分类： 未分类

政府补贴压低能源成本 日本5月核心通胀维持稳定

2026年6月19日 19:01 / 联合早报

日本5月份核心消费者价格同比上涨1.4%。图为东京池袋区的烤肉店。 （彭博社）

日本5月份核心通货膨胀指标持稳，部分原因是政府补贴压低了能源成本。日本央行仍有望在今年晚些时候再次加息。

日本总务省星期五（6月19日）公布，剔除生鲜食品的核心消费者价格同比上涨1.4%，符合经济学家预期。进一步剔除能源的消费者价格同比上涨1.8%，也符合经济学家的预估中值。

彭博社引述最新的数据说，日本政府有效降低了中东能源危机对生活费的影响。高市早苗政府近期推出追加预算，将有助于在未来几个月继续缓冲中东冲突对家庭的影响。日本政府还采取措施降低育儿成本。

尽管美国和伊朗的临时和平协议已经生效，但油价仍处高位。能源交易员指出，经由霍尔木兹海峡运输的石油和液化天然气规模可能需要数月甚至更久才能恢复正常。

中国据报正加强AI关键金属铟出口审查

2026年6月19日 16:03 / 联合早报

中国据报正加强AI关键金属铟出口审查

中国的铟产量占全球近70%，是建造下一代人工智能（AI）数据中心亟需的关键小众金属。 （路透社档案照片）

中国正加强对铟（Indium）出口的审查，此举引发市场担忧，这种下一代人工智能（AI）数据中心亟需的关键小众金属，可能被纳入北京出口管制体系。

据路透社报道，中国的铟产量占全球近70%。作为锌精炼过程的副产品，铟不仅常用于显示面板和焊料，也是制造磷化铟的重要原材料。磷化铟被广泛用于制造AI数据中心所需的高速光通信晶片。

中国在2025年2月将磷化铟列入出口管制清单。这项限制措施促使美国晶片制造商相干公司（Coherent）首席执行官，在今年5月随同美国总统特朗普访华时，专门提出这一问题。

尽管铟目前尚未被北京列入出口管制清单，但两名买家向路透社透露，中国海关对采购行为的审查日益严格。今年，一名欧洲买家首次被要求披露最终用户信息，包括用户具体所在的地点。

一家北美大型买家表示，清关审批时间已从原来的“当天放行”延长至“数天”。该买家将此归因于中国海关对文书的审查趋严，并形容当前局面令人“紧张”。不过，这名买家没有被海关要求提供额外信息。

这种额外的尽职调查并非一视同仁。另外两名买家告诉路透社，尽管他们听说审查变得更严，但他们尚未遭遇这类情况。截至目前，路透社尚未发现任何相关货物被拦截的案例。

目前，铟已被视为美国供应链中的一个潜在脆弱节点。今年早些时候，美国国防后勤局发布了一份采购提案，计划在三年内储备高达403吨的铟材料。

另一名北美买家坦言，怀疑当前的申报要求可能是“未来实施出口限制乃至全面禁令的前兆”。

Analysis: What the missing center has meant for the Supreme Court

2026-06-19T08:00:25.508Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/19/politics/analysis-supreme-court-missing-center

For over 50 years, conservative centrists like Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy anchored the Supreme Court.

Today’s court lacks a pragmatic middle, leading to landmark reversals and heightened tensions among justices.

Recent voting rights rulings during midterm primaries demonstrate how the absence of a center reshapes American law.

AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.

For more than a half century, the Supreme Court was anchored by a series of conservative centrists who controlled the most anticipated end-of-term rulings in June, pragmatic justices like Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy.

O’Connor, a former state senator with keen political instincts, also created a social glue by encouraging lunch together after oral arguments, arranging bridge parties and occasionally organizing trips to meet with foreign judges. She believed in keeping the justices together even when they feuded on the law.

Today’s justices are ruptured in multiple ways, most importantly in their intractable views. They are split 6-3 along ideological lines, and even within the six-justice conservative bloc, the justices divide over how far to upset precedent and roll back past cases.

A particularly defining characteristic of today’s bench is the absence of a pragmatic middle. The consequences have been building for years, but they have crystallized both in recent decisions and the way the justices are working together.

The Louisiana and Alabama voting-rights cases this spring that make it nearly impossible to remedy intentional race discrimination in redistricting demonstrate the historic change underway.

Those rulings did more than topple legal precedents. Coming in the middle of the country’s current midterm primaries-cycle, they have disrupted electoral practices across the country in a way that mostly benefits Republicans.

They fit a pattern that, along with reversal of Roe v. Wade and the end of racial affirmative action in higher education, reflects a mindset the opposite of the pragmatic considerations Kennedy, O’Connor, and before them, Justice Lewis Powell, held. All three were appointed by Republican presidents.

When O’Connor and Kennedy voted in 1992 to preserve the 1973 right to abortion in Roe, they said they could not dismiss the cost of reversal to “ people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case.”

They cast the court’s dilemma in broader societal terms: “Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”

A decade earlier, when Powell cast the key fifth vote to ensure a right to public education for children of undocumented immigrants, he wrote, “It hardly can be argued rationally that anyone benefits from the creation within our borders of a subclass of illiterate persons.”

Unlike today’s majority under Chief Justice John Roberts, neither Powell, nor O’Connor and Kennedy, set out to wholly remake the country’s laws.

