2025-12-11 20:15:00
众议院议长迈克·约翰逊（R-LA）于2025年11月18日前往国会山参加记者会。约翰逊正面临着共和党议员内部的分裂局面。
今年早些时候，众议院的共和党议员似乎都与特朗普总统保持一致，毫不犹豫地支持他在移民和经济等有争议的议题上的立场。但现在，他们似乎开始与特朗普分道扬镳。一些共和党议员在释放埃普斯坦文件、关税、医疗补贴、加勒比海船只撞击事件等议题上公开反对特朗普。他们对议长迈克·约翰逊感到不满，认为他让特朗普主导国会议程，而总统的民调却持续下滑。一些共和党议员因对党派僵局、立法停滞以及政治暴力威胁感到厌倦，选择退出政坛，有的宣布退休，有的则辞职寻求其他职位。共和党可能在中期选举前就失去其微弱的多数席位。一旦众议员玛乔丽·泰勒·格林在1月正式辞职，共和党在众议院的多数席位将仅剩一个。
今天，《Explained》节目主持人阿斯特·赫尔顿采访了《Puck News》的首席华盛顿记者利希·卡莱尔，探讨众议院共和党议员大规模辞职的原因及其对执政党未来的影响。以下是他们对话的节选，内容经过删减和润色。完整节目内容更多，欢迎在Apple Podcasts、Pandora和Spotify等平台收听。
最近几周，我们听到很多国会议员表示要退休甚至辞职。国会内部的这种不满情绪有多严重？其根源是什么？
这种不满情绪可能相当严重。我从共和党消息人士、议员、助手以及与他们关系密切的人那里听到，预计未来几周还会有更多议员宣布退休。
有很多原因，但最直接的是政治环境。共和党在最近的选举中表现不佳，尤其是在11月的选举中。田纳西州的一次特别选举发生在传统红州，特朗普以22个百分点的优势获胜，但该州的共和党候选人仅以9个百分点的微弱优势胜出。这再次表明，当前的政治环境和公众对共和党的态度并不乐观。人们看到这些迹象，认为共和党在中期选举后可能无法保持多数地位，甚至会失去多数席位。
在国会任职的议员每两年都要重新评估自己的职业生涯，而目前正是人们决定是否继续留在国会的时期。我被告知，越来越多的共和党议员认为这不再值得。
你的报道是否能提供一些具体数字，以及这些可能的辞职人数与以往相比如何？
一位消息人士告诉我，预计会有近20名共和党议员辞职。这个数字非常巨大。目前已经有23名共和党议员宣布辞职，这表明议员们的情绪非常低落。
民主党议员是否也以这样的数量辞职？他们辞职的原因是否相同？
民主党议员也会辞职，但人数较少，原因也不同。大多数民主党议员年龄较大，或已任职多年。例如，南希·佩洛西和杰里·纳德勒（纽约）都宣布退休。而共和党议员则不同，像特洛伊·内尔兹（2020年当选）和摩根·卢特雷尔（德克萨斯，2023年上任）这样的年轻议员也选择退出。这正是共和党议员辞职的不同之处。
共和党此前也经历过困难时期，特朗普也曾遭遇过反对。但今年的局势有什么不同？
在本届国会中，特朗普对国会的控制力非常强，议员们不得不在恐惧中行事，他们做任何决定都必须遵循特朗普的指示。玛乔丽·泰勒·格林在《60分钟》节目中表示：“我认为他们害怕偏离特朗普的路线，因为一旦他们这样做，特朗普就会在Truth Social上发布负面内容。”政治暴力的威胁也日益增加，议员们知道，一旦自己的名字出现在Truth Social上，就可能面临更多的攻击。
这些威胁已经导致了过去一些议员的辞职。如今，议员们很难保持独立性，他们感到沮丧，认为议长约翰逊过于迎合总统，而不是代表议员们的需求。他们还对在政府停摆期间缺席七周感到不满。此外，本届国会是历史上最不具生产力的之一。上届国会两年内通过了274项法案，而本届国会一年内仅通过了47项法案，包括大型立法和小型决议。议员们感到无所作为，因此产生不满。许多议员原本希望为选区带来成果，但如今却无法实现，他们开始质疑自己的努力是否值得。
议长约翰逊对此有何应对措施？如果这些辞职趋势持续，他是否面临危机？
如果这些辞职继续下去，他确实会面临困难。即使考虑到选区重划等其他因素，他仍然坚定地站在特朗普一边，支持度高达120%。
这种反弹对他的党内同僚产生了什么影响？他们为何不满？
显然，议员们不希望看到大量辞职，因为这会显得很糟糕，是对国会和议员工作的批评。如果约翰逊无法让议员们感到满意，无法让他们觉得自己是有效的立法者，那么这种不满情绪将持续。目前，议员们士气低落。
议长的职位似乎非常艰难，因为过去几位共和党议长都未能成功维持党内团结。这个职位是否注定充满矛盾？还是因为当前国会的极化现象所致？
我认为，对于约翰逊来说，每天维持党内团结的任务都变得更加困难，尤其是在民调方面。特朗普的民调持续下滑，而共和党议员在政策信息和如何处理医疗保障及可负担性问题上存在分歧。因此，约翰逊想要在中期选举后让共和党团结一致，可能很难实现。他可能会面临一个疲惫、不满且分裂的共和党。
如果共和党在中期选举中未能获得多数席位，约翰逊会如何应对？
肯定会有一些领导层的变动。因此，中期选举后，众议院共和党可能会经历一次重大重组。
尽管之前讨论了民主党的分裂状况，但共和党似乎也出现了裂痕。确实如此。共和党正非常担忧他们如何应对当前的困境。
For most of this year, Republican members of the House of Representatives seemed to move in lockstep with President Donald Trump, not hesitating to back him on controversial measures on immigration and the economy.
But now they seem to be breaking ranks.
Some Republican members of Congress have stood up to Trump on the release of the Epstein Files, tariffs, health care subsidies, boat strikes in the Caribbean, and other issues.
They’ve voiced frustration with House Speaker Mike Johnson, who has let Trump set the agenda for Congress even as the president’s approval rating continues to decline.
Some GOP members of the House, fed up with partisan gridlock, stalled legislation, and threats of political violence, are just calling it quits altogether. They’re either retiring or resigning to seek other offices.
The GOP could potentially lose its razor-thin margin even before the midterms. Once Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene officially resigns in January, Republicans will only have a one-seat advantage.
Today, Explained’s Astead Herndon talked to Leigh Ann Caldwell, chief Washington correspondent for Puck News, about what’s causing the House GOP exodus and what it could mean for the party in power.
Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full episode, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
In the last few weeks we’ve heard quite a few Congress people say they’re going to retire, even resign. What is the scope of this angst in Congress? What’s the source of it?
The scope could be pretty big. I’m hearing from Republican sources, lawmakers, aides, and people close to these people who are expecting a lot more retirement announcements in the coming weeks.
There are so many reasons for it, but the most immediate is the political environment. It’s been a really tough fall for Republicans. They had completely underperformed in those November elections. There was a special election in Tennessee in a very red district that Trump won by 22 points. The Republican who won only won by nine points.
