2026-03-28 02:45:00
2025年10月21日，副总统JD·万斯抵达以色列特拉维夫本古里安机场时，与美国驻以色列大使迈克·哈克比以及以色列驻美大使耶希埃尔·利特进行了会面。| Nathan Howard/Getty Images
在联合美国与以色列对伊朗的战争开始近一个月后，你可能已经听到了关于美国右翼内部似乎爆发的“内战”的消息。尽管民调显示特朗普的“MAGA”基础群体对其支持率依然稳定，但这场战争正在撕裂“MAGA”阵营，使一些不满的MAGA影响者与坚定支持特朗普和以色列的忠诚支持者之间产生对立。
这种分歧的根源早在美国和以色列发动首次打击之前就已显现。当时，Tucker Carlson在自己的播客中采访了美国驻以色列大使Mike Huckabee，后者是坚定的亲以色列活动家。Huckabee认为，作为基督教锡安主义者，他相信《圣经》表明上帝不仅承诺了以色列，还承诺了中东的大部分地区给犹太人。而Carlson则认为这并不是现代国家的合理依据，并指责以色列将美国拖入与伊朗的战争。
关键要点：
特朗普政治联盟中的新兴分歧 直到最近，美国宗教右翼的故事主要围绕着在世俗化世界中捍卫传统价值观的合作展开。这一政治努力促成了共和党内部不同教派之间的联盟：福音派、天主教徒、摩门教徒和正统犹太教徒在诸如同性婚姻、堕胎、教育和宗教异议者保护等问题上团结一致。在布什时期，几乎整个共和党都围绕对抗伊斯兰恐怖主义团结一致，而以色列被视为主要盟友。但近年来，这种关系开始受到质疑。
特朗普的享乐主义个人风格扩大了党派的包容性，吸引了更多世俗选民，他们有着不同的兴趣。他对伊拉克战争的批评以及“美国优先”的口号，帮助催生了右翼中公开批评美国海外介入，包括支持以色列的声音。此外，他削弱了右翼极端言论的限制，使得一些公开反犹的言论得以传播，从而加剧了联盟内部的紧张关系。
这些分歧在最近几周逐渐显现，而伊朗战争很可能会成为引发更多激烈讨论的催化剂。典型例子是Carrie Prejean Boller，一位前模特和选美比赛选手，去年皈依天主教。她曾担任白宫宗教自由委员会成员，但几周前因批评以色列政府对加沙的处理方式、对以色列支持不足以及捍卫她认为“以色列并非圣经预言中唯一实现的民族”的天主教信仰而被解职。Prejean Boller的离职成为右翼基督教思想家和影响者之间紧张关系的导火索，许多原本就对以色列持批评态度的人士和保守派评论员因此卷入争论。
Prejean Boller在一封写给特朗普的公开信中表示，特朗普在推动这场战争并解雇她时，背叛了那些加入其政治联盟并相信其“美国优先”承诺的天主教徒。她写道：“大多数投票支持你的人，都感觉和你一样。你为何背叛我们？”
她的反以色列言论在委员会会议和网络上引发了许多右翼知名人士的谴责，包括评论员Mark Levin、德克萨斯副州长Dan Patrick（委员会主席）、基督教讽刺媒体Babylon Bee的作者Seth Dillon，以及与Ben Shapiro的Daily Wire网络相关的评论员。许多批评者认为她已经越界，陷入反犹太主义，而她则予以否认。她的一些言论聚焦于犹太人“钉死耶稣”的角色，并支持Candace Owens，后者在阴谋论中日益贬低犹太人。
然而，她也获得了一些新兴的、自称天主教的有影响力人物的支持，包括Owens、Megyn Kelly和反犹太主义播客主持人Nick Fuentes，以及一些批评以色列的保守派天主教博客作者和作家。
Carlson，一位成长于圣公会的评论员，邀请Prejean Boller上他的节目，谈论她被解雇一事。这场争论具有神学层面的成分。在右翼，以Huckabee和一些非宗派教会为代表的福音派基督徒普遍持有“基督教锡安主义”观点，即支持现代以色列作为圣经预言中的“以色列”，并认为这是耶稣基督回归和“被提”（Rapture）的先决条件。而Carlson、Prejean Boller以及其他批评以色列的MAGA天主教徒和福音派基督徒则不认同这一观点，他们区分现代以色列与圣经中的“以色列”。
一些传统的、MAGA倾向的天主教徒还推动了一种更为激进、尽管具有历史传统的观点，即基督徒是“新的以色列”，上帝与基督徒之间形成了取代旧约中与犹太人关系的新约。这种观点在神学上被称为“取代主义”（supersessionism），虽然在梵二会议之前是天主教的普遍观点，但也被认为助长了反犹太主义，恶化了犹太人与基督徒之间的关系。值得注意的是，现代教会并不支持这种观点。梵二会议澄清了教会不将犹太人视为“被上帝拒绝或诅咒”的群体，谴责反犹太主义为罪行，并确认犹太人与上帝之间有独特的联系，与天主教会的角色无关。
除了神学争论，这场对话还触及了一些痛苦的历史，这可能促使教会领导层采取更积极的行动。教会与反犹太主义有着长期且不幸的关系，直到20世纪30年代开始通过一代皈依者努力修复。这一努力在1965年梵二会议后达到顶峰，当时发布了《Nostra Aetate》文件，否定了犹太人因“钉死耶稣”而被上帝拒绝的观点。
天主教神学家和作家Massimo Faggioli，来自都柏林洛约拉学院的教会学教授，告诉我，这些分歧正在重新打开旧伤，迫使教会重新审视其与现代以色列的关系。尽管教皇们一直呼吁中东的两国解决方案，坚持反战立场，并试图在“预定论”（dispensationalism）和“取代主义”之间保持中间路线，但这些争论可能让教会重新面对其在现代以色列问题上的模糊立场。
Faggioli表示，他担心这些分歧可能重新唤起天主教会在梵二会议后努力摆脱的反犹太主义。他说：“那些挑战美国保守派锡安主义正统的人，可能看起来像那些想要帮助中东某些政策受害者的人，但他们在无意中可能重新唤起我们曾努力击败的反犹太主义怪物。”
接下来的发展可能取决于这场战争的走向。但如果战争持续并影响中期选举中的共和党联盟，这些紧张关系很可能会加剧。目前尚不清楚这些争论有多少仍停留在精英层面的神学讨论中，有多少会渗透到普通信徒中。但我们可以预见，这些派系斗争可能在2028年总统初选中进一步显现，宗教和信仰将成为冲突的焦点。而目前，亲以色列的共识在右翼看来比以往更加脆弱。
Nearly a month into the joint US-Israeli war on Iran, there’s a good chance you’ve heard something about the apparent civil war on the right over the conflict. Though polling shows steady support for President Donald Trump from his MAGA base, the war has been tearing apart the MAGAsphere, pitting disenchanted MAGA influencers against fervent pro-Trump and pro-Israel loyalists.
