卡尼在达沃斯呼吁“中等强国”团结起来的一个教训，他的演讲可能被认为是西方后美国时代的第一个可信蓝图。
但这不会是白宫决心以力量和武力统治所引发的最后一场对抗。
尽管如此，在特朗普退缩后，北约内部冲突的想法已经减弱。他可以为他声称结束的战争名单再添一个数据点。
本报道已更新，增加了更多信息。
唐纳德·特朗普 北约 关税
[查看全部主题]
Facebook 推特 [电子邮件] 链接 链接已复制！ 关注
Trump’s latest TACO moment puts his increasingly erratic temperament in the spotlight
Updated Jan 22, 2026, 8:18 AM ET | PUBLISHED Jan 21, 2026, 8:07 PM ET | CNN
Analysis by
[Stephen Collinson]
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/150506104237-stephen-collinson-profile.jpg
President Donald Trump walks toward Marine One after arriving at Zurich Airport on January 21, 2026.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Donald Trump NATO Tariffs
[See all topics]
Facebook Tweet[Email]Link
Link Copied!
Follow
President Donald Trump’s [climbdown on Greenland] capped one of the most erratic episodes involving a modern president on the world stage.
Within hours Wednesday, Trump flipped from demanding “right, title, and ownership” of the semiautonomous Danish territory to celebrating an “infinite,” “forever” framework deal over its future.
The breakthrough seems to hinge on extra NATO forces to secure the Arctic — something he could have got before his week of mayhem — if only he’d asked.
The president told Fox Business on Thursday that the framework deal under negotiation would give the US “total access” with no time limit to Greenland for the United States, especially for his proposed Golden Dome missile defense system. This may turn out not to differ substantially from Washington’s existing treaty with Denmark. But crucially, an updated deal would give the president a legacy achievement to sign into history.
If the cost of all this is badly damaged relations with Europe and new questions about his fealty to NATO defense guarantees, then that may simply be the cost of doing business for a president fixated on personal goals.
And whatever the face-saving spin, there’s no sign Trump will return home from the [World Economic Forum in Davos] with the deeds to a vast, icy land on which he can plant the Stars and Stripes. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said on Fox News that the question of Danish sovereignty over Greenland didn’t even come up during a meeting with the president that will bolster the smooth Dutchman’s reputation as a “Trump whisperer.”
But Sweden’s Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Busch warned the storm may not yet be over.
“Today’s progress might be tomorrow’s headache,” Busch told CNN’s Jim Sciutto on “The Brief.” “It’s still too soon to tell what this deal really entails.”
Farcical scenes unfolded after Trump flung days of [insults at allied leaders], raising fears that NATO was about to implode. His initial refusal to rule out sending troops to take Greenland — which is already alliance territory — seemed torn from a bad futuristic thriller.
Trump further confused the issue with several days of rambling and baffling public appearances in Washington and Switzerland. On Wednesday, he even got Greenland and Iceland confused.
He’s always governed by whim and social media outbursts. But in extricating himself from a crisis that he triggered, Trump laid bare the alternative factual reality that surrounds his [increasingly unpopular presidency].
And one of the most perplexing episodes so far of Trump’s two terms will deepen concern about where his volatile moods will lead the nation and the world in the next three years.
“My message to President Trump and the Trump administration is: It’s time to come to your senses and calm down,” Busch said.
“I’m not going to change my policy tomorrow in a new tweet.”
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/ap26021074390141.jpg
The northern lights are seen in the sky above Nuuk, Greenland, on January 20, 2026.
Evgeniy Maloletka/AP
Two dueling realities
On conservative media, Trump was again being lionized as the master strategist playing 4-D chess who staked out a maximalist position to pressure feckless Europeans into a “deal.” This line of argument relies on the belief that the president threatened Europe with the implicit breakup of NATO and devastating tariffs, thereby securing stunning concessions.
This is hard to take seriously because there is no sign Europe gave Trump anything, nor that he secured Greenland as an addition to US territory as he demanded. In any case, under existing treaties with Denmark, Washington has long had the capacity and right to send any military assets that it wants to reinforce the world’s largest island.
Outside the right-wing bubble, Trump is being mocked for another “TACO” (“Trump always chickens out”) moment after dropping [the threat of tariffs] on European nations until they agreed to give him Greenland. Just as with his “Liberation Day” tariffs, the president may have been spooked by the result of his own actions.
The president couldn’t even explain the deal he claimed to have clinched. When he was [asked by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins] whether the agreement meant the US would own Greenland, there was a prolonged pause before he insisted it was the “ultimate, long term deal” and would be “infinite.”
In an interview on CNBC, the details were equally foggy as Trump boasted about “the concept of a deal” after talking to Rutte. “It’s a little bit complex, but we will explain it down the line,” the president said, but revealed that this was for “forever,” showing a barely believable lack of grasp of detail for a commander-in-chief.
Former US Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor told CNN’s Erica Hill that Trump was right in one sense when he said the proposed deal would make everybody happy. “It does make people happy because we can get off talking about this non-problem. Now we can get back to what really matters and that is getting peace in Ukraine,” Taylor said.
Wednesday’s head spinning events in Davos, Switzerland, were not the only controversy raising concerns about the 79-year-old president’s mindset and the long-term damage that his behavior may wreak on US national interests.
His plans for a [Board of Peace] that he said might replace the United Nations also came into focus in Davos. The $1 billion joining fee for member states who want permanent membership recalled the dues at one of his private clubs more than a bona fide international diplomatic institution. Then it emerged that Trump had asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to join, despite his butchering of civilians during his illegal invasion of Ukraine. “Yeah, I have some controversial people on it, but these are people that get the job done,” Trump said.
The small print for the peace board underscores the absurdity of the idea. It implies, for instance, that the president would continue to run the club, directing global diplomacy, even after he’s left the White House. Several US allies have distanced themselves from the plan since it implies the eclipsing of the United Nations. Yet in Trump’s mind, it’s “the greatest board ever assembled.”
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/2026-01-21t145034z-1416860736-rc2q5jaqq6gn-rtrmadp-3-davos-meeting-trump.jpg
Attendees listen to President Donald Trump’s remarks during the 56th annual World Economic Forum in Davos on January 21, 2026.
Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
New questions raised over America’s destiny under Trump
There are several significant takeaways from the Greenland storm.
The first is that Trump’s conduct of foreign policy is becoming ever more narcissistic and illogical. The odd twists and turns over Greenland may tarnish the image of a steely commander in chief he’s cultivated, in particular after a special forces raid that extracted Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.
The Greenland crisis was largely driven by a personal presidential obsession. He told the New York Times that owning the vast island was “psychologically important for me.” He then implied in a [text message to Norway’s prime minister]that he was owed Greenland as a sort of participation trophy since he was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Pentagon never revealed tangible plans to move on Greenland. But Trump’s tempestuousness and second-term belligerence mean no one could be sure. Many outsiders doubted that Trump would strike Iran’s nuclear program last year or that he would oust Venezuela’s president — but he took on the risks and built credibility for his threats.
Trump’s bitterness towards allied leaders was also remarkable. In recent days, he’s savaged British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Switzerland — although he praised its prowess in watchmaking. He delivered a dark warning to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who a day earlier had warned in a speech that the US had caused a “rupture” in the international system.
“Canada lives because of the United States,” Trump said. “Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.”
It goes without saying that none of this is normal presidential behavior.
Trump also raised fresh doubts about whether he’d honor NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense guarantee if he didn’t get Greenland. “They have a choice. You can say ‘yes’, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say ‘no’, and we will remember,” Trump said in his Davos speech.
Trump has been justified in his past complaints that NATO members were taking advantage of US military support by tanking their own defense budgets. But his antipathy in recent weeks may have further weakened the alliance. In fact, he’s justified the growing understanding among fellow alliance members that the Western alliance is waning because of unstable American leadership.
Still, Trump did ultimately back down.
Following his weekend threat to tariff European states into handing over Greenland, a stock slump hit the previously soaring 401k accounts which he uses as a barometer of his economic performance. Global stocks [bounced back]when he walked back his tariff threats. When the inevitable next controversy emerges, Europe may again be willing to threaten to mobilize its trading might to calm the American bully — especially in a midterm election year when US voters are already hypersensitive to new economic upsets.
For Europe, one lesson from this saga will be that by standing together and standing up to Trump they appear to have forced him to back down. Before now, only China among foreign nations had halted him in his tracks by using its[rare earths] trump card to ice his trade war.
Previously, European leaders flattered and genuflected to Trump to avoid his wrath. What a failure. His tariff threat to Britain over Greenland showed that last year’s royal visit might have touched the president’s heart in the moment, but it left no half-life of goodwill.
European solidarity behind Denmark, meanwhile, was an object lesson of Carney’s call in Davos for “middle powers” to stick together, in a speech likely to be remembered as the first credible blueprint for the West’s post-American era.
But this will not be the last confrontation stirred by the White House’s determination to rule by strength and force.
Still, after Trump backed down, the idea of NATO-on-NATO conflict has receded. He can add another data point to the ever-lengthening list of wars he claims to have ended.
This story has been updated with additional information.
Donald Trump NATO Tariffs
[See all topics]
Facebook Tweet[Email]Link
Link Copied!