“Both Justices Kennedy and O’Connor cared about what the country as a whole thought about the court,” said University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman, a former Kennedy clerk. “They provided a middle to the court because they cared about the middle, median views in the country and didn’t want the Supreme Court to stray too far from that. And rightfully so – it doesn’t work to have an apex, unelected court that’s catering to a smaller and smaller minority section of the country.”

The disappearance of a constructive center likely contributes to the current testiness in written opinions and apparent difficulties in resolving cases. With about 10 days to go in the current 2025-26 session, the justices have 17 cases left, several concerning the boundaries of President Donald Trump’s power.

The disputes involve Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship, defying the 14th Amendment guarantee that anyone born on US soil is automatically a US citizen, and Trump’s effort to fire the heads of independent agencies, specifically at the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve. Roberts has in past cases sought to expand presidential power over executive agencies such as the FTC, putting him in sync with Trump.

“I thought there was an institutional pragmatism to Roberts,” said Georgetown University law professor Brad Snyder, “but I kind of had on rose-colored glasses.”

Snyder pointed to the Louisiana decision in April that dramatically curtailed voting rights and the 2024 opinion that gave Trump significant immunity from prosecution as he was running for reelection and still faced charges of election subversion from 2020.

Both decisions reinforced the public perception that the justices are, as Snyder put it, “politicians in robes, an idea that Roberts has otherwise worked hard to dispel.”

As the third appointee of Trump’s first term, Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the catalyst for the transformed court, having succeeded the late liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg in October 2020. That meant, for the first time in modern history, the court had a six-justice conservative supermajority.

The consequence was not merely a one-vote difference, between five and six, on the right. The spare vote for what’s needed to produce a majority emboldened conservatives, as seen in the successive reversals of milestone rulings on abortion rights, in 2022; college affirmative action, in 2023; and the redistricting overhaul this year.

In between, by the familiar 6-3 split, the justices in 2024 enhanced presidential immunity and in 2025 declared that federal judges lack authority to issue universal injunctions to block presidential policies.

Equally important: Because it takes four votes even to grant a case (as opposed to five to decide it), the three Democratic-appointed liberals now need at least one of the Republican-appointed conservatives to join them to even grant a hearing for an appeal.

The 5-4, conservative-liberal split that defined the court in the decades before 2020 was more fluid. To be sure, O’Connor (who served from 1981-2006) and Kennedy (1988-2018) were conservatives. They joined their right-wing colleagues in the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, giving Texas Republican Governor George W. Bush the White House over Democratic Vice President Al Gore in the middle of a disputed Florida vote count. Separately, Kennedy was solidly with the conservatives as he wrote the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision of 2010 that led to more corporate money in election campaigns.

But O’Connor and Kennedy also voted to retain decades-old reproductive rights and regularly sought a middle ground, for example, in tests of the separation of church and state.

Kennedy also wrote the decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide and kept open the possibility that federal judges could block extreme partisan gerrymanders. In 2019, the year after he left the bench, the court ruled 5-4 that federal judges lack the authority to decide if politicians went too far in drawing district lines to protect partisans.

Kavanaugh and Barrett transform the court

The changes that brought the country to this moment began in 2018, when Justice Brett Kavanaugh – another former Kennedy clerk – succeeded Kennedy, and, in 2020, the appointment of Barrett. Because of the long history of a pragmatic center, Supreme Court scholars watched in the early years to see if either of them or another justice filled the void.

“There were those of us who thought Barrett might play that role,” said Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus. “To a small degree she has, but she is not pivotal the way Powell, O’Connor or Kennedy were through the years.”

Barrett, like Roberts, has occasionally sided with the left in select cases. But her motivation is rooted in her textualist methodology and desire for narrow results, rather than the pragmatism that dates back at least to Powell (who served from 1972-1987).

As she has been promoting her book in recent months, Barrett has explained her legal approach and the “limits of my role.” On law school campuses and at other public appearances, she has contrasted her focus on the precise text of a law to “having pragmatism be your guide” or using “just your sense of justice in resolving cases.”

She did not join the majority in the most aggressive part of the Trump v. US decision. She also dissented, in a separate 2024 case, from the majority view that government prosecutors exceeded the bounds of an obstruction statute as they charged people involved in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

Still, Barrett was fully with the majority to reverse a half century of abortion rights in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center Organization. Roberts, who was a sixth vote to limit reproductive rights, separated himself from the majority that toppled Roe v. Wade. Roberts wanted to restrict Roe but retain some protection for a woman’s right to end a pregnancy.

The most consistent members of the far right are Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Thomas, who has served since 1991, decried in an April speech people who “recast themselves as institutionalists, pragmatists, or thoughtful moderates, all as a way of justifying their failures to themselves, their consciences, and their country.”

Solidly on the left wing are Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Tensions between the current right and left blocs have been boiling. In May, after the conservative majority voted to speed up the release of an order tied to their Louisiana voting-rights decision, dissenting Justice Jackson said the majority was trying to influence elections in the state. Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, called Jackson’s opinion “baseless and insulting.”

University of Chicago law professor Aziz Huq traces the current tensions to the 2022 early leak of the Dobbs opinion reversing Roe v. Wade. “Ever since the leak of the Dobbs opinion, I think we’ve seen public evidence of frictions amounting to more distrust than is normally the case among the justices.”

