中东和平峰会：人质与囚犯的交换

Rachel: It's Rachel in Tel Aviv. Before we get to the rest of today's show, here's an update from the Middle East. On Monday, after Hamas returned 20 living hostages from Gaza, Israel began releasing nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners back to Gaza and the West Bank. Large crowds gathered near Nasser Hospital in Kyunis, where released Palestinian prisoners were taken.

Rachel: 我是身在特拉维夫的雷切尔。在我们开始今天的节目之前，先来听听来自中东的最新消息。周一，在哈马斯（Hamas: 巴勒斯坦伊斯兰抵抗运动组织）从加沙释放了20名人质后，以色列开始将近2000名巴勒斯坦囚犯释放回加沙和约旦河西岸。大批人群聚集在汗尤尼斯（Kyunis）的纳赛尔医院附近，获释的巴勒斯坦囚犯被带到那里。

Rachel: Good afternoon. Good evening. Hi, Mustafa. It's nice to hear your voice. I talked to Mustafa Abu Taha, an English teacher in Gaza I've been in touch with since the start of the war. Mustafa, can you describe the scene when the Palestinian prisoners returned? What did it look like outside? He was there amongst the crowd.

Rachel: 下午好，晚上好。你好，穆斯塔法。很高兴听到你的声音。我采访了穆斯塔法·阿布·塔哈，一位自战争开始以来我一直保持联系的加沙英语教师。穆斯塔法，你能描述一下巴勒斯坦囚犯返回时的场景吗？外面是什么样子？他当时就在人群中。

Mustafa: This is I would say the biggest, the largest, the most enormous crowd I have ever seen in my life in Gaza. I have seen mountains of people. So, you know, words are not enough to describe how people are feeling, so amazed, and all of them start waving, shouting, dancing. I danced and I sang a song.

Mustafa: 我会说，这是我这辈子在加沙见过的最大、最庞大、最惊人的人群。我看到了人山人海。所以，你知道，言语不足以形容人们的感受，他们是如此惊喜，所有人都开始挥手、喊叫、跳舞。我也跳了舞，唱了一首歌。

Rachel: What did you sing, Mustafa?

Rachel: 你唱了什么，穆斯塔法？

Mustafa: Freedom is back. Freedom is back. After two years of devastation, destruction, mass killing, the war has come to an end. We want peace to prevent that.

Mustafa: “自由回来了。自由回来了。”在经历了两年蹂躏、破坏、大规模杀戮之后，战争终于结束了。我们希望和平能阻止这一切再次发生。

Rachel: You said that the war has come to an end, Mustafa, but there are so many details to be worked out yet. So, I'm just wondering how confident and optimistic you feel about that.

Rachel: 你说战争已经结束了，穆斯塔法，但还有很多细节有待解决。所以，我只是想知道你对此有多大的信心和乐观。

Mustafa: It's okay because the American President Donald Trump said the war is over, and war is over.

Mustafa: 没关系，因为美国总统唐纳德·特朗普说战争结束了，战争就结束了。

Michael: Thank you very much, everybody. Meanwhile, in Jerusalem, this is not only the end of a war. This is the end of an age of terror and death and the beginning of the age of faith and hope and of God.

Michael: 非常感谢大家。与此同时，在耶路撒冷，这不仅是一场战争的结束。这是一个恐怖与死亡时代的终结，也是一个信仰、希望和上帝时代的开始。

Michael: Trump brought his message of peace to the Israeli parliament. It's the start of a grand concord and lasting harmony for Israel and all the nations of what will soon be a truly magnificent region. I believe that so strongly. This is the historic dawn of a new Middle East.

Michael: 特朗普将他的和平信息带到了以色列议会。这是以色列和所有国家实现伟大和谐与持久和睦的开始，这个地区很快将变得真正辉煌。我对此深信不疑。这是新中东的历史性曙光。

特朗普在中东的“胜利巡礼”

Michael: My colleague David Sanger is covering Trump's trip to the Middle East. David, you are in Jerusalem where President Trump actually spoke to the Israeli Parliament Knesset (Knesset: 议会，以色列的立法机关), and you watched the speech. It appeared to me that he was clearly taking a victory lap, and I'm curious what your takeaway was.

Michael: 我的同事大卫·桑格正在报道特朗普的中东之行。大卫，你在耶路撒冷，特朗普总统在那里向以色列议会Knesset（Knesset: 议会，以色列的立法机关）发表了讲话，你观看了那场演讲。在我看来，他显然是在进行一次胜利巡礼，我很好奇你的看法是什么。

David: He was taking an exultation lap. I mean, when Air Force One came down over Hostages Square, you heard people yelling, "Trump, Trump!" And it kept up. When he got to the Knesset, the parliament, almost every place he went from both the Netanyahu government and even the opposition, he was given the credit for the final turn of the screw that got Hamas to release the last hostages. And tonight, as we speak, there are no living hostages in Gaza. That's been the first time in years, right?

David: 他是在进行一场欢庆的巡礼。我的意思是，当空军一号飞过人质广场时，你听到人们喊着“特朗普，特朗普！”这种呼喊声一直持续着。当他抵达Knesset，也就是议会时，无论他走到哪里，无论是内塔尼亚胡政府还是反对派，都将哈马斯释放最后人质的最终成功归功于他。而且就在我们说话的今晚，加沙已经没有活人质了。这是多年来的第一次，对吧？

David: But what was really interesting today, though, Rachel, was Trump's message. He said explicitly, "As far as I'm concerned, the war is over." You didn't hear that from Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister. That contrast really struck me. Trump seems like he's projecting this idea that he has made peace, but Netanyahu has been really much more circumspect on where we are in the peace process. He has not committed to the war being over.

David: 但雷切尔，今天真正有趣的是特朗普传递的信息。他明确表示：“就我而言，战争已经结束了。”你没有从总理比比·内塔尼亚胡那里听到这样的话。这种对比确实让我震惊。特朗普似乎在宣扬他已经实现了和平的理念，但内塔尼亚胡对和平进程的进展却谨慎得多。他没有承诺战争已经结束。

David: That's exactly right, Rachel. And the reason is simple. President Trump turned out a 20-point plan, then twisted Netanyahu's arm to get him to sign onto it. Netanyahu did, on the assumption, not incorrect, that there were things in there Hamas couldn't agree to, starting with the fact that Hamas would have to disarm, one of Netanyahu's demands, and move out of Gaza and give up any rights or thought of controlling it. So when Hamas came back, they agreed to part one, which was the hostage release in return for getting hundreds of Palestinian prisoners out of Israeli jails. But they said they would have to go negotiate on the remaining issues, including disarming.