It’s just another data point of the political environment and the mood of the country around Republicans right now. People are looking at that and seeing the writing on the wall and believing that the House Republicans are not going to be in the majority after the midterms, that they’ll lose the majority. And it’s not a very fun place to be.
The thing about serving in the House is you get to reevaluate your life every two years, and we’re in that season where people, Republicans especially, are deciding if it’s worth it. And I’m told that many more Republicans are going to say that it’s not.
Does your reporting give you any sense of numbers and how we can compare that possible number to ones we’ve seen previously?
An estimate that one source told me was that close to 20 more Republicans are set to retire.
That’s a seismic number.
It is. We’re already at 23 Republicans who have announced. So it also talks about the mood of the Congress. People are just not happy right now.
Are Democrats retiring in these types of numbers? And when they are quitting, is it for the same reasons?
Democrats are retiring too. It happens every year. But the numbers are lower for Democrats and the reasons are different. For the Democrats, most of them are in their late seventies or eighties, or they have served for decades. Nancy Pelosi is one of the Democrats who is retiring.
Jerry Nadler in New York.
It’s different on the Republican side. Troy Nehls was elected in 2020. Morgan Luttrell of Texas just started serving in 2023. He’s young. A lot of members who are younger, who haven’t been here that long, are deciding to call it quits. And that is really what’s different.
Republicans have had tough moments before. Donald Trump has been unpopular before. What is it about this year, in this time, or the next midterm that might’ve been different than just general other bouts of Trump controversy?
This term, Donald Trump has so much control over this Congress. They govern in fear. They do what he says because they’re afraid. Marjorie Taylor Greene said on 60 Minutes: “I think they’re terrified to step out of line and get a nasty Truth Social post on them.”
Threats of political violence have only increased, and everyone knows that if your name is in a Truth Social and negatively, there will be an uptick for that person. These members have been dealing with that for a long time, and that has led to retirements in the past. The ability to be an independent member of Congress has really, really diminished, and people are feeling that. They are frustrated with Speaker Johnson. They think that he is playing into the demands of the president rather than what the members want and need. They were frustrated that they were out of town for seven weeks during the government shutdown.
It’s also one of the least productive Congresses in modern history. The last Congress was really unproductive, and this one is way more unproductive. In the last Congress, over two years, 274 bills were signed into law. We’re one year into this Congress. Only 47 bills have been signed into law, and that’s big legislation and small resolutions. They are just not doing anything and legislators get frustrated. Many of them actually come to legislate and when they’re not able to deliver for their district, when they’re not able to take home wins and projects and money, people are asking themselves, what is the point?
What is Speaker Johnson doing about this? It would seem that if these retirements continue, he would have a little bit of a crisis on his hands. And even when we think about things like redistricting efforts and others, he has really chosen to be on the side of Donald Trump 120 percent. How has that blowback impacted his own caucus? And when they’re upset with him, what exactly is the reason why?
They obviously don’t want to see a lot of retirements because it just looks bad. It’s an indictment of Congress, of the job. It’s also an indictment on Speaker Johnson if he’s unable to keep these members happy, unable to make them feel that they are productive members of society, productive legislators, and that’s just not happening right now. People are really down.
The speakership seems like such a difficult job, because it’s eaten up the last several Republican GOP speakers. If we think about that role as one that holds together many different parts of the Republican party, is it always just destined to be this fraught? Or is that a consequence of our current Congress and polarization? What is the universe that Mike Johnson makes it out on the other side here with a united GOP?
I think every day that becomes a harder and harder task for him, especially when you look at polling. Trump’s approval ratings continue to fall. They’re divided on a message. They’re divided on how to deal with health care and the affordability issue. And so Speaker Johnson coming out on the other side with a united GOP? Maybe, but it’s going to be wounded and exhausted and tired and really cranky. And so the question is, if they don’t win the majority, what does Speaker Johnson do? There are definitely going to be leadership changes. And so there could be a huge shakeup among House Republicans after the midterms.
After all that talk about Democrats and their kind of fractured state, there are certainly some cracks that seem to be appearing on the Republican side too.
Absolutely. And Republicans are really worried about how the party is dealing with these trying times right now for them.
2025-12-11 19:00:00
在《公园与游憩》（Parks and Recreation）中饰演April Ludgate的Aubrey Plaza。对于那些不梦想工作的人来说，人格型雇佣（即因为一个人有趣、独特而被雇佣）的概念可能显得有些突兀。而更令人困惑的是，这些人可能能教会我们一些关于当今求职过程的重要教训。我们应当从一个有魅力、愉快、有趣的人格型雇佣者的视角来重新审视求职过程。让我解释一下。如今的就业市场并不理想，而人工智能的普及更让求职过程变得复杂。现在，申请工作感觉更像是一场赌博，因为很多招聘者和雇主都在使用AI筛选候选人。一个人的人生转折点可能完全取决于电脑对某个提示的反应，这种想法既让人感到被剥夺了人性，又令人沮丧。更令人沮丧的是，当你意识到AI的判断可能非常随意且有误时。哥伦比亚商学院的研究人员对三种生成式AI模型（GPT-3、GPT-4和Llama 3.1）进行了测试，发现当有多个候选人时，AI可能会表现出“顺序偏差”，倾向于选择列表中排在第一位的候选人。哥伦比亚商学院教授Olivier Toubia是该研究的作者之一，他与我讨论了这些令人担忧的结果，并解释了他认为我们如何在AI主导的就业市场中取得成功。简而言之，随着就业市场越来越依赖AI，我们更需要突出自己的人性特质来脱颖而出。在我看来，没有人比人格型雇佣者更能做到这一点。这次采访内容经过轻微编辑，以缩短篇幅并提高清晰度。
Olivier，我感觉在一些就业市场中，雇主和求职者都在使用AI。招聘人员用AI筛选简历，而求职者则将简历和简历资料输入机器以提高被选中的机会。是的，我们开始看到AI被用于招聘和筛选候选人。实际上，我担心AI代理处理简历的情况。我假设人们希望由人类而不是机器来做如此重要的决定。请谈谈你的研究。我们的研究发现，如果你使用AI，选项的排列顺序会影响结果。例如，如果你问：“A、B、C三人中，谁更合适？”你提问的方式以及如何标记和排列这些选项，实际上会影响AI的判断。我们系统性地发现，将候选人标记为A、B、C的顺序会影响GPT的选择。因此，人们可能仅仅因为被列为第一个选项而被选中面试或获得工作，而AI可能仅仅因为顺序而倾向于选择第一位候选人。是的，我认为这可能很危险，因为结果可能完全由纯粹的随机因素决定。候选人列表的顺序与他们本身的素质相比，这可能是一个问题。我们还发现，AI可能会引发潜在的刻板印象或偏见。某些候选人可能因为身份、性别、种族、年龄或其他无关因素而被判断为更有价值或更不值得。这存在社会偏见和个别偏见的风险。这是使用AI作为招聘工具的一个问题。