Shortly after the leak, Thomas lamented an absence of the collegiality he experienced with former Chief Justice William Rehnquist and O’Connor, who cajoled all the justices into eating lunch together and had a reputation for keeping the conversation around the table going.

https://www.cnn.com/

Justice Clarence Thomas speaks out after Roe v. Wade draft leak

1:07 • Source: CNN

In the era leading up to Rehnquist’s 2005 death and O’Connor’s 2006 retirement, Thomas recalled the justices “actually trusted” each other.

“We might have been a dysfunctional family, but we were a family. … You laughed together. You went to lunch together every day.”

The court still holds a private lunch after the daily oral arguments. It’s just that it’s easier to skip these days.

What’s missing from the Epstein files? Questions persist about unexplained redactions, missing documents, email gaps

2026-06-19T06:02:30-0400 / https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epstein-files-whats-missing/

When the Department of Justice released more than 3 million pages of documents under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, survivors, advocates and lawmakers quickly raised questions about an apparent discrepancy: the DOJ had said it collected more than 6 million pages of material during its investigation but was only releasing half that number.

The Justice Department tells CBS News it “has released every document required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act,” and maintains that those unreleased 3 million documents were either duplicative, unrelated to Epstein or protected by legal privilege.

But concerns persist about evidence that important documents are still being withheld. At the same time, the Government Accountability Office recently announced it was launching an investigation into the way documents that were released had information blacked out. That move comes at the request of several members of Congress.

Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, says that if there are duplicates, “OK, that’s fine, let’s see them.” He adds, “I think what people need to understand is … we’re not sure what’s in the 3 million.”

CBS News has analyzed the archive not only for what has been disclosed, but also for documents that appear to be absent. Despite the unprecedented volume of material now available, it’s apparent that many gaps remain in the public record surrounding Epstein’s activities, his communication, the federal investigations into him and the circumstances surrounding his death behind bars.

Our review identified several areas where important questions remain unanswered or documents appear to remain unreleased.

Redaction issues

The Epstein Files Transparency Act provides only limited grounds for withholding information or redacting names. Its primary purpose is to protect victims. The bill specifically excluded “reputational harm, or political sensitivity” as a reason for redacting. Yet in many instances prominent individuals’ names were redacted while victims’ names were not.

Some redactions seem difficult to justify. In one example, a text where Epstein sent Steve Bannon a link to an article, Bannon’s face was blacked out in a photo that had already been publicly posted online.

The DOJ redacted a photo of Steve Bannon in the Epstein files. U.S. Department of Justice

Elsewhere, the names of business contacts and acquaintances of Epstein appear to have been redacted without an obvious reason under the terms of the law.

Many emails contained in the Epstein files had senders’ or recipients’ names redacted. U.S. Department of Justice

In another widely cited example, a 2002 email with the signoff “Love, Melania” had the full name and email of the sender and receiver redacted. In April, first lady Melania Trump acknowledged having exchanged emails with Ghislaine Maxwell, saying in a statement that it “cannot be categorized as anything more than casual correspondence. My polite reply to her email doesn’t amount to anything more than a trivial note.”

A 2002 email in the Epstein files signed “Love, Melania,” with the sender’s and receiver’s names redacted. U.S. Department of Justice

The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires the DOJ to provide a justification for every redaction. It permits withholding information that “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” but also states that all redactions must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress. The Department of Justice has made no attempt to address specific redactions and instead issued a general statement saying its redactions were “[c]onsistent with the Act.”

Members of Congress have been given the opportunity to review redacted material, but the process is time consuming and some have complained their searches are being monitored by the DOJ.

After CBS News reached out to the DOJ for comment on these redactions, the photo of Bannon and two of the emails were quietly un-redacted. After one of those was un-redacted, it revealed the sender was former U.K. diplomat Peter Mandelson, who was arrested earlier this year on suspicion of mishandling sensitive government documents, which BBC News reports he denies. Mandelson has said he regrets his friendship with Epstein and says he never witnessed criminal activity.

After CBS News reached out to the DOJ, the name on this email from former British diplomat Peter Mandelson to Jeffrey Epstein was un-redacted. U.S. Department of Justice

A gap in email communications

The DOJ released millions of Epstein’s emails. Nearly all originate from an email account he created around the time he went to jail in 2008: jeevacation@gmail.com.

Missing from the Epstein files are emails from his other, earlier accounts, including approximately 20,000 messages from Epstein’s jeeproject@yahoo.com account, which were previously obtained by hackers and later archived by the nonprofit Distributed Denial of Secrets. It’s unclear if the DOJ itself ever obtained those emails.

Some older email messages do appear in records apparently obtained from Ghislaine Maxwell’s accounts or other sources, but the DOJ’s release is missing most of Epstein’s earliest communications.

However, a batch of documents raises questions about what the DOJ does have; a series of screengrab images of Epstein’s inbox for an email account littlestjeff@yahoo.com (a reference to his island, Little St. James) from the early 2000s — notably a period of time when Epstein was in touch with Donald Trump, whom he knew through New York and Palm Beach social circles. The sender and recipient fields on those records are heavily redacted. Mr. Trump has repeatedly claimed he has never used email, but those communications could potentially have references to Epstein’s relationship with Mr. Trump and others. This was also the period in which Epstein was found to have been recruiting underage girls for sexual massages, and would likely have been of high interest to investigators.