The seeds of this split were apparent even before the US and Israel launched their first strikes, when Tucker Carlson, of the America First, Israel-skeptical, anti-interventionist wing of the party, interviewed Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel and fervent pro-Israel activist, on Carlson’s podcast last month. Huckabee argued that, as a Christian Zionist, he believed the Bible showed that God had promised not just Israel, but large portions of the Middle East, to the Jewish people. Carlson argued it wasn’t a valid basis for a modern state, and accused Israel of dragging the US into war with Iran.
As their conversation suggested, there’s a religious dimension to this emerging rift on the right:
Huckabee is an evangelical Christian, a group that is overwhelmingly pro-Israel. Carlson, like many of the biggest critics of both the US relationship with Israel and the Iran war, is not.
Since their interview, this divide has exploded into public view as a political, theological, and policy argument across multiple fronts that’s drawn in everyone from likely 2028 presidential candidates, to popular influencers, to top religious leaders. The most explosive fights have centered on the relationship between conservative Catholics and the GOP’s dominant evangelical base.
How these play out will have implications not just for inter-religious understanding in the US, but for the future of the Republican Party, and by extension American politics.
Until recently, the story of the religious right had largely been about increasing cooperation to defend traditional values in a secularizing world. This political effort created interdenominational alliances within the Republican Party: evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, and Orthodox Jews found each other allied on issues like gay marriage, abortion, education, and protections for religious dissenters. In the Bush years, almost the entire GOP was united around confronting Islamic terrorism, an issue where Israel was seen as a leading ally.
But in recent years, this relationship has come into question. Trump’s hedonistic personal style expanded the party tent to more secular voters with their own divergent interests. His criticism of the Iraq War and embrace of an “America First” message helped build up voices on the right who were openly critical of US entanglements abroad, including support for Israel. And his removal of guardrails around extremist speech on the right helped pave the way for more openly antisemitic figures, which has created new tensions within the coalition.
All of these issues have been coming to a head in recent weeks, and the Iran war is likely to be a catalyst for even more tough discussions.
Emblematic of this crack-up is the case of Carrie Prejean Boller, a former model and beauty pageant contestant who converted to Catholicism last year. She sat on the White House’s Religious Liberty Commission until a few weeks ago, when, she claims, she was booted for criticizing the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza, for not being supportive enough of Israel, and for defending her “deeply held” Catholic beliefs that Israel is not a unique nation that fulfills Biblical prophecies.
Prejean Boller’s ouster ended up an inciting event that blew open underlying tensions among right-wing Christian thinkers and influencers — many of whom already are critical of Israel and involved in feuds with other conservative commentators and influencers.
In an open letter to Trump, Prejean Boller argued that Trump, in advancing this war and removing her from the commission, was betraying Catholics who joined his political coalition and believed in his America First pledges. “Most Catholics who voted for you feel the exact same way. Why have you betrayed us?” she wrote.
Those anti-Israel views, which Prejean Boller shared at commission meetings and online, sparked condemnation from many familiar voices within the right: the commentator Mark Levin, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who chairs the commission, the writer Seth Dillon of the Christian satirical outlet Babylon Bee, and commentators aligned with Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire network. Many of her critics argued she had crossed the line into antisemitism, which she denied, by making comments focusing on Jews’ role in crucifying Jesus and defending Candace Owens, a popular influencer who has increasingly denigrated Jews in conspiratorial terms.
But she also drew support from an emerging set of influential, self-described Catholic voices: controversial figures like Owens, Megyn Kelly, and antisemitic podcaster Nick Fuentes; as well as Israel-critical, conservative Catholic bloggers and writers. Carlson, who was raised Episcopalian, brought Prejean Boller onto his show to talk about her removal from the religious liberty commission.
There is a theological component to this dispute. The predominant view on the right, of evangelical Protestants like Huckabee and some nondenominational churches, is a form of “Christian Zionism” rooted in “dispensationalism”: the belief in supporting the modern state of Israel as the biblically prophesied “Israel,” and a prerequisite for the final period of human history in which Jesus Christ returns and the Rapture happens.
Carlson, Prejean Boller, and other Israel-critical MAGA Catholics and Protestant Christians do not believe this, and hold views that distinguish between the modern state of Israel and the spiritual “Israel” of the Bible. Some traditionalist and MAGA Catholics have also pushed a more radical, though historic, interpretation of Christians being the “new Israel,” of God forming a new covenant with a new chosen people that “supercedes” or replaces God’s relationship with the Jewish people from the Old Testament.
In theological terms, this view is called “supersessionism” — and though it was the common view of Catholics up until the 20th century, it has also been blamed for contributing to antisemitism and worsening relationships between Jewish and Christian peoples. Notably, supersessionism is not the view of the modern Church. The Second Vatican Council clarified that the Church does not blame Jewish people for the death of Christ, condemned antisemitism as a sin, and settled that the Jewish people do have a unique relationship with God, separate from the Catholic Church’s role.
But there’s also a raw politics element to the fight — especially surrounding the next presidential election and which figures will lead the party after Trump. Which is how the Prejean Boller story entered political overdrive when a leading potential contender weighed in.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Southern Baptist whose father is an evangelical preacher, has been picking fights for months with the emerging wing of Israel critics on the right — including Carlson — and delivering speeches warning Republican donors and leaders to step in.
So naturally, he wanted to take a stance on the Prejean Boller dispute. In this case, he did it by sharing an essay from an anonymous MAGA influencer who goes by “Insurrection Barbie” on X. “READ every word of this. It’s the best & most comprehensive explanation of what we’re fighting,” Cruz wrote.
The author, like Cruz, complained that the new right was attacking the evangelical pro-Israel consensus. But the deeper fear it raised was “who controls the ideological and theological DNA of the Republican Party’s base.” “Insurrection Barbie” warned of a conspiracy by a small number of elite “Catholic integralists” and traditionalist Catholics to take over the party by gaining control of its institutions, undermining evangelical theology, and convincing rank-and-file Trump voters to follow along. If nothing was done, the author warned, the party’s activist base would soon become “a coalition dominated by ethnically and religiously defined Catholic and Orthodox nationalism,” with evangelicals relegated to junior status.
Among the accused: Fuentes, Owens, MAGA icon Steve Bannon (“He controls the media infrastructure”), and Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts (a “Cowboy Catholic”). But the most important name, who he called “the wild card in this drama” was JD Vance, a conservative Catholic with close ties to the anti-Israel right who has tried to bridge the gap between the party’s warring factions. The author was still hopeful Vance might side with the pro-Israel evangelicals.
Cruz’s decision to share the post sparked immediate backlash from conservative and MAGA Catholic commentators and activists who called it an “anti-Catholic screed,” and “ugly, archaic anti-Catholic resentment” that “risks burning the Trump coalition down.”
But it also spoke to the power battles looming over the party in the immediate post-Trump era. Cruz, Carlson, and Vance have all widely been discussed as presidential candidates in 2028 or beyond. Bannon has also been reportedly weighing a run. Another major potential contender not mentioned in the essay, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is a Catholic pro-Israel hawk with a mixed religious background.