Follow
-
明尼苏达州高级惩教官员否认国土安全部称该州释放危险罪犯的说法
2026年1月21日 / 美国东部时间晚上9:49 / CBS新闻
明尼苏达州一名高级执法官员正在驳斥美国国土安全部（DHS）反复提出的指控，即该州当局一直将数百名危险罪犯释放到街头，而非移交给联邦移民局官员。
明尼苏达州惩教部专员保罗·施内尔（Paul Schnell）称这些说法”从根本上是错误的”，并警告称此类联邦宣传信息可能会损害公众对移民执法和公共安全的信任。
“我们与美国移民海关执法局（ICE）和ICE拘留请求（detainers）合作，”施内尔在周三接受CBS新闻采访时表示。”作为一项政策，我们长期以来一直这样做。他们怎么能说相反的情况是不可信的。”
此前，周二ICE负责执法和驱逐行动的代理执行副总监马科斯·查尔斯（Marcos Charles）指责明尼苏达州官员未能将人员移交给联邦拘留机构，并声称全州有超过1,360份待处理的ICE拘留请求。
这些是联邦当局要求当地执法部门在罪犯刑满释放后最多拘留48小时的请求——这给了ICE时间决定是否将其拘留以开始驱逐程序。
“最好的解决方案是将他们在像监狱或拘留所这样的安全可控环境中移交给我们，而不是将他们释放回街头，”查尔斯周二在圣保罗的新闻发布会上表示，并警告称此类释放使”孩子上学的社区”面临风险。
但惩教部专员表示，这些协调移交已经在发生——并且多年来一直按照政策和州法律执行。施内尔称，他的部门在囚犯获释前几周会与ICE定期沟通，如果有拘留请求的话安排交接。根据明尼苏达州惩教部的数据，2025年有84人直接从州监狱转移到ICE拘留所。
为了更好地了解问题范围，施内尔称他的部门进行了全州范围的调查。他们发现州监狱中有207人、县拘留所有94人受到ICE拘留请求——总计301人。这与联邦官员引用的1,360人相差甚远。
“我们无法解释这些数字如何吻合，”施内尔说。”而且没有人坐下来向我们解释。”
施内尔告诉CBS新闻，他的机构多次要求国土安全部解释这一差异，但没有收到任何关于移交失误或未遵守规定的文件证明。
“如果我们犯了错误，我们会承担责任，”他说。”但到目前为止，还没有人向我们展示我们哪里出了问题。”
当被问及对施内尔言论的评论时，国土安全部发言人重申了该机构的断言，即明尼苏达州有数百名罪犯被释放，全州有1,360名在押人员受到活跃的ICE拘留请求。
该发言人没有回应施内尔提出的差异问题，而是列举了国土安全部称在明尼苏达州获释的六名有刑事指控或定罪的人员，并呼吁州长蒂姆·瓦尔兹（Tim Walz）”承诺尊重所有ICE拘留请求”。
施内尔表示，在某些情况下，是ICE选择不再拘留个人，而是在联邦监督下或释放到社区。他强调这是联邦当局的决定，而非州政府的决定。
“我们没有将他们释放到社区，”他说。”我们将他们移交给了ICE。”
施内尔还反驳了国土安全部定期发布的所谓”最恶劣罪犯”名单，这些名单重点列出了ICE声称已逮捕的有严重刑事定罪的人员。但施内尔坚持明尼苏达州惩教部门已与ICE协调转移了许多此类人员的拘留权，并将这些名单描述为”在许多情况下是宣传材料”。他补充说，在多个案例中，联邦当局在拘留人员后选择将其释放。
“这些不是在明尼阿波利斯街头被抓捕的人，”他说。”他们是被移交给ICE的。之后发生的事情不是我们的决定。”
施内尔承认，在县级层面遵守ICE民事拘留请求的情况各不相同——尤其是在包括明尼阿波利斯在内的亨内平县等大型管辖区。但他也强调，惩教部的权限仅限于州监狱系统，而非地方拘留所。
尽管存在严重分歧，施内尔强调惩教部工作人员与ICE官员在基层的日常合作仍然密切。
“工作人员之间，在操作层面上，一切都按照应有的方式运作，”他说。”这就是为什么我认为他们的工作人员可能同样感到困惑。”
施内尔表示，他现在希望国土安全部高层能直接对话，以协调数据和信息——而非公开指责。
“这符合公共安全的最大利益，我们必须把事情做对，”他说。”言辞无法解决任何问题，事实才能。”
随着移民执法在全国和地方层面持续成为争议焦点，这场纠纷凸显了一个更深层次的挑战：一个分散的系统，联邦、州和地方实体在不同的权限下运作，使用不同的数据系统——在此过程中往往各说各话。
“我们非常关心公共安全，”施内尔说。”这就是我们遵循这项政策的原因。我们将继续协调拘留权的转移——这是必须的。”
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/headshot-600-nicole-sganga.jpg
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/minnesota-corrections-chief-fundamentally-false-claims-noncooperation-ice/Top Minnesota corrections official denies DHS claim that the state is releasing dangerous criminals
January 21, 2026 / 9:49 PM EST / CBS News
A top Minnesota law enforcement official is rejecting repeated accusations by the Department of Homeland Security that state authorities have been releasing hundreds of dangerous criminals into the streets, rather than turning them over to federal immigration agents.
Paul Schnell, the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, called the claims “fundamentally false” and warned that such federal messaging risks undermining public trust in both immigration enforcement and public safety.
“We cooperate with ICE and ICE detainers,” Schnell told CBS News in an interview on Wednesday. “We have, as a matter of policy, done that for a long, long time. How they can say otherwise is unbelievable.”
It came after Marcos Charles, ICE’s acting executive associate director for Enforcement and Removal Operations on Tuesday accused Minnesota officials of failing to turn people over to federal custody — and claimed there were more than 1,360 pending ICE detainers statewide.
Those are federal requests to local law enforcement to detain individuals for up to 48 hours after they’re set to be released from criminal confinement — which gives ICE time to decide whether to take them into custody to begin deportation proceedings.
“The best solution is to turn them over to us in a safe, controlled setting like a jail or prison instead of releasing them back onto the streets,” Charles said at a news conference in St. Paul, Tuesday, warning that releases put communities “where your children go to school” at risk.
But the Department of Corrections commissioner said those coordinated turnovers are already happening — and have been for years, as a matter of policy and state law. Schnell said his department routinely communicates with ICE in the weeks before an incarcerated person’s release to arrange handoffs if a detainer is in place. And according to Minnesota corrections data, 84 people were transferred directly from state prisons to ICE custody in 2025.
To better understand the scope of the issue, Schnell said his department conducted a statewide survey. They found 207 individuals in state prisons and 94 in county jails are subject to ICE detainers — 301 total. This is far short of the 1,360 cited by federal officials.
“We cannot explain how those numbers square,” Schnell said. “And nobody is sitting down with us to explain it.”
Schnell told CBS News his agency has repeatedly asked DHS to reconcile the discrepancy but has received no documentation showing missed transfers or failures to comply.
“If we made a mistake, we would own it,” he said. “But to date, no one has shown us where we failed.”
Asked for comment on Schnell’s remarks, a DHS spokesperson reiterated the agency’s assertions that hundreds of criminals have been released across Minnesota and that 1,360 people in custody statewide are subject to active ICE detainers.
The spokesperson did not address the discrepancies raised by Schnell, but pointed to a list of six people with criminal charges or convictions that DHS says were released in Minnesota, and called on Gov. Tim Walz to “commit to honoring all ICE detainers.”
In some cases, Schnell said, it is ICE that chooses not to detain individuals any longer, releasing them under federal supervision or into the community. He emphasized that this is a decision made by federal authorities, not the state.
“We didn’t release them into the community,” he said. “We released them to ICE.”
Schnell also pushed back against the Department of Homeland Security’s regular publication of so-called “worst of the worst” lists, which highlight individuals with serious criminal convictions ICE claims to have arrested. But Schnell insisted Minnesota corrections had coordinated with ICE to transfer custody of many of those people and called the lists “propaganda, in many instances.” He added that in multiple cases, federal authorities opt to release detainees after they’re in ICE custody.
“These weren’t people swept up on Minneapolis streets,” he said. “They were released to ICE. What happened after that was not our decision.”
Schnell acknowledged that compliance with civil ICE detainers varies at the county level — particularly in large jurisdictions like Hennepin County, which includes Minneapolis. But he also stressed that the Department of Corrections’ authority is limited to the state prison system, not local jails.
Despite the sharp disagreements, Schnell emphasized that day-to-day cooperation between Corrections Department staff and ICE officers on the ground remains strong.
“Staff to staff, operationally, this is working exactly the way it should,” he said. “Which is why I think their staff are probably equally confused.”
What he wants now, Schnell said, is a direct conversation at senior levels of DHS to reconcile data and messaging — not public accusations.
“It’s in the best interest of public safety to get this right,” he said. “Rhetoric doesn’t solve anything. Facts do.”
As immigration enforcement continues to be a flashpoint nationally and locally, the dispute underscores a deeper challenge: a fragmented system in which federal, state, and local entities operate under different authorities, with access to varying data systems — often speaking past one another in the process.
“We care deeply about public safety,” Schnell said. “That’s why we follow this policy. And we will continue to coordinate the transfer of custody — period.”
