分析：斯蒂芬·科林森
1小时20分钟前
发布时间：2026年2月11日，美国东部时间上午12:00
难怪唐纳德·特朗普总统如此担心中期选举。
周二，他的一些高级官员和政治优先事项在国会山遭遇了艰难的一天，这让人联想到白宫可能面临的悲惨未来。
如果民主党在11月重新夺回众议院——或者在长期不被看好的情况下甚至是参议院——特朗普将面临一系列监督和调查，这将把他任期的最后两年变成一场丑陋的苦役。
周二一系列听证会展示了这可能是什么样子。特朗普选择他的副手是因为他们愿意奉承，而不是因为他们善于回避审查。
而这确实发生了。
商务部长霍华德·卢特尼克来到参议院小组委员会，本可能是一场关于宽带的愉快交谈。但他在多年后因前往杰弗里·爱泼斯坦的岛屿而遭到伏击，他此前声称这次相遇让他感到厌恶，并誓言再也不会见面。
突然，这位总统最嚣张的助手之一成为了对那些曾经与已故性犯罪者有联系的富人精英追究责任的最新焦点——现在这种追究在大西洋两岸都在发生。
他显然非常不舒服，白宫不得不对他表示信任，尽管有人呼吁卢特尼克辞职。
不足为奇的是，卢特尼克在被问及假期期间与妻子、孩子和保姆一起午餐时参观爱泼斯坦岛屿时显得很尴尬。他给出了一个可能会出现在民主党中期选举广告中的奇怪评论。
“我和其他人一样，已经查阅了数百万份文件寻找我的名字，”卢特尼克说。民主党参议员克里斯·库恩斯没有错过这个机会。“不，”他摇着头说。“不是每个人都担心自己的名字出现在爱泼斯坦文件中。”
“正义不应过期”
卢特尼克不是周二唯一面临压力的特朗普助手。三名高级移民和边境官员在众议院受到了严厉的盘问，尤其是上个月联邦特工在明尼阿波利斯杀害了蕾妮·古德和亚历克斯·普雷蒂的事件。
美国移民和海关执法局（ICE）高级官员托德·莱昂斯似乎试图模仿当时边境巡逻队指挥官格雷格·博维诺那种脱离实际的说法，即面对抗议者的联邦官员才是该市真正的受害者。
在一次引人注目的对话中，众议员埃里克·斯瓦尔韦尔——无疑是在关注他在加利福尼亚竞选民主党州长提名——询问莱昂斯他之前承诺将驱逐行动效率提高到像亚马逊Prime一样的情况。
“莱昂斯先生，亚马逊Prime有多少次朝一位母亲的脸开三枪？”斯瓦尔韦尔问道。
莱昂斯回答说：“先生，一次也没有，但你还……”
他还没来得及争辩说他提到亚马逊是被断章取义就被打断了。“那是零的平方根，没错，”斯瓦尔韦尔说。
在参议院，少数党领袖查克·舒默向特朗普发出了另一个信息：民主党不会放弃爱泼斯坦丑闻，尽管特朗普希望美国“转向其他事情”。
“正义不应过期，”舒默在一群泪流满面的爱泼斯坦虐待幸存者面前说，他支持弗吉尼亚法案，试图取消性交易的诉讼时效。该法案以弗吉尼亚·朱弗尔（Virginia Giuffre）命名，她是爱泼斯坦的受害者，曾与英国前安德鲁王子达成和解，并于去年自杀。该法案在共和党控制的参议院中前景不佳。但舒默的关注表明，如果民主党在华盛顿重新获得任何权力，他们将大力追究爱泼斯坦事件。
参议院共和党多数党领袖约翰·图恩未能回避这个问题，这是爱泼斯坦事件压力加剧的另一个迹象。
“对于那些名字出现在爱泼斯坦文件中或在某种情况下可能出现在文件中的人，他们将不得不回答相关问题，我认为美国人民将不得不判断这些答案是否足够，”图恩说。
周三，司法部长帕姆·邦迪将在众议院司法委员会作证，国会山的气氛将升温。邦迪往往会带着反对党研究资料和为审讯者准备的脚本化侮辱来到这样的场合，这些内容将在保守派媒体上引爆。
卢特尼克只是最新一个经历爱泼斯坦审查的知名人物。
尽管司法部公布的爱泼斯坦文件中没有指控他有任何罪行，但他仍在其中。正如他自己所说：“在任何情况下，我都没有做过任何可能被视为有问题的事情。”
但他是众多被要求解释与爱泼斯坦接触的精英之一，尤其是在这位声名狼藉的金融家2009年因性犯罪服刑13个月后获释之后。