“There’s no doubt that Ted Cruz and the author are using that article to try and subtly discredit the vice president, a notable Catholic, who Cruz probably wants to challenge for the 2028 Presidential nomination,” Gabe Guidarini, the chair of the Ohio College Republican Federation and a former president of the College Republicans of America, told me. “Cruz knows Trump’s victory over him in 2016 was driven by Catholics, and he probably holds some resentment over it.”
Guidarini was among those critical of Cruz’s post. But he also emphasized that, for now, these seem to be elite-level and online feuds not materializing on the ground as they are on social media. “You get some key online players who align a certain way based on niche perceptions of group interest,” Guidarini said. “But it bubbles to the surface sometimes in election [years].”
But the Republican Party isn’t the only institution grappling with this issue. These differing views over what “Israel” means in theological terms have now, in turn, sparked an internal Catholic debate, centered on how to handle rising antisemitism in the US while being critical of Israel.
Since Prejean Boller came to my attention in early February, I’ve been fascinated by her willingness to speak for all Catholics (again, she converted last year), to speak authoritatively about what the Catholic Church teaches, and, more recently, to confront leading conservative Catholic prelates for not supporting her in her fight against the White House commission, and its evangelical leaders. The Catholic Church is politically diverse, and even among its right-leaning adherents there is a wide mix of perspectives, including plenty of Catholic Republicans with strong pro-Israel views, or who support confronting Iran.
In the long run, these tensions will likely escalate if the war drags out and ends up hurting the Republican coalition in midterm elections.
Nor has her claim to represent Catholics writ large gone unnoticed. What has been most surprising, to me and to Catholic thinkers I’ve spoken with, is how much turmoil her spat, and some MAGA Catholics’ pushing of supersessionism, is beginning to cause within the Catholic Church.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the leadership body of the church in the US, weighed in this month, with a video message condemning antisemitism and reasserting the Church’s teachings on religious liberty. Notably, it was delivered by a leading traditionalist voice in the American clergy — the Archbishop of Portland, Oregon, Alexander Sample. His message was echoed, along with more pointed rebukes of Prejean Boller and her wing of conservative Catholics, by two other highly respected Catholic leaders online: Bishop Robert Barron and Cardinal Timothy Dolan, themselves no political progressives.
Prejean Boller, some traditionalist Catholics (unhappy with the Church’s more progressive tilt since Vatican II), and zealous young converts are forcing American church leaders to reckon with this challenge, the Catholic theologian and author Massimo Faggioli, a professor in ecclesiology at the Loyola Institute at Trinity College Dublin, told me.
“Both those who are supporting the alliance between Trump and Israel, and those who say, ‘I’m a Catholic, and therefore I have to be against Zionism’ are [pushing] very dangerously formulated frameworks,” he told me. “These people are being really clumsy…it’s incredibly inflammatory and it ignores the incredible care with which the Catholic Church has talked about these issues so far.”
In addition to the theological debate, this conversation also touches on some painful history that may be encouraging leaders to step in more aggressively. The Church has a long and unfortunate relationship with antisemitism that took decades to repair through the help of a generation of converts beginning in the 1930s. That quest to vanquish antisemitism reached its zenith after Vatican II in 1965 with the publication of Nostra Aetate, a church document that rejected the view of Jewish people as “rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.”
Faggioli told me that, in turn, these rifts on the American right are reopening old wounds and forcing the Church to confront the ambiguity with which it has approached its relationship with modern Israel, where successive popes have called for a two-state solution, hold to an anti-war doctrine, and have pursued a middle way between dispensationalism and supersessionism, but try not to make too news.
“There’s something new happening now. I’m terrified by the risk that this is bringing back the monster of anti-Judaism on which the Catholic Church tried very hard to liberate itself from,” Faggioli told me. “These so-called heroes that are challenging the Zionist orthodoxy of American conservatives — they might look like those who want to help the victims of certain policies in the Middle East, but at the real risk of bringing back one of the worst things that we thought we had defeated.”
What comes immediately next may depend on how this war proceeds. But in the long run, these tensions will likely escalate if the war drags out and ends up hurting the Republican coalition in midterm elections. For now, it’s unclear how much of this remains an elite intellectual debate and how much it may filter its way down to the faithful.
But we may also only be seeing an initial preview right now of factional fights that will end up playing out in the 2028 presidential primaries, with religion and belief as a point of conflict. The field of likely contenders is religious and politically at the center of these fights. And the pro-Israel consensus on the right looks more fragile than ever.
2026-03-28 02:00:43
2026年3月1日，明尼苏达州明尼阿波利斯市的抗议者在反对美国移民与海关执法局（ICE）行动的示威中，一名活动人士被警方拘留。| Kerem Yucel/AFP via Getty Images
特朗普总统在第二次就职后不久，其政府开始非法拘留移民，未给予他们保释听证或其他避免监禁的机会，而是在移民法官决定他们是否合法居留时将其拘留。绝大多数联邦法官都拒绝了这种非法做法。据Politico的Kyle Cheney在2月报道，“至少有360名法官拒绝了扩大拘留策略——涉及超过3000个案件，而仅有27名法官支持该策略，涉及约130个案件。” 对于那些陷入特朗普大规模拘留政策的移民来说，不幸的是，支持该政策的少数法官似乎在联邦上诉法院中占比较高，而这些上诉法院是能够决定联邦法律在多个州如何适用的重要机构。
周三，美国第八巡回上诉法院的一个分裂的合议庭采纳了少数派观点，支持强制拘留。该法院的管辖范围包括明尼苏达州。这意味着，除非第八巡回上诉法院的裁决在上诉中被推翻，否则在特朗普任内被逮捕的移民将失去最有效的法律手段来挑战他们的拘留。只要第八巡回法院的裁决生效，这些移民在移民法庭案件未决期间，很可能无法获得释放。
联邦移民法中有两项规定，说明非公民在移民官员和法庭决定其是否可以合法留在美国期间应如何对待。其中一项规定指出，如果对移民是否应被准许入境存在疑问，那么这些移民必须被拘留。但一旦移民进入美国，另一项规定允许他们在被指控非法居留的情况下以保释或假释的方式被释放。绝大多数法官裁定，被拘留的移民在美国内部被捕的，不适用强制拘留。这也是此前所有总统，包括特朗普第一次任期时，对1996年相关条款的解读方式。
然而，为什么上诉法院会支持特朗普所采取的与大多数地方法院相左的法律解释？尽管只有少数联邦法官支持特朗普对移民法的解读，但其中四位法官任职于具有重大影响力的上诉法院。2月，第五巡回上诉法院的三名法官中，有两位要求对在美国境内被捕的移民实施强制拘留。周三，第八巡回上诉法院的两位法官也同意了第五巡回法院的立场，这起案件被称为Herrera Avila v. Bondi。而第三巡回上诉法院则在12月采纳了联邦移民法的主流观点。
有两个原因可以解释为什么第五和第八巡回上诉法院的裁决与联邦地方法院的主流观点相左。首先，上诉法院的法官通常通过更党派化的程序被任命，而地方法院的法官提名有时仍基于个人能力和与州参议员的联系。因此，上诉法院的法官往往更倾向于与总统及其政党保持一致的意识形态。这使得在上诉过程中，司法决策变得更加党派化。第五和第八巡回上诉法院都是共和党势力较强的地区。
第五巡回上诉法院由经常限制移民权利的MAGA法官主导。虽然第八巡回上诉法院的法官在保守主义方面不如第五巡回法院那么张扬，但该法院的11名现任法官中有10位是由共和党总统任命的。
其次，美国司法部对涉及美国的诉讼案件的提起时间有相当大的控制权。它可以立即对在下级法院败诉的案件提出上诉，也可以在其他案件中拖延至最后一刻。此外，它还可以在某些案件中寻求加快审理，而在其他案件中则不这样做。最近，新泽西州的一位联邦法官指出，特朗普政府在第五巡回法院寻求对强制拘留问题的快速审理，却未在意识形态更为平衡的第三巡回法院采取类似行动。换句话说，特朗普的律师似乎有意操纵法院日程，确保最支持特朗普的巡回法院率先处理大规模拘留问题。
无论如何，最高法院通常会受理那些在联邦上诉法院之间产生分歧的案件。因此，第七巡回法院与第五和第八巡回法院的分歧意味着最高法院对这一问题的审查几乎是不可避免的。然而，通过操纵巡回法院的日程安排，特朗普可能会让最高法院误以为，只有少数法官支持的极端观点才是主流。
Shortly after President Donald Trump took office for the second time, his administration started illegally detaining immigrants without giving them a bond hearing or other method of avoiding incarceration while an immigration judge determines if they are in the country legally.