David: 完全正确，雷切尔。原因很简单。特朗普总统提出了一项20点计划，然后强迫内塔尼亚胡签署。内塔尼亚胡签署了，前提是（这个前提并非不正确）哈马斯不可能同意其中的某些条款，首先就是哈马斯必须解除武装，这是内塔尼亚胡的要求之一，并且要撤出加沙，放弃任何控制加沙的权利或想法。所以当哈马斯回应时，他们同意了第一部分，也就是释放人质以换取数百名巴勒斯坦囚犯从以色列监狱获释。但他们表示，他们必须就包括解除武装在内的剩余问题进行谈判。

Michael: And President Trump just took a partial yes as an answer, and said that constitutes a peace agreement, which it didn't. He didn't seem to say much about the future of Gaza, though, did he?

Michael: 特朗普总统只是把部分的同意当作了答案，并说这构成了一项和平协议，但实际上并非如此。他似乎没有对加沙的未来说太多，是吗？

David: You know, Rachel, that was the big missing element of the speech. And the speech went on for more than an hour. He went way off script. He told stories about Steve Wickoff meeting Vladimir Putin, which had nothing to do with the Middle East. He told stories about his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was there, who played a big role in this. But what he didn't do was talk to the Israeli Parliament about what they needed to do next. He never mentioned a two-state solution or an alternative to a two-state solution. So he never talked about the hard choices Israel would have to make. He kept it all at the level of kind of happy talk.

David: 雷切尔，你知道，那是演讲中一个重要的缺失要素。而且演讲持续了一个多小时。他完全脱稿了。他讲了史蒂夫·威科夫会见弗拉基米尔·普京的故事，这与中东毫无关系。他还讲了他的女婿贾里德·库什纳的故事，库什纳当时也在场，在这件事中扮演了重要角色。但他没有做的是，没有向以色列议会谈论他们接下来需要做什么。他从未提及两国方案，也未提及两国方案的替代方案。所以他从未谈及以色列必须做出的艰难选择。他把这一切都停留在一种“乐观谈话”的层面。

埃及峰会的局限性与挑战

David: Now those details, Rachel, they were supposed to be the next part of the trip. He went to Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt and met with nearly 30 world leaders. They were supposed to make some decisions about an international stabilization force which would go in to basically keep the peace in Gaza. They were supposed to make some decisions about who would pay to rebuild Gaza, what it would look like, but Israel wasn't there and Hamas wasn't there, and the meeting just wasn't long enough to go into any depth about getting this done in Gaza.

David: 雷切尔，那些细节原本应该是此行的下一部分。他去了埃及的沙姆沙伊赫，会见了近30位世界领导人。他们本应就一支国际维和部队做出一些决定，这支部队将进入加沙，基本上维持和平。他们本应就由谁出资重建加沙、重建后的加沙会是什么样子做出一些决定，但以色列和哈马斯都没有出席，会议时间也不够长，无法深入讨论如何在加沙完成这些工作。

Michael: Do we have any indication about what came out of that summit?

Michael: 我们有没有关于那次峰会成果的任何迹象？

David: We don't know a whole lot of details now. We know they signed a document that basically signed these countries up to the president's 20 points, but you know, this was very Donald Trump the developer. "I'm going to come in with a big concept and then you people can go off and work out the details." The problem is in diplomacy, it frequently doesn't work that way. And the big worry that I have, Rachel, is that we've got tremendous momentum now. This was an incredibly emotional day. People around the world were engaged. And the question is, can you keep Donald Trump engaged now that he declares that he has brought about peace? And can you keep the rest of the world engaged in the really hard, detailed work of rebuilding Gaza?

David: 我们现在还不知道很多细节。我们知道他们签署了一份文件，基本上让这些国家同意了总统的20点计划，但你知道，这很像地产开发商唐纳德·特朗普的风格。“我要带着一个宏大的概念进来，然后你们这些人可以去处理细节。”问题是，在外交中，事情往往不是这样运作的。雷切尔，我最大的担忧是，我们现在有巨大的动力。这是令人难以置信的激动人心的一天。全世界的人民都参与其中。问题是，既然唐纳德·特朗普宣布他带来了和平，你还能让他继续投入吗？你还能让世界其他国家继续投入到重建加沙这项真正艰巨而细致的工作中吗？

Michael: David, thank you so much.

Michael: 大卫，非常感谢你。

David: Thank you, Rachel.

David: 谢谢你，雷切尔。

Michael: Okay, here's Michael with the rest of today's show. From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily.

Michael: 好的，接下来是迈克尔为您带来今天节目的其余部分。我是《纽约时报》的迈克尔·巴巴罗。这里是《每日》。

政府停摆下的联邦机构裁员潮

Michael: It's day 12 of the government shutdown. Now, President Trump is ordering mass federal layoffs. In a court filing, the budget office said more than 4,000 employees across several agencies will receive layoff notices. The shutdown of the US government, for which there is no end in sight, has given the Trump administration an extraordinary amount of power to remake and in some cases to decimate dozens of agencies. The departments of commerce, education, homeland security, and the CDC are just some of the agencies impacted. In many ways, it's a power that the administration learned how to wield during two extraordinary weeks back in January when it systematically destroyed USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development: 美国国际开发署，负责管理美国对外援助的独立联邦机构).

Michael: 政府停摆进入第12天。现在，特朗普总统正在下令大规模联邦裁员。在一份法庭文件中，预算办公室表示，数个机构的4000多名员工将收到裁员通知。美国政府的停摆（目前看不到尽头）赋予了特朗普政府非凡的权力，可以重塑，甚至在某些情况下摧毁数十个机构。商务部、教育部、国土安全部和疾病控制与预防中心（CDC）只是受影响的机构中的一部分。在许多方面，这种权力是本届政府在1月份的两个非凡周内学会如何运用的，当时它系统性地摧毁了USAID（U.S. Agency for International Development: 美国国际开发署，负责管理美国对外援助的独立联邦机构）。

Michael: Today, Chris FL on what he learned from reconstructing the death of that agency from the inside. It's Tuesday, October 14th.