Mr. Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.

Despite the DOJ apparently having access to Epstein’s inbox, only a handful of emails from that account were included in the release.

Internal FBI communications

The release includes a substantial amount of internal DOJ and FBI correspondence. The names of many DOJ and FBI officials involved in those communications have been redacted, making it difficult to reconstruct who was responsible for key investigative actions.

An email in the Epstein files with names of FBI officials redacted. U.S. Department of Justice

Missing email attachments

Numerous emails in the archive reference attached documents that do not appear to have been included in the release.

One example concerns the theft of approximately 30 firearms from Epstein’s Zorro Ranch property in New Mexico. In August 2018, an employee emailed Epstein a file titled “ZMC-_Gun_Inventory.pdf,”_ which contained information about the weapons, including their serial numbers. According to a New Mexico State Police report obtained by CBS News, those serial numbers were withheld from investigators during the theft investigation. CBS News was unable to locate any document containing firearm serial numbers in the released archive.

Even where attachments may have been released, linking them back to the emails from which they originated is nearly impossible; the DOJ replaced original file names with its own document numbering system, making it difficult to determine whether such attachments were included elsewhere in the archive, or which email a file may have been originally attached to.

The DEA investigation

One notable document in the files is a 69-page report produced by the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Fusion Center identifying Epstein and 14 others as targets of a DEA investigation into alleged money laundering connected to ecstasy or ketamine trafficking.

An investigation of that scope would likely have generated substantial records, including investigative reports, emails and financial analyses. None of that material was released.

Jeffrey Epstein, at right, and the cover page of a 2015 Drug Enforcement Administration memo listing him as one of 15 people targeted in an investigation. Document released by Department of Justice

The DEA denied CBS News’ requests for related records under the Freedom of Information Act and also declined a request from Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden seeking additional information about the investigation, the senator’s office told CBS News.

Other agencies and investigations

Previous reporting by the Washington Post revealed that Epstein had been named in an investigation in the 1990s into Towers Financial, a notorious Ponzi scheme, but was never charged. Documents related to that investigation were not included in the release despite it having been conducted by the DOJ.

One notable limitation of the law requiring the Epstein files’ release is that it only applies to the DOJ. Other agencies may have documents relating to Epstein that they have not released.

The document about the DEA investigation revealed three separate Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigations, two of which had already been closed by the time of the 2015 report and one that was listed as pending. But ICE, which falls under the Department of Homeland Security, is not covered by the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Neither are other government agencies including the State Department, Treasury Department, CIA or NSA, which may have collected material on Epstein over the past several decades. (With his global network of political and business contacts, Epstein himself wondered if U.S. intelligence had files on him.)

Index issues

CBS News spent weeks analyzing indexes of files provided to Ghislaine Maxwell by the DOJ during her criminal case. This same index had been used previously by media outlets to identify three missing FBI interview records, known as 302s, in which agents documented what they were told by Epstein accusers who made claims about Mr. Trump.

This index used a Bates numbering — a common legal document indexing system — to catalog records. More than 70% of the roughly 5,000 documents listed in the index could not be located through searches of the released archive using their assigned document numbers, according to a CBS News analysis.

The DOJ told CBS News that many of the missing entries may have been identified as duplicates, and therefore were excluded from publication. Using contextual clues, including witness interview dates and document descriptions, some files could be located elsewhere, but for many that was not possible.

One example involves an individual named Joseph Alvarez, also known as “Gypsy Gita.” Gita had previously reportedly been named by one Epstein survivor as someone who introduced her to Ghislaine Maxwell. Alvarez died in 2021.

The Epstein files include these photos related to Joseph Alvarez, also known as “Gypsy Gita.” U.S. Department of Justice

CBS News was unable to locate four of eight documents associated with Alvarez in the index. Of the documents that were present, one was a picture of Alvarez with Mr. Trump, one was Alvarez’ business card and two were photographs of large bags of cash. The four missing documents were listed as “alvarez asset report,” “alvarez law enforcement report,” “alvarez contact card report” and “screenshot of [redacted] facebook.” It’s unclear from the documents why these photos were included in the case files.

Massage scheduling communications

One of the most conspicuous absences is communication relating to the scheduling of massages in the years prior to Epstein’s death.

Epstein was known to have multiple massages each day, a practice that he used as a mechanism for recruiting and exploiting young women and girls. When authorities searched his Palm Beach residence in 2005, investigators found hundreds of messages from women and girls that they said referred to the scheduling of massage appointments.

A few of the notes from the Epstein files about scheduling massages. U.S. Department of Justice / Names and phone numbers redacted by CBS News

Yet the released archive contains little correspondence about how appointments were arranged after his release from jail in 2009.

Signal messages

Epstein frequently encouraged associates to communicate using the encrypted messaging app Signal.

No Signal messages have been included in the release; it is possible that investigators were unable to obtain them.

Among those who apparently used Signal to communicate with Epstein were technology investor Peter Thiel and real estate investor Thomas Barrack. Barrack, a longtime friend of Mr. Trump, is now U.S. ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Iraq. Both Thiel and Barrack were involved in Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. They have not been accused of any wrongdoing in the Epstein case.