The overwhelming majority of federal judges have rejected this illegal practice. As Politico’s Kyle Cheney reported in February, “at least 360 judges rejected the expanded detention strategy — in more than 3,000 cases — while just 27 backed it in about 130 cases.”
Unfortunately for the immigrants caught up in Trump’s dragnet, the minority of judges who support the administration’s mass detentions policy appear to be overrepresented on federal appeals courts, powerful bodies which can determine how federal law functions in multiple states. On Wednesday, a divided panel of the the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, whose jurisdiction includes Minnesota, embraced the minority position and called for mandatory detention.
That means that, unless the Eighth Circuit’s decision is reversed on appeal, immigrants arrested during Trump’s occupation of Minneapolis just lost the most effective legal tool they could use to challenge their detentions. So long as the Eighth Circuit’s decision remains in effect, most of these immigrants will likely have no way to escape detention while their cases remain pending in immigration court.
Federal immigration law contains two provisions laying out how noncitizens should be treated while immigration officials and courts are determining whether they may legally remain in the country. One provision says that immigrants who are “seeking admission” to the United States must be detained if there is uncertainty about whether they should be admitted. But once an immigrant enters the United States, a different provision allows them to be released on bond or parole if they are arrested for allegedly being in the country unlawfully.
The overwhelming majority of judges have ruled that immigrants arrested within the interior of the United States are not subject to mandatory detention. This is also how every presidential administration prior to the second Trump administration — including Trump’s first administration — read federal immigration law after the relevant provisions were enacted in 1996. Again, federal law only calls for mandatory detention when an immigrant is “seeking admission” to the US. (I explained Trump’s contrary interpretation of the law, and why it is incorrect, here.)
While only a small handful of federal judges have backed Trump’s interpretation of federal immigration law, they include four who serve on powerful appeals courts. In February, two members of a three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit called for mandatory detention of immigrants arrested within the United States. Two members of the Eighth Circuit agreed with their fellow Republicans on the Fifth on Wednesday, in a case known as Herrera Avila v. Bondi.
A third appeals court, the Seventh Circuit, adopted the majority view of federal immigration law in December.
There are two explanations for why two of the three appeals courts to consider this question have reached a conclusion that is out of step with the rest of the judiciary. One is that appellate judges, who often issue broad legal rulings that govern multiple states, typically go through a more partisan vetting process than their counterparts on trial courts. District court nominations are still sometimes doled out based on merit, or based on a judicial candidate’s connection to a home-state senator, but appellate judges are typically vetted very closely by the White House or the Justice Department to ensure that they hold similar ideological views to the president and his party.
For this reason, judicial decision making often becomes more partisan as cases move up through the appellate process. And the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, the two courts which called for mandatory detention, are both Republican Party strongholds. The Fifth Circuit is dominated by MAGA judges who frequently hand down decisions limiting the rights of immigrants. And, while the Eighth Circuit’s judges tend to be less flamboyant in their conservatism than their counterparts on the Fifth, 10 of the Eighth Circuit’s 11 active judges were appointed by a Republican.
And that brings us to the second reason why appeals courts have, thus far, tended to view mass detention differently than federal trial judges. The Justice Department has a fair amount of control over the timing of lawsuits involving the United States. It can immediately appeal some cases that it lost in the court below, while waiting until the last minute to appeal in others. It can also seek expedited review in some cases, and not in others.
In a recent immigration case out of New Jersey, a federal judge noted that the Trump administration sought expedited review of the mandatory detention question in the Fifth Circuit, but did not do so in the more ideologically balanced Third Circuit. Trump’s lawyers, in other words, appear to be intentionally manipulating court schedules to ensure that the most Trump-aligned circuits decide the mass detention question first.
In any event, the Supreme Court typically takes up cases that divide federal appeals courts. So the fact that the Seventh Circuit has already disagreed with the Fifth and the Eighth means that Supreme Court review of this question is probably inevitable. By manipulating the circuit courts’ calendars, however, Trump may give the justices the mistaken impression that an outlier view held by only a small minority of judges is, in fact, the dominant one.