Michael: 今天，克里斯·弗洛将讲述他从内部重建该机构“死亡”过程中学到的东西。今天是10月14日星期二。

Michael: Chris, throughout the government shutdown that's now entering its third week, the threat that the Trump administration has issued is that it might use the shutdown as the rationale to gut the federal bureaucracy, further gut the federal bureaucracy. And you have spent a lot of time trying to reconstruct what I would argue is the single greatest act of government gutting by this White House since it took back power in January. And so we wondered what lessons you learned from that reporting that might apply to this moment, to this shutdown.

Michael: 克里斯，在目前已进入第三周的政府停摆期间，特朗普政府发出的威胁是，它可能会利用停摆作为理由，进一步削减联邦官僚机构。你花了很多时间试图重构我认为是本届白宫自1月份重新掌权以来，对政府进行的最严重的一次“掏空”行动。所以我们想知道你从那次报道中学到了什么教训，可以应用于当前这个时刻，应用于这次停摆。

Chris: Yeah, the moment feels like a lifetime ago, but think back to the first few days of the new Trump administration when, as you said, they wiped out an entire government agency, USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development: 美国国际开发署，负责管理美国对外援助的独立联邦机构), the agency for international developments, in a matter of days. And it was so complete and so sort of shocking at the time to basically get rid of 10,000 federal workers that I wanted to go back to it and understand what happened and what was the thinking behind it. What was the strategy? And what I found out was there wasn't in fact a plan to kill off USAID. At least not at first.

Chris: 是的，那个时刻感觉像是很久以前的事了，但回想一下新特朗普政府上任的头几天，正如你所说，他们在短短几天内就彻底清除了一整个政府机构，也就是负责国际发展的USAID（U.S. Agency for International Development: 美国国际开发署，负责管理美国对外援助的独立联邦机构）。当时，基本上解雇1万名联邦工作人员是如此彻底，如此令人震惊，以至于我想回过头去了解发生了什么，以及其背后的思想和策略是什么。我发现，事实上并没有一个计划要彻底消灭USAID。至少一开始没有。

Chris: It happened a little bit on the fly, sort of a series of decisions and clashes that built on each other to advance an agenda that is ideologically consistent but not, it turned out, all that planned out. They were looking for opportunities and willing to use them really aggressively when they came up.

Chris: 这有点像是即兴发生的，一系列相互叠加的决定和冲突，推动了一个在意识形态上保持一致，但结果却并非完全事先计划好的议程。他们一直在寻找机会，并且在机会出现时，愿意非常积极地利用它们。

Michael: It's interesting that you have found that the obliteration of USAID was essentially improvised, because right now during this shutdown, the threat of traumas to the federal government like what happened at USAID feels quite explicit.

Michael: 有趣的是，你发现USAID的彻底消失基本上是即兴的，因为现在在这次停摆期间，联邦政府面临的创伤威胁，就像发生在USAID的事情一样，感觉非常明确。

Chris: That's exactly right. And I think the reason the case study of USAID remains really instructive today is it shows how they were willing to improvise and how effective that could be. And I think that applies in an important way to the shutdown where it tells us maybe the outcome of the shutdown will not be dictated just by what is strictly legal, but also outcomes that we couldn't have imagined when it began.

Chris: 完全正确。我认为，USAID的案例研究在今天仍然具有指导意义的原因在于，它展示了他们如何愿意即兴发挥，以及这种做法可能有多么有效。我认为这以一种重要的方式适用于这次停摆，它告诉我们，停摆的结果可能不仅仅由严格意义上的合法性决定，还可能出现我们在开始时无法想象的局面。

USAID的“死亡”：一场即兴的权力斗争

Michael: Well, Chris, take us inside the story that you have pieced together of this two weeks during which USAID went from a fully functioning agency to ultimately vanishing.

Michael: 好的，克里斯，请带我们了解你拼凑起来的，USAID在两周内从一个正常运作的机构最终消失的故事。

Chris: Yeah, it's really the story of just a few key characters. Let's start with a man named Jason Gray. Longtime federal civil servant, worked at a number of big agencies. Crucially, had only been at AID for about 2 years when he was picked at the very beginning of this administration, almost without warning, to be in charge of USAID. Now, the fact that Jason Gray didn't have the kind of experience someone would usually have to run an agency like USAID became important when on that very same day, on the first day in office, Donald Trump signed an executive order freezing foreign aid. That order wasn't surprising. He had indicated he would do something similar, but something about that order turned out to be really important. It was actually unclear what it meant. The order confusingly said that the government would "immediately pause new obligations and disbursements," but a lot of the money that was flowing at USAID was for projects around the world already in existence, so that left open the question: "Well, what happens to those? Should those stop as well?" The people I spoke with said the idea that President Trump would stop existing programs, which is sort of a little crazy, right, probably illegal, so they didn't even think that would be what it was.

Chris: 是的，这实际上是几个关键人物的故事。我们从一个名叫杰森·格雷（Jason Gray）的人说起。他是一名资深的联邦公务员，在多个大型机构工作过。关键在于，他在本届政府刚上任时，几乎毫无预警地被选中负责USAID时，在AID只工作了大约两年。现在，杰森·格雷缺乏通常管理USAID这类机构所需的经验，这一点变得很重要，因为就在他上任的第一天，唐纳德·特朗普签署了一项行政命令，冻结了对外援助。这项命令并不令人意外。他曾表示会做类似的事情，但这项命令的某些方面结果却非常重要。实际上，它的含义并不明确。该命令令人困惑地指出，政府将“立即暂停新的义务和支出”，但USAID的大部分资金是用于世界各地已有的项目，所以这就留下了一个问题：“那么这些项目怎么办？它们也应该停止吗？”我采访过的人说，特朗普总统会停止现有项目的想法有点疯狂，对吧，可能也是非法的，所以他们甚至不认为会是这种情况。

Michael: Right? And I'm not a lawyer, but hearing the language from this executive order, "pause new obligations" certainly sounds like pause new spending, not old spending.