你认为这有多令人担忧？我并不负责招聘或解雇员工，这不是我的职责。但在我看来，AI可能基于我进入系统时的顺序来决定我的未来，这听起来令人担忧。生成式AI确实令人印象深刻，它能够解决复杂的数学问题，写诗，甚至完成只有聪明人类才能做到的事情。因此，我们倾向于认为AI是超人类的。但AI的运作方式与人类大脑完全不同。我们希望相信AI是可靠的，不会犯简单的错误。因此，我们可能忽视了这些问题。实际上，我惊讶于并不是更多人意识到这些偏见的存在。这是一个不方便的事实。我想问你关于AI“让职场更加公平”的观点。这在学术界和实践中一直存在争论，是增强还是取代？AI是否会让我们更高效？是否会取代我们？它是否会真正让职场更加公平，还是反而放大差异？我认为目前我们还没有足够的证据得出明确的结论。我个人认为，在许多情况下，AI可能确实让职场更加公平，帮助那些技能和经验较少的人表现得与更有经验的人相当。它可以平衡人类之间的差距。但问题是，AI是否能够完全取代人类？是的。如果你完全依赖AI，那么你到底在做什么？生成式AI可能平衡职场，但AI也会取代人类，因为如果AI能够做得足够好，为什么还要雇佣人类并支付他们工资去做AI能完成的事情？这令人沮丧。是的，我明白。在我看来，那些在AI时代“获胜”的人，将是那些利用AI来突出自己差异的人。有两种方式可以做到这一点：垂直和水平。请详细说明。垂直意味着变得更好。也就是说，那些使用AI来提升自己能力，比没有使用AI的人更优秀，同时比其他使用AI的人更优秀，甚至比AI本身更优秀的人，将在职场中更具吸引力。如果你具备技能和经验，并利用AI成为表现最出色的代理，我认为这将变得越来越有吸引力。那么“水平”意味着什么？它指的是与众不同。这更多是关于拥有独特的人格、独特的观点，以及利用AI更有效地表达你的想法和观点。如果求职市场是人们用机器寻找候选人，而人们也用同样的机器寻找工作，那么这似乎变成了两个机器之间的对话。候选人之间唯一的不同可能是他们的人格特质。我看到一些使用案例，其中人们利用AI来创建更具吸引力的工作成果，从而真正展示他们的独特想法、个性和观点。我认为这可能是AI帮助人类的另一个领域。如果你使用AI，你希望用它来突出自己，要么变得更好，要么变得与众不同。这很有趣：与众不同可能和变得更好一样重要？在某些情况下，这是两种不同的路径。它们并不互相排斥，更像是人们可以采用的两种方式。你有没有一个重视“水平”能力的行业例子？任何与创造力、观点和人际关系相关的行业。任何需要与受众建立真正联系的领域。例如，一些咨询行业和创意行业，人们愿意为独特的见解、观点和视角付费。人们一直告诉我，写求职信时要确保自己脱颖而出，告诉读者为什么应该选择你。在当前的就业市场中，这比以往任何时候都更加重要。我们必须让自己发光，否则就会在众多候选人中被忽视。是的。我告诉我的学生：“不要害怕表达自己，要脱颖而出，甚至可以有点烦人——做你自己。”你想要真正脱颖而出。要让人注意到你；你要有自己要说的话。如果你只是融入其中，那么你将被AI取代。顺便说一句，现在也有AI工具可以帮助你在Zoom上进行实时面试。实际上，有一种AI可以帮助你实时回答问题。因此，你必须亲自出现在办公室里，没有电子设备，才能真正测试你的能力。这个想法让我感到难过。但另一方面，它也让我有些希望，也许成功唯一的方式就是成为一个人。我认为你说得对。
To anyone who doesn’t dream of labor, the idea of a personality hire — a person who gets jobs because they’re a fun, unique human to be around — can be a bit jarring. And there’s an idea that might be even more puzzling than the existence of personality hires: that these people can teach us valuable lessons about being hired today. It would behoove us to start thinking about the job process through the eyes of a charming, pleasant, fun, distinctly human personality hire.
Let me explain.
Statistically, today’s job market is not great. But more than that, the inevitable creep of AI has made the process of applying for jobs even more of a headache than it was before. Never has the application felt more crapshooty (and crappy), when it seems like so many recruiters and employers are using AI to sift through applicants. The idea that someone’s life-changing opportunity could all depend on the way a computer responds to a prompt feels equal parts dehumanizing and maddening.
Even more demoralizing is when you realize how fickle and faulty AI can be.
A study from researchers at Columbia Business School tested three generative AI models — GPT-3, GPT-4, and Llama 3.1 — and found that, when there are multiple options (i.e., a person in HR plugging in multiple candidates), the AI models can show “order bias” and will default to the first option (candidate) listed. Olivier Toubia, a professor at Columbia Business School and one of the authors of the study, talked to me about the worrying results and also shed light on how he thinks we can be more successful in the wake of an AI-powered job market.
Essentially, the more the job market turns to AI, the more we should think about how to be more human to stand out. And, at least to my mind, no one may do that better than personality hires. This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Olivier, the impression I’m getting is that there are parts of the job market where both employers or recruiters as well as applicants are using AI. Recruiters are using AI to screen resumes, while candidates are feeding their resumes and CVs to the machines to better their chances.
Yes, we’re starting to see applications of AI for hiring and for screening candidates. We’re starting to see AI agents processing CVs, and actually I think that’s a bit concerning.
I’d assume that jobs are important and people don’t necessarily want a machine making that very crucial decision versus a human. Tell me about your research.
What we found in our research is that [if you’re using AI], the way you order the options may influence the results. If you say, Here’s A, B, and C, which one do you think is more qualified? It turns out that the way you ask the question and the way you label and order the options [the candidates being recruited] is actually going to influence the results.
We found systematically that which one is labeled A versus B versus C, and how we order them impacts the choice that GPT makes.
So people could be picked for an interview or a job just because they were entered as the first option, and AI may be more likely to go for the first option just based on numerical order.
Yes, and I think it could be a bit dangerous because you could actually end up with the results that are going to be driven by pure random factors. What was the order of the candidate on the list as opposed to the actual qualities of the candidates? That’s one issue.
We also found that there’s potential stereotypes or biases that might come up. Maybe some candidates might be judged as being more or less worthy based on characteristics that should not be considered, [like] identity, gender, ethnicity, age, or other factors. There’s the risk of possible biases, social biases, and just also idiosyncratic biases. That’s just one issue of using AI as a recruiting tool.
How concerning is that for you? I don’t hire people. I don’t fire people. That’s not my job. That said, to me, I think it sounds alarming that AI could be basing such a crucial decision about my future based on what order I was entered into a system.
Generative AI is impressive. It’s able to solve complex mathematical problems. It’s able to write poetry. It’s able to do things that only very smart humans will be able to do. So because of that, we tend to think that gen AI is superhuman. But it’s not like a human brain. It’s a very different architecture.
We want to assume that we can trust Gen AI, and that we don’t need to worry about simple errors that it could make. So that’s why maybe we tend to turn a blind eye on this. And I’m actually surprised that not more people are aware of these biases. It’s an inconvenient truth.
I want to ask you about the idea that AI “levels the playing field” at work.
That’s been a debate, in academia and in practice, of augmentation versus automation. Is AI going to make us more productive? Is AI going to automate us? Is it going to level the playing field or is it going to actually amplify differences? I think so far we don’t have a lot of evidence that really leads to very clear conclusions.
My own take on this is that in many cases, it might level the playing field and indeed helps people who maybe have less skills and less experience perform similarly to those who have more. It can level the playing field among humans. But then the issue is: could an AI then do the job without humans at all?
