歷史對隨波逐流者的審判 川普政府的一些公務員和高級官員正在經歷良心的譴責。 作者：Michael Luo 2025年12月14日
歷史對隨波逐流者的審判
歷史對隨波逐流者的審判
川普政府的一些公務員和高級官員正在經歷良心的譴責。
2025年12月14日
唐納德·川普的第二任總統任期在許多方面都是前所未有的，或許最重要的是，他設法哄騙、壓迫或簡單命令政府內的人們執行他最不民主的願望，而異議驚人地少。然而，一些公務員和高級官員正在經歷良心的譴責。三月，司法部資深律師埃雷茲·雷烏韋尼被提升為移民訴訟辦公室代理副主任。他決定親自處理基爾馬爾·阿布雷戈·加西亞的案件，後者被錯誤地遣返回薩爾瓦多，違反了2019年的法院命令。四月五日，雷烏韋尼告訴他的主管，他不會簽署一份稱阿布雷戈·加西亞為「恐怖分子」的上訴簡報。根據雷烏韋尼後來提交的舉報投訴，他說：「我沒有報名來撒謊。」他被停職然後被解僱。
其他職業檢察官選擇辭職。二月，當川普官員試圖撤銷對紐約市市長埃里克·亞當斯的腐敗指控時，這引發了曼哈頓代理美國檢察官丹妮爾·R·薩蘇恩，以及司法部公共誠信部門負責人凱文·O·德里斯科爾和約翰·凱勒的辭職。九月，弗吉尼亞東區美國檢察官埃里克·西伯特辭職，此前他對萊蒂蒂亞·詹姆斯和詹姆斯·科米的調查停滯，川普要求解僱他。
軍方高級 ranks 也有人員更替。十月，美軍南指揮部負責人阿爾文·霍爾西上將突然宣布他將在年底退休。據報導，霍爾西與國防部長皮特·赫格塞思之間的緊張關係加劇，特別是上將對加勒比海對所謂毒品船無人機打擊合法性的擔憂。現在，軍事專家提出了戰爭罪的可能性，因為立法者正在調查9月2日的一次無人機行動，該行動摧毀了一艘船並殺死了船上所有人。
政府的過度行為似乎只在加劇。十月底發表的一項ProPublica調查發現，ICE逮捕了超過一百七十名美國公民，其中近二十人是兒童。十一月，在華盛頓特區兩名國民警衛隊士兵被所謂的阿富汗國民射殺後，川普暫停了為持有阿富汗護照旅行的人發放簽證，停止處理所有庇護申請，並誓言「永久暫停來自所有第三世界國家的移民」。
任何仍在川普政府服務的人都必須面對現實：當政府先前犯下嚴重的司法不公時，歷史對那些隨波逐流的人毫不寬恕，無論他們多麼不情願。考慮二戰期間日裔美國人的拘禁。1941年12月7日早上，日本對夏威夷珍珠港發動突然襲擊時，大陸美國居住著超過十二萬五千人日裔，大多數在西海岸。近三分之二都是美國公民。關於向離岸日本船隻發送信號燈的狂野報導——後來被揭穿——騙局/誤解。對內部潛在敵人攻擊的公眾恐懼開始蔓延，即使富蘭克林·羅斯福政府的情報官員認為這些是毫無根據的。
西部國防指揮部負責人陸軍中將約翰·德威特，受他自己的警覺主義和對「日本種族」成員的懷疑驅使，他開始推動將日裔人士從西海岸移除。戰爭部長亨利·斯廷森是羅斯福內閣中備受尊重的形象，最初對計劃的合法性有疑慮，他的副手約翰·J·麥克洛伊也是如此，儘管他們最終支持它，作為軍事必要性。但負責處理「外國敵人」的司法部律師認為，大規模疏散是不必要的且很可能違憲。
辯論在1942年2月17日晚上達到高潮，在司法部長弗朗西斯·比德爾的喬治城家中舉行，比德爾幾個月前才加入內閣。司法部「外國人」部門負責人愛德華·J·恩尼斯和助理司法部長詹姆斯·H·羅威強烈反對該計劃。但比德爾也反對，羅威後來回憶說，他明顯地沉默了。然後一位陸軍官員從口袋裡拿出了一份疏散命令草案，比德爾透露他已經放棄對它的反對。恩尼斯幾乎要哭了。
兩天後，羅斯福總統簽署了行政命令第9066號，導致美國政府將加利福尼亞、俄勒岡和華盛頓的整個日裔美國人口遣送到羅斯福最初稱為的十個集中營，位於國内。（最後一個營地直到1946年初才關閉。）司法部律師繼續在法庭上為該政策辯護，最具爭議的是，他們採取步驟向最高法院隱瞞了懷疑軍事正當性和顯示日裔美國人絕大多數對美國忠誠的報告。
在之後的幾十年裡，眾多歷史學家，以及1981年全國舉行聽證的聯邦委員會成員，研究了通往行政命令的道路。責備的範圍不僅包括陸軍和戰爭部官員，還包括比德爾，歷史學家彼得·艾倫斯在《戰爭中的正義》一書中將其描述為「投降」。比德爾在回憶錄中承認，由於「新加入內閣」，他不願挑戰斯廷森，「我非常尊重他的智慧和正直」。艾倫斯還審視了恩尼斯決定簽署誤導最高法院簡報的決定，觀察到「機構忠誠勝過了個人良心」。
堅持原則有時與其他因素相反，例如對同事的忠誠和職業野心，但它總是來自內部。在第一屆川普政府早期，薩莉·耶茨曾是歐巴馬的副司法部長，並留任為代理司法部長，她指示她的員工不要辯護川普限制幾個穆斯林多数國家旅行的行政命令——他的所謂穆斯林禁令。川普解僱了她。幾個月後，耶茨向哈佛法學院畢業生發表畢業週演講，她談到了磨練「我們內心所有的指南針」的需要。她說，關於涉及良心的困難決定的內省，有助於「發展對你是谁以及你代表什麼的認識」。對於第二屆川普政府的人來說，回答這些問題的時間可能就是現在。♦
（原文發表於2025年12月22日《紐約客》印刷版，標題「Conscientious Objectors.」）
2. 列出重點
- 川普第二任期內，政府官員異議少，但部分公務員和高級官員開始出現良心譴責，選擇拒絕執行不當命令或辭職。
- 具體事例：司法部律師埃雷茲·雷烏韋尼拒簽誤導文件而被解僱；多名檢察官因政治干預辭職；軍方上將霍爾西因無人機行動合法性疑慮退休，可能涉及戰爭罪。
- 政府過度行為加劇：ICE錯誤逮捕美國公民；川普暫停簽證與庇護申請，並誓言限制第三世界移民。
- 歷史借鏡：二戰日裔美國人拘禁案，司法部長比德爾等官員隨波逐流，最終被歷史譴責為「投降」或「機構忠誠勝過個人良心」。
- 呼籲現任官員堅持原則，參考薩莉·耶茨拒絕穆斯林禁令的例子，強調內心指南針的重要性。