每当一个高知名度人物——更不用说高级内阁成员——面临这样的审查，对特朗普来说都是坏消息，尽管特朗普本人也没有被指控有不当行为，但他一直难以解释自己过去与爱泼斯坦的友谊。
白宫新闻秘书卡罗琳·莱维特对新关注商务部长的反应中明显表现出了沮丧。“卢特尼克部长仍然是特朗普总统团队中非常重要的成员，总统完全支持部长，”她告诉记者。“我只想指出，本周新闻中有很多成就，房间里的人都没有问到，因为你们继续问同一个主题的问题。”
制衡会重返华盛顿吗？
国会听证会本身不会改变太多。通常，这样的会议主要是为那些夸夸其谈、试图通过煽动性言论强行登上党派媒体节目的成员服务。官员们似乎经常在为一个观众表演——他们的真人秀总统，他喜欢电视。
但周二质询的尖锐性让人联想到了一个可能的替代现实，这个现实可能会取代一个将权力让给行政部门并忽视其宪法越权行为的共和党国会。民主党在11月的强劲选举表现将恢复华盛顿的制衡机制。
民主党可以无休止地安排针对政府的听证会。他们还将拥有传票权，尽管正如特朗普第一任期最后两年所显示的那样，白宫会采取强硬手段。从宪法角度看，情况可能会迅速变得难看。上一次，两名特朗普忠实支持者彼得·纳瓦罗和史蒂夫·班农因拒绝向国会作证而入狱。
但新的民主党委员会主席可能会拥有任何现代国会中最丰富的目标清单。
爱泼斯坦事件只是开始。他们可能会调查特朗普拆除白宫东翼；他对夺取紧急权力的痴迷；五角大楼对加勒比海和太平洋可能非法船只撞击事件的保密；以及卡塔尔送给特朗普的价值数百万美元的大型喷气式飞机。民主党人可能还会在总统家族企业的道德冲突、他对加密货币的监管以及他利用行政权力和司法部向政治对手复仇等方面找到丰富的素材。
黑暗的历史比较
特朗普曾表示，他担心如果共和党人在中期选举中失利，民主党人会第三次弹劾他。但民主党人真的会这么做吗——即使许多人认为他每周都在犯下可弹劾的罪行？
除非特朗普做了极其邪恶的事情，以至于他的支持率暴跌，共和党人想要抛弃他，否则几乎不可能获得参议院三分之二的多数票来定罪。而没有政客像这个现代历史上最伟大的政治复出者那样有效地将受害者身份武器化。
有时政治界限是需要谨慎把握的。例如，在边境问题的众议院听证会上，民主党众议员丹·戈德曼问莱昂斯要指出20世纪有哪些政权会在街上拦住人们并索要证件。
“纳粹德国算一个吗？”戈德曼问道。
许多美国人认为联邦特工的行为违宪且具有威胁性，并认为这与威权国家有相似之处，尤其是在古德和普雷蒂被杀之后。但与阿道夫·希特勒政权的邪恶进行类比很少是明智或符合历史事实的，尽管这可能会吸引一些进步人士。一些温和派共和党人或独立人士可能会认为这样的质问过于极端。
民主党人过去在对执法部门的敌意上过于左倾时会受挫。周二的听证会上，移民官员不时提醒委员会，特朗普在削减无证移民入境方面取得的成功，以及拜登政府在边境安全方面的疏忽。然而，戈德曼称ICE的策略“非美且完全法西斯”，称这些策略引发了合理的类比。
ICE在明尼阿波利斯街头的极端行为，已将一个曾经是特朗普最得意的问题变成了政治负担。
这可能解释了他在福克斯商业频道上情绪低落的原因，当时他沉思着总统在中期选举中失利的趋势。
“我很受欢迎，我做得很好，”总统在周二播出的采访中坚持说。民意调查显示大多数选民并不这么认为，而在他任期的最后两年，他可能会面临一连串的痛苦。
尽管如此，民主党人首先必须赢。一个最近在如何与美国人沟通方面陷入困境、容易犯错的政党不能想当然。
Lutnick’s grilling shows Trump a glimpse of a grim possible future
Analysis by Stephen Collinson
1 hr 20 min ago
PUBLISHED Feb 11, 2026, 12:00 AM ET
No wonder President Donald Trump is so worried about the midterm elections.