Michael: 对吧？我不是律师，但听到这项行政命令中的措辞，“暂停新的义务”听起来肯定像是暂停新的支出，而不是旧的支出。

Chris: That's exactly right. And in fact, it seemed so obvious to the people inside USAID that they didn't give it much thought. And the result was most programs just kept continuing as they were. But this is where we introduce our second main character. Pete Morocco was a key figure in the first Trump administration. He had a stint actually at USAID in the closing months of that administration, was remembered as being very hard-charging, very aggressive, being very eager, I'm told, to enforce President Trump's agenda, and left people a little unhappy. He eventually left after just a few months at USAID. Well, Pete Morocco suddenly re-emerges in the early days of the second Trump administration because he has a senior role at the State Department where, as director of foreign assistance, he has some authority over USAID. And all of a sudden, just a few days into this new administration, he calls senior staff at USAID. He says, "Hey, it's come to my attention that AID is still spending money in violation of this executive order. This is a real problem." And he said he wanted to get to the bottom of it.

Chris: 完全正确。事实上，对于USAID内部的人来说，这似乎是如此显而易见，以至于他们没有多想。结果是，大多数项目都像往常一样继续进行。但这就是我们介绍第二个主要人物的地方。皮特·摩洛哥（Pete Morocco）是第一届特朗普政府的关键人物。他实际上在第一届政府的最后几个月曾在USAID任职，据我所知，他被认为是行事强硬、极具侵略性，非常渴望执行特朗普总统的议程，并让人们有些不满。他在USAID工作了几个月后最终离开了。然而，在第二届特朗普政府上任之初，皮特·摩洛哥突然再次出现，因为他在国务院担任高级职务，作为对外援助司司长，他对USAID拥有一定的权力。突然间，在新政府上任仅仅几天后，他致电USAID的高级职员。他说：“嘿，我注意到AID仍在违反这项行政命令花钱。这是一个真正的问题。”他说他想查个水落石出。

Michael: Okay. So, suddenly you have a clashing view of what this executive order says. You got the newbie head of the agency a little out of his depth seeing the language of the order and saying, "I'm all good." You got the old-line hard-charging Trump figure coming in and saying, "You're totally wrong here. All spending is now done."

Michael: 好的。所以，突然间你对这项行政命令的含义有了冲突的看法。你有一个有点力不从心的机构新任负责人，看到命令的措辞，说“一切都没问题。”然后你有一个老派的、强硬的特朗普人物进来，说“你们完全错了。所有支出现在都停止了。”

Chris: That's right. So, here we are. This is just like 4 days into the new administration. Senior officials at the top of USAID gather for a meeting in the agency's headquarters just a few blocks from the White House, and they said, "No, you know what? We've looked at this. We think this is all above board. The way we spend money can be complicated. Perhaps," they said to themselves, "Pete Morocco just maybe doesn't understand the way money flows from USAID. We can fix this." And so the plan they left that meeting with was, "We'll explain ourselves to Pete Morocco, and this should be fine."

Chris: 没错。所以，我们现在看到的是新政府上任仅仅四天。USAID的高级官员在距离白宫仅几个街区的机构总部开会，他们说：“不，你知道吗？我们已经研究过了。我们认为这一切都合法合规。我们花钱的方式可能很复杂。也许，”他们对自己说，“皮特·摩洛哥可能只是不了解USAID的资金流向。我们可以解决这个问题。”所以他们离开会议时的计划是：“我们会向皮特·摩洛哥解释清楚，这样应该就没问题了。”

Michael: Right? Problem solved.

Michael: 对吧？问题解决了。

Chris: And of course, that's not what happened. The following Monday, this is one week into the new administration, Pete Morocco for the first time shows up at the USAID headquarters, and he says he's there because he wants to keep on digging. He's not convinced this problem is fixed. And crucially, he's not alone. He brings with him members of the Department of Government Efficiency (Department of Government Efficiency: 政府效率部，此处特指一个旨在削减政府开支和人员的部门). And he says they're there to help him figure out what went wrong.

Chris: 当然，事情并没有那样发展。接下来的周一，也就是新政府上任一周后，皮特·摩洛哥首次出现在USAID总部，他说他来这里是因为他想继续深入调查。他不相信这个问题已经解决了。更重要的是，他并非孤身一人。他带来了Department of Government Efficiency（政府效率部，此处特指一个旨在削减政府开支和人员的部门）的成员。他说他们在那里是为了帮助他弄清楚哪里出了问题。

Chris: And I think people at this point, as we speak today, know all about Doge, right? Doge is under Elon Musk and went around looking for severe cuts and for ways to get rid of staff. But this is just one week in. People don't yet know at this point what Doge is all about. They didn't yet realize just how serious it was for Doge to be in the building. In fact, this is one of the first agencies that Doge went to.

Chris: 我想现在的人们，就像我们今天谈论的，都知道Doge（政府效率部，此处指特朗普政府内部一个旨在削减政府开支和人员的部门），对吧？Doge（政府效率部）在埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）领导下，四处寻找大幅削减开支和裁员的方法。但这仅仅是第一周。当时人们还不知道Doge（政府效率部）究竟是做什么的。他们还没有意识到Doge（政府效率部）出现在大楼里意味着多么严重。事实上，这是Doge（政府效率部）访问的首批机构之一。

Michael: Mhm.

Michael: 嗯。

Doge的介入与“斩首行动”

Chris: It was only later that day that people began to realize what Doge was there to do, because that afternoon, senior figures from Doge made a demand. They went into Jason Gray's office with a list of 57 senior officials at USAID and said, "We've done some digging. We think these 57 people were involved in these payments. We want them put on administrative leave and sent home." So suddenly Doge is operating as kind of a search and destroy operation to find the culprits for who has allowed spending to occur in violation of this executive order. They're kind of the enforcement arm of the Trump administration coming in to settle that matter.

Chris: 就在那天晚些时候，人们才开始意识到Doge（政府效率部）来这里的目的，因为那天下午，Doge（政府效率部）的高级人物提出了一个要求。他们走进杰森·格雷的办公室，拿着一份USAID的57名高级官员名单，说：“我们已经调查过了。我们认为这57人参与了这些支付。我们要求他们行政休假并回家。”所以Doge（政府效率部）突然间像是在执行一项搜寻和摧毁行动，寻找那些违反行政命令允许支出发生的人。他们像是特朗普政府的执法部门，前来解决这个问题。

Michael: That's right.