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/headshot-600-nicole-sganga.jpg
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/minnesota-corrections-chief-fundamentally-false-claims-noncooperation-ice/ -
得克萨斯州前警察在乌瓦尔德学校枪击案审判中被无罪释放
By Andrew Hay
2026年1月22日 美国中部时间凌晨4:17 更新于9小时前[1/5] 2022年7月13日，在美国得克萨斯州乌瓦尔德市，一段显示当年5月该校枪击事件的视频公布后，罗勃小学外的纪念场所周围设有隐私屏障和自行车架。REUTERS/Kaylee Greenlee Beal/File Photo
- 摘要
- 陪审团审议七小时后宣判冈萨雷斯无罪
- 指控冈萨雷斯在抵达后未与枪手对峙
- 辩方辩称冈萨雷斯是警方失误的替罪羊
1月21日（路透社）——得克萨斯州一个陪审团周三宣布，一名前警察因在2022年乌瓦尔德学校枪击事件中执法不当导致儿童受伤害而被判处刑事罪名，该罪名已被撤销。这起事件造成19名小学生和2名教师死亡，是美国历史上最致命的校园枪击事件之一。
52岁的阿德里安·冈萨雷斯（Adrian Gonzales）曾任职于乌瓦尔德学区警察局，面临29项重罪儿童危害指控。检察官称，他在这场美国历史上最致命校园枪击事件发生后的最初几分钟内未能阻止枪手，导致了这些指控。
路透社《内部追踪》通讯是您了解全球重大体育赛事的必备指南。点击此处订阅。
广告 · 继续滚动阅读
宣判后，冈萨雷斯双手掩面，他的律师们拍着他的背。受害者的父母和兄弟姐妹对这一判决感到震惊，一些人擦去泪水，另一些人则面无表情地凝视前方。
科珀斯克里斯蒂陪审团经过7个多小时的审议，对所有29项罪名均作出无罪判决，每项罪名最高可判处两年监禁。
这起审判是美国罕见的案例，一名警察因未能阻止犯罪而被指控危害生命。
辩护律师杰森·戈斯（Jason Goss）告诉陪审员，检察官希望将冈萨雷斯作为所有在枪击事件中犯错的警察的替罪羊。
“他们认定他必须为那天的痛苦付出代价，但这是不公平的，”戈斯在总结陈词中说。
2022年5月24日，冈萨雷斯是首批抵达乌瓦尔德罗勃小学的400多名执法人员之一。警方在进入枪手藏身的教室前等待了77分钟。
枪手是该校的一名前学生，已被警方击毙。
冈萨雷斯被指控在接到活跃枪手报告后，乘坐巡逻车抵达罗勃小学时未能与枪手对峙。
“你不能袖手旁观，任由这种事情发生，”特别检察官比尔·特纳（Bill Turner）在总结陈词中对陪审团说。
冈萨雷斯称，他当时看不到枪手，并否认在枪手在学校外的最初混乱几分钟内出现了退缩行为。
这场近三周的审判在科珀斯克里斯蒂举行，该市位于乌瓦尔德东南约175英里（282公里）处。辩方此前辩称，在这个拥有约1.6万人口的得克萨斯州山区小镇，冈萨雷斯无法获得公正审判。
冈萨雷斯是与此次枪击事件相关的两人之一，另一名警官是前乌瓦尔德学区警察局长皮特·阿雷东多（Pete Arredondo），预计他将于今年晚些时候因类似指控受审，目前已否认所有指控。
州和联邦调查发现，警方在权衡如何应对时，让18岁的枪手独自留在教室里，与孩子们在一起。
当由边境巡逻队官员领导的战术小组冲入教室时，死亡人数已达到该国知名校园枪击事件中的最高水平之一。
尽管控枪措施支持者与声称此类控制违反宪法持枪权的人士之间争论激烈，但与其他工业化国家相比，美国对枪支的限制仍然很少。
美国前司法部长梅里克·加兰（Merrick Garland）在2024年提交乌瓦尔德联邦调查委员会报告时表示，如果警方立即与枪手对峙，本可以挽救生命。
报道：Andrew Hay（New Mexico州陶斯市）；编辑：Steve Gorman、Christian Schmollinger和Himani Sarkar
我们的标准：路透社信托原则（新窗口打开）
- 推荐主题：
- 美国
- 刑事
Former Texas police officer acquitted in Uvalde school shooting trial
By Andrew Hay
January 22, 2026 4:17 AM UTC Updated 9 hours ago节点运行失败
Item 1 of 5 Privacy barriers and bike racks maintain a perimiter at a memorial outside Robb Elementary School, after a video was released showing the May shooting inside the school in Uvalde, Texas, U.S., July 13, 2022. REUTERS/Kaylee Greenlee Beal/File Photo[1/5]Privacy barriers and bike racks maintain a perimiter at a memorial outside Robb Elementary School, after a video was released showing the May shooting inside the school in Uvalde, Texas, U.S., July 13, 2022. REUTERS/Kaylee Greenlee Beal/File Photo
- Summary
- Jury deliberated over seven hours before acquitting Gonzales
- Gonzales accused of failing to confront shooter upon arrival
- Defense argued Gonzales was scapegoated for police errors
Jan 21 (Reuters) – A Texas jury acquitted a former police officer of criminal child-endangerment charges on Wednesday stemming from his role in the botched law enforcement response to the 2022 Uvalde school shooting that killed 19 elementary students and two teachers.
Adrian Gonzales, 52, who belonged to the Uvalde school district police force, faced 29 counts of felony child endangerment for what prosecutors said was his failure to stop the gunman in the first minutes of one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history.
The Reuters Inside Track newsletter is your essential guide to the biggest events in global sport. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Gonzales buried his head in his hands after the verdict was read, with his lawyers clapping him on the back. Parents and siblings of the victims appeared stunned by the decision, some wiping away tears, while others stared ahead with blank expressions.
The Corpus Christi jury deliberated for over seven hours before reaching its not guilty verdict on all 29 counts, each of which carried up to two years in prison.
The trial was a rare case of a U.S. police officer being charged with endangering lives by failing to halt a crime.
Defense lawyer Jason Goss told jurors that prosecutors wanted to scapegoat Gonzales for the mistakes of all police officers at the shooting.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
“They have decided he has to pay for the pain of that day and it’s not right,” Goss said in closing arguments.
Gonzales was among the first of more than 400 law enforcement officers to arrive at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde on May 24, 2022. Police waited 77 minutes before entering a classroom where the gunman was holed up.
The gunman, a former student at the school, was shot dead by police.
Gonzales was accused of failing to confront the shooter after he arrived at Robb Elementary in his patrol car in response to a report of an active shooter.
“You can’t stand by and allow it to happen,” Special Prosecutor Bill Turner told the jury during closing arguments.
Gonzales said he could not see the shooter and denied that he froze during the first chaotic minutes of the incident when the gunman was outside the school.
The nearly three-week trial was held in Corpus Christi, about 175 miles (282 km) southeast of Uvalde, after the defense argued Gonzales could not get a fair trial in the town of around 16,000 in Texas’ Hill Country.
Gonzales was one of only two people criminally charged in relation to the shooting. A second officer, former Uvalde school district police chief Pete Arredondo, is expected to face trial later this year on similar charges as Gonzales. He has pleaded not guilty.
State and federal investigations into the shooting found that officers left the 18-year-old gunman alone inside the classroom with children while weighing how to confront him.
By the time a tactical team led by Border Patrol officers stormed in, the death toll was among the worst ever in a country known for high-profile school shootings.
While debate has raged between proponents of gun control measures and those who say such controls violate the constitutional right to bear arms, there remain few restrictions on firearms in the U.S. compared with other industrialized nations.
Former U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, in remarks made while presenting the federal report on Uvalde in 2024, said lives would have been saved had the police immediately confronted the gunman.
