Zanny Minton Beddoes economist 編輯0308 2025 In Trump’s Push to Reshape Government, Justice Barrett May Hold the Key Vote

 

In Trump’s Push to Reshape Government, Justice Barrett May Hold the Key Vote

Amy Coney Barrett was the only member of the court appointed by President Trump to vote against his emergency request to freeze foreign aid.

In the last Supreme Court term, Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the Republican appointee most likely to vote for a liberal result.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times

Zanny Minton Beddoes 編輯 目前白宮所做的改變世界的決策如此令人頭暈目眩，有時很難相信這一切真的發生了。如果幾週前有人告訴我，唐納德·川普總統將把弗拉基米爾·澤連斯基趕出白宮，切斷對烏克蘭的情報支持和軍事援助，對墨西哥和加拿大徵收 25% 的關稅，然後宣布延期和豁免——所有這些都在一周之內——我很難相信他們會這麼做。

我預計川普先生會是一個破壞者。他非常清楚這一點。很多領域都需要進行顛覆。但這些決定遠不止於此。川普冒著摧毀戰後繁榮所依賴的貿易體系的風險。他欺負自己最親密的盟友，並向西方的敵人示好。用迪安艾奇遜的話來說，我們彷彿就親眼見證了這場毀滅。對於我們《經濟學人》的人來說，我們對自由貿易和大西洋主義有著堅定的支持，這是令人震驚的發展。

但我認為它們使我們的工作變得比以往任何時候都更加重要。那就是為您提供清晰、有洞察力和嚴謹的新聞和分析，幫助您了解世界的發展方向。本報秉持自由貿易和古典自由主義的價值觀，對目前發生的事情進行評估，這也是本報創辦的初衷。

本週我們從三個方面進行此項工作。我們的美洲、亞洲和歐洲報道重點關注川普的經濟戰略。總統表示，他的關稅將保住就業、使美國更加富裕並保護國家的靈魂。不幸的是，現實世界的情況並非如此。投資者、消費者和企業開始對川普的願景產生反感。我們的領導人認為，激進且不穩定的保護主義是行不通的。儘管川普宣稱將強勢回歸，但市場卻亮起了紅燈。

在外交關係中，就像在經濟方面一樣，川普的政策將對國內外造成損害。在英國，我們的封面重點關注基爾·斯塔默爵士的變革一周，他在處理跨大西洋關係方面表現出靈活和有針對性的風格。 （為了說明這一點，我們的設計師給基爾爵士進行了一次邱吉爾式的改造。）幾天之內，基爾爵士就為英國在世界上勾勒出了新的角色。現在，我們寫道，重建歐洲安全必須激勵他，而為了支付這筆費用，他必須利用這個計劃作為新的、激進的國內議程的組織邏輯。

最後，我們在非洲和中東的報告考慮了外國援助的終止。在關閉美國主要援助機構美國國際開發署之前，川普政府詆毀該機構是一個「由一群激進瘋子管理的犯罪組織」。儘管美國削減援助的方式異常且毫無必要地混亂，但這是全球趨勢的一部分。一個新的、更節約的援助時代即將開始。它帶來痛苦的選擇。但它也提供了一個重新思考長期需要改革的低效率系統的機會。

Zanny Minton Beddoes Editor-in-chief

So head-spinning is the world-changing nature of decisions from the White House at the moment that it is sometimes hard to believe this is all actually happening. Had someone said to me a few weeks ago that President Donald Trump would throw Volodymyr Zelensky out of the White House, cut off intelligence support and military assistance to Ukraine and impose 25% tariffs on both Mexico and Canada, before announcing delays and exemptions—all within one week—I would have struggled to believe them. I expected Mr Trump to be a disrupter. He was very clear about that. And in many areas disruption is needed. But these decisions go well beyond that. Mr Trump risks destroying the trade system on which post-war prosperity has been built. He is bullying his closest allies and cosying up to the West’s enemies. To adapt Dean Acheson, it seems as if we are present at the destruction. For those of us at The Economist, where support for free trade and Atlanticism runs deep, these are shocking developments.  But I think they make our job more important than ever. That is to provide you with clear, insightful and rigorously reported news and analysis to help you make sense of where the world is headed. And it is to offer an assessment of what is happening based on the values of free trade and classical liberalism that this newspaper was founded to champion. This week we do this in three arenas. Our cover in America, Asia and Europe focuses on Mr Trump’s economic strategy. The president says his tariffs will preserve jobs, make America richer and protect the country’s very soul. Unfortunately, in the real world things look different. Investors, consumers and companies are showing the first signs of souring on the Trumpian vision. Our leader argues that aggressive and erratic protectionism will not work. Despite Mr Trump’s talk of a roaring comeback, the markets are flashing red. In foreign relations, as in economics, Mr Trump’s policies will cause damage at home and abroad. In Britain our cover focuses on a transformative week for Sir Keir Starmer, who has been deft and purposeful in his handling of transatlantic relations. (To illustrate the point our designers have given Sir Keir a Churchillian makeover.) In a matter of days Sir Keir has sketched a new role for Britain in the world. Now, we write, the rebuilding of European security must galvanise him and, to pay for it, he must use this programme as the organising logic for a new and radical domestic agenda. And finally, our cover in Africa and the Middle East considers the demise of foreign aid. As a prelude to shutting down USAID, America’s main aid agency, the Trump administration denigrated it as a “criminal organisation” that was “run by a bunch of radical lunatics”. Although the way America is cutting aid is unusually and needlessly chaotic, it is part of a global trend. A new, more parsimonious era of aid is beginning. It brings with it agonising choices. But it also offers an opportunity to rethink an inefficient system that has long needed an overhaul.