Right. If you’re totally reliant on AI, then what exactly are you doing?
Generative AI may level the playing field, but AI is also going to replace humans because if AI can do well enough, then why would anyone hire a human and pay a human to do something that AI can do well enough?
That’s depressing.
Yeah, I know. In my opinion, the people who are going to “win” with AI are the ones who are going to use AI as a source of differentiation to differentiate themselves. And there’s two ways to differentiate yourself. There’s vertical and horizontal.
Tell me more.
Vertical means being better. So basically: Those [who] are going to use AI to be better than they are without AI, but also better than other people with AI, and also even better than AI without humans. If you have the skills and the experience and use AI to be the best performing agent, then I think that’s going to become actually more desirable on the job market.
And what does “horizontal” mean?
It means being different. It’s more about having a unique personality, unique points of view, and then maybe using AI to really express your ideas and your views in more compelling ways.
If the job market is people using machines to look for candidates and people using the same machines to look for new jobs, then it sort of becomes two machines talking to each other, right? One of the few differences between candidates may be having personality, right?
I see some use cases where maybe people use AI to create more compelling work products that actually are going to really showcase their unique ideas and personalities and points of view. And that I think is another area in which maybe AI could actually help humans. If you’re using AI, you want to use AI to differentiate yourself either by being better or by being different.
That’s interesting: Being different could be as important as being better?
It’s two different pathways in some cases. It’s not like one is above the other. It’s more like there are two ways that are not exclusive in which people can differentiate themselves.
Do you have an example of a field that values horizontal strength?
Any field that has to do with creativity, opinions, and personal connections. Any field where it helps to really have a connection with your audience. Maybe some consulting industries and creative industries where people will pay for unique insights, unique perspectives, unique points of view that are very sharp and distinct from others.
People have always told me that when you write cover letters, you need to make sure to stand out and tell whoever is reading why they need to choose you. That seems like it’s more important than ever in this job market. We have to really let ourselves shine through, otherwise we risk getting lost in the shuffle.
Yeah. I told my students, “Don’t be afraid to make yourself heard. Stand out, even be annoying — be a human.” You want to actually stand out.
Be annoying.
Okay, maybe not when you write your cover letter, but in life, you want to stand out. You want people to notice you; you want to have something to say. If you just blend in, then you will just be replaced by AI.
By the way, there’s now also AI tools to help you with live interviews when you’re on Zoom. There’s an AI that is actually helping you answer questions live. So you basically have to have the person live in front of you in your office with no electronics to be able to really test them
The whole idea just makes me sad? But it also kind of makes me a little hopeful that maybe the only way to succeed is to be a person.
I think I’m with you.
2025-12-11 07:00:00
2025年9月19日，唐纳德·特朗普在白宫椭圆形办公室发表讲话，身旁挂着“特朗普黄金卡”的海报。| 安德鲁·哈尼克/Getty Images
这则新闻出现在《Logoff》每日通讯中，该通讯旨在帮助您了解特朗普政府的动态，而不会让政治新闻占据您的生活。欢迎来到《Logoff》：特朗普正在继续改革美国的移民体系，推出了价值100万美元的签证。这是怎么回事？周三，特朗普宣布推出“特朗普黄金卡”，这是一种新的快速签证类别，要求申请人支付100万美元的“礼物”作为“该个人将显著造福美国”的证明。新计划还包括一项尚未推出的“白金卡”，费用为500万美元。获得“黄金卡”的人将获得美国的永久居民身份，也就是所谓的“绿卡”。
背景如何？特朗普早在2月就曾预览过这一计划，当时他提到费用可能高达500万美元。此外，“黄金卡”并不是特朗普唯一尝试通过移民体系赚钱的方式；9月份，他还在新H-1B签证上附加了10万美元的费用。
这个想法的来源是什么？为签证设定价格并不是什么新鲜事，但在特朗普的“黄金卡”中，要求支付“礼物”的做法异常直接。类似签证类别，如一些欧洲国家所谓的“黄金签证”，通常要求在该国进行某种形式的投资，例如购买房产或慈善捐赠。这些项目也伴随着严重的腐败担忧，例如特朗普已经表示愿意向俄罗斯寡头发放“黄金卡”。
这笔钱会用在哪里？目前尚不清楚；特朗普表示，这100万、200万或500万美元的“礼物”将直接交给美国政府，存入他周三所说的“一个我们可以为国家做积极事情的账户”。
大局如何？“黄金卡”实际上为美国移民体系增加了一条付费通道，让那些拥有大量资金的人有机会获得绿卡，而特朗普同时试图关闭对寻求庇护者和来自非白人国家移民的通道。
好了，现在是时候关掉新闻了……我读到了一篇关于石面掩藏的鸵鸟（一种在巴西西部山区新发现的友善且鸣叫声独特的鸟类）的《纽约时报》报道。一位生物学家告诉《纽约时报》，这种鸟“像一位歌剧歌手”拥有“独一无二的声音”。这并不是一篇完全乐观的文章——科学家担心这种鸟缺乏警惕性，可能会像已经灭绝的渡渡鸟一样面临危险。但好消息是，保护工作已经开始。您可以在这里阅读完整报道（这是一个“礼物”链接）。祝您有一个美好的夜晚，我们明天再见！
This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.
Welcome to The Logoff: Donald Trump is continuing to remodel America’s immigration system with the launch of a $1 million visa.
What happened? On Wednesday, Trump announced the launch of the “Trump Gold Card,” a new category of expedited visa that includes a $1 million fee, or “gift,” as “evidence that the individual will substantially benefit the United States.” The new program also includes a “Corporate Gold Card” with a $2 million fee, and a not-yet-available “Platinum Card” for $5 million.
Recipients of the “Gold Card” will receive permanent resident status in the US, also known as a green card.
What’s the context? Trump previewed it as early as February, at the time suggesting the cost might be $5 million. The “Gold Card” also isn’t the only way Trump is attempting to monetize the American immigration system; in September, he attached a $100,000 fee to new H-1B visas for skilled workers.
Where did this idea come from? Setting a price tag on a visa isn’t exactly new, in the US or elsewhere, but the “gift” requirement with Trump’s “Gold Card” is unusually direct. Similar visa categories, such as so-called golden visas in some European countries, often require some form of investment in those countries, such as property ownership or even charitable giving.
Such programs also come with serious corruption concerns: For example, Trump has already expressed openness to granting “Gold Cards” to Russian oligarchs.
Where does the money go? That part is still unclear; the “gift” of $1 million, $2 million, or $5 million will go directly to the US government, into what Trump described Wednesday as “an account where we can do things positive for the country.”
What’s the big picture? “Gold Cards” essentially add a pay-to-play lane to the US immigration system, opening the door for people with millions of dollars lying around — even as Trump tries to slam it shut for asylum-seekers and immigrants from non-white countries.
I enjoyed this New York Times story about the slaty-masked tinamou, a friendly, vocal new species of bird recently discovered in the mountains of western Brazil; one biologist described it to the Times as “an opera singer” with “a voice like no other.”
It’s not an entirely upbeat piece — scientists worry that the bird’s lack of fear could put it in company with the now-extinct dodo — but the good news is that efforts are already underway to protect it. You can read the full story here (it’s a gift link). Have a great evening, and we’ll see you back here tomorrow!