A tough day for some of his top officials and political priorities on Capitol Hill invoked a possibly miserable future for the White House.
If Democrats win back the House in November — or even the Senate, in a long-shot scenario — Trump will face a barrage of oversight and investigation that will turn the final two years of his term into an ugly slog.
A flurry of hearings on Tuesday showed what that might be like. Trump chose his lieutenants for their willingness to flatter, not their skill at deflecting scrutiny.
And it showed.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick arrived at a Senate subcommittee for what might have been a convivial chat about broadband. But he was ambushed over his trip to Jeffrey Epstein’s island years after an encounter he previously claimed left him disgusted and vowing they’d never meet again.
Suddenly, one of the most swaggering of all the president’s men became the latest focus of demands for accountability for the rich elites who once associated with the late sex offender — now happening on both sides of the Atlantic.
He was so obviously uncomfortable, the White House had to offer him a vote of confidence amid calls for Lutnick’s resignation.
Not surprisingly, Lutnick looked embarrassed to be asked about a lunchtime visit to Epstein’s island with his wife, children and nannies during a vacation. He served up an odd comment likely to feature in Democratic midterm ads.
“I have looked through the millions of documents for my name, just like everybody else,” Lutnick said. Democratic Sen. Chris Coons didn’t miss the opening. “No,” he said with a shake of his head. “Everyone isn’t worried about their names being in the Epstein files.”
‘Justice should not expire’
Lutnick wasn’t the only Trump aide facing the heat Tuesday. Three top immigration and border officials got a rough ride in the House, especially over the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis last month.
Senior ICE official Todd Lyons seemed to be trying to emulate the tone-deaf claim by then-Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino that federal officers facing protesters were the real victims in the city.
In one remarkable exchange, Rep. Eric Swalwell — no doubt with one eye on his run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in California — asked Lyons about his previous pledge to make the deportation purge as efficient as Amazon Prime.
“Mr. Lyons, how many times has Amazon Prime shot a mom three times in the face?” Swalwell asked.
Lyons replied, “None, sir, but you’re also …”
He was cut off before he could argue that his Amazon allusion had been taken out of context. “It’s the square root of zero, that’s right,” Swalwell said.
Back in the Senate, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was sending another message to Trump: Democrats will not let up on the Epstein scandal, despite Trump’s wish for the country to “move on to something else.”
“Justice should not expire,” Schumer said, surrounded by tearful survivors of Epstein’s abuse, as he backed Virginia’s Law, an attempt to end the statute of limitations on sex trafficking. The measure, named after Virginia Giuffre, an Epstein victim who reached a settlement with Britain’s former Prince Andrew and who took her own life last year, has poor prospects in the Republican-run Senate. But Schumer’s interest suggests that Democrats will pursue the Epstein matter vigorously if they win back any power in Washington.
Another sign of building pressure over Epstein came when Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune failed to sweep the issue away.
“For people whose names appear or in some context might be in the Epstein files, they’re going to have to answer the questions around that, and I think the American people are going to have to make judgments about whether or not they think those answers are sufficient,” Thune said.
The temperature will rise on Capitol Hill Wednesday when Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies to the House Judiciary Committee. Bondi tends to arrive for such encounters armed with opposition research and scripted insults for her interrogators that will detonate on conservative media.