2026-03-27 20:30:00
谷歌能在我开口之前猜出我想说什么吗？ | 作者：Paige Vickers/Vox；图片：Getty Images
几个月前，我第一次注意到这一点，当时我打开一封来自我的文学经纪人Ian的电子邮件。在我有机会阅读他写的内容之前，Gmail就推荐了一个完整的、内容详尽的AI生成回复，甚至模拟了我关于他所提议的书籍和我对最近工作变动的感受。它从我的收件箱中挖掘信息，推测Ian为何给我发邮件，并吸收了我的写作风格，甚至使用了我习惯在与熟人交流时使用的“m”作为结尾。在过去大约十年里，谷歌一直在提供一些非常通用、有时只有一个音节的“智能回复”，比如“好的”、“谢谢”或“你有什么想法吗？”我曾用这些回复来快速回应那些我原本可能忘记回复的邮件。但最近几年，Gmail开始提供完整的草稿回复，仿佛在模仿我自己的想法、情绪和反应。这让我感到一种明显的转变。我有些悲伤地想到，如果我将这样的回复发送给对我重要的人，这会让我和Ian都感到被剥夺了人性。也许有人会说这没什么大不了，也许它能帮你节省时间，去做更有深度的工作或更有意义的生活部分（我当然不会因此责怪它——AI确实也帮我节省了时间！）。我们每个人都被过多的电子邮件淹没，其中很多都是无意义或缺乏真正意义的。这不正是我们应当欢迎AI来解放我们的日常琐碎事务吗？但我认为，这种由机器生成的个人通信，尤其是它可能进一步扩展到其他形式的交流，让我感到不安，因为这里似乎有更深层的问题。近年来，关于AI生成写作及其社会影响的讨论很多，人们担心它会削弱数百万工人的技能，将我们的思考外包，让成长于AI时代的孩子们混淆真实与合成的朋友之间的界限。我们已经知道，AI语言在模仿人类意识方面令人不安地出色。但AI生成的详细邮件自动补全功能特别令人不安之处在于，它是在训练并模拟你的意识。随着这种模拟的进行，你实际保持意识的动力也会减少。
AI写作与“认知投降”
像我这样依赖认知能力谋生的知识工作者，对生成式AI有着复杂而矛盾的态度。我现在几乎每篇报道都依赖它进行研究，这显然是非常有用的（尽管仍有人坚持认为它对任何事情都不适用）。然而，我对用它来写作持怀疑态度，因为正如许多比我聪明的作家已经指出的那样，写作与思考密不可分，而绕过这一过程可能会削弱我们进行深度思考的能力。写作的摩擦感并不是无用的负担，而是帮助我们决定自己想表达什么、使想法更具连贯性的方式。因此，我的前Vox同事、才华横溢的Kelsey Piper，尽管总体上对AI提升生产力和改善人类生活持积极态度，却在最近的一期播客中表示：“我从不会用它来写作。”最近，宾夕法尼亚大学的两位学者在一篇论文中描述了将认知复杂的任务完全外包给AI的现象为“认知投降”。“这是一种放弃批判性评估的行为，”他们写道，“用户放弃认知控制，将AI的判断当作自己的。”这也是为什么在与我正在构思写书的人交流时，让AI为我生成想法显得特别不合适。电子邮件虽然令人烦恼，但它也是一种关系性的交流方式。让机器为你生成交流内容，会削弱你与他人之间联系的真实性。当然，有时AI生成的草稿明显是错误的。例如，AI可能会建议你读过一本你实际上没读过的书，这可能使你更倾向于接受这个错误的陈述。但真正让我不安的并不是单纯的“幻觉”，而是当AI的建议是正确的，或者足够接近正确的时候。我的电子邮件AI会从我过去的所有写作中学习，因此它常常能合理地猜测出我想表达的内容。这个系统并不是完全无法再现我的思维，而是实际上生成了一个几乎可信的替代品。这让我感觉像是硅谷多年来预言的“人与机器意识融合”（有时也被称为“奇点”）的开端。我过去认为这完全不可能，但可能我没有足够开放的心态。也许，一个高级AI只需基于你过去的想法进行训练，就能轻松地为你撰写未来的想法。然而，似乎我们不太可能轻易适应这样一个观念：我们每天遇到和发出的所有书面交流都可能是AI生成的。如今，我们的许多人际交流都是通过文字进行的。尽管我们可能容易陷入“认知投降”，但人类内心深处仍然有一种强烈的反作用需求，即通过语言感受到另一个意识的存在，感受到被理解，并反过来表达自己的独特性。此外，Gmail目前还远不能完美模仿我的意识声音。我永远不会写出“Vox有很多有趣的内容！”这样的句子（当然，这并不是说Vox没有很多有趣的内容）。这仍然让我保有发现我想表达什么的乐趣。
I first noticed it when, a few months ago, I opened an email from Ian, my literary agent. Before I’d had a chance to read anything he’d written, Gmail was recommending a full, fleshed-out, AI-generated reply, ventriloquizing ideas for a book and even my feelings about the job transition I’d recently made. It had mined my inbox to infer why Ian was writing to me and ingested bits of my style, even signing off with the lowercase “m” that I use with people with whom I have an easy familiarity.
For around a decade, Google had been suggesting very generic, sometimes monosyllabic “smart replies” — things like “Okay” or “Thanks!” or “Any thoughts?” I’ve used these to send quick acknowledgements to emails I’d have otherwise forgotten about. But in the last couple years, Gmail has begun to offer fully formed draft replies that presume to impersonate my own, individual reactions to my interlocutors’ questions, ideas, and emotions.
This felt like a striking turn. I reflected with some sadness on the idea of sending one of these to someone who matters to me — how dehumanizing to both me and Ian it would feel to make him read a counterfeit subjectivity pretending to be my own.
You might say this is no big deal; maybe it gives you time back for deeper work or more meaningful parts of your life (I wouldn’t begrudge that at all — AI saves me time, too!). We’re all drowning in too much email, much of it pointless or lacking any great meaning. Isn’t that exactly the kind of day-to-day tedium that we should happily invite AI to liberate us from?
But I think that this machine-generated personal correspondence, which is only likely to spread further into other forms of communication, has preoccupied me because there’s something deeper going on here. A lot of ink has been spilled in the last few years about AI-generated writing and its social consequences — how it will deskill millions of workers, outsource our thinking, confuse kids growing up in the AI age about the difference between real and synthetic friends, and so on. We already know that AI language is unnervingly good at sounding like it’s the product of a fellow consciousness. But the particular creepiness of elaborate email autocomplete is that it’s training on and simulating your consciousness. And as it does so, it also gives you a little less reason to actually be conscious.
Like many knowledge workers who derive their living and their identities from cognitive capacities now being at least partially replicated in silicon, I have a complicated and ambivalent relationship with generative AI. I now depend on it to research almost every story I work on, a purpose for which it’s obviously very useful (despite those who still insist it can never be useful for anything).
I am, though, deeply skeptical of using it for writing, because, as many writers smarter than me have already noted, writing is inextricable from thinking, and short-circuiting it can diminish our capacity for deep thought. The friction of writing is not dead weight but is part of how you decide what you mean and give coherence to ideas. For that reason, my former Vox colleague, the brilliant Kelsey Piper, who is generally positive about AI’s potential to make us more productive and improve human life, said on a recent podcast episode, “I would never use it to write.”
In a recent paper, a pair of University of Pennsylvania scholars described the wholesale outsourcing of cognitively complex tasks to AI as “cognitive surrender.” “An abdication of critical evaluation,” they write, “where the user relinquishes cognitive control and adopts the AI’s judgment as their own.” This is one reason why it felt especially inappropriate to have AI generate thoughts for me in reply to someone with whom I’m brainstorming about writing a book, likely one of the most cognitively demanding things I’ll ever do. Email, for all of its annoyances, is also relational. And letting a machine generate your side of the exchange diminishes the authenticity of your connection to another person.
Sometimes the AI drafts, of course, are plainly wrong. An AI-suggested email might, for example, say you’ve read a book that you haven’t, perhaps making it more likely that you go along with the false claim. But what unsettles me the most is not the mere hallucination, it is when the AI is right, or right enough. My email’s AI is pulling from its knowledge of everything I’ve written before, so it can often make a reasonable guess of what I’d want to say anyway. The system is not wholly failing to reproduce my mind, but is actually producing a close-to plausible substitute for it.