2025-12-11 04:05:18
2020年底，共和党在最高法院获得6比3的超级多数后，最高法院似乎开始按照一份清单行事，即识别那些与共和党立场相悖的重要先例，并以党派投票的方式推翻这些决定。其中包括废除了宪法赋予的堕胎权、几乎全面废除了大学中的平权行动政策，以及扩大了宗教保守派违反基于宗教理由的州和联邦法律的能力。这些决定都与过去由更自由派法官作出的最高法院裁决背道而驰。
在周三早上的“哈姆诉史密斯”（Hamm v. Smith）死刑案件口头辩论中，一个不确定的问题是：共和党法官是否将过去限制政府对罪犯施加残酷和不寻常惩罚的裁决纳入他们的清单。然而，根据周三的辩论，最高法院在刑事惩罚方面的未来计划似乎比他们在种族或堕胎等议题上的雄心要温和得多。目前尚不清楚多数法官是否会支持乔赛夫·克里顿·史密斯（Joseph Clifton Smith）——一位因1997年抢劫杀人罪被判死刑的阿拉巴马州死囚——的主张，即他因智力残疾而不能被处决是合宪的。
值得注意的是，所有法官似乎都默认了2002年“阿特金斯诉弗吉尼亚州案”（Atkins v. Virginia）的裁决，即禁止对智力残疾者执行死刑。而且，包括尼尔·戈萨奇大法官在内的任何一位法官都没有提到他在2019年“布克勒诉普雷西案”（Bucklew v. Precythe）中的多数意见，该意见似乎主张推翻过去60年关于第八修正案禁止残酷和不寻常惩罚的先例。
尽管如此，史密斯仍有可能输掉此案，但这种失败可能相对有限。即使是最支持死刑的法官，也倾向于对执行死刑的法律进行渐进式的修改，而不是彻底推翻。
在“哈姆诉史密斯”案中，史密斯的智力残疾主张较为边缘。他的IQ测试分数在72至78之间，略高于70的临界值。根据之前的最高法院裁决，当一个人的IQ分数在临床确定的范围内时，法院应考虑其他证据来判断其是否具有智力残疾。史密斯的律师指出，除非下级法院犯有“明显错误”，否则上诉法院应尊重其事实认定。因此，最高法院不太可能推翻下级法院关于史密斯是否具有智力残疾的事实认定，除非情况极端。
不过，这些法官在辩论中提出的问题表明，他们并不打算全面推翻“阿特金斯案”的裁决。因此，即使多数法官支持史密斯，他们也可能仅作出有限的裁决。如果最高法院希望进行类似“布克勒案”的革命性变革，那也必须等到未来的案件。而目前，尚不清楚是否已有足够的支持。
此外，最高法院在“布克勒案”中曾提出一种原旨主义的解释，即第八修正案的“残酷和不寻常惩罚”应根据18世纪初的观念来判断。然而，在“哈姆诉史密斯”案的辩论中，这一观点并未被提及，甚至被阿尔托大法官明确拒绝。他强调，法院在本案中应关注“社会道德标准的演变”。因此，周三的辩论表明，史密斯的命运仍然悬而未决，但最高法院的裁决可能相对温和。
From the moment the Republican Party gained a 6-3 supermajority on the Supreme Court, in late 2020, the Court has often acted as if it is going down a checklist — identifying landmark precedents that are out of favor with the GOP, and overruling those decisions in party-line votes.
Among other things, the Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, abolished affirmative action at nearly all universities, and expanded religious conservatives’ ability to violate state and federal laws that they disagree with on religious grounds. Each of these decisions, and more, were clean breaks with previous Supreme Court decisions handed down by a more liberal panel of justices.
One uncertain question going into Wednesday morning’s oral argument in Hamm v. Smith, a death penalty case, is whether the Republican justices’ checklist includes past decisions limiting the government’s ability to impose cruel and unusual punishments on criminal offenders. Based on Wednesday’s oral argument, however, it now appears that this Court’s plan for the future of criminal punishment is much more modest than their ambitions on topics such as race or abortion.
It is unclear whether a majority of the Court will vote to save Joseph Clifton Smith — who is on death row in Alabama and who argues it is unconstitutional to execute him because of an intellectual disability — from being killed by the state. But several key justices appeared sufficiently skeptical of Alabama’s arguments in this case that it is, at least, possible that Smith could prevail.
Significantly, all of the justices appeared to take the Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia (2002), which held that people with intellectual disabilities may not be executed, as a given. And none of them — including Justice Neil Gorsuch — brought up Gorsuch’s majority opinion in Bucklew v. Precythe (2019), which seemed to suggest that the past 60 years of precedents interpreting the Eighth Amendment’s bar on cruel and unusual punishments should be tossed out.
So, while Smith could still lose, it seems likely that such a loss would be relatively narrow. Even the most pro-death penalty justices pushed for relatively incremental changes to the law governing executions, rather than calling for a revolution.
Smith was sentenced to death for a 1997 robbery and murder. But two lower federal courts determined that he cannot be executed, under Atkins, because he is intellectually disabled.
It’s safe to say that Smith’s claim that he has a disability is fairly marginal. It is neither so ridiculous that sensible judges would reject it out of hand, nor so compelling that no fair judge could reject it. Previous Supreme Court decisions applying Atkins establish that courts should apply the clinical definition of intellectual disability in order to determine if a particular criminal defendant has that disability. And the evidence in Hamm indicates that Smith presents a borderline case.
One of several factors that clinicians look at when diagnosing an intellectual disability is the patient’s IQ score. An IQ of 70 or below is generally associated with intellectual disability, but clinical manuals warn that IQ tests have a margin of error, and thus a patient with scores that are slightly above 70 may still be diagnosed with an intellectual disability if they have “such substantial adaptive behavior problems…that the person’s actual functioning is clinically comparable to that of individuals with a lower IQ score.”
Smith has taken five IQ tests, and he scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on them.
In Moore v. Texas (2017), moreover, the Supreme Court held that courts hearing Atkins claims must “consider other evidence of intellectual disability where an individual’s IQ score, adjusted for the test’s standard error, falls within the clinically established range for intellectual-functioning deficits.” During Wednesday’s argument, all three of the Court’s Democrats seemed to agree that this means that someone like Smith, who has some IQ scores that are only slightly above 70, must be allowed to introduce additional evidence showing that they have adaptive behavioral problems which suggest that they, in fact, have an intellectual disability.
Significantly, at least some of the Court’s Republicans also appeared open to this approach. Early in the argument, for example, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that some of the Alabama court system’s own death penalty decisions “do move on to adaptive functioning” even when a defendant’s IQ scores are above the 70 IQ threshold.
Similarly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pushed Alabama’s lawyer, Robert Overing, on what “logic” would justify a rule forbidding a court from looking at more than just IQ scores when there is additional evidence that cuts in a defendant’s favor.
Chief Justice John Roberts, meanwhile, was largely quiet during the argument, but he did accuse Overing of making a “results oriented” argument that would permit courts to look at evidence besides IQ scores when most of a defendant’s scores are below 70, but not when they are above this threshold.
To be sure, even if Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all agree with the three Democrats that evidence of adaptive functioning is permitted even when a defendant’s IQ scores are all above 70, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Smith will prevail. But, as Seth Waxman, Smith’s lawyer, pointed out, a lower court’s factual determinations normally must be upheld by appeals courts unless the lower court made a “clear error.”
