It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Trump administration is spoiling for a fight on America’s streets. On Saturday, after a protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests degenerated into violence, the administration reacted as if the country were on the brink of war.

我们很难不得出这样的结论：特朗普政府正急于在美国街头掀起战斗。周六，一场反对移民和海关执法局逮捕行动的抗议演变成暴力事件，政府的反应就好像这个国家正处于战争边缘。

The violence was unacceptable. Civil disobedience is honorable; violence is beyond the pale. But so far, thankfully, the violence has been localized and, crucially, well within the capacity of state and city officials to manage.

暴力是不可接受的。非暴力反抗是光荣的；暴力是不可容忍的。但值得庆幸的是，到目前为止，暴力只是局部的，而且至关重要的是，这些暴力事件完全在州和市政府官员的管理能力之内。

But don’t tell that to the Trump administration. Its language was out of control.

但不要把这话告诉特朗普政府。它的言论已经无所顾忌。

Stephen Miller, one of President Trump’s closest advisers and the single most important architect (aside from Trump himself) of the administration’s immigration policies, posted one word: “Insurrection.”

史蒂芬·米勒是特朗普总统最亲密的顾问之一，也是政府移民政策（除了特朗普本人以外）最重要的设计师，他发的帖子上只有一个词：“暴动”。

Vice President JD Vance wrote on X, “One of the main technical issues in the immigration judicial battles is whether Biden’s border crisis counted as an ‘invasion.’” That statement set the stage. He wants courts to believe we’re facing an invasion, and any disturbance will do to make his point. “So now,” Vance continued, “we have foreign nationals with no legal right to be in the country waving foreign flags and assaulting law enforcement. If only we had a good word for that …”

副总统JD·万斯在X上写道：“移民司法斗争中的一个主要技术问题是拜登的边境危机是否算作‘入侵’。’”这句话奠定了基础。他想让法庭相信我们正面临入侵，任何骚乱都能证明他的观点。“所以现在，”万斯继续写道，“我们有一些没有合法进入这个国家的外国人挥舞着外国国旗，袭击执法部门。要是我们有个合适的词来形容就好了……”

Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, posted his own screed on X, declaring that the Department of Defense “is mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles. And, if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.”

国防部长皮特·海格塞斯在X上发表长文，宣称国防部“正在立即动员国民警卫队支持洛杉矶的联邦执法”。如果暴力事件继续，还可以调动彭德尔顿军营的现役海军陆战队，他们处于高度戒备状态。”

Trump posted on Truth Social, “If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can’t do their jobs, which everyone knows they can’t, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!”

特朗普在Truth Social上发帖称：“如果加州州长加文·纽森和洛杉矶市长凯伦·巴斯不能做好他们的工作，大家都知道他们做不到，那么联邦政府将介入，以解决问题应有的方式解决骚乱和抢劫！！”

That was Saturday. On Sunday evening, he wrote on Truth Social that he was “directing Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Attorney General Pam Bondi, in coordination with all other relevant Departments and Agencies, to take all such action necessary to liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion, and put an end to these Migrant riots.”

那是周六的事。周日晚上，他在Truth Social上写道，他“指示国土安全部长克里斯蒂·诺姆、国防部长皮特·海格塞斯和司法部长帕姆·邦迪与所有其他相关部门和机构协调，采取一切必要行动，将洛杉矶从移民入侵中解放出来，并结束这些移民骚乱”。

Trump called 2,000 members of the National Guard into federal service and is deploying them to Los Angeles. Neither Bass nor Newsom asked for this intervention. The State of California possesses immense resources to deal with urban unrest, and Trump barely gave it an opportunity to try.

特朗普将2000名国民警卫队员调入联邦役，并将他们部署到洛杉矶。巴斯和纽森都没有要求进行这一干预。加州拥有巨大的资源来应对城市动荡，特朗普几乎没有给它尝试的机会。

In fact, on Sunday evening, Newsom asked Trump to rescind the deployment, calling it a “serious breach of state sovereignty.”

事实上，周日晚上，纽森要求特朗普撤销部署，称这是“严重侵犯州主权”。

If you look closely, however, the Trump administration’s actions don’t quite match its alarmism. Trump deployed the National Guard, but he did not invoke the Insurrection Act, and that is a very important legal distinction.