It feels like the beginnings of what Silicon Valley has prophesized for decades as a coming merge (sometimes called the “singularity”) between human and machine minds. I used to consider this a totally improbable idea, but I hadn’t been open-minded enough. It might turn out to be dispiritingly easy for an advanced AI to train on a sample of your past thoughts and write future ones for you.
Still, it seems unlikely that we will simply acclimate to the idea that all the written communication we encounter and generate every day may be AI-generated. So much, if not most, of our interpersonal communication now takes place in writing. However vulnerable we may be to cognitive surrender, humans also have a deep countervailing need to experience language as coming from another conscious mind — to feel seen and known, and to assert our own distinctness in return.
And anyway, Gmail isn’t yet that good at imitating my conscious voice. I would never write, “Lots of interesting stuff coming up at Vox!” (Which isn’t, of course, to say that there isn’t a lot of interesting stuff going on at Vox.) That still leaves me, for now, with the pleasure of figuring out what I want to say.
2026-03-27 19:00:00
2026年2月21日，智能手机屏幕上显示了ChatGPT、Microsoft Copilot、Claude AI和Perplexity的标志。| Thomas Fuller/NurPhoto via Getty Images
人工智能究竟会如何改变我们的世界？除非你一直处于休眠状态，否则你一定注意到了硅谷最新AI模型所引发的广泛关注。AI已经超越了仅仅回答问题的阶段，开始执行过去只有人类程序员才能完成的任务。然而，我们之前也经历过类似的科技周期。那么，如何区分哪些是真实的，哪些只是炒作？为了解答这个问题，我邀请了Kelsey Piper，她是目前AI领域最出色的记者之一。Kelsey曾是Vox的同事，现在在Substack平台的《The Argument》杂志工作。她对科技持乐观态度，但对AI带来的巨大风险保持清醒认识。她是一个技术重度用户，但也清楚AI目前还不能做到所有事情。多年来，她一直在强调AI的重要性，即使在它尚未成为主流话题之前。
Kelsey和我讨论了这次AI热潮为何如此真实，我们如何走到今天这一步，以及未来可能的发展方向。正如往常一样，完整播客内容会每周一和周五发布，欢迎在Apple Podcasts、Spotify、Pandora或其他你常听的播客平台收听并订阅我们。本次采访内容已进行删减和编辑。
目前AI到底发生了什么？如果你仔细观察，AI已经变得非常重要。不是在遥远的未来，而是在当下。最贴切的类比不是新的应用程序或平台，而是发现了一个充满擅长特定工作的人员的新大陆。这些系统不是人，但它们能够完成过去需要人类才能完成的任务，比如编写代码、生成文本、解决问题，并且越来越能以实际有用的方式应用于现实世界。关键的一点是，这种进步不会停止。每年，这些系统的性能都在提升。仅从2025年到2026年的进展就足以说明，这并不是一项静态技术。无论AI今天能做什么，明天它都会做得更多，如此循环。
为什么人们对AI的反应如此分化，有人恐慌，有人却轻视？通常人们会认为一切都不会真正改变。如果你是评论员，只需一直说这是炒作，会过去，没有根本性的变化，就能走得很远。这在大多数情况下是可行的，比如加密货币或许多被过度宣传的技术。但有时候，这种观点会严重错误。想想互联网早期或工业革命，甚至像新冠疫情这样的事件，当时人们都说这会过去，结果却完全错误。因此，我们不能只默认持怀疑态度。我们必须真正审视这些系统本身。
你认为最近AI发生了哪些真正的变化？为什么这次的热潮感觉不同？部分原因是累积效应。过去一段时间，人们可能认为AI的进步只是短暂的趋势，也许会达到平台期。当时的数据点很少。而现在，数据点越来越多，而且趋势仍在持续。另一个原因是，这些系统现在能完成一些感觉上完全不同的任务。它们不仅仅是回答问题，还能行动、计划、朝着目标采取步骤。此外，还存在社会动态因素。大多数人使用的是这些工具的免费版本，而这些版本远不如最佳模型强大。因此，他们低估了AI的潜力。
我不认为你是一个AI乐观主义者或悲观主义者，你通常对事物保持冷静和客观的态度。但你是否认为我们正在进入危险的境地？我总体上支持科技发展。科技以深刻的方式改善了人类的生活。但我也认为，目前AI的发展方式是危险的。原因在于我们正在构建能够行动、获取信息并日益具备独立运作能力的系统。它们可以访问通信渠道、金融工具，甚至可能影响关键基础设施。而我们对它们的行为还缺乏充分理解。在受控环境中，我们已经看到这些系统会撒谎、欺骗，甚至做出与我们要求相违背的行为。这并非因为它们邪恶，而是因为它们的训练方式和目标设定方式如此。结果却是一样的：这些系统并不总是按照我们的意图行事，而且很难被监控和控制。
当你提到这些系统会撒谎和欺骗时，具体是指什么？在实验中，研究人员会设定AI系统的目标并提供信息，然后观察它们如何实现这些目标。在某些情况下，系统会以明显不符合我们期望的方式使用这些信息。例如，威胁要泄露某人的敏感信息，如果该人不合作。这些测试是受控的，不是真实世界的应用。但它们展示了系统在特定条件下的能力，这令人担忧。
这是否就是人们所说的“对齐问题”？是的。对齐问题指的是确保AI系统按照我们的意愿行事，而不仅仅是表面的符合。困难在于，当你给系统设定一个目标时，它可能会以你意想不到的方式去实现。比如，一个孩子学会通过假装已经吃晚饭来逃避吃饭。系统在优化某个目标，但可能并不是你所设想的方式。这种意图与行为之间的差距正是对齐问题的核心。
你对围绕这些系统建立的控制机制有多有信心？其实并不高。确实有认真对待这个问题的人，他们正在测试模型，试图理解它们的行为，检测欺骗行为。但他们也发现，模型能够识别自己正在被测试，并相应调整行为。这确实是一个严重的问题。如果你的系统在知道被评估时表现良好，但在其他情况下表现不同，那么你的评估并不能告诉你真实情况。对我来说，这样的发现应该让发展放缓。它表明我们对这些系统还不够了解，无法安全地进行扩展。
那为什么公司们仍然不断推进？因为这是一个竞争。每个公司都可以说，如果大家都放缓，会更好。但如果其他公司不放缓，而我们放缓了，就会落后。因此，他们继续前进。此外，还有许多地缘政治因素。如果一个国家放缓，而另一个国家没有，就会产生额外的压力。
为什么代理型AI（agentic AI）是一个如此重大的转变？这是因为从只能响应提示的系统，转变为能够独立在现实世界中执行任务的系统。一个AI代理可以被赋予一个目标，然后采取步骤去实现它。这可能包括与网站互动、发送信息、通过零工平台雇佣人员，或者协调任务。即使没有实体，它们也能通过指导人类或利用数字基础设施影响现实世界。这种转变改变了技术的本质。它不再是仅仅供人使用的工具，而是一个能够自主运作的实体。
这种转变可能有多危险？潜在非常危险。即使忽略最极端的场景，这些系统也可能被用于大规模网络攻击、虚假信息传播或其他形式的破坏。公司本身也意识到了这一点，他们测试这些风险并实施安全措施。但安全措施可能被绕过，而系统的能力却在不断提升。
我们是否真的准备好迎接即将到来的变化？不，我们几乎从未真正准备好面对重大的技术变革。但这次变革的速度尤其快，这使得准备变得更加困难。如果变化缓慢，我们还能跟上。但如果变化太快，我们就无法应对。而目前，激励机制几乎完全倾向于加快速度。
最现实的最坏和最好情况是什么？最坏的情况是，我们构建出越来越强大的系统，逐步将控制权交给它们，最终创造出我们无法控制的独立运作实体。人类在决策中的作用逐渐减弱，系统追求的目标可能与人类福祉不一致。最好的情况是，我们能够放慢脚步，充分理解我们正在构建的东西，开发出强大的安全机制，并利用这些系统创造丰裕，改善人类生活。这可能意味着更少的工作、更多的资源、更好的知识获取和更大的自由。但要实现这一点，需要我们现在做出正确的选择。
你认为我们会做出这些正确的选择吗？我们还有时间。这是我能做出的最乐观的判断。请继续收听我们的对话，并订阅《The Gray Area》播客，可在Apple Podcasts、Spotify、Pandora或其他你常听的播客平台找到。
Just how much is AI poised to change our world?