So the Supreme Court should not disturb a lower courts’ factual determination that a specific person has an intellectual disability, except in very extreme cases.
At the very least, however, these justices’ questions do suggest that they do not plan a wholesale assault on Atkins. At the most, they may rule in Hamm that Smith, a death row inmate with a genuinely marginal claim that he is intellectually disabled, may nonetheless be executed.
Historically, the Court’s right flank has criticized Atkins and attempted to undermine it. In Hall v. Florida (2014), for example, one of the Court’s decisions establishing that capital defendants may introduce other evidence that they are intellectually disabled even when their IQ scores are above 70, four justices dissented. Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent, moreover, would have given states a great deal of leeway to determine how criminal defendants are evaluated for an intellectual disability.
Yet, while Alito still pushed for a narrow reading of Atkins, he didn’t seem to have much support from his colleagues. Although Alito spent considerable time suggesting that it would be absurd to let additional evidence into a hypothetical case where the defendant had five IQ scores of 100 and one of 71, for example, none of the other justices seemed to latch onto this unlikely hypothetical.
Additionally, none of the justices, including Gorsuch, brought up an alternative framework for Eighth Amendment cases that Gorsuch floated in Bucklew.
Beginning in the middle of the 20th century, the Court declared that the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” So, as a particular method of punishment grows more “unusual,” it also stands on increasingly infirm constitutional ground.
In Bucklew, however, Gorsuch ignored this “evolving standards” framework and instead suggested that a punishment is unconstitutional only if it would have been considered cruel and unusual when the Eighth Amendment was ratified in the 1790s. This approach would potentially have breathtaking consequences for all criminal defendants. Among other things, it’s not at all clear that the founding generation thought that it was cruel and unusual to give someone an excessive punishment for a minor crime.
But no one brought up this originalist approach during the Hamm argument, and Alito, of all people, seemed to reject it entirely. At one point, he stated fairly explicitly that his Court’s job in Hamm is to determine “the evolving standard of decency.”
The big takeaway from Wednesday’s argument, in other words, is that Smith’s fate remains uncertain. But it also looks like the Court’s decision in this case will be fairly narrow.
If a majority of the justices do crave a Bucklew-style revolution in the Court’s approach to the Eighth Amendment, that revolution will have to wait until a future case. And it is far from clear that there is a majority for such a revolution, even though a total of five justices joined Gorsuch’s opinion in Bucklew.
2025-12-11 03:40:00
2025年4月30日，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普在华盛顿特区白宫的Cross Hall听取英伟达首席执行官黄仁勋的讲话，宣布允许美国芯片制造商英伟达向中国出售其先进的H200芯片，称此举是推翻了拜登政府失败的政策，该政策据称“阻碍了创新并损害了美国工人”。他补充道：“那个时代已经结束了。”这一决定首先标志着英伟达及其盟友在白宫中国鹰派势力的压制下取得了一次重大胜利。其次，如果这是某个时代的终结，那么这个时代的起点却是在特朗普的第一个任期。卡内基国际和平基金会高级研究员史蒂文·费尔德斯坦表示：“最初推动美国转向芯片控制战略的人正是特朗普。”这一时代始于2019年特朗普禁止向中国科技巨头中兴通讯和华为供应美国原产零部件，理由是这些公司与中国政府和军方存在关联。费尔德斯坦指出，正是这些举措促使中国领导人开始认真思考如何摆脱对美国控制的芯片供应链的依赖。尽管中国有自己的半导体制造能力，但最先进的芯片几乎全部由美国公司（如英伟达）设计，并在台湾生产，所用设备则来自荷兰。
这一政策在特朗普和拜登政府之间保持了一定的连续性。拜登政府在2022年进一步收紧了对华为的限制，并扩大了政策范围，不仅限制了中国公司用于制造芯片的设备，还限制了最先进芯片的出口。此举发生在俄乌战争期间，当时中国公司被指控向俄罗斯提供技术组件，违反了美国制裁，同时也正值人工智能热潮兴起，自2022年ChatGPT发布以来，AI行业迅速发展。一些拜登政府官员认为，美国和中国正在展开一场新的军备竞赛，以开发超级智能AI，而美国在芯片供应链上的主导地位使其在这一竞赛中占据优势。为此，美国出台了一项广泛影响的规则，将全球国家分为三类：美国的亲密盟友可以购买美国芯片，像中国和俄罗斯这样的对手则被禁止，而大多数国家则处于中间地带，面临更严格的审查。
然而，特朗普重返白宫后，围绕限制芯片出口的策略展开了一场激烈争论。一方面，来自两党的中国鹰派支持这些措施，甚至提出了跨党派法案，将拜登的限制政策法律化。他们的论点是，限制最先进的人工智能芯片（如英伟达的H200）有助于保持美国在AI竞赛中的领先地位，尤其是在中国努力发展与AI相关的军事能力的背景下。另一方面，AI开发者，如Anthropic的达里奥·阿莫代伊，也公开支持这些限制。而最具影响力的反对声音来自全球最有价值的公司——英伟达，其CEO黄仁勋认为，美国要保持AI领先地位，最好的办法是让世界其他国家继续依赖美国芯片。此外，中国公司也通过进口黑市芯片或在第三国数据中心运营来规避这些限制。
黄仁勋出生于台湾，过去一直保持政治中立，这在英伟达以生产游戏显卡（如Doom和Quake）闻名的时期更容易做到。但如今，英伟达已深度卷入人工智能热潮及其相关的地缘政治纷争，黄仁勋也频繁出现在特朗普身边，可能已取代埃隆·马斯克成为白宫最亲近的科技公司CEO。黄仁勋的立场显然受到AI热潮对股市的支撑影响，英伟达本身占标普500指数约8%。特朗普的决定也使得美国在英伟达收入中分得一杯羹，这无疑增强了其说服力。
与此同时，英伟达在政府中也有盟友，例如投资者、有影响力的播客主持人兼白宫AI事务负责人大卫·萨克斯，他主张放宽限制以帮助美国公司保持市场份额。商务部长霍华德·卢特尼克也表示，美国应努力让中国“上瘾”于美国芯片。这周对特朗普阵营中亲科技的派系来说是个大胜，不仅有对英伟达的决定，还有特朗普暗示将发布一项行政命令，阻止各州对AI的监管，尽管这遭到一些其MAGA盟友的反对。
值得注意的是，尽管黄仁勋和萨克斯经常以维护美国对中国的科技优势为由进行辩护，但特朗普似乎并不特别关注这一点。他的声明中提到：“中国国家主席习近平对此表示非常积极的回应！”这表明特朗普可能更倾向于与中国达成协议，而非继续竞争。然而，这也可能让特朗普陷入尴尬处境，因为一些中国鹰派议员，如众议员约翰·穆伦纳尔，认为中国共产党将利用这些先进芯片来增强其军事能力和极权监控能力。此外，特朗普的这一决定也凸显了个人关系和商业利益在该政府外交政策中的重要性，而非意识形态或传统国家安全考量。
不过，也有可能英伟达选择错了政府。尽管特朗普宣布允许出口，但据称中国正计划限制国内对H200芯片的使用，以鼓励本国企业开发能与中国竞争的产品。因此，特朗普可能只是在芯片战争中宣布了停火，但并未通知北京。
This week, President Donald Trump announced that he would allow US chipmaker Nvidia to sell its advanced H200 chips to China, describing the move as overturning a failed Biden administration policy that he says “slowed innovation and hurt the American worker.”