Michael: 没错。

Chris: But though that's the story they gave, the people I spoke with said it didn't really hold up. Because these 57 names weren't, on closer inspection, people who were likely to have had anything to do with these payments. This list of names was something quite different. It was really the senior-most people in leadership roles from around the agency. And so what it came to look like was an attempt to decapitate USAID.

Chris: 但尽管他们是这么说的，我采访过的人说这根本站不住脚。因为仔细审查后发现，这57个人名不太可能与这些支付有任何关联。这份名单完全是另一回事。它实际上是来自该机构各部门的最高级别领导人员。所以，这看起来就像是一次试图“斩首”USAID的行动。

Michael: Okay. So, as all these folks are pursuing their own ends and there's a lot of anger in the air over the idea that rules are being broken, what happens next?

Michael: 好的。所以，当所有这些人都追求自己的目的，并且空气中弥漫着对规则被打破的愤怒时，接下来发生了什么？

Chris: A few days later, Doge comes back and presents to USAID officials what they call their evidence for why these 57 people should not get to come back to their jobs. The evidence turns out to be painfully thin. It consists of an email that one of the members of the Doge team sent his teammates a few days earlier in which he said, quote, "Look, I reviewed these aid payments since the order." And then he lists some people who had access to the system. And then he goes on to say, "I could be wrong."

Chris: 几天后，Doge（政府效率部）回来，向USAID官员提交了他们所谓的证据，说明为什么这57人不应该回到他们的工作岗位。这些证据被证明是极其薄弱的。它包括一封Doge（政府效率部）团队成员几天前发给他队友的电子邮件，邮件中写道：“看，我审查了命令发布以来的这些援助款项。”然后他列出了一些有权访问系统的人员。接着他又说：“我可能错了。”

Michael: So this is not the evidence required to end the career of 57 leaders at USAID.

Michael: 所以这并不是结束USAID 57位领导职业生涯所需的证据。

Chris: That is the judgment of the professionals inside USAID. In particular, a gentleman named Nicholas Gotautleb, whose role is to oversee employee and labor relations at USAID. So this Nick Gotautleb suddenly becomes another player in this saga. He looks at this evidence and he says, "No, I cannot agree to keep these senior leaders on leave based on this. This is not sufficient." And then Nick got two things that prove to be tremendously important to the future of USAID. First, he sends an email to those 57 people saying, "Look, based on the evidence, I've got no basis for keeping you on leave." But then, arguably more important, he sends a memo to Jason Gray. He says he will report Doge's actions to the Office of Special Counsel (Office of Special Counsel: 特别检察官办公室，一个保护联邦雇员免受不当行为侵害的独立机构), which investigates wrongdoing and protects whistleblowers and is meant to protect federal employees. So, he threatens to begin some sort of formal investigation of what Doge has done.

Chris: 这是USAID内部专业人士的判断。特别是尼古拉斯·戈托特勒布（Nicholas Gotautleb）先生，他的职责是监督USAID的员工和劳工关系。所以这位尼克·戈托特勒布突然成为这场传奇中的另一个角色。他看了这些证据，然后说：“不，我不能同意基于这些证据让这些高级领导继续休假。这不够充分。”然后尼克做了两件事，这两件事对USAID的未来至关重要。首先，他给那57人发了一封电子邮件，说：“听着，根据现有证据，我没有理由让你们继续休假。”但随后，也许更重要的是，他给杰森·格雷发了一份备忘录。他说他将向Office of Special Counsel（特别检察官办公室，一个保护联邦雇员免受不当行为侵害的独立机构）报告Doge（政府效率部）的行为，该办公室负责调查不当行为、保护举报人，旨在保护联邦雇员。因此，他威胁要对Doge（政府效率部）的行为展开某种形式的正式调查。

Michael: Wow. So Nick Gotautleb decides to stand up and fight all this and ask for an investigation into Doge's investigation inside of USAID.

Michael: 哇。所以尼克·戈托特勒布决定站出来反击所有这一切，并要求调查Doge（政府效率部）在USAID内部的调查。

Chris: Yeah, it's really impossible to overstate just what a big deal this was in the eyes of Doge and Pete Morocco and eventually the White House. They viewed this as absolute insubordination. Their view was, "How dare this mid-level career federal civil servant tell us what we can and cannot do?"

Chris: 是的，这在Doge（政府效率部）、皮特·摩洛哥以及最终白宫眼中，这件事的重要性确实无法言喻。他们认为这是绝对的抗命。他们的观点是：“这个中层职业联邦公务员凭什么告诉我们能做什么不能做什么？”

Michael: This is the deep state (Deep State: 幕后政府/深层政府，指政府内部非民选、非公开的官僚机构或权力集团) personified.

Michael: 这就是deep state（幕后政府/深层政府，指政府内部非民选、非公开的官僚机构或权力集团）的化身。

Chris: This starts to look a lot like the deep state, and it set the tone for what happened next. This is just 10 days into the new administration. So, right away, they find Nick Gotautleb and march him out of the building. Wow.

Chris: 这开始看起来很像deep state（幕后政府/深层政府），它为接下来发生的一切定下了基调。这仅仅是新政府上任的第10天。所以，他们立即找到了尼克·戈托特勒布，并把他带出了大楼。哇。

Chris: But they don't stop there. They go to Jason Gray and they say, "This action from your employee, from this Nick Gotautleb, it shows that you've lost control of the building." So they demanded that Jason Gray try to regain control of the building. And the way they wanted him to do it was to lock out the entire staff from their phone and email systems. Block out every single one of the thousands of people who work at USAID around the world from the technology they use to work at USAID.

Chris: 但他们并没有就此止步。他们找到杰森·格雷，说：“你的雇员，这个尼克·戈托特勒布的行动，表明你已经失去了对大楼的控制。”所以他们要求杰森·格雷试图重新控制大楼。他们希望他做的方式是，将所有员工从他们的电话和电子邮件系统中锁定。将全球数千名在USAID工作的人员，全部从他们用于工作的技术系统中屏蔽。

Michael: That's right.