Reporting by Andrew Hay in Taos, New Mexico; Editing by Steve Gorman, Christian Schmollinger and Himani Sarkar
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
- Suggested Topics:
- United States
- Criminal
-
美国联邦通信委员会称电视脱口秀必须为政治候选人提供平等时段
2026年1月21日 / 美国东部时间晚上10:30 / CBS新闻
美国联邦通信委员会（FCC）周三警告电视广播公司，日间脱口秀和深夜节目必须为对立的政治候选人提供平等的播出时间。
这一举措针对的是一类特朗普总统长期以来指责存在政治偏见的电视节目，这促使总统呼吁撤销广播公司的FCC执照。
该公告依据一项已有数十年历史的联邦法律，该法律要求任何获得FCC许可的广播公司，如果允许政治候选人在其频道上露面，也必须为所有竞选同一职位的其他候选人提供“平等机会”。该法律将“真正的新闻广播”和新闻采访从平等时段规则中豁免。
2006年，FCC曾表示，新闻豁免适用于《杰·雷诺今夜秀》（The Tonight Show with Jay Leno）的一次采访，这意味着深夜喜剧节目可以邀请当时的加州州长候选人阿诺德·施瓦辛格（Arnold Schwarzenegger）出镜，而无需同时邀请其民主党对手。
但在周三发布的一份四页通知中，FCC表示，“并非所有深夜和日间娱乐节目都可豁免”。监管机构称，是否适用豁免需个案决定，并且“尚未收到任何证据”表明这些节目中的采访符合新闻豁免条件。
FCC主席布伦丹·卡尔（Brendan Carr）是特朗普的盟友，他在社交平台X上写道：“多年来，老牌电视网一直认为其深夜和日间脱口秀符合‘真正新闻’节目的标准——即使其动机纯粹是党派政治目的。今天，FCC提醒它们有义务为所有候选人提供平等机会。”
FCC没有点名任何特定节目，但特朗普在Truth Social平台上转发了一条新闻标题，称FCC正“瞄准”两个长期令他不满的ABC节目——《观点》（The View）和《吉米·坎摩尔秀》（Jimmy Kimmel Live!）。卡尔在X上分享了特朗普帖子的截图。
ABC未回应CBS新闻就FCC通知的置评请求。同样播出被特朗普批评的深夜节目的NBC和CBS也拒绝置评。
民主党籍FCC委员安娜·戈麦斯（Anna Gomez）尖锐批评了FCC的公告，称其是“本FCC持续审查和控制言论运动的升级”。她还表示该通知“具有误导性”，因为FCC并未正式修改任何规则，而规则修改通常需要公众意见征询期和委员投票。
“广播公司不应因害怕监管报复而淡化、净化或避免报道有批判性的内容，”戈麦斯在声明中表示，“广播电台有宪法权利播放具有新闻价值的内容，即使这些内容是对掌权者的批评。这一点今天不会改变，明天不会改变，仅仅因为本届政府希望压制批评者也不会改变。”
特朗普多年来一直与批评他的脱口秀主持人不和。他对去年夏天CBS母公司派拉蒙决定停播《斯蒂芬·科尔伯特深夜秀》表示赞赏，并在9月ABC决定因吉米·坎摩尔对保守派活动家查理·柯克遇刺发表评论而临时停播《吉米·坎摩尔秀》后表示支持。他还公开要求NBC解雇深夜主持人吉米·法伦和塞思·迈耶斯。
总统长期以来还声称，FCC应对持续批评他的电视网撤销电视广播执照。FCC传统上对电视网播出内容的影响力有限，部分原因是受《第一修正案》限制。
“他们只给我负面宣传或报道，”特朗普在9月对记者说，“我的意思是，他们获得了执照。我认为也许应该撤销他们的执照。这取决于布伦丹·卡尔。”
这一问题引起了卡尔的关注，他多次指出法律要求广播公司以“公共利益”为运营准则。
在ABC临时停播坎摩尔节目数小时前，卡尔曾公开敦促迪士尼旗下电视网“采取行动”回应喜剧演员对柯克的评论，并在播客采访中表示“FCC有相关途径”。
“我们可以选择简单方式或强硬方式，”卡尔当时表示。
这些言论遭到两党批评，得克萨斯州共和党参议员特德·克鲁兹（Ted Cruz）称卡尔越权，可能为下次民主党执政时树立不良先例。
“这简直是《好家伙》（Goodfellas）里的情节，就像黑手党走进酒吧说‘你这酒吧不错，要是出了什么事就太可惜了’，”克鲁兹模仿黑帮头目腔调批评卡尔对坎摩尔的言论。
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/ap26012143235049.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/cbs-saturday-morning-promo.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/the-pitt-1280.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/extended-noah-wyle.jpghttps://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/transcoded-1765581702.png
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/gettyimages-1478517517.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/gettyimages-1247598337-1.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/untitled-design-32.png
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/gettyimages-1297070538.jpghttps://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/transcoded-1765581702.png
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/first-amendment-lawyer-jimmy-kimmel-free-speech/FCC says TV talk shows must offer equal time to political candidates
January 21, 2026 / 10:30 PM EST / CBS News
The Federal Communications Commission warned TV broadcasters Wednesday that daytime talk shows and late-night programs must give equal time to opposing political candidates.
The move addressed a genre of TV that President Trump has long argued is politically biased, leading to calls from the president to revoke broadcasters’ FCC licenses.
The announcement hinges on a decades-old federal law requiring any FCC-licensed broadcaster that lets a political candidate appear on its airwaves to also offer “equal opportunities” to all other candidates running for the same office. The law exempts “bona fide newscasts” and news interviews from the equal time rule.
In 2006, the FCC said the news exemption applied to an interview on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” meaning the late-night comedy show could feature then-California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger on-air without also inviting his Democratic opponent.
But in a four-page notice on Wednesday, the FCC said it is “not the case” that all late-night and daytime entertainment shows are exempt. The regulator said it decides whether the exemption applies on a case-by-case basis, and it “has not been presented with any evidence” that interviews on those shows qualify for the news exemption.
FCC Chair Brendan Carr, a Trump ally, wrote on X: “For years, legacy TV networks assumed that their late night & daytime talk shows qualify as ‘bona fide news’ programs – even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes. Today, the FCC reminded them of their obligation to provide all candidates with equal opportunities.”
The FCC did not call out any specific shows by name. But Mr. Trump reposted a news headline on Truth Social that said the FCC is taking “aim” at two ABC shows that have long drawn the president’s ire — “The View” and “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Carr shared a screenshot of Mr. Trump’s post on X.
ABC did not respond to a request for comment from CBS News on the FCC’s notice. NBC and CBS, which also air late-night shows criticized by Mr. Trump, declined to comment.
Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez sharply criticized the FCC’s announcement, calling it “an escalation in this FCC’s ongoing campaign to censor and control speech.” She also argued the notice was “misleading” since the FCC hasn’t formally changed any of its rules, a process that typically involves a public comment period and a vote by the commissioners.
“Broadcasters should not feel pressured to water down, sanitize, or avoid critical coverage out of fear of regulatory retaliation,” Gomez said in a statement. “Broadcast stations have a constitutional right to carry newsworthy content, even when that content is critical of those in power. That does not change today, it will not change tomorrow, and it will not change simply because of this Administration’s desire to silence its critics.”
Mr. Trump has feuded with critical talk show hosts for years. He celebrated CBS parent company Paramount’s decision to end “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” last summer, and he hailed ABC’s decision in September to temporarily preempt “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” following comments Kimmel made about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. And he’s publicly called on NBC to fire late-night hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers.
The president has also long argued that the FCC should revoke TV broadcast licenses for networks that consistently criticize him. The FCC has traditionally exerted limited influence over the content aired by TV networks, partly due to First Amendment constraints.
“They give me only bad publicity or press,” Mr. Trump told reporters in September. “I mean, they’re getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away. It will be up to Brendan Carr.”
The issue has drawn the attention of Carr, who has regularly pointed to laws requiring broadcasters to operate in the “public interest.”
Hours before ABC temporarily took Kimmel off the air, Carr publicly urged the Disney-owned TV network to “take action” in response to the comedian’s remarks on Kirk, saying in a podcast interview that “there are avenues here for the FCC.”
“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said at the time.
Those comments drew bipartisan criticism, with Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas arguing Carr overstepped and could set a bad precedent the next time there’s a Democratic president.
“I gotta say, that’s right out of ‘Goodfellas.’ That’s right out of a mafioso coming into a bar, going, ‘nice bar you have here, it’d be a shame if something happened to it,'” Cruz said of Carr’s remarks on Kimmel, mimicking a mob boss’s accent.