He continued, “That era is over.”
The first notable thing about the decision is that it’s a clear victory for Nvidia and its allies in the administration over Washington’s China hawks, who have pushed to block China’s access to the chips needed to develop the most advanced AI models. (Nvidia’s even more cutting edge B200 chips are still off the table.)
The second notable thing is that if this is the end of an era, it’s an era that began during Trump’s own first term. “The original person who pivoted the US away toward a chip control strategy was Trump,” said Steven Feldstein, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment, who studies technology and geopolitics. This era began in earnest with Trump’s bans on supplying US-origin components to the Chinese tech giants ZTE and Huawei in 2019, citing those companies’ links to the Chinese government and military.
Feldstein says it was these moves that first got Chinese leaders thinking seriously about how to escape their vulnerabilities to US-controlled chokepoints in the chip supply chains. (While China has semiconductor manufacturing of its own, the most advanced chips are overwhelmingly designed by US companies — namely Nvidia — and produced in Taiwan with equipment made in the Netherlands.)
This was an area of continuity between the first Trump and Biden administrations. Biden tightened the restrictions on Huawei and also expanded the policy, restricting not only equipment used by Chinese companies to make chips but also exports of the most advanced chips themselves. This happened in the context of Russia’s war in Ukraine, during which Chinese companies have been accused of supplying tech components to Russia, defying US sanctions as well as the AI boom that kicked off in earnest with ChatGPT’s release in 2022.
In the view of some Biden administration officials, the US and China were in a new arms race to develop superintelligent AI, and America’s control of the chip supply chain gave it a head start in that race. This culminated in a wide-ranging rule, dividing the world’s countries into three tiers of access to American chips. America’s closest allies could buy the chips, adversaries like China and Russia could not, and most of the world was in the middle, facing heightened scrutiny.
Since Trump’s return, though, there’s been an active debate over the strategy of restricting chip exports. On one side are China hawks in both parties who largely support these measures; there are proposed bipartisan bills to codify the Biden restrictions into law. Their argument is that restricting the most advanced AI chips, like Nvidia’s H200, will preserve the US advantage in the AI race, which is particularly important given China’s efforts to develop AI-related military capabilities. AI developers, in particular Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, have also been outspoken in support of the restrictions.
The most influential voice on the other side of the debate has been the world’s most valuable company, Nvidia, whose CEO Jensen Huang argues that the best way for the US to maintain AI supremacy is to keep the rest of the world dependent on American chips. (Chinese companies have also been skirting the restrictions by importing black market chips or operating out of data centers in third countries.)
The Taiwanese-born Huang had long been scrupulously apolitical, which was easier to pull off in the days when Nvidia was better known for making the graphics cards that made games like Doom and Quake possible. But his company is now deeply tied to the AI boom and all the geopolitical entanglements that come with that, and Huang has lately been an inescapable presence at Trump’s side, arguably replacing Elon Musk as the tech CEO closest to the White House. It surely doesn’t hurt his cause that the AI boom is keeping the stock market afloat; Nvidia itself accounts for about 8 percent of the S&P 500. The prospect of the US taking a cut of Nvidia’s revenue no doubt sweetened the deal.
The chipmaker also has allies in the administration, notably the investor, influential podcast host, and White House AI czar David Sacks, who has made the case that US interests are better served by loosening restrictions to help US companies maintain their market share. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, too, has argued that the US should try to keep China “addicted” to US chips. It’s been a great week for this tech-aligned faction of Trumpworld, between this announcement and Trump’s teasing of an executive order blocking state-level AI regulation over the objections of some of his MAGA allies.
Notably, though Huang and Sacks often frame their arguments in terms of maintaining the US edge over China, it’s not even clear Trump is very interested in that. His statement made clear that “President Xi responded very positively!” to the announcement.
Back in 2017, the Trump administration proclaimed in its National Security Strategy that “great power competition” had returned, a framework the Biden administration also enthusiastically embraced. The chip restrictions were part of an overall strategy to maintain a technological and military edge over a great power rival. This Trump administration seems less interested in competing with China than cutting deals with it, a reality underlined by a new 2025 National Security Strategy, released last week, which prioritized security concerns in the Western Hemisphere and culture war conflicts with Europe over great power competition.
Trump’s decision puts Republican China hawks in an awkward spot. “The CCP [Chinese Communist Party] will use these highly advanced chips to strengthen its military capabilities and totalitarian surveillance,” said Rep. John Moolenaar, co-chair of the Select Committee on Competition with China. And it’s another example of the degree to which personal relationships and business interests often guide this administration’s foreign policy more than ideology or traditional national security concerns.
However, it’s also possible that Nvidia may have won over the wrong government. Despite Trump’s announcement, China is reportedly planning to limit domestic access to the H200 chips, as part of a strategy to encourage its own companies to make products that compete with the Americans.
Trump may have declared a truce in the chip war, but nobody told Beijing.