Suspicious activity reports

Suspicious activity reports, which document millions of dollars in transactions made by Epstein that were flagged by financial institutions, were released, retracted and then re-released in an entirely redacted form. They originated from the Treasury Department but were used in the DOJ’s investigation of Epstein’s and Maxwell’s crimes.

At left, a suspicious activity report on Epstein’s financial transactions. At right, the DOJ took the form down and then re-released it with the contents entirely redacted. U.S. Department of Justice

Prison videos

One document from the Epstein files revealed that the DOJ had footage from 147 cameras from the Metropolitan Correctional Center covering a 24-hour period before and after Epstein died, totaling over 8 terabytes of data. The internal documents indicate that the footage does not reveal anything significant “since the cameras in the Special Housing Unit … were not active at the time.” Even so, by law, those videos should have been released.

Also missing are videos from July 23, 2019, the night Epstein apparently first tried to take his life.

Lawsuits and hearings

The independent journalist Katie Phang is currently suing the Department of Justice to force it to provide justifications for many of the redactions and release additional documents. According to former Attorney General Pam Bondi, her deputy and now Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was responsible for handling the redaction and release of the Epstein files.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has requested that Blanche appear before the committee and answer questions about that process.

Trump’s arch — or any federal building — can flout D.C. height law, administration argues

June 19, 2026 / The Washington Post

Critics say the administration is sidestepping a law that has shaped Washington’s skyline for more than a century.

A model of the proposed 250-foot arch. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)

By Dan Diamond

The Trump administration is arguing that new federal construction projects — including President Donald Trump’s controversial 250-foot arch — are not subject to a federal law that restricts most construction in Washington to a maximum height of 130 feet.

An Interior Department memo posted Thursday offers a new interpretation of the Height of Buildings Act, which was enacted in 1910 to preserve the capital city’s historical views and character. The law has traditionally been applied to federal projects, helping preserve Washington’s distinctive skyline.

But in its memo, the Interior Department writes that the Height Act should be considered a local zoning law, mostly focused on private property, with exemptions for federal construction. The memo, which was posted ahead of a federal commission’s hearing on the arch next month, cites a series of statutes and zoning provisions.

“In sum, federal buildings are not subject to the [Height of Buildings Act],” the memo concludes.

That interpretation would reverse a long-held stance by the National Capital Planning Commission, which is considering whether to approve Trump’s project.

The administration’s new stance also would allow Trump — who has built skyscrapers across the world — to build any tall federal structure in Washington, too.

The Interior Department did not respond to questions Thursday about who authored the memo and whether Trump is planning any additional large projects for Washington.

“Great nations build beautiful structures and works of art that cultivate national pride and love of country. In this tradition, Secretary [Doug] Burgum is thrilled to champion the United States triumphal arch which will be a project that all Americans can be proud of,” the department said in a statement.

Historians, architects and Democrats have said that the Height Act would apply to the president’s arch and that there is no special exemption for federal buildings.

“Congress, not the Executive, decided in 1910 that Washington would remain a horizontal city, and Congress has preserved that judgment ever since,” congressional Democrats wrote to Burgum on Tuesday, warning him against building the arch.

Will Scharf, the Trump-appointed head of the National Capital Planning Commission, had requested the Interior Department memo as part of the commission’s review of Trump’s arch. Scharf had argued earlier this month that the Height Act should not apply to Trump’s arch.

The planning commission, which Trump has packed with allies, is set to review and potentially approve the arch at a July 9 meeting.

Career staff on the commission, which Congress charged with reviewing and approving new federal construction, have questioned how Trump’s arch would comply with the Height Act.

“NCPC has always applied the Height of Buildings Act to federal projects,” the commission’s staff wrote in a report reviewing the arch proposal.

Most Americans oppose the planned arch, with 52 percent against it and 21 percent in favor, according to a Washington Post-ABC-Ipsos poll conducted in April. The project is also facing a lawsuit brought by several military veterans who say the towering structure would alter their visiting experience to nearby Arlington National Cemetery.

分析：伊朗把握中东地缘优势 美国难挽谈判劣势

2026年6月19日 19:54 / 联合早报 冯嘉年

AI摘要

• 美伊签署14点停战备忘录，内容明显倾向伊朗，美方军事施压未奏效。
• 伊朗以恢复霍尔木兹海峡通行为筹码，换取制裁解除、资产解冻及3000亿美元重建资金，核计划与导弹问题暂不处理。
• 学者指伊朗掌握地缘优势，战后地位未损反升，波斯湾邻国须调整对伊策略。
• 以黎持续交火成协议最大考验，美伊互信薄弱，未来60天谈判充满变数。
• 重建资金或被用于军备而非民生，需设保障机制但执行难度大。

本摘要由AI辅助生成，仅供参考

美伊签署停战谅解备忘录后，两国将展开后续谈判，预计地点是瑞士卢塞恩湖畔的比尔根山度假山庄 （图）。6月18日，山庄外可见安保人员站岗。 （路透社）

美国和伊朗终于签署了停战谅解备忘录，但专家学者普遍认为这一份协议一面倒对伊朗有利。受访学者认为，几个月的战事至此显示美国的军事大棒不仅无效，还受制于霍尔木兹海峡封闭，美方在接下来的谈判中能否扳回局面并不明朗；相反地，德黑兰政权经历战火仍屹立不倒，更摆出不惜再战的强硬态势，对于未来中东地缘政治的形塑握有优势。