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/ap26012143235049.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/cbs-saturday-morning-promo.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/the-pitt-1280.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/extended-noah-wyle.jpghttps://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/transcoded-1765581702.png
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/gettyimages-1478517517.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/gettyimages-1247598337-1.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/untitled-design-32.png
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/gettyimages-1297070538.jpghttps://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/transcoded-1765581702.png
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/first-amendment-lawyer-jimmy-kimmel-free-speech/ -
ICE官员称有权无需法官令状即可强行进入民宅，内部备忘录显示
美联社报道
更新于5小时前
最后更新：2026年1月22日，美国东部时间凌晨2:57
发布于2026年1月21日，美国东部时间下午5:55https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/gettyimages-2256434316.jpg
视频广告反馈
前ICE代理主任约翰·桑德韦格评论ICE备忘录
2:29 • 来源：CNN
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/gettyimages-2256434316.jpg
前ICE代理主任约翰·桑德韦格评论ICE备忘录
2:29
美联社报道——
根据美联社获得的一份美国移民和海关执法局（ICE）内部备忘录，联邦移民官员正在宣称一项广泛权力，即无需法官令状即可强行进入民宅。这标志着长期以来旨在尊重政府搜查行为受宪法限制的指导方针发生重大逆转。
该备忘录授权ICE官员仅基于一份更狭义的行政令状，即可使用武力进入住所逮捕已收到最终驱逐令的人员。倡导者称此举与《第四修正案》保护条款相冲突，并颠覆了多年来向移民社区提供的建议。
这一转变发生在特朗普政府在全国范围内大幅扩大移民逮捕行动之际，数千名官员被部署在大规模驱逐运动中，这已开始改变明尼阿波利斯等城市的执法策略。
广告反馈
国会山的民主党人立即对ICE的这项指示发出警告。参议员理查德·布卢门撒尔周三呼吁国土安全部部长克里斯蒂·诺姆和代理ICE主任托德·莱昂斯就该备忘录在国会作证。
布卢门撒尔向参议院国土安全委员会和司法委员会主席发送了一封信，要求他们在“令人震惊的匿名举报人披露”后“立即”传唤证人作证。
这位康涅狄格州参议员周三还向诺姆和莱昂斯发送了一封信，写道该备忘录宣称移民官员拥有这些广泛权力，应“令所有美国人震惊”。
“每个美国人都应该被这项秘密ICE政策吓坏，该政策授权其特工破门而入、冲入家中。这是一项在法律和道德上都令人憎恶的政策，体现了美国正在实时目睹的那种危险、可耻的滥用行为，”布卢门撒尔在新闻稿中表示。
明尼苏达州民主党州长蒂姆·瓦尔兹称该备忘录是“对自由和隐私的攻击”。
多年来，移民权益倡导者、法律援助组织和地方政府一直敦促民众除非看到法官签署的令状，否则不要让移民特工进入家中。这一指导方针基于最高法院的裁决，该裁决普遍禁止执法部门在未经司法批准的情况下进入民宅。在政府移民镇压行动下逮捕人数加速增加之际，ICE的这项指示直接削弱了这一建议。
[相关卡片 https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/card-image-09.png CNN 国土安全部称其移民攻势“刚刚开始”。以下是我们如何看到其加剧——并引发争议]
根据举报人投诉，该备忘录本身并未在机构内部广泛分享，但其内容已被用于培训新的ICE官员，这些官员正被派往城镇执行总统的移民镇压行动。举报人披露称，新招募的ICE官员和仍在培训中的人员被要求遵循该备忘录的指导，而非与之实际冲突的书面培训材料。
目前尚不清楚该指示在移民执法行动中被广泛应用的程度。美联社目睹了1月11日，ICE特工仅持行政令状，身着重型战术装备并拔出枪支，撞开明尼阿波利斯一名利比里亚男子的前门。
这一变化几乎肯定会面临法律挑战，以及倡导组织和对移民友好的州及地方政府的强烈批评，这些团体多年来一直成功敦促民众除非看到法官签署的令状，否则不要开门。
美联社从一位匿名官员那里获得了该备忘录和举报人的投诉，这位官员为讨论敏感文件而要求匿名。美联社核实了投诉中陈述的真实性。
该备忘录由ICE代理主任托德·莱昂斯签署，日期为2025年5月12日，称：“尽管美国国土安全部（DHS）历史上并未依赖行政令状单独逮捕居住在其住所的被驱逐人员，但DHS法律顾问办公室最近裁定，美国宪法、《移民与国籍法》和移民条例并不禁止为此目的使用行政令状。”
备忘录未详细说明该裁定是如何做出的，也未说明其可能产生的法律影响。
当被问及该备忘录时，国土安全部发言人特里西亚·麦克劳克林在给美联社的电子邮件声明中表示，所有收到行政令状的人员都已获得“充分的正当程序和最终驱逐令”。
她说，签发这些令状的官员也已发现逮捕该人员的合理根据。她表示，最高法院和国会“已认可在移民执法案件中使用行政令状的正当性”，但未详细说明。麦克劳克林未回应ICE官员自备忘录发布以来是否仅依靠行政令状进入民宅，以及如果是，频率如何的问题。
近期逮捕行动凸显执法策略问题
协助员工揭露不当行为的非营利法律组织“举报人援助”在向美联社提供的举报信中称，它代表两名匿名美国政府官员“披露一项秘密且看似违宪的政策指示”。
近期一系列高调逮捕行动（许多发生在私人住宅和企业，并被视频记录），已使移民逮捕策略成为焦点，包括特工使用适当令状的情况。
大多数移民逮捕行动依据行政令状进行，这是移民当局发布的内部文件，仅授权逮捕特定个人，不允许特工在未经同意的情况下强行进入私人住宅或其他非公共空间。只有法官签署的令状才具有这种权力。
所有执法行动——包括ICE和海关与边境保护局开展的行动——均受宪法第四修正案约束，该修正案保护所有在美人员免受不合理搜查和扣押。
[相关文章 https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/gettyimages-2255776689.jpg 执法人员在明尼苏达州明尼阿波利斯发生移民执法行动期间守卫现场周边，居民抗议联邦探员涉枪事件。此次抗议发生在联邦探员涉枪事件之后，就在一周前，一名联邦探员开枪打死了37岁的Renee Good。麦迪逊·索恩/阿纳多卢/盖蒂图片社 关于ICE和明尼阿波利斯枪击事件的最大法律问题解答 5分钟阅读]
如果移民特工仅持有行政令状，民众在有限例外情况下可合法拒绝其进入私人财产。
本月，联邦特工撞开明尼阿波利斯一名拥有2023年驱逐令的利比里亚男子的家门，随后将其逮捕。美联社审查的文件显示，特工们仅持有行政令状——这意味着没有法官授权对该私人财产进行突袭。
备忘录仅向“特定”官员展示
备忘录称，ICE特工若持有移民法官、移民上诉委员会或地区法官或治安法官签发的最终驱逐令，可仅使用签署的行政令状（I-205）强行进入民宅并逮捕移民。
备忘录规定，特工必须首先敲门并表明身份和来意。他们进入民宅的时间有限制——早上6点之后和晚上10点之前。屋内人员必须有“合理机会合法行动”。但如果这不起作用，备忘录称他们可使用武力进入。
“如果外国人拒绝进入，ICE官员和特工应在适当通知其进入的权力和意图后，仅使用必要且合理的武力进入外国人住所，”备忘录中写道。
该备忘录是发给所有ICE人员的。但“举报人援助”在披露中写道，该备忘录仅向“特定的DHS官员”展示，这些官员随后将其分享给一些员工，要求他们阅读并归还。
两名举报人之一只能在主管在场的情况下查看该备忘录，然后必须归还。该人员不被允许做笔记。“举报人援助”称，一名举报人能够接触到该文件并合法向国会披露。
尽管该备忘录于5月发布，但“举报人援助”高级副总裁兼特别法律顾问大卫·克莱格曼表示，其客户花了时间找到“安全合法的途径向立法者和美国民众披露”。
ICE官员被告知仅依靠行政令状，备忘录称
ICE正在迅速招募数千名新驱逐官员，以执行总统的大规模驱逐议程。他们在佐治亚州不伦瑞克的联邦执法培训中心接受培训。
美联社在8月对该中心的访问中，ICE官员多次表示新特工正在接受遵循《第四修正案》的培训。
但根据举报人的说法，新招募的ICE官员被指示可仅依靠行政令状进入家中进行逮捕，尽管这与国土安全部的书面培训材料相冲突。
ICE官员通常会等待数小时，直到他们希望逮捕的人走出家门，以便在人行道或工作场所进行逮捕——这些公共场合不会侵犯个人《第四修正案》权利。
“举报人援助”称这项新政策是“完全违反法律”，并削弱了“《第四修正案》及其保护的权利”。
CNN的阿莱娜·法亚兹为本文提供了报道。
ICE officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge’s warrant, memo says
By Associated Press
Updated 5 hr ago
Updated Jan 22, 2026, 2:57 AM ET
PUBLISHED Jan 21, 2026, 5:55 PM EThttps://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/gettyimages-2256434316.jpg
Video Ad Feedback
Former ICE Acting Direct John Sandweg weights in on the ICE memo
2:29 • Source: CNN
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/gettyimages-2256434316.jpg
Former ICE Acting Direct John Sandweg weights in on the ICE memo
2:29
AP—
Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.
The memo authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal, a move that advocates say collides with Fourth Amendment protections and upends years of advice given to immigrant communities.
The shift comes as the Trump administration dramatically expands immigration arrests nationwide, deploying thousands of officers under a mass deportation campaign that is already reshaping enforcement tactics in cities such as Minneapolis.
Ad Feedback
Democrats on Capitol Hill immediately began sounding the alarm over the ICE directive. Sen. Richard Blumenthal on Wednesday called for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and acting ICE Director Todd Lyons to testify before Congress about the memo.
Blumenthal sent a letter to the chairs of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and the Judiciary Committee asking them to “immediately” call for the testimony following “a shocking anonymous whistleblower disclosure.”
The Connecticut senator also sent a letter Wednesday to Noem and Lyons, writing that the memo, asserting that immigration officers have these sweeping powers, should “appall every American.”
“Every American should be terrified by this secret ICE policy authorizing its agents to kick down your door and storm into your home. It is a legally and morally abhorrent policy that exemplifies the kinds of dangerous, disgraceful abuses America is seeing in real time,” Blumenthal said in a news release.
Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz called the memo an “assault on freedom and privacy.”
For years, immigrant advocates, legal aid groups and local governments have urged people not to open their doors to immigration agents unless they are shown a warrant signed by a judge. That guidance is rooted in Supreme Court rulings that generally prohibit law enforcement from entering a home without judicial approval. The ICE directive directly undercuts that advice at a time when arrests are accelerating under the administration’s immigration crackdown.
[Related card https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/card-image-09.png CNN DHS says its immigration offensive is ‘just getting started.’ Here’s how we’ve seen it intensifying – and sparking controversy]
The memo itself has not been widely shared within the agency, according to a whistleblower complaint, but its contents have been used to train new ICE officers who are being deployed into cities and towns to implement the president’s immigration crackdown. New ICE hires and those still in training are being told to follow the memo’s guidance instead of written training materials that actually contradict the memo, according to the whistleblower disclosure.