3. 列出可以引用的句子
- 「我沒有報名來撒謊。」（埃雷茲·雷烏韋尼拒絕簽署誤導簡報時所說）
- 「任何仍在川普政府服務的人都必須面對現實：當政府先前犯下嚴重的司法不公時，歷史對那些隨波逐流的人毫不寬恕，無論他們多麼不情願。」
- 「機構忠誠勝過了個人良心。」（歷史學家彼得·艾倫斯對日裔拘禁案的評論）
- 「我非常尊重他的智慧和正直。」（比德爾解釋不願挑戰上級的原因）
- 「發展對你是谁以及你代表什麼的認識。」（薩莉·耶茨談良心決定的內省）
- 「對於第二屆川普政府的人來說，回答這些問題的時間可能就是現在。」
4. 列出關鍵字
川普政府, 良心譴責, 隨波逐流, 日裔美國人拘禁, 歷史審判, 司法不公, 辭職, 解僱, 移民政策, 無人機行動, 戰爭罪, 薩莉·耶茨, 行政命令9066號, 機構忠誠, 個人良心
5. 文末列出可供參考的相關文章的網路連結
- 原英文文章：https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/12/22/officials-start-standing-up-to-trump
- 其他相關報導（關於川普第二任期官員或選民後悔）：
- 後悔當初支持川普的人
- 川普的每一項新政策和每一句不經意的言論，都與許多支持者心中他所塑造的形象相違背。
- 作者：亞伊爾‧羅森伯格
- https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2025/02/trump-strickland-remorse-policy/681746/
- 川普支持者的後悔情緒可能正在慢慢滋生。
- https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/07/politics/polling-trump-voter-regret-analysis
- 川普或許會後悔1月6日的赦免決定。原因如下。
- 政治反彈的可能性是真實存在的——無論現在還是將來。
- https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/01/22/trump-jan-6-pardons-regrets-00199743
- 七週過去了，越來越多的川普支持者開始後悔。
- 現在越來越常見的情況是，報告中引用美國人的話說：“我上次選舉投票給了川普，但是…”
- https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/seven-weeks-trump-voters-start-feel-buyers-remorse-rcna195620
👄👄👄👄👄
History’s Judgment of Those Who Go Along
Some civil servants and senior officials in the Trump Administration are experiencing bouts of conscience.
By Michael Luo
December 14, 2025
Donald Trump standing over silhouettes of people.
Photo illustration by Cristiana Couceiro; Source photographs from Getty
The second Presidency of Donald Trump has been unprecedented in myriad ways, perhaps above all in the way that he has managed to cajole, cow, or simply command people in his Administration to carry out even his most undemocratic wishes with remarkably little dissent. Some civil servants and senior officials, however, are experiencing bouts of conscience. In March, Erez Reuveni, a veteran Justice Department lawyer, was promoted to the position of acting deputy director of the Office of Immigration Litigation. He decided to personally take on the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly sent back to El Salvador, in violation of a 2019 court order. On April 5th, Reuveni told his supervisor he would not sign an appeal brief that said Abrego Garcia was a “terrorist.” According to a whistle-blower complaint that Reuveni later filed, he said, “I didn’t sign up to lie.” He was suspended and then fired.