美伊星期三（6月17日）公开的14点谅解备忘录显示，伊朗同意让霍尔木兹海峡恢复通行，有望换取美国撤销制裁、解冻资产，甚至获得各方出资3000亿美元重建国家经济；有关伊朗核计划的处理则延后谈判，对伊朗的弹道导弹更是只字未提。

南洋理工大学拉惹勒南国际研究院兼任高级研究员多西（James M. Dorsey）直言，德黑兰要的都得到了，特朗普只得到他本来就有的。“尽管伊朗付出了惨痛代价，但终究是赢了。”

多西接受《联合早报》访问时说：“虽然当中很多条款在落实时会引发争议，不过霍尔木兹海峡在战前是开放的，如今已不会完全恢复至战前状态。伊朗正在跟阿曼探讨管理框架，并可能与其他波斯湾国家达成共识，这让它掌握巨大优势。”

新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院副院长曼奇尼副教授（Francesco Mancini）也指出，谅解备忘录的文本对伊朗向全球海运征收某种形式的费用保持开放，“这虽不会带来显著的经济利益，但却是重大的地缘政治胜利”。

以黎交火是备忘录持续最大考验

由于备忘录向德黑兰倾斜，受访学者都对美伊是否能达成最终协议持观望态度。

曼奇尼认为，双方就解冻资产、取消制裁和核计划的谈判都极其艰难。“双方缺乏互信，任何承诺随时都可反悔。未来60天内，双方会玩弄谈判伎俩，甚至可能重新交火。”

多西直指以色列是美伊达成初步和解的最大输家，而它与黎巴嫩真主党持续交火是对美伊谈判的最大考验。“上星期天（14日），在宣布签署备忘录前夕，真主党是不是跟伊朗串通，挑衅以色列向贝鲁特开火，制造了对自己有利的条件？真相没人知道，但情况可一再重演。”

多西也不认为，伊朗民生经济遭受战火重创会促使德黑兰政府妥协，在谈判中让美国扳回局面。

“美伊都不愿再全面开打，不过伊朗绝非承受不起，也摆明姿态不怕再打一轮……美国虽然一再表示谈不拢就打，不过军事大棒上一回无效，就算再坚持一阵或许有效，但绝不会一夜间成功。然而，国际社会已经受不起，美国总统特朗普说石油储备只能撑四周，这就是他的时限。”

德黑兰政权未倒 阿拉伯邻国须重建关系

去年6月，以色列和伊朗爆发12日战争，美军发动“午夜重锤”行动重创伊朗核设施，德黑兰政权看似不堪一击，让外界一度判定若它与美以全面开战将迅速倒台。岂料一年不到， 局势完全翻转。

澳大利亚格里菲斯大学亚洲研究所访问学者雷顿（Peter Layton）受访时说，伊朗如今在与强权开战中生存下来，还有能力影响全球经济，它会变得更有自信。“在战前，伊朗可与沙特阿拉伯在波斯湾分庭抗礼，战后依旧没有改变。伊朗如今有很高的期望，不仅要维持甚至超越以往的声势，也想要有更大的国际影响力。”

雷顿指出，这对以色列和其他阿拉伯邻国都有深远影响，特朗普说过“中东邻国可以有导弹，伊朗为何不可？”这显示他对以伊的立场已完全改变。“以色列或许真得重新思考战略，变得谦逊一些。”

他认为，备忘录中的3000亿美元重建基金显然是波斯湾邻国为了同伊朗建立新关系的策略之一。

“这些小国要自我塑造成中东瑞士的行销策略如今面临坍塌风险。他们现在必须接受，伊朗会很快恢复元气，还可任意控制霍尔木兹海峡……波斯湾邻国接下来做任何决策都会更优先考虑伊朗这个因素。”

不过，雷顿对中东的长远局势仍感乐观。他说：“伊朗和周边阿拉伯邻国一样，都需要投资于未来与和平。伊朗有充分理由不再陷入战争，为了自己的利益，保持和平远比军事威吓有效。”

曼奇尼说，美伊战事爆发前，伊朗刚经历一波民生困顿所引发的大规模示威浪潮，向伊朗注资的条款对伊朗政府的生存非常有用。

不过他警惕，这笔资金可能被用于重建军力和发展核武，而不是用于扶持经济。“对这笔资金的运用必须制定保障机制，但钱一旦脱手就难以控制。”

分析：伊朗把握中东地缘优势 美国难挽谈判劣势

2026年6月19日 19:54 / 联合早报

美伊签署停战谅解备忘录后，两国将展开后续谈判，预计地点是瑞士卢塞恩湖畔的比尔根山度假山庄 （图）。6月18日，山庄外可见安保人员站岗。 （路透社）

美国和伊朗终于签署了停战谅解备忘录，但专家学者普遍认为这一份协议一面倒对伊朗有利。受访学者认为，几个月的战事至此显示美国的军事大棒不仅无效，还受制于霍尔木兹海峡封闭，美方在接下来的谈判中能否扳回局面并不明朗；相反地，德黑兰政权经历战火仍屹立不倒，更摆出不惜再战的强硬态势，对于未来中东地缘政治的形塑握有优势。