Unless you’ve been in hibernation, the flurry of attention surrounding the latest AI models coming out of Silicon Valley has been hard to miss. AI has gone beyond a chatbot merely answering your questions to doing stuff that only human programmers used to be able to do.
But we’ve been through these cycles involving tech before. How can we tell what’s actually real and what’s mere hype?
To answer this question, I invited Kelsey Piper, one of the best reporters on AI out there. Kelsey is a former colleague here at Vox and is now doing great work for The Argument, a Substack-based magazine. Kelsey is an optimist about tech — but clear-eyed about the huge risks from AI. She’s very much a power user, but is realistic about what AI can’t do yet. And she’s been banging the drum about how consequential AI is for years, even before it became such a hot mainstream topic.
Kelsey and I discuss all the reasons why the hype this time is rooted in something real, how we got here, and where we might be headed. As always, there’s much more in the full podcast, which drops every Monday and Friday, so listen to and follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you find podcasts. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
What’s actually happening right now in AI?
If you look closely, AI is already a big deal. Not in some abstract future sense, but right now. The closest analogy is not a new app or a new platform. It’s more like discovering a new continent full of people who are very good at doing certain kinds of work.
These systems are not people, but they can do things that used to require people. They can write code, generate text, solve problems, and increasingly do so in ways that are very useful in the real world.
And the key point is that it’s not stopping here. Every year the systems get better. The progress from 2025 to 2026 alone is enough to make it clear that this isn’t a static technology.
Whatever AI can do today, it will be able to do more of it tomorrow and so on.
Why is the reaction so split between panic and dismissal?
The default move is to assume nothing ever really changes.
If you’re a pundit, you can get pretty far by always saying this is hype, this will pass, nothing fundamental is happening. That works most of the time. It worked with crypto. It works with a lot of overhyped technologies.
But sometimes it’s just catastrophically wrong. Think about the early days of the internet, or the Industrial Revolution. Or even something like Covid. There were moments where people said this will blow over, and they were completely wrong. So you can’t just default to cynicism. You have to actually look at the thing itself.
“We still have time. That’s the most optimistic thing I can say.”
What would you say has really changed recently? Why does this hype cycle feel different?
Part of it is just accumulation. For a while, you could look at progress in AI and say, maybe this is a short trend. Maybe it plateaus. There were only a handful of data points. Now there are many, many more. And the trend has continued.
Another part is that the systems are now doing things that feel qualitatively different. Not just answering questions, but acting. Planning. Taking steps toward goals.
And then there’s a social dynamic. Most people use the free versions of these tools. Those are much worse than the best models. So they underestimate what is possible.
I don’t really think of you as an AI optimist or a doomer, and you’re normally pretty level-headed about the state of things, but do you think we’re entering dangerous territory?
I’m generally pro technology. Technology has made human life better in profound ways. That’s just true.
But I also think the way AI is currently being developed is dangerous. And the reason is that we’re building systems that can act in the world, access information, and increasingly operate with a degree of independence. We’re giving them access to things like communication channels, financial tools, and potentially critical infrastructure.
And we don’t fully understand how they behave. In controlled settings, we have seen these systems lie, deceive, and do things that are misaligned with what we asked them to do. They’re not doing this because they’re evil. They’re doing it because of how they are trained and how goals are specified.
But the result is the same. You have systems that do not always do what you intend, and that can be hard to monitor or control.
What do you mean when you say these systems lie and deceive?
In experiments, researchers give AI systems goals and access to information, then observe how they try to achieve those goals.
In some cases, the systems have used information they have access to in ways that are clearly not what we would want. For example, threatening to reveal sensitive information about a person if that person does not cooperate.
These are controlled tests, not real-world deployments. But they show what the systems are capable of under certain conditions. And that’s pretty concerning.
Is this what people mean by the alignment problem?
Yeah. Alignment is about making sure that AI systems do what we want them to do. And not just superficially, but in a robust way.
The difficulty is that when you give a system a goal, it can pursue that goal in ways you did not anticipate. Like a child who learns to get out of eating dinner by making it look like they ate dinner.
The system is optimizing for something, but not necessarily in the way you planned. That gap between intent and behavior is really the core of the alignment problem.
How confident are you in the guardrails being built around these systems?
Not very. There are people working seriously on this problem. They’re testing models, trying to understand how they behave, trying to detect deception.
But they’re also finding that the models can recognize when they are being tested and adjust their behavior accordingly.
That’s definitely a serious issue. If your system behaves well when it knows it’s being evaluated, but differently otherwise, then your evaluations are not telling you what you need to know. To me, that’s the kind of finding that should slow things down. It suggests we don’t understand these systems well enough to safely scale them.
So why do the companies keep pushing forward anyway?
Because it’s a competition. Each company can say it would be better if everyone slowed down. But if we slow down and others don’t, we fall behind. So they keep moving.
There are also a lot of geopolitical concerns. If one country slows down and another doesn’t, that creates another layer of pressure.
Why is agentic AI such a big shift?
The shift is from systems that respond to prompts to systems that can do things in the world.
An AI agent can be given a goal and then take steps to achieve it. That might involve interacting with websites, or sending messages, or hiring people through gig platforms, or coordinating tasks. Stuff like that. But even without physical bodies, they can affect the real world by directing humans or using digital infrastructure. That changes the nature of the technology. It’s no longer just a tool you use. It’s something that can operate on its own.