然而，如果你仔细观察，特朗普政府的行动与它的危言耸听并不完全相符。特朗普部署了国民警卫队，但他没有援引《叛乱法》，这是一个非常重要的法律区别。

As Steven Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor, observed in an excellent and informative post on Substack, Trump instead ordered the Guard to Los Angeles under a different statute, which permits the president to call out the Guard when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.”

乔治敦大学法学教授史蒂文·弗拉德克在Substack上发表了一篇翔实而精彩的文章，他指出，特朗普根据另一项法令命令国民警卫队前往洛杉矶，该法令允许总统在“发生叛乱或有反叛美国政府权威的危险”时出动国民警卫队。

Under this statute, troops have the authority to “suppress the rebellion,” but they do not have the kind of sweeping law enforcement authority that soldiers would possess if the president deployed troops under the Insurrection Act.

根据这一法令，军队有权“镇压叛乱”，但他们并不像总统根据《叛乱法》部署的士兵那样拥有全面的执法权。

As Vladeck noted, “Nothing that the president did Saturday night would, for instance, authorize these federalized National Guard troops to conduct their own immigration raids; make their own immigration arrests.” Instead, Trump’s order “federalizes 2,000 California National Guard troops for the sole purpose of protecting the relevant D.H.S. personnel against attacks.”

弗拉德克指出，“例如，总统周六晚上所做的一切都不会授权这些联邦役国民警卫队员自行发起移民搜查和逮捕。”相反，特朗普的命令“将2000名加州国民警卫队士兵联邦化，唯一目的是保护国土安全部相关人员免受攻击。”

The administration’s language was extreme. Its actions, so far, have been more limited. But that’s small comfort. The potential next step is plain to see. If the administration (in its sole discretion) believes that this first, limited deployment is insufficient, then it will escalate. It will shout “Insurrection!” and “Migrant invasion!” to justify more military control and perhaps the invocation of the Insurrection Act.

特朗普政府的措辞很极端。而它的行动到目前为止相对有限。但这只是小小的安慰。潜在的下一步是显而易见的。如果政府（单方面）认为这第一次有限的部署是不够的，那么它会将升级。它会高喊：“叛乱！”和“移民入侵！”来证明更多的军事控制是合理的，也许还可以援引《叛乱法》。

As I wrote before, the Insurrection Act’s dangerously broad language gives the president all the legal authority he needs to put tens of thousands of troops in the nation’s streets. Trump has publicly regretted not using more force to suppress disorder in 2020, and his allies have reportedly made plans for him to invoke the Insurrection Act during his second term.

正如我之前所写的那样，《叛乱法》危险的宽泛措辞赋予了总统所需要的一切法律权力，可以在全国的街道上部署数万军队。特朗普曾公开后悔没有在2020年动用更多武力镇压混乱，据报道，他的盟友已经计划让他在第二任期内援引《叛乱法》。

It’s worth asking: Does Trump want protesters to get hurt? Recall that Mark Esper, a former Trump secretary of defense, has said that in 2020 Trump asked Gen. Mark Milley, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?” Esper took his comment as both a suggestion and a question.

值得一问的是：特朗普想伤害抗议者吗？回想一下，特朗普的前国防部长马克·埃斯珀曾说，2020年，特朗普问当时的参谋长联席会议主席马克·米利上将，“你就不能朝他们开枪吗，就朝他们的腿或其他地方开枪？”埃斯珀认为，这既是建议，也是提问。

We also can’t forget that this conflict is unfolding against the backdrop of a war of words between Trump and Newsom. The administration is weighing a broad cancellation of federal funds for California, and Newsom has floated withholding California tax dollars from the federal government. (Californians pay more to the federal government in taxes than the state receives in federal funding.)

我们也不能忘记，这场冲突是在特朗普和纽森之间的口水战的背景下展开的。特朗普政府正在考虑全面取消对加州的联邦资金，纽森也提出了加州停止向联邦政府缴税的想法。（加州人向联邦政府缴纳的税款多于该州通过联邦拨款获得的资金。）

It’s too early to declare a constitutional crisis, and in any case, debating the label we attach to any new event can distract us from focusing fully on the event itself. But each new day brings us fresh evidence of a deeply troubling trend: America is no longer a stable country, and it is growing less stable by the day.

现在宣布宪法危机还为时过早，而且无论如何，每发生一件事，就去讨论应该给它打个什么标签，只会分散我们对事件本身的注意。但是，我们每天都在得到新的证据，证明一个令人深感不安的趋势：美国不再是一个稳定的国家，而且越来越不稳定。