It is unclear how broadly the directive has been applied in immigration enforcement operations. The Associated Press witnessed ICE officers ramming through the front door of the home of a Liberian man in Minneapolis on January 11 with only an administrative warrant, wearing heavy tactical gear and with their rifles drawn.
The change is almost certain to meet legal challenges and stiff criticism from advocacy groups and immigrant-friendly state and local governments that have spent years successfully urging people not to open their doors unless ICE shows them a warrant signed by a judge.
The Associated Press obtained the memo and whistleblower complaint from an official in Congress, who shared it on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive documents. The AP verified the authenticity of the accounts in the complaint.
The memo, signed by the acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, and dated May 12, 2025, says: “Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose.”
The memo does not detail how that determination was made nor what its legal repercussions might be.
When asked about the memo, Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in an emailed statement to the AP that everyone the department serves with an administrative warrant has already had “full due process and a final order of removal.”
She said the officers issuing those warrants have also found probable cause for the person’s arrest. She said the Supreme Court and Congress have “recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in cases of immigration enforcement,” without elaborating. McLaughlin did not respond to questions about whether ICE officers entered a person’s home since the memo was issued relying solely on an administrative warrant and if so, how often.
Recent arrests shine a light on tactics
Whistleblower Aid, a non-profit legal organization that assists workers exposing wrongdoings, said in the whistleblower complaint obtained by The Associated Press that it represents two anonymous US government officials “disclosing a secretive – and seemingly unconstitutional – policy directive.”
A wave of recent high-profile arrests, many unfolding at private homes and businesses and captured on video, has shined a spotlight on immigration arrest tactics, including officers’ use of proper warrants.
Most immigration arrests are carried out under administrative warrants, internal documents issued by immigration authorities that authorize the arrest of a specific individual but do not permit officers to forcibly enter private homes or other non-public spaces without consent. Only warrants signed by judges carry that authority.
All law enforcement operations — including those conducted by ICE and Customs and Border Protection — are governed by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects all people in the country from unreasonable searches and seizures.
[Related article https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/gettyimages-2255776689.jpg Law enforcement officers guard the perimeter of the scene as residents protest a federal agent-involved shooting during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States on January 14, 2026. The protest comes after a federal agent-involved shooting during immigration enforcement, exactly one week after a federal agent shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Good. Madison Thorn/Anadolu/Getty Images Your biggest legal questions about ICE and the Minneapolis shooting, answered 5 min read]
People can legally refuse federal immigration agents entry into private property if the agents only have an administrative warrant, with some limited exceptions.
Federal agents this month rammed the door of the Minneapolis home of a Liberian man with a deportation order from 2023, who was then arrested. Documents reviewed by The AP revealed that the agents only had an administrative warrant — meaning there was no judge who authorized the raid on private property.
Memo shown to ‘select’ officials
The memo says ICE officers can forcibly enter homes and arrest immigrants using just a signed administrative warrant known as an I-205 if they have a final order of removal issued by an immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals or a district judge or magistrate judge.
The memo says officers must first knock on the door and share who they are and why they’re at the residence. They’re limited in the hours they can go into the home — after 6 a.m. and before 10 p.m. The people inside must be given a “reasonable chance to act lawfully.” But if that doesn’t work, the memo says, they can use force to go in.
“Should the alien refuse admittance, ICE officers and agents should use only a necessary and reasonable amount of force to enter the alien’s residence, following proper notification of the officer or agent’s authority and intent to enter,” the memo reads.
The memo is addressed to all ICE personnel. But it has been shown only to “select DHS officials” who then shared it with some employees who were told to read it and return it, Whistleblower Aid wrote in the disclosure.
One of the two whistleblowers was allowed to view the memo only in the presence of a supervisor and then had to give it back. That person was not allowed to take notes. A whistleblower was able to access the document and lawfully disclose to Congress, Whistleblower Aid said.
Although the memo was issued in May, David Kligerman, senior vice president and special counsel at Whistleblower Aid, said it took time for its clients to find a “safe and legal path to disclose it to lawmakers and the American people.”
ICE officers are told to rely solely on administrative warrants, memo says
ICE has been rapidly hiring thousands of new deportation officers to carry out the president’s mass deportation agenda. They’re trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Brunswick, Georgia.
During a visit there by The Associated Press in August, ICE officials said repeatedly that new officers were being trained to follow the Fourth Amendment.
But according to the whistleblowers’ account, newly hired ICE officers are being told they can rely solely on administrative warrants to enter homes to make arrests even though that conflicts with written Homeland Security training materials.
ICE officers often wait for hours for the person they’re hoping to arrest to come outside so they can make the arrest on the sidewalk or at the person’s work — public places where they are allowed to operate without the risk of infringing on the person’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Whistleblower Aid called the new policy a “complete break from the law” and said it undercuts the “Fourth Amendment and the rights it protects.”
CNN’s Aleena Fayaz contributed to this report.
-
特朗普抨击英国移交岛屿协议，该协议可能危及美国关键军事基地
迭戈加西亚岛对北京控制从中东石油富集区到中国工业腹地的航运通道的战略构成威胁，国防专家表示
作者：艾玛·布西（Emma Bussey）
福克斯新闻（Fox News）发布时间：2026年1月21日 美国东部时间下午6:25
唐纳德·特朗普总统周二戏剧性地逆转了英国将查戈斯群岛主权移交给毛里求斯的计划，同时警告称这可能会危及美国对迭戈加西亚军事基地的使用权。
特朗普的立场转变凸显了一位国防专家所称的”新特朗普主义”，此前该专家将总统对查戈斯协议的反对与他对格陵兰岛的推进计划联系起来，并指出毛里求斯未来可能违约的担忧。
特朗普在其Truth Social社交平台上周二发文称，英国的查戈斯群岛决定是”极大愚蠢的行为”。
“令人震惊的是，我们’杰出的’北约盟友英国目前正计划将美国重要军事基地所在地迭戈加西亚岛拱手让给毛里求斯，而且毫无理由，”特朗普写道。”毫无疑问，中国和俄罗斯已经注意到这一完全软弱的行为。”
特朗普在范斯高风险格陵兰岛会议前向北约发出严厉警告
亨利·杰克逊协会国家安全中心主任约翰·亨明斯（John Hemmings）告诉福克斯新闻数字版：”特朗普180度大转弯，部分原因是英国支持丹麦对格陵兰岛的主权主张，部分原因是白宫概述的新战略。”
“这些行动是相互关联的，并且是11月《国家安全战略》中概述的’新特朗普主义’的一部分，”他解释道。
“迭戈加西亚岛对北京控制从中东石油富集区到中国工业腹地的关键航运通道的战略构成潜在威胁，”他补充道，描述了”每天近2370万桶石油通过印度洋，而该基地在任何美中台湾冲突中都至关重要”。
特朗普告诉达沃斯：美国独自能确保格陵兰岛安全，坚称不会’使用武力’
在另一篇帖子中，特朗普明确将查戈斯群岛争端与他对格陵兰岛的推进计划联系起来。
“英国放弃极其重要的土地是极大愚蠢的行为，这是格陵兰岛必须被获取的又一个长期国家安全理由，”特朗普写道。
查戈斯群岛在英国非殖民化过程中与毛里求斯分离，国际法院2019年裁定这一行为非法。
英国后来同意移交主权，同时将迭戈加西亚岛以每年至少1.6亿美元的租金续租至少99年。
迭戈加西亚岛是远程轰炸机、后勤和力量投送在中东、印度洋-太平洋和非洲的枢纽。约有2500名人员驻守，其中大部分是美国人。
特朗普在民调显示公众支持率低的情况下加倍推进格陵兰岛计划
“如果毛里求斯在获得法律控制权后将这些岛屿提供给中国，它将在国际舆论眼中给美国带来巨大压力，”亨明斯解释道。
“毕竟，一旦毛里求斯获得法律主权，它可以随时重新谈判租赁条款，甚至撕毁条约。
“它还可能为中国渔船队提供进入专属经济区（包括其丰富渔场）的机会，这将为美国空军在该岛周围的行动增加另一层风险，”亨明斯说。
“目前，迭戈加西亚岛的美国基地被认为是安全的，毛里求斯向英国（并通过英国向美国）承诺了99年的租约，据称这不会干扰该空军基地的运作。但问题在于细节。”
福克斯新闻数字版已联系白宫寻求置评。
艾玛·布西是福克斯新闻数字版的突发新闻撰稿人。加入福克斯之前，她曾在《每日电讯报》工作，服务于美国夜间团队，涵盖外交、政治、新闻、体育和文化等多个领域。
![图片1] https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/chagos-airbase.jpg
![图片2] https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/world-economic-forum-switzerland-davos-usa-president-donald-trump-001.jpg
![图片3] https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/chagos-islands.jpg
[视频链接] https://www.foxnews.com/video/6388056570112Trump slams UK island handoff deal that could put key US military base at risk
Diego Garcia is a threat to Beijing’s strategy to control shipping lanes between oil-rich Middle East and China’s industrial heartland, defense expert says
By Emma Bussey
Fox NewsPublished January 21, 2026 6:25pm EST
President Donald Trump dramatically reversed course Tuesday on a U.K. plan to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius while warning it could jeopardize U.S. access to the Diego Garcia military base.