Lutnick was just the latest prominent figure to run the Epstein gauntlet.
He’s not accused of any offense, despite appearing in Epstein files released by the Justice Department. As he said himself, “Under no circumstances is there a single word that I’ve done anything remotely wrong in any possible regard.”
But he’s among many elites being asked to explain their contacts with Epstein, especially those following the disgraced financier’s emergence from prison in 2009 after serving 13 months for sex offenses.
Every time a high-profile figure — let alone a senior Cabinet member — faces such scrutiny, it’s bad news for Trump, who is also not accused of wrongdoing but has struggled to explain his own past friendship with Epstein.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s frustration was evident in her reaction to the new attention on the commerce secretary. “Secretary Lutnick remains a very important member of President Trump’s team and the president fully supports the secretary,” she told reporters. “I will just point out that there are a lot of wins in the news this week that people in this room have not asked about because you continue to ask questions about the same subject.”
Will checks and balances return to Washington?
Congressional hearings on their own won’t change much. Often, such sessions mostly serve members who bloviate and try to force their way onto partisan media shows with staged outrage. Officials often seem to be performing for an audience of one — their reality show president, who loves TV.
But the sharpness of Tuesday’s questioning conjured a possible alternative reality that could succeed a GOP Congress that ceded power to the executive and ignored its constitutional excesses. A strong election performance by Democrats in November would restore checks and balances to Washington.
Democrats could schedule endless hearings into the administration. They’d also have subpoena power, although as the last two years of Trump’s first term showed, the White House would play hardball. Constitutionally, things could get ugly fast. Last time around, two Trump loyalists, Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, went to prison after refusing subpoenas to testify to Congress.
But new Democratic committee chairs would have perhaps the richest array of targets of any modern Congress.
Epstein would be just the start. They’d likely investigate Trump’s demolition of the East Wing of the White House; his obsession with seizing emergency powers; the Pentagon’s secrecy over possibly illegal boat strikes in the Caribbean and the Pacific; and the gift of a multimillion-dollar jumbo jet to Trump from Qatar. Democrats might also find rich pickings in ethical conflicts over the president’s family businesses, his regulation of cryptocurrencies and his use of executive power and the Justice Department to wage vengeance on his political foes.
A dark historical comparison
Trump has said he fears that if Republicans don’t win the midterms, Democrats would impeach him for a third time. But would Democrats really go there — even when many believe he commits an impeachable offense every week?
Unless Trump did something so heinous that his approval ratings crashed into oblivion and Republicans wanted him gone, there’s almost no chance of a two-thirds Senate majority to convict. And no politician has weaponized victimhood so effectively as the author of the greatest political comeback in modern history.
And sometimes the political line is a fine one to walk. In the House hearing on the border, for example, Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman asked Lyons to identify 20th-century regimes that stopped people in the streets and asked for their papers.
“Is Nazi Germany one?” Goldman asked.
Many Americans view the behavior of federal agents as unconstitutional and threatening and perceive similarities with authoritarian states, especially following the killings of Good and Pretti. But analogies with the evils of Adolf Hitler’s regime are rarely wise or historically apt, as much as they might appeal to some progressives. Some moderate Republicans or independents might see such questioning as extreme.
Democrats have stumbled in the past when they’ve dived to the left in their hostility to law enforcement. And at times in Tuesday’s hearings, the immigration officials reminded the committee of Trump’s successes in cutting entries by undocumented migrants and of the Biden administration’s negligence in securing the border. Goldman, however, called ICE tactics “un-American and outright fascist,” saying they attracted justified comparisons.
And ICE’s extremism on the streets of Minneapolis has helped turned an issue that was once one of Trump’s best into a political liability.
That may explain the dip in his mood on Fox Business when he mused about the trend of presidents getting midterm election drubbings.
“I’m popular and I’ve done well,” the president insisted in an interview that aired Tuesday. Polls suggest that most voters disagree, and a wall of hurt may await in the last two years of his term.
Still, Democrats have to win first. An accident-prone party that has recently struggled with how to talk to Americans can take nothing for granted.