Michael: 没错。

Chris: It's worth saying it's not clear how well thought out this idea was. I've heard different versions of it. Someone said not necessarily. They just wanted to prepare a plan. They wanted the option. But what Jason Gray heard by the accounts of everyone I spoke with was something that he viewed as too much. He said, "We've got people in combat zones, people delivering food in Gaza, people fighting Ebola in Africa. I cannot lock them out. That will put them in physical danger. I won't do it."

Chris: 值得一提的是，这个想法究竟考虑得有多周全尚不清楚。我听过不同的说法。有人说不一定。他们只是想准备一个计划。他们想要这个选项。但据我采访的每个人所说，杰森·格雷听到的内容，他认为太过分了。他说：“我们有人在战区，有人在加沙运送食物，有人在非洲抗击埃博拉。我不能把他们排除在外。那会让他们面临人身危险。我不会这么做。”

Michael: People, he's really seeming to say, could die.

Michael: 他似乎真的在说，人们可能会因此丧命。

Chris: That's right. He said people could die. And that to him was the line he wouldn't cross. And what that sounded like to the administration was yet another example of insubordination from USAID. And within days, the agency would effectively be shut down.

Chris: 没错。他说人们可能会死。对他来说，那是他不会跨越的底线。而这在政府听来，又是USAID不服从命令的一个例子。几天之内，该机构实际上就会被关闭。

Michael: We'll be right back. So Chris, once Jason Gray, the head of USAID, the Trump-appointed head of USAID, says you can't freeze every employee out of their computer system, their phone system. What comes next on this journey towards the end of USAID?

Michael: 马上回来。那么克里斯，一旦USAID的负责人，特朗普任命的USAID负责人杰森·格雷说你不能把每个员工都从他们的电脑系统、电话系统中排除出去。在USAID走向终结的这条路上，接下来发生了什么？

内部抵抗与机构的终结

Chris: A lot of things happen really quickly. One of them is as of the next morning, Jason Gray has been removed from his post as head of USAID. And that's really just the beginning. We're now into the weekend. This is just the second weekend. I cannot stress enough. We are less than 2 weeks in, right? And this is when members of Doge begin to go in and really aggressively begin rooting through the files, turning off social media, shutting down the website of USAID. Someone described it to me as akin to the face of USAID being erased. So over this weekend, you can tell that USAID is in real trouble. At the same time, thousands of staff members begin losing access to their email accounts and computer systems. So in the background, the agency is starting to be dismantled. But then it moves to the foreground. This is Sunday afternoon. We're about 13 days into the new administration. What breaks out into the public is a tweet from Elon Musk, and he writes, "USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die."

Chris: 很多事情发生得非常快。其中之一就是，第二天早上，杰森·格雷就被解除了USAID负责人的职务。而这真的只是个开始。我们现在进入了周末。这仅仅是第二个周末。我怎么强调都不为过。我们才刚刚上任不到两周，对吧？正是在这个时候，Doge（政府效率部）的成员开始进入，非常积极地翻查文件，关闭社交媒体，关闭USAID的网站。有人向我形容这就像USAID的“面孔”被抹去了。所以在这个周末，你可以看出USAID陷入了真正的困境。与此同时，数千名工作人员开始失去对他们电子邮件账户和电脑系统的访问权限。所以在幕后，这个机构正在开始被解体。但随后它转移到台前。这是周日下午。新政府上任大约13天。公开爆发的是埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）的一条推文，他写道：“USAID是一个犯罪组织。是时候让它灭亡了。”

Michael: Not a lot of parsing to do of that language. This is Elon Musk issuing a kind of death sentence for this agency.

Michael: 这句话没什么好解读的。这是埃隆·马斯克对这个机构发出的“死刑判决”。

Chris: Yeah. And in hindsight, you know, it's clear what that meant. But again, remember at the time, this is also new. People don't really know how much power Doge has, and they don't know how much power Elon Musk has. Right? In theory, if one is to stick to the law, Elon Musk, who's not really a government employee, certainly doesn't have the authority to unilaterally end a congressionally mandated agency. So, this tweet marks a funny transition from a world where those kinds of rules still matter to a world where, "Oh, maybe Elon Musk and Doge can just end USAID," right? And the next day is when you can really tell beyond a shadow of doubt USAID is not going to survive because early on that day, that Monday, two weeks in, the administration is an even more aggressive tweet from Elon Musk, and it reads, "We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper, could have gone to some great parties, did that instead." From there, staff who worked in the Washington D.C. headquarters were told to stay home. Later that day, the State Department sent Congress a letter saying they would move, reorganize, or otherwise wind down USAID. It even said, quote, "The remainder of the agency may be abolished."

Chris: 是的。事后看来，你知道，这很清楚意味着什么。但再次强调，请记住当时，这也是新鲜事。人们并不知道Doge（政府效率部）有多大权力，也不知道埃隆·马斯克有多大权力。对吧？理论上，如果一个人要遵守法律，埃隆·马斯克并非真正的政府雇员，当然没有权力单方面终结一个国会授权的机构。所以，这条推文标志着一个有趣的转变：从一个这类规则仍然重要的世界，转变到一个“哦，也许埃隆·马斯克和Doge（政府效率部）就可以终结USAID”的世界，对吧？而第二天，你就可以毫无疑问地确定USAID活不下去了，因为那天早些时候，也就是周一，新政府上任两周，埃隆·马斯克又发了一条更具侵略性的推文，写道：“我们周末把USAID喂进了碎木机，本来可以去参加一些很棒的派对，但我们选择了这样做。”从那时起，在华盛顿特区总部工作的工作人员被告知待在家里。那天晚些时候，国务院向国会发了一封信，称他们将调动、重组或以其他方式逐步解散USAID。信中甚至写道：“该机构的其余部分可能被废除。”

Michael: Chris, I just want to make sure I understand the sequence of what happened here based on your investigation. We get this pretty confusing executive order, and a bunch of people at USAID who interpret it exactly as it's written, and that leaves folks like Pete Morocco convinced that there's rampant insubordination going on across the agency. Doge comes in, starts punishing people for being insubordinate, and within a week or so, Doge is shutting the whole place down. Is that more or less right?

Michael: 克里斯，我只是想根据你的调查，确保我理解这里发生的事情的顺序。我们收到了一份相当令人困惑的行政命令，USAID的一群人完全按照字面意思解读它，这让像皮特·摩洛哥这样的人确信整个机构都在盛行抗命行为。Doge（政府效率部）介入，开始惩罚那些抗命的人，大约一周之内，Doge（政府效率部）就关闭了整个机构。这个说法大体上对吗？

Chris: That is correct.