Trump’s reversal highlights what a defense expert called a “new Trump Doctrine” before linking the president’s opposition to the Chagos deal with his Greenland push and citing fears Mauritius could later back out.
Writing on his Truth Social platform Tuesday, Trump called the U.K.’s Chagos decision “an act of great stupidity.”
“Shockingly, our ‘brilliant’ NATO Ally, the United Kingdom, is currently planning to give away the Island of Diego Garcia, the site of a vital U.S. Military Base, to Mauritius, and to do so FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER,” Trump wrote. “There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.”
TRUMP ISSUES STERN WARNING TO NATO AHEAD OF VANCE’S HIGH-STAKES GREENLAND MEETING
“Trump has done a 180, partly because of the U.K.’s support for Denmark’s sovereign claims over Greenland and partly because of a new strategy outlined by the White House,” John Hemmings, director of the National Security Center at the Henry Jackson Society, told Fox News Digital.
“These moves are linked and part of a ‘new Trump Doctrine’” outlined in November’s National Security Strategy,” he explained.
“Diego Garcia is a potential threat to Beijing’s strategy to control vital shipping lanes between the oil-rich Middle East and China’s industrial heartland,” he added, describing how “nearly 23.7 million barrels of oil transit the Indian Ocean every day, with the base being vital in any U.S.-China conflict over Taiwan.”
TRUMP TELLS DAVOS US ALONE CAN SECURE GREENLAND, INSISTS HE WON’T ‘USE FORCE’
In a separate post, Trump explicitly linked the Chagos dispute to his Greenland push.
“The U.K. giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY, and is another in a very long line of national security reasons why Greenland has to be acquired,” Trump wrote.
The Chagos Islands were separated from Mauritius during Britain’s decolonization process, a move the International Court of Justice ruled unlawful in 2019.
The U.K. later agreed to transfer sovereignty while leasing Diego Garcia back for at least 99 years at a cost of at least $160 million annually.
Diego Garcia is a hub for long-range bombers, logistics and power projection across the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific and Africa. Around 2,500 personnel, mostly American, are stationed there.
TRUMP DOUBLES DOWN ON GREENLAND PUSH AS POLLS SHOW LITTLE PUBLIC SUPPORT
“If Mauritius were to offer the islands to China after taking de jure control, it would put immense pressure on the U.S. in the eyes of international public opinion,” Hemmings explained.
“After all, once Mauritius has de jure sovereignty, it can renegotiate the lease terms or even renege on the treaty at any time it wants.
“It might also provide access to the exclusive economic zone, with all of its rich fishing grounds, to Chinese fishing fleets, adding another layer of risk to U.S. Air Force operations around the island,” Hemmings said.
“At this moment, the U.S. base at Diego Garcia is thought to be secure, with Mauritius promising the U.K. (and by proxy, the U.S.) a 99-year lease, which will not, it is supposed, interfere with the operations of the air base at all. But the devil is in the details.”
Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.
Emma Bussey is a breaking news writer for Fox News Digital. Before joining Fox, she worked at The Telegraph with the U.S. overnight team, across desks including foreign, politics, news, sport and culture.
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/chagos-airbase.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/world-economic-forum-switzerland-davos-usa-president-donald-trump-001.jpg
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/chagos-islands.jpg
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6388056570112 -
特朗普在达沃斯大谈让富人更富
分析： 艾伦·布莱克
15小时前
发布时间： 2026年1月21日，美国东部时间下午4:54[图片链接]
唐纳德·特朗普总统在瑞士达沃斯世界经济论坛年会上向观众发表讲话。
（埃文·武奇/美联社）在加州州长加文·纽森宣布将在本周瑞士世界经济论坛上与唐纳德·特朗普总统就其观点发表看法后，支持“让美国再次伟大”（MAGA）的影响力人物凯蒂·米勒周一在X平台上嘲讽这位民主党人出席了这个富人云集的活动。
“加文·纽森当然要去达沃斯，”米勒（她嫁给了白宫高级顾问斯蒂芬·米勒）在X平台上发文称，“没有什么比向世界精英群体抱怨更能体现‘美国优先’的了。”
但过去几天发生的事情并没有像她预想的那样凸显她的观点。
纽森在达沃斯期间一直敦促精英阶层更坚决地抵制特朗普。而特朗普则与富人频频接触，并毫不掩饰地谈论自己与富人的关系以及让他们变得更富的举措。
尽管美国人普遍认为经济停滞不前，但总统似乎在周三的集会上为自己的政策对富人有多有利而沾沾自喜。
他在与企业高管的招待会上发表了一系列此类言论。
“我认为就你们的投资而言，你们的处境非常好，”特朗普对人群说，“我甚至不用问任何人现在怎么样了。大家赚的钱都太多了。”
特朗普称自己经常向商界领袖表示祝贺。
“他们说，‘是在说什么？’”特朗普说，“我说，‘自从我上任以来，你们的净资产翻了一番，对吧？’他说，‘是的，甚至不止这些。’他们会说，‘甚至更多。我们做得比这更好。’而我们为你们提供了一个平台，让你们的才华得以施展。”
在同一场活动的另一个环节，特朗普提到了他去年通过的大型国内议程法案——他常称之为“超级美好法案”，以及该法案为企业主提供的关键税收减免。
特朗普随后谈到，在他的第一任期内，一位富商朋友买了一架飞机却从未使用，只是为了利用这种税收减免。
“我常说，这就是我第一任期如此成功的原因，”特朗普说，“因为，我是说，人们会买一些东西——我有个朋友买了架飞机，他从未用过。他买它只是为了‘我可以扣除这笔费用’。”
“实际上，买这样的飞机会很棒，因为他永远不会用它，”特朗普继续说道。
[图片链接]
特朗普政府成员和其他与会者聆听美国总统唐纳德·特朗普在瑞士达沃斯第56届世界经济论坛上的讲话。
（乔纳森·恩斯特/路透社）吹嘘自己与富人的关系，以及在经济强劲时如何减轻他们的税负，这是一回事。但当前经济最大的问题之一是其“K型分化”——即对富人来说经济状况极好，而对普通民众来说却并非如此。
事实上，乐施会本月发布的年度不平等报告显示，去年亿万富翁的财富增长速度是过去五年平均水平的三倍。
米勒的帖子指出了这里的政治风险。
就在上周一项新的CNN民调显示约70%的美国人认为经济“糟糕”之际，特朗普却在精英聚会上大谈自己对这种K型经济上层群体的贡献。这实在是完全脱离现实。
[图片链接]
[相关文章] 纽森在达沃斯嘲讽特朗普后，其一场露面活动被阻止 （4分钟阅读）这并非唯一可能激怒关注钱包问题的美国人的不妥言论。在经济问题日益严峻的背景下，特朗普及其内阁（恰好由亿万富翁组成）发表了一系列此类言论。
特朗普的言论发表前一天，财政部长斯科特·贝森特刚刚谈到政府禁止机构投资者购买单户住宅的想法。
一些美国人认为大型机构投资者推高了住房成本。贝森特试图向民众保证此举不会伤害“小投资者”。但他对“小投资者”的定义引发了质疑。
“比如，可能是你的父母为退休买了5套、10套、12套房子，”贝森特对福克斯商业频道的玛丽亚·巴蒂罗莫说，“所以，我们不想把‘小投资者’赶走，我们只是想把其他人都赶走。”
这听起来像是普通退休人员拥有5到12套房产。
纽森转发了贝森特的言论并问道：“这个沾沾自喜的人还能再脱离现实吗？”贝森特周三回击称，这位民主党州长“可能是唯一一位比卡玛拉·哈里斯更不懂经济学的加州人”。
在过去一年里，政府还发表了一系列关于美国人如何应对经济困难的尴尬言论。特朗普曾说人们可以少买些玩具和铅笔。
更近期，农业部长布鲁克·罗林斯表示，美国人可以负担起一顿3美元的优质餐食，其中包括“一片西兰花”。
2026年大选预计将广泛围绕经济展开，而特朗普团队则为民主党人提供了大量素材，将其描绘成脱离现实的群体。
Trump revels in Davos about making the rich even richer
Analysis by Aaron Blake
15 hr ago
PUBLISHED Jan 21, 2026, 4:54 PM EThttps://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/ap26021534626459.jpg
President Donald Trump addresses the audience during the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday.Evan Vucci/AP
After it was announced that California Gov. Gavin Newsom would share his views on President Donald Trump at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, this week, MAGA influencer Katie Miller derided the Democrat for his presence at the event frequented by wealthy businessmen.
“Of course Gavin Newsom is going to Davos,” Miller, who is married to top White House adviser Stephen Miller, posted Monday on X. “Nothing quite says America First like commiserating to the crowd of the World’s Elites.”
But what’s transpired over the last couple of days hasn’t exactly driven home her point in the way she might have envisioned.
Newsom has spent his time urging the elites at Davos to stand up more strongly to Trump. And it’s Trump who’s been rubbing elbows with the wealthy and taking no shame in talking about his ties to rich people and his efforts to make them even richer.