美伊星期三（6月17日）公开的14点谅解备忘录显示，伊朗同意让霍尔木兹海峡恢复通行，有望换取美国撤销制裁、解冻资产，甚至获得各方出资3000亿美元重建国家经济；有关伊朗核计划的处理则延后谈判，对伊朗的弹道导弹更是只字未提。

南洋理工大学拉惹勒南国际研究院兼任高级研究员多西（James M. Dorsey）直言，德黑兰要的都得到了，特朗普只得到他本来就有的。“尽管伊朗付出了惨痛代价，但终究是赢了。”

多西接受《联合早报》访问时说：“虽然当中很多条款在落实时会引发争议，不过霍尔木兹海峡在战前是开放的，如今已不会完全恢复至战前状态。伊朗正在跟阿曼探讨管理框架，并可能与其他波斯湾国家达成共识，这让它掌握巨大优势。”

新加坡国立大学李光耀公共政策学院副院长曼奇尼副教授（Francesco Mancini）也指出，谅解备忘录的文本对伊朗向全球海运征收某种形式的费用保持开放，“这虽不会带来显著的经济利益，但却是重大的地缘政治胜利”。

以黎交火是备忘录持续最大考验

由于备忘录向德黑兰倾斜，受访学者都对美伊是否能达成最终协议持观望态度。

曼奇尼认为，双方就解冻资产、取消制裁和核计划的谈判都极其艰难。“双方缺乏互信，任何承诺随时都可反悔。未来60天内，双方会玩弄谈判伎俩，甚至可能重新交火。”

多西直指以色列是美伊达成初步和解的最大输家，而它与黎巴嫩真主党持续交火是对美伊谈判的最大考验。“上星期天（14日），在宣布签署备忘录前夕，真主党是不是跟伊朗串通，挑衅以色列向贝鲁特开火，制造了对自己有利的条件？真相没人知道，但情况可一再重演。”

多西也不认为，伊朗民生经济遭受战火重创会促使德黑兰政府妥协，在谈判中让美国扳回局面。

“美伊都不愿再全面开打，不过伊朗绝非承受不起，也摆明姿态不怕再打一轮……美国虽然一再表示谈不拢就打，不过军事大棒上一回无效，就算再坚持一阵或许有效，但绝不会一夜间成功。然而，国际社会已经受不起，美国总统特朗普说石油储备只能撑四周，这就是他的时限。”

德黑兰政权未倒 阿拉伯邻国须重建关系

去年6月，以色列和伊朗爆发12日战争，美军发动“午夜重锤”行动重创伊朗核设施，德黑兰政权看似不堪一击，让外界一度判定若它与美以全面开战将迅速倒台。岂料一年不到， 局势完全翻转。

澳大利亚格里菲斯大学亚洲研究所访问学者雷顿（Peter Layton）受访时说，伊朗如今在与强权开战中生存下来，还有能力影响全球经济，它会变得更有自信。“在战前，伊朗可与沙特阿拉伯在波斯湾分庭抗礼，战后依旧没有改变。伊朗如今有很高的期望，不仅要维持甚至超越以往的声势，也想要有更大的国际影响力。”

雷顿指出，这对以色列和其他阿拉伯邻国都有深远影响，特朗普说过“中东邻国可以有导弹，伊朗为何不可？”这显示他对以伊的立场已完全改变。“以色列或许真得重新思考战略，变得谦逊一些。”

他认为，备忘录中的3000亿美元重建基金显然是波斯湾邻国为了同伊朗建立新关系的策略之一。

“这些小国要自我塑造成中东瑞士的行销策略如今面临坍塌风险。他们现在必须接受，伊朗会很快恢复元气，还可任意控制霍尔木兹海峡……波斯湾邻国接下来做任何决策都会更优先考虑伊朗这个因素。”

不过，雷顿对中东的长远局势仍感乐观。他说：“伊朗和周边阿拉伯邻国一样，都需要投资于未来与和平。伊朗有充分理由不再陷入战争，为了自己的利益，保持和平远比军事威吓有效。”

曼奇尼说，美伊战事爆发前，伊朗刚经历一波民生困顿所引发的大规模示威浪潮，向伊朗注资的条款对伊朗政府的生存非常有用。

不过他警惕，这笔资金可能被用于重建军力和发展核武，而不是用于扶持经济。“对这笔资金的运用必须制定保障机制，但钱一旦脱手就难以控制。”

中国兴端午“安康”取代“快乐”风气 官媒：快乐肯定没毛病

2026年6月19日 15:41 / 联合早报

6月19日，在中国湖北省宜昌市，演员在“屈原故里端午文化节”开幕式上表演歌舞《屈原颂》。 （新华社）

中国民间近年来用端午“安康”取代“快乐”蔚为风潮，普遍理由是纪念屈原投江“不该快乐”。一则“端午安康被营销号发明11周年”的贴文今年端午假期在中国网络热传，官媒也发文说，设立端午节的初衷是欢乐喜庆，“说快乐肯定没毛病”。

星期五（6月19日）是农历五月初五端午节。河南媒体《大河报》当天发文称，每逢端午，人们互道“安康”而非“快乐”，这背后蕴含着深厚的文化内涵。

文章称，农历五月，古称“毒月”。此时节湿热高温，蚊虫滋生，瘟疫易行。先民们挂艾草、饮雄黄酒、佩香囊，以驱邪避疫、祈求平安。因此，“安康”二字正是端午节最本真的祝福。