Chris: 完全正确。

USAID事件的深层教训

Michael: And what it feels like is revealed in your reporting is that while an underlying ideology might be behind the way the Trump administration sees USAID from the beginning, right, which is America First and foreign aid are not so compatible. So USAID was always going to be suspect to this administration. It feels like the speed with which the agency just evaporates has a lot more to do with a few individuals becoming furious at what feels like a very normal process of employees engaging in a back and forth push and pull around rules and process, and the reaction being nuclear. You know, "This is disobedience, this is resistance. We are going to destroy your agency as a result of it." And that all feels very outsized given the facts that you found on the ground.

Michael: 而你的报道所揭示的，感觉是这样：尽管特朗普政府从一开始就对USAID持有某种潜在的意识形态（即“美国优先”与对外援助不太兼容），因此USAID对本届政府而言始终是可疑的。但该机构迅速瓦解的速度，似乎更多地与少数人对员工围绕规则和流程进行非常正常的来回拉锯感到愤怒有关，而这种反应是“核弹级”的。你知道，就是“这是不服从，这是抵抗。因此我们要摧毁你的机构。”鉴于你在实地发现的事实，这一切都显得非常过分。

Chris: That's exactly right. And I think you're landing on a really important point, which is maybe those two things aren't totally separate, right? Maybe the style and substance of government here affect each other, right? The policy decisions that reflect the ideology get influenced and overtaken by sort of the style of government, the combativeness, the hostility towards career civil servants, the suspicion of the deep state (Deep State: 幕后政府/深层政府，指政府内部非民选、非公开的官僚机构或权力集团). And that sort of hostility and animus comes to overtake or redirect the policy goals. And those two things, rather than remaining separate, become sort of a cycle, and they start reinforcing each other, leading to really aggressive and fast outcomes that at the beginning of just this short two-week period probably would have been pretty hard to predict because you had two combustible elements interacting at the same time.

Chris: 完全正确。我认为你触及了一个非常重要的点，那就是这两件事也许并非完全独立，对吧？也许政府的风格和实质在这里相互影响，对吧？反映意识形态的政策决定，受到政府风格、好战性、对职业公务员的敌意、对deep state（幕后政府/深层政府）的怀疑等因素的影响和取代。而这种敌意和仇视情绪，最终超越或改变了政策目标。这两件事不再是独立的，而是形成了一种循环，它们开始相互强化，导致了非常激进和快速的结果，而在这短短两周的开始阶段，这可能很难预测，因为当时有两种易燃元素同时相互作用。

Chris: Right? But a clear lesson to have emerged from this, and I know this is complicated, is that the greater the resistance from people inside of it to what people from the administration wanted, the greater the pain, the trauma, and the gutting resulted. I think that definitely describes what happened at USAID. And I think that is in fact the lesson that others took away from AID and from this early period: that it's easier not to fight. It's easier just to give in. And we see that in the behavior of some law firms, of some universities. I don't know if that is though a general concept. Another lesson might just be that USAID fought back in the wrong way. They thought that just by appealing to the letter of the law and to accepted HR practices, they would be able to stop this administration. They probably underestimated the degree to which officials would feel sort of personally chagrined when they said no to their demands. So the lesson of USAID to my mind is the steps the Trump administration will take to try to shut down an agency. The steps they'll take in response to what they perceive as insubordination. They're unexpected and they can seem really extreme. And USAID wasn't ready for it.

Chris: 对吧？但从这件事中得出的一个明确教训，我知道这很复杂，那就是内部人员对政府要求抵抗越大，造成的痛苦、创伤和削减也就越大。我认为这绝对描述了USAID发生的事情。而且我认为这实际上是其他人从AID和这个早期阶段吸取的教训：不反抗更容易。屈服更容易。我们在一些律师事务所、一些大学的行为中看到了这一点。但我不知道这是否是一个普遍的概念。另一个教训可能只是USAID以错误的方式反击。他们认为只要诉诸法律条文和公认的人力资源实践，他们就能阻止本届政府。他们可能低估了当他们拒绝政府要求时，官员们会感到某种程度的个人羞辱。所以在我看来，USAID的教训是，特朗普政府将采取措施试图关闭一个机构。他们将采取措施回应他们认为的抗命行为。这些措施出人意料，而且可能看起来非常极端。USAID没有为此做好准备。

Michael: But as you apply that lesson to the shutdown, I wonder if what we see is this is not a saga. This is not a battle that unfolds along lines that make any sense. This is not an administration that's following a particular strategy, but instead they're reacting. They're looking for openings. They're aggressively pushing those openings. And they've learned a different but maybe more important lesson from USAID. And that lesson is they can get away with things like this. The consequences don't always materialize. In other words, if the Trump administration decides that the shutdown is licensed to go into an agency it doesn't like or wants to severely reduce, what the lesson of this all is for the Trump administration is they can probably do what they want, and that was true before the shutdown, perhaps is even truer now that the government is in shutdown because it's concentrated the president's authority over funding. And once they make a decision to go into an agency, any decision, as we've talked about, any resistance could then be used to very unpredictably take something that seems small and turn it into something very big and use it as a rationale to transform, maybe even end, an agency.

Michael: 但是当你把这个教训应用到停摆上时，我想我们看到的是，这不是一个传奇。这不是一场按照任何逻辑展开的战斗。这不是一个遵循特定策略的政府，相反，他们是在反应。他们在寻找机会。他们积极地利用这些机会。而且他们从USAID那里学到了一个不同但可能更重要的教训。这个教训就是他们可以做这种事情而不受惩罚。后果并不总是会显现。换句话说，如果特朗普政府认为停摆是进入一个它不喜欢或想大幅削减的机构的许可，那么这一切对特朗普政府的教训就是，他们可能可以为所欲为，在停摆之前就是如此，也许现在政府停摆后更是如此，因为它集中了总统对资金的权力。一旦他们决定进入一个机构，任何决定，正如我们所讨论的，任何抵抗都可能被非常不可预测地用来把看似微小的事情变成非常大的事情，并将其作为改变甚至可能终结一个机构的理由。

Chris: Exactly. One of the unexpected conversations that's emerged from the shutdown is even the Trump administration needing to grapple with, "Is the government important?" And the reality of the USAID is that since it happened so early, we now have had the longest time to think about the repercussions of it going away. And I think we'd be remiss if we didn't for a moment talk about what it has meant to the world that USAID is now gone.