Even as Americans struggle with what they overwhelmingly view as a stagnant economy, the president seemed to revel Wednesday in how good his policies have been for the wealthy.
He made a series of such comments during a reception with CEOs.
“So I think in terms of your investments, you’re in great shape,” Trump told the crowd. “I don’t even ask anybody how you’re doing now. It’s like everybody is making so much money.”
[Related article https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/ap26021496691572.jpg President Donald Trump speaks during the 56th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, WEF, in Davos, Switzerland, Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2026. Laurent Gillieron/Keystone/AP Five takeaways from Trump’s antagonistic speech in Davos 7 min read]
Trump said he often goes around giving congratulations to business leaders.
“They say, on what?” Trump said. “I said, ‘you’ve doubled your net worth since I’ve been president, right?’ He said, ‘Yeah, even more than that.’ They would say, ‘Even more. We’re doing even better than that.’ And we’ve given you platform where you can put your genius to work.”
At another point at the same event, Trump pointed to his big domestic agenda bill – which he often called the “Big Beautiful Bill” – that passed last year and a key tax deduction it gave business owners.
Trump then riffed about how, in his first term, one wealthy friend bought an airplane they didn’t even use because they wanted to use such a deduction.
“I always said, that’s what made my first term so successful,” Trump said. “Because, I mean, people were buying things that – I have a friend who bought an airplane, he never used it. He just bought it. He said, ‘I get a – I deducted it.’
“It’d be a great plane to buy, actually, because he’ll never use it,” Trump continued.
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/c-2026-01-21t142856z-858037652-rc2p5ja7wf5e-rtrmadp-3-davos-meeting-trump.jpg
Members of the Trump administration and other attendees listen to U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks during the 56th annual World Economic Forum (WEF), in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednessday.Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
It’s one thing to boast about your ties to rich people and how they reduce their tax burden in good times, when a strong economy is lifting all boats. But one of the biggest problems with the current economy is how “K-shaped” it is – i.e. it’s great for the wealthy but not nearly so much for the rest of the country.
Indeed, Oxfam’s recent annual inequality report this month showed billionaires’ wealth grew three times faster last year than they had averaged over the previous five years.
And Miller’s post points to the political risks here.
Even as about 7 in 10 Americans viewed the economy as “poor” in last week’s new CNN poll, here was Trump at a gathering of elites talking about how good he’s been for the upper part of that K-shaped economy. That’s pretty tone-deaf.
[Related article https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/collins-newsom-world-forum.jpg CNN After Newsom trolls Trump in Davos, one of his appearances is blocked 4 min read]
And it’s hardly the only example of an unadvisable comment that might irk Americans concerned about their pocketbooks. Amid the economic problems, Trump and his Cabinet – which happens to be stocked with billionaires – have made a series of these kinds of remarks.
Trump’s comments came just a day after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent spoke about the administration’s idea to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes.
Some Americans believe big, institutional investors have driven up housing costs. Bessent sought to assure this move wouldn’t hurt “mom and pop” investors. But his definition of “mom and pop” investors raised some eyebrows.
“Someone, maybe your parents for their retirement,” Bessent told Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo, “bought five, 10, 12 homes. So, we don’t want to push the mom and pops out. We just want to push everyone else out.”
Just your average retiree, owning anywhere from five to a dozen homes.
Newsom promoted the clip of Bessent, asking, “Could this smug man be more out of touch?” Bessent shot back Wednesday that the Democratic governor “may be the only Californian who knows less about economics than Kamala Harris.”
And over the course of the last year, the administration has made a series of awkward comments about how Americans could navigate economic difficulties. Trump talked about simply buying fewer dolls and pencils.
More recently, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said Americans can afford a $3 meal of quality food that includes “a piece of broccoli.”
The 2026 election figures to focus extensively on the economy, and the Trump team is giving Democrats plenty to work with in painting them as out of touch.
-
新闻
好的，请提供需要翻译的英文新闻文章，我将按照要求进行精准翻译。
No English content available
-
特朗普宣布与北约秘书长达成格陵兰”框架协议” 鲁特否认讨论美军控制格陵兰岛
在唐纳德·特朗普总统宣布已与北约秘书长马克·鲁特达成一项新的格陵兰”框架协议”后，这位北约最高领导人告诉福克斯新闻的《与布雷特·拜尔的特别报道》节目，在瑞士举行的世界经济论坛期间，他与特朗普的会谈中并未讨论美国强行从丹麦控制格陵兰岛的问题。
“在我与总统先生的谈话中，那个问题根本没有被提及。他非常关注我们需要做些什么来确保那个巨大的北极地区——目前正在发生变化，中国和俄罗斯在那里越来越活跃——我们如何保护它，”鲁特在被追问据报道已达成的”框架协议”细节时表示。
特朗普称，这项协议导致他决定不实施原定于2月1日生效的关税。
“那确实是我们讨论的重点，”鲁特坚持说。
本周在世界经济论坛期间，特朗普周三下午在他的社交媒体平台”真实社交”上宣布了与格陵兰的新”框架协议”。
“基于我与北约秘书长马克·鲁特的非常富有成效的会面，我们已经形成了一项关于格陵兰以及整个北极地区未来协议的框架，”总统写道。”基于这种理解，我不会对原定于2月1日生效的关税施加影响。目前正在就格陵兰的‘黄金穹顶’（注：此处为原文特定表述）进行进一步讨论。随着讨论的进展，更多信息将公布。”
特朗普指出，副总统JD·万斯、国务卿马尔科·卢比奥和特使史蒂夫·维特科夫将领导”谈判”并直接向他汇报。
“坦率地说，如果我不决定动用我们无法阻挡的过度力量，我们可能什么也得不到。但我不会那样做，”特朗普在世界经济论坛当天上午早些时候表示。”现在所有人都说，‘哦，太好了。’这可能是我发表的最重要的声明，因为人们认为我会使用武力。我不必使用武力，我不想使用武力，我不会使用武力。”
在接受福克斯新闻独家采访时，鲁特称特朗普关于需要加强北极地区安全的观点”完全正确”，并指出俄罗斯或中国在该地区构成威胁的可能性正与日俱增。北约秘书长还称赞特朗普的领导力，使其他北约国家为联盟的防御支付更多资金。
“今晚我将在这个节目中与你辩论，正是他把整个欧洲和加拿大提高到了著名的5%国防开支目标，”鲁特坚持说，”这对我们平衡开支以及保护自己至关重要。而这就是他在帖子中提到的我们将着手推进的框架。”
鲁特还指出，北约成员国、俄罗斯和中国之间日益增加的摩擦凸显了加强北极地区安全的必要性。
当被问及他是否认为其他国家与俄罗斯和中国的相处方式与过去不同时，鲁特回应称：
“我无权评论个别盟友与中国的关系。我认为，作为北约，我们有一个集体立场。这个立场是，我们不应该天真。我可以告诉你们，中国在军事上的巨额投资将让你们后悔。它们不是用来在北京组织游行的，俄罗斯的军队也不是用来在莫斯科组织游行的。它们是用来被使用的。”
After President Donald Trump announced a new Greenland “framework” had been agreed upon with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the NATO chief told Fox News’ “Special Report with Bret Baier” the U.S. forcibly taking control of Greenland from Denmark was not discussed during meetings between him and Trump in Switzerland during the World Economic Forum.
“That issue did not come up anymore in my conversations with Mr. President. He’s very much focused on what we need to do to make sure that that huge Arctic region, where change is taking place at the moment, where the Chinese and Russians are more and more active, how we can protect that,” Rutte said when pressed on the details of the reported “framework” that has been agreed upon.
Trump said the agreement resulted in his decision not to impose tariffs scheduled to go into effect Feb. 1.
“That was really the focus of our discussions,” Rutte insisted.
Trump announced the new “framework” for Greenland in a post on his social media site Truth Social Wednesday afternoon while at the World Economic Forum this week.
“Based upon a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region,” the president wrote. “Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st. Additional discussions are being held concerning The Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress.”
Trump noted that Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff will lead “the negotiations” and report directly to him.
“We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won’t do that,” Trump said earlier in the morning at the World Economic Forum. “Now everyone’s saying, ‘Oh, good.’ That’s probably the biggest statement I made because people thought I would use force. I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.”
During the exclusive interview with Fox News, Rutte called Trump “totally right” about needing to shore up security in the Arctic region, noting that the chance of Russia or China becoming a threat in that region is increasing every day. The NATO Secretary General also praised Trump’s leadership in getting other NATO countries to pay more money for the alliance’s defenses.
“I would argue tonight with you on this program he was the one who brought a whole of Europe and Canada up to this famous 5%,” Rutte insisted, “which is crucial for us to equalize our spending, but also protect ourselves. And this is the framework which you see in his post that we will work on.”
Rutte also noted that increased volatility between NATO-aligned countries, Russia and China underscored the need to shore up security in the Arctic region.
The NATO chief was asked whether he thought other countries were dealing with the Russians and the Chinese differently than they have in the past.
“It’s not up to me to comment on what individual allies are doing in terms of their relationship with China,” Rutte responded. “I think collectively, as NATO, we have a position. The position is that we should not be naive. I can tell you’ll regret these huge investments the Chinese are making in the military. They are not there to organize parades in Beijing, and the military in Russia are not there to organize parades in Moscow. They are there to be used.”