Other career prosecutors have chosen to step down. In February, when Trump officials moved to dismiss corruption charges against New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams, it triggered resignations from Danielle R. Sassoon, the interim United States Attorney in Manhattan, and from Kevin O. Driscoll and John Keller, the two officials in charge of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section. In September, Erik Siebert, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, resigned, after his investigations into Letitia James and James Comey stalled and Trump demanded that he be fired.
There has been turnover in senior ranks of the military as well. In October, Admiral Alvin Holsey, the head of the U.S. Southern Command, abruptly announced that he would retire at the end of the year. Tensions had reportedly been mounting between Holsey and the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, particularly over the admiral’s concerns about the legality of drone strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean. Now military experts have raised the possibility of war crimes, as lawmakers investigate a drone operation on September 2nd that destroyed a boat and killed everyone on board.
The excesses of the Administration seem only to be escalating. A ProPublica investigation, published in late October, found that ICE had arrested more than a hundred and seventy American citizens, nearly twenty of whom were children. In November, after the shooting of two National Guard soldiers in Washington, D.C., allegedly by an Afghan national, Trump suspended the issuance of visas for people travelling on an Afghan passport, halted the processing of all asylum claims, and vowed to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries.”
Anyone still serving in the Trump Administration must reckon with the reality that, when the government has previously perpetrated egregious miscarriages of justice, history has not been forgiving to those who’ve gone along, however reluctantly. Consider the incarceration of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. On the morning of December 7, 1941, when Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, in Hawaii, more than a hundred and twenty-five thousand people of Japanese ancestry lived in the continental United States, most of them on the West Coast. Nearly two-thirds were American citizens. Wild reports—later debunked—of lights signalling to Japanese vessels offshore proliferated. Public fears about a potential enemy attack from within began to spread, even as intelligence officials in Franklin Roosevelt’s Administration believed them to be baseless.
Video From The New Yorker
“Cashing Out” Examines an Investment Strategy That Profited from AIDS Deaths
Lieutenant General John DeWitt was the head of the Army’s Western Defense Command. Driven by his own alarmism and his suspicions of members of the “Japanese race,” he began pushing for the removal of people of Japanese descent from the West Coast. The Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, a revered figure in Roosevelt’s Cabinet, initially had doubts about the legality of the plan, as did his deputy, John J. McCloy, though they ultimately supported it, as a matter of military necessity. But lawyers for the Justice Department, who bore responsibility for the handling of “alien enemies,” argued that a mass evacuation was unnecessary and likely unconstitutional.
The debate culminated in a tense meeting, on the evening of February 17, 1942, at the Georgetown home of the Attorney General, Francis Biddle, who had joined the Cabinet only a few months earlier. Edward J. Ennis, the head of the Justice Department’s “aliens” division, and James H. Rowe, the Assistant Attorney General, were forceful in their opposition to the plan. But Biddle, who had also been opposed, was noticeably reticent, Rowe later recalled. Then an Army official drew from his pocket a draft evacuation order, and Biddle revealed that he had dropped his objections to it. Ennis nearly wept.
Two days later, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order No. 9066, which led to the U.S. government dispatching the entire Japanese American population of California, Oregon, and Washington to ten concentration camps, as Roosevelt initially termed them, in the interior of the country. (The final camp did not close until early 1946.) Justice Department lawyers went on to defend the policy in court and, most controversially, took steps to obscure from the Supreme Court reports that cast doubt on the military justification and showed that Japanese Americans were overwhelmingly loyal to the United States.
In the decades since, numerous historians, as well as members of a federal commission that, in 1981, held hearings across the country, have studied the path to the executive order. The circle of blame has included not just Army and War Department officials but Biddle, who chose to “surrender,” as the historian Peter Irons put it, in his book “Justice at War.” Biddle admitted in his memoirs that, being “new to the Cabinet,” he was reluctant to challenge Stimson, “whose wisdom and integrity I greatly respected.” Irons also scrutinized Ennis’s decision to sign on to a misleading brief to the Supreme Court, observing that “institutional loyalty had prevailed over personal conscience.”
Standing firm on principle sometimes sits opposite other factors, such as fealty to colleagues and professional ambition, but it invariably comes from within. During the early days of the first Trump Administration, Sally Yates, who had been Obama’s Deputy Attorney General and had stayed on as the acting Attorney General, directed her staff not to defend an executive order from Trump restricting travel from several Muslim-majority countries—his so-called Muslim ban. Trump fired her. Several months later, Yates delivered a commencement-week speech to graduates of Harvard Law School, in which she talked about the need to hone the “compass that’s inside all of us.” Introspection about difficult decisions that involve conscience, she said, helps “develop a sense of who you are and what you stand for.” For those in the second Trump Administration, the time to answer those questions could be now. ♦
Published in the print edition of the December 22, 2025, issue, with the headline “Conscientious Objectors.”
留言
張貼留言