与此同时，一则“马上就是‘端午安康’被营销号发明出来11周年了，在2015年之前的任何中国文献上，你都找不到端午安康这个词”的贴文，也在中国网络流传，引起网民吐槽“我今天就要快乐，就算是屈原来跟我掰扯我也不搭理”，“也可以祝我端午发财，金钱自来”。

中国官媒中新社星期五发视频说，端午节这天，不少网民在互道祝福时犯了难，但到底是端午节快乐，还是端午节安康，其实不必太纠结。“说快乐肯定没毛病，说安康也可以。有专家就指出，设立端午节的初衷是欢乐喜庆、祛毒平安的。在古诗词里也有描绘端午节快乐祥和的诗句……更何况端午节作为（中国）国家法定节假日，放假也是一件快乐的事情。”

中共领导下的人民团体“中国科学技术协会”同日则在微信公众号发文称，大概到了2015年前后，网上才出现“端午节就不能祝快乐，只能祝安康”的观点。

文章说，这种说法能流传，足见如今许多人眼里的端午是多么严肃庄重，但“要是古人穿越到今天，看到这幅场景，肯定满脸问号，因为虽然古人过端午确实也纪念屈原，但端午过得欢乐极了”。

文章认为，发明端午节的古人们，又是包粽子，又是开宴会，又是吟诗作赋，又是龙舟竞渡，“怎么看怎么都是个快乐的节日”。

文章指出，中国古人并没有直接描述过到底应该在端午“互道什么”。不过唐玄宗李隆基曾在端午节作过一首诗叫《端午三殿宴群臣》，其中提到“美君臣之相乐”。

文章据此认为：“看起来，即使是古代的皇帝，也很讲究‘相乐’的。至于今天的你我嘛，其实，每个人愿意说快乐还是安康，自用所需就是了。别把这错当成‘自古以来’的习惯就好。”

涉吸毒后危驾 无照男被控

2026年6月19日 15:49 / 管雅凡 / 新明日报

涉吸毒后危驾 无照男被控

警方在车内发现并起获了疑似毒品、吸毒用具、电子烟，以及一个指节套。 （档案照片）

失控撞毁中央分界堤约30米长的围栏，冲入反方向车道与一辆德士相撞后弃车逃，无照男涉吸毒后开车，星期五（6月19日）早上被控。

这起车祸发生于星期三（17日）早上8时，地点在加冷峇鲁朝往劳明达街的路段。据《新明日报》早前报道，60岁男德士司机及一名43岁女乘客受伤送院，汽车男驾驶事后弃车逃离现场。

警方在车内发现并起获了疑似毒品、吸毒用具、电子烟，以及一个指节套（knuckleduster）。

据警方文告，中央警署的警员通过地毯式搜查，借助电眼画面，确认驾驶员的身份后，在五小时内将其逮捕。警方也在逮捕他时，从所在的酒店房间里，查获两把分别40公分与56公分的刀。

遭逮捕的被告是36岁的穆罕默德菲鲁兹（Mohamed Firdouz），他星期五早上被控七项控状，包括受毒品影响的情况下开车、危险驾驶、无照驾驶、持有危险武器等。

控方需要时间完成调查，案展7月17日过堂。被告能以1万5000元获得保释。

警方重申，在吸毒后开车是一种极其危险且不负责任的行为。警方将对在毒品、致醉物质或酒精影响下驾驶的驾驶员采取严厉行动。

“警方绝不容忍此类明目张胆的犯罪行为，并将不遗余力地逮捕这类违法者，并依法对其进行处理。”

脚踏车骑士涉闯红灯 遭撞后向驾驶员道歉

2026年6月19日 15:50 / 新明日报

脚踏车骑士涉闯红灯过马路遭轿车撞飞。 （取自网络）

脚踏车骑士涉闯红灯过马路遭汽车撞飞，骑士倒地后自行爬起来，过后还向汽车驾驶员道歉。

这起事件发生在星期一（6月15日）深夜11时48分发生，地点位于榜鹅路一带。

根据sgfollowsall上载的视频，事发时可看到交通灯转绿后，车辆开始行驶。其中一辆汽车在驶近路口时，一名骑着脚踏车的男子突然从右侧骑出，结果与汽车发生碰撞。

骑士当下被撞飞，倒在一旁的草坪上，他的鞋子在过程中脱落，掉在马路上。当时汽车的车牌也脱落。

视频可见男子倒地后还可爬起来走路，汽车男驾驶也迅速下车查看情况。双方快速交谈一阵后，男驾驶便上车驶离。

将视频上传的是汽车后方车辆的驾驶员，这名驾驶员在贴文中指出，当时是脚踏车骑士涉闯红灯才与汽车撞上。

“男骑士是一名青年，他起身后向汽车驾驶员道歉，并承认自己不应该闯红灯。汽车驾驶员离开后，我发现骑士的脸、脖子与腿都有血，因此下车查看。骑士称他没有大碍，我给他递上纸巾。”

视频在网上引起热议，有网民指男骑士不应该闯红灯，也有人不解涉及车祸的男驾驶为何那么快离去，认为他应该更关心骑士的后续情况才对。