2025-12-11 03:00:00
2025年12月8日，印第安纳州州议会大厦展示了一张2025年国会选区划分草案。| Kaiti Sullivan/Bloomberg via Getty Images 特朗普政府正在发起一场选区划分的斗争，旨在削减多个州的民主党众议院席位。这场斗争始于得克萨斯州，当地在8月通过了新的选区划分方案，现在特朗普将目光投向了印第安纳州。印第安纳州众议院上周通过了新的国会选区划分方案，但该方案现在需要提交给州参议院进行表决，而州参议院的共和党议员在投票上存在分歧。特朗普和美国众议院议长迈克·约翰逊正在分别联系参议员，试图说服他们支持该方案，以帮助共和党在明年中期选举中获得多数席位。然而，印第安纳州正出现一种趋势，认为华盛顿特区的立法者不应干涉地方政治。而且，这种“特朗普式”的极端保守路线似乎并未在州级政治中完全体现。这是否意味着特朗普的影响力正在减弱？今天，Explained节目的主持人Astead Herndon就这一问题及其他关于选区划分的议题采访了Politico的国家政治记者Adam Wren。以下是他们对话的节选，内容经过删减和润色。更多内容请收听完整的节目。目前，该方案将在州参议院进行表决，而参议院内部似乎存在一些分歧。这是否意味着该方案一定会通过？如果不能通过，又是什么原因？答案是否定的。几周前，印第安纳州参议院对该方案进行了一次测试投票，参议院共有50名议员，其中40名为共和党人，投票结果是19比19平局，未能达到多数。印第安纳州的共和党参议员更倾向于传统的共和党路线，受前副总统迈克·彭斯和前州长米奇·邓恩的影响较大。因此，尽管印第安纳州是特朗普的州，但并不是典型的“特朗普主义”（MAGA）州。我们正在看到特朗普党内出现的分歧，这或许预示着2028年政治格局的变化。在决定是否通过新选区划分方案的过程中，有哪些关键人物起着决定性作用？最关键的人物是参议院临时议长罗德里克·布雷。他是共和党人，任职近十年，是第三代共和党立法者。他非常注重制度和机构的信誉，认为在中期选举期间进行选区重划是不可接受的。此外，州长迈克·布劳恩也起着重要作用。他是典型的MAGA式共和党人，其政治生涯完全依赖于特朗普的支持。2018年，布劳恩在一场三强共和党初选中与前参议员乔·唐纳利竞争，特朗普支持他并最终使其胜出。去年，布劳恩再次在共和党州长初选中获得特朗普的支持并成功当选。特朗普在Truth Social上表示，布劳恩欠他一个人情。此外，Charlie Kirk的Turning Point组织于上周五宣布，将投入数百万美元来挑战任何反对该方案的印第安纳州参议员。当您提到那些坚持反对该方案的参议院共和党人时，能否解释他们的逻辑？特朗普和白宫的论点是，乔·拜登的普查数据不准确，实际上是由特朗普总统主导的普查数据有误，导致选区划分不公平。他们认为，这种数据错误使得选区划分变得不公平。然而，印第安纳州的共和党参议员则认为，如果2020年的普查数据是不公平的，为什么我们只调整国会选区划分，而不调整规模较小的州参议院选区划分？这实际上暴露了他们对特朗普做法的反对，也表明这场斗争的核心是保护国会中的共和党多数席位。特朗普对州级共和党立法者的抵制反应如何？他在周末通过Truth Social发帖称：“任何真正的共和党人怎么会反对这些选区划分？”这一问题背后意味深长，因为过去十年中，特朗普一直声称自己定义了MAGA。但我们现在看到的是，党内出现了意识形态上的分歧，这表明MAGA这一品牌尚未完全渗透到州立法层，甚至在十年后，这种趋势可能预示着共和党未来将摆脱当前的全国性品牌，走向新的发展方向。本周的投票结果会如何？目前形势非常微妙，难以预测。白宫密切关注着局势。大约有10名共和党参议员尚未公开表态。目前，只有其中一位参议员在自己的选区举办了公开的选民见面会，其他人都尚未公开表态。这位参议员格雷格·古德曾遭到电话骚扰，约有12名参议员因特朗普在Truth Social上公开他们的名字而面临电话骚扰或收到炸弹威胁。本周将为美国政治树立一个令人震惊的先例，如果该方案仅以一两票的优势通过，这可能意味着暴力威胁正在影响未来政治走向。印第安纳州的共和党选民对此有何看法？在印第安纳州进行的多项民调显示，该方案在民众中非常不受欢迎，甚至在特朗普的支持者中也是如此。印第安纳州的共和党和民主党人都普遍认为，这种由华盛顿特区强加于地方政治的干预是不公平的，很多选民并不希望看到这种影响渗透到他们生活的小镇中。
The Trump administration is waging a redistricting war that would slash Democratic House seats in several states. It started in Texas, where a new map was passed in August, and now President Donald Trump is setting his sights on Indiana.
The Indiana House passed a new congressional map last week, but now it goes to the state Senate, where Republicans are split on how to vote. Trump and US House Speaker Mike Johnson are calling the state senators individually and trying to convince them to vote yes, to help Republicans secure a majority in next year’s midterm elections. However, there is a growing sentiment in Indiana that DC lawmakers should stay out of local politics. And that maybe the MAGA maximalist approach isn’t filtering down to the state level.
Does this mean Trump’s influence is waning? Today, Explained co-host Astead Herndon put that question and others about the redistricting efforts to Adam Wren, Politico’s national politics correspondent.
Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full episode, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
So the new map will go to the state Senate next where there seems to be some drama. Is this a certainty that this new map passes? And if not, what’s the holdup?
Not at all. A few weeks ago, the Indiana Senate took a test vote on this, and the state senate is 50 people, 40 Republicans, and they deadlocked 19 to 19 on whether or not to pass this. They were seven votes short of a majority. Senate Republicans in Indiana are a much more traditional kind of Republican, a pre-Trump Republican Party. They’re influenced more by former Vice President Mike Pence and former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. And so while Indiana is a Trump state, it’s not really a MAGA state. We’re seeing divisions in the Trump party that really could kind of foreshadow where things are headed in 2028.
Who are some of the key players who matter most in determining whether the Senate Republicans will pass the new map?
The person who matters most is Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray. He’s a Republican who’s been in office almost a decade, and he’s a third-generation Republican lawmaker. He has a really institutional-minded approach, and he thinks the credibility of the Indiana Senate is on the line, and to redistrict mid-cycle to him is an anathema.
Then Governor Mike Braun. He is a MAGA Republican who owes his political career entirely to Trump. Braun was in a 2018 three-way Senate Republican primary to go up against former Senator Joe Donnelly. Trump endorsed him in that primary and elevated him, and he won. Then Braun found himself in another Republican gubernatorial primary last year, and Trump endorsed him again, and he won. Trump has essentially posted the Truth Social that Mike Braun owes him one on this. He and Trump are threatening to primary [opponents of the bill]. Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point, they just announced last Friday: They’re going to spend eight figures to primary any Indiana Senate Republican who votes against this this week.
When you mentioned the Senate Republicans that are holding firm, can you take me through their logic?
The argument from Trump and the White House is Joe Biden’s census — it wasn’t his census, by the way; it was run by President Donald Trump — [that] Joe Biden’s census got it wrong. [They say] it overcounted people and it yielded unfair maps.
“There’s a sense of fairness that pervades Indiana politics among Republicans and Democrats alike, and they think that this is an unfair move.”
And what these Senate Republicans are saying is, wait a second: If the 2020 census was unfair, how is it that we only need to change the congressional maps and not our own Senate maps that are smaller than those congressional districts? It sort of gives up the argument here, and it tells the truth that this is really about protecting the Republican majority in Congress alone.
How has Trump reacted to this resistance from state Republican lawmakers?
He posted on Truth Social over the weekend: How would any real Republican oppose these maps? The question embedded in that is interesting because for the last decade in American politics, Trump has said that he’s the one who defines what MAGA is. But what we’re seeing here are sort of ideological cleavages that suggest that the MAGA brand hasn’t really filtered down to the state legislative level yet, even after 10 years, in a way that could point to a Trump-free future where the Republican Party does change and does morph and does evolve beyond its current brand nationally.
How do we think the vote is going to go this week?
It’s a knife’s edge here. It’s hard to say what’s going to happen. The White House is watching closely. There are a group of about 10 Republican senators who have not publicly announced where they’re at. Only one Republican elected official who’s voting on these new maps has held an actual town hall with voters in their own district. None of the others have gone public yet. And that Republican, Greg Goode, has been on the receiving end of a swatting attempt. About a dozen Senate Republicans have been either swatted or faced with threats of pipe bombs after President Donald Trump posted their names on Truth Social.
It’s an incredible precedent that’s going to be set in American politics this week, because if there’s only one or two votes that it passes by, one of the takeaways could be that threats of violence work to shape our politics going forward.
Is there any sense of where the Republican voters are?
Public poll after public poll commissioned in Indiana show that this is remarkably unpopular, even among Trump’s own voters. There’s a sense of fairness that pervades Indiana politics among Republicans and Democrats alike, and they think that this is an unfair move — to have this power in Washington, DC coming to Indiana and trying to inject something on these small towns that a lot of voters just don’t want.