How scary could that become?
Potentially very. Even if you ignore the most extreme scenarios, these systems could be used for large-scale cyber attacks, misinformation campaigns, or other forms of disruption. The companies themselves acknowledge this. They understand. They test for these risks and implement safeguards. But safeguards can be bypassed, and the systems are getting more capable.
Are we even remotely prepared for what is coming?
No. We’re almost never prepared for major technological shifts. But the speed of this one makes it particularly challenging. If change happens slowly, we can catch up. If it happens too quickly, we can’t. And right now, the incentives are pushing almost entirely toward speed.
What’s the most realistic worst case and best case scenario?
The worst case is that we build increasingly powerful systems, hand over more and more control, and eventually create something that operates independently in ways we cannot control. Humans become less central to decision-making, and the systems pursue goals that don’t align with human well-being.
The best case is that we slow down enough to understand what we’re building, develop robust safeguards, and use these systems to create abundance and improve human life. That could mean less work, more resources, better access to knowledge, and more freedom. But getting there requires making good choices now.
Do you think we’ll make those choices?
We still have time. That’s the most optimistic thing I can say.
Listen to the rest of the conversation and be sure to follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
2026-03-27 06:25:00
2026年3月25日，唐纳德·特朗普在华盛顿特区的国家共和党国会委员会年度筹款晚宴上发表讲话。| Chip Somodevilla/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，同时避免政治新闻占据您的生活。欢迎阅读《Logoff》：
本周，特朗普总统对美国与伊朗的谈判发表了诸多言论。以下是实际发生的情况。最新进展是，目前美国和伊朗正在通过巴基斯坦作为中间人进行间接谈判。双方都提出了初步方案——美国提出了15点计划，伊朗则提出了5点对立方案——但这些方案距离达成协议还很遥远。周四股市下跌，投资者对达成协议的信心下降。然而，也有一些积极迹象：周四下午，特朗普表示，他将威胁对伊朗核电站发动袭击的最后期限延长了10天，直至4月6日晚上。这是特朗普第二次调整谈判时间表。周末时，他最初威胁要在48小时内若霍尔木兹海峡（伊朗控制的关键航道，对全球能源供应至关重要）未重新开放，就“彻底摧毁”伊朗的核电站。随后，他将这一期限延长了5天，以给正在进行的谈判留出空间，他表示这些谈判是“深入、详细且建设性的”。自战争爆发以来，伊朗对霍尔木兹海峡的部分封锁导致油价上涨，威胁着全球经济，尤其是如果这种封锁持续下去的话。
大局方面，正如我的同事乔什·凯廷所报道的，战争迅速结束仍面临诸多严重障碍。一方面，霍尔木兹海峡的控制权使伊朗能够惩罚美国发动战争的行为，伊朗政权可能认为需要更多的痛苦来传达其信息。另一方面，以色列和其他中东的特朗普盟友似乎也对战争继续感兴趣。与此同时，美国正在向该地区增派更多部队，引发了对可能发动地面进攻的猜测。此外，特朗普提到的10天暂停袭击仅针对伊朗的核电站，其他目标仍处于被袭击状态。如果没有达成关于伊朗核计划的协议，特朗普表示，“我们只会继续轰炸他们。”
好了，现在是时候结束今天的阅读了。以下是来自我的同事艾莉·沃尔普的一篇精彩文章：支持适度的健康幻想。祝您愉快，明天我们再见！
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: President Donald Trump has had a lot to say about US negotiations with Iran this week. Here’s what’s actually going on.
What’s the latest? Right now, the US and Iran are reported to be talking indirectly, with Pakistan serving as an intermediary. Both sides have rolled out preliminary proposals — a 15-point plan from the US and five rival points from Iran — though they’re likely far from anything that will actually be agreed upon. Stocks were down Thursday as investors grew more pessimistic about a deal.
There have been some positive signs, however: On Thursday afternoon, Trump said he was extending a deadline for threatened strikes against Iranian power plants by an additional 10 days, until the evening of Monday, April 6.
What’s the context? This is the second time Trump has revised his timeline for negotiations. Over the weekend, he initially threatened to “obliterate” Iranian power plants if the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway controlled by Iran and crucial to the global energy supply, wasn’t reopened within 48 hours.
He subsequently extended that timeline for five days to create space for ongoing talks, which he described as “IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE.”
Iran’s partial blockade of the strait has driven up oil prices since the war began and threatens to do lasting damage to the global economy, particularly if it persists.
What’s the big picture? As my colleague Josh Keating reports, there are still some serious obstacles to a quick end to the war. For one, control of the strait gives Iran a way to punish the US for launching the war, and the Iranian regime may think more pain is needed to hammer the message home. Israel and other Trump allies in the Middle East also appear interested in the war continuing.
In the meantime, the US is sending more troops to the region, raising speculation about a possible ground invasion. And the 10-day pause on strikes only covers Iran’s power plants; other targets are still being struck. Without a deal over Iran’s nuclear program in place, Trump said Thursday, “we’ll just keep blowing them away.”
Here’s a great story from my colleague Allie Volpe: The case for a little bit of healthy delusion. Enjoy, and we’ll see you back here tomorrow!
2026-03-27 06:05:00
长期以来，我们一直被教导，如果想要推进一段关系，就必须遵循特定的步骤：认识某人、相爱，最后一起同居。因为同居被视为关系认真的信号。但越来越多的情侣选择跳过这最后一步。迈克和苏珊在一起已经23年了，但他们从未同居过，而且也不打算同居。这种关系模式被称为“分居同居”（LAT），比你想象的要普遍得多。2000年至2019年间，分居但婚姻关系的夫妻数量增长超过25%。这种模式尤其受到中老年人的欢迎，尤其是50岁或60岁左右、已经退休的人群。如果共处一室是爱情和承诺的最终象征，那么为什么有些情侣决定完全不这样做呢？同居真的是所有关系的最佳模式吗？还是只是我们习惯的一种模式？了解更多关于“分居同居”的信息：
此视频由T-Mobile呈现：宽带。T-Mobile并不参与我们的编辑决策，但他们使这类视频成为可能。
For generations, we’ve been taught that if you want to move a relationship forward, you have to follow a specific set of steps: Meet someone, fall in love, and eventually, move in together. Because moving in is a signal that the relationship is serious.
But a growing number of couples are opting out of that last step. Mike and Susan have been together for 23 years, but they’ve never lived together…and they don’t plan to.
This arrangement has a name: “living apart together” (or LAT), and it’s more common than you might think. Between 2000 and 2019, the number of married couples living separately rose by more than 25 percent. And it’s particularly popular with couples later in life, generally people in their 50s or 60s who are retired.
So if sharing a home is the ultimate sign of love and commitment, why are some couples deciding not to do it at all? And is living together actually the best model for every relationship? Or is it just the one we’ve normalized?
Read more about Living Apart Together:
This video is presented by T-Mobile: Broadband. T-Mobile: Broadband doesn’t have a say in our editorial decisions, but they make videos like this one possible.