Chris: 完全正确。停摆引发的一个意想不到的讨论是，即使是特朗普政府也需要思考：“政府重要吗？”USAID的现实情况是，因为它发生得很早，我们现在有最长的时间来思考它消失的后果。我认为如果我们不花点时间谈谈USAID的消失对世界意味着什么，那将是我们的疏忽。

Chris: Yeah. This is what it looks like in real life is people not getting HIV medication, mothers not getting life-saving care, starving children not getting emergency nutrition packets, countries that used to get political assistance to remain democracies not getting that help, infrastructure that used to get built for drinking water and sewage and electricity and schools not being built. It looks like the opposite of progress all over the world, and it's already happening.

Chris: 是的。现实生活中，这意味着人们无法获得艾滋病药物，母亲无法获得救命的护理，饥饿的儿童无法获得紧急营养包，过去获得政治援助以维持民主的国家得不到帮助，用于饮用水、污水处理、电力和学校的基础设施无法建成。这看起来就像是世界各地进步的反面，而且它已经发生了。

Michael: Right. And that is no doubt of enormous importance to the countries where USAID was doing that work, to the people doing that work. Foreign policy experts would tell you that over time, this meant a lot to America's ability to exercise soft power and influence around the world. But at the same time, if you go walk the streets of the United States and ask people, "Do they miss USAID and the work that it does?" and people are being honest, I'm not sure the answer is going to be, "We miss USAID." I think the answer is probably, "What was USAID again?" And that might be the most striking lesson of all. It showed the genius of Trump to recognize, maybe not part of a plan, maybe out of emotional spite, but ultimately to recognize that he could do what almost no president has done and end a major agency and gamble that it wouldn't cost him any meaningful blowback from the public. And as of now, it looks like he was right. It looks like that gamble paid off. Which raises the question in this shutdown, well, if it worked at USAID, maybe he'll try it at other agencies. Maybe when he threatens to close "Democrat agencies," maybe he'll do it. And maybe it'll work out for him again just like it did at USAID.

Michael: 没错。毫无疑问，这对USAID开展工作的国家，以及那些从事这项工作的人们来说，具有极其重要的意义。外交政策专家会告诉你，随着时间的推移，这极大地影响了美国在全球施展软实力和影响力的能力。但与此同时，如果你走在美国街头，问人们“他们是否怀念USAID及其所做的工作？”如果人们诚实回答，我不确定答案会是“我们怀念USAID。”我想答案很可能是“USAID又是什么？”这也许是所有教训中最令人震惊的一点。它展现了特朗普的“天才”之处，他认识到——也许这不是计划的一部分，也许是出于情感上的恶意——但最终他认识到，他可以做几乎没有任何总统做过的事情：终结一个主要机构，并赌注这不会给他带来任何有意义的公众反弹。而截至目前，看来他是对的。看来这场赌博奏效了。这在这次停摆中引出了一个问题：既然在USAID奏效了，也许他会在其他机构也尝试这样做。也许当他威胁要关闭“民主党机构”时，他真的会这么做。而且也许他会再次成功，就像在USAID一样。

Michael: Well, Chris, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Michael: 好的，克里斯，非常感谢你。我们很感激。

Chris: Great to be with you.

Chris: 很高兴和你们在一起。

Michael: We'll be right back.

Michael: 马上回来。

其他新闻：选区划分与党派斗争

Michael: Here's what else you need to know today. On Monday, Republican state lawmakers in North Carolina said that they would soon begin to redraw the state's congressional maps to assure another Republican seat in the US House of Representatives before next year's midterm elections. The effort would make North Carolina the latest state to fulfill President Trump's goal of trying to retain Republican control of the House by gerrymandering (Gerrymandering: 不公正划分选区，通过调整选区边界来达到特定政党利益的行为) congressional districts rather than winning competitive elections.

Michael: 这是你今天还需要知道的其他消息。周一，北卡罗来纳州的共和党州议员表示，他们将很快开始重新划分该州的国会选区地图，以确保在明年中期选举之前，在美国众议院再赢得一个共和党席位。此举将使北卡罗来纳州成为最新一个实现特朗普总统目标的州，即通过gerrymandering（不公正划分选区，通过调整选区边界来达到特定政党利益的行为）国会选区，而非赢得有竞争力的选举，来维持共和党对众议院的控制。

Michael: This summer, Republican lawmakers in Texas redrew their state's election maps to create five new Republican-friendly House seats, while Republicans in Missouri redrew its maps to create one more Republican seat.

Michael: 今年夏天，德克萨斯州的共和党议员重新划分了该州的选举地图，创造了五个新的对共和党有利的众议院席位，而密苏里州的共和党人也重新划分了地图，以再增加一个共和党席位。

制作人员

Michael: Today's episode was produced by Michael Simon Johnson, Mary Wilson, Shannon Lynn, Diana Wyn, and Claire Tennis with help from Nina Feldman. It was edited by MJ Davis Lynn, Liz O. Balin, and Michael Benois. Contains music by Marian Lozano, Alicia Baude, Dan Powell, and Pat McCusker. And was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael. See you tomorrow.

Michael: 今天这期节目由迈克尔·西蒙·约翰逊（Michael Simon Johnson）、玛丽·威尔逊（Mary Wilson）、香农·林恩（Shannon Lynn）、戴安娜·温（Diana Wyn）和克莱尔·特尼斯（Claire Tennis）制作，尼娜·费尔德曼（Nina Feldman）协助。由MJ·戴维斯·林恩（MJ Davis Lynn）、利兹·O·巴林（Liz O. Balin）和迈克尔·贝努瓦（Michael Benois）编辑。包含玛丽安·洛萨诺（Marian Lozano）、艾丽西亚·鲍德（Alicia Baude）、丹·鲍威尔（Dan Powell）和帕特·麦卡斯克（Pat McCusker）的音乐。由艾丽莎·莫克斯利（Alyssa Moxley）进行工程制作。今天的《每日》就到这里。我是迈克尔。明天见。