首页 >> 来自播客: User Upload Audio 更新反馈

Marco Rubio on Iran, Deportations, and the State Dept. Shake-Up

发布时间 2025-04-23 09:00:54 来源

From the Free Press, this is honestly an I'm Barry Weiss. On Tuesday, the Free Press published a major scoop. The news of the State Department launching the biggest shake-up in decades in an effort spearheaded by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The reorganization looks to eliminate 132 agency offices dedicated to efforts like promoting human rights, advancing democracy, and combating extremism. It will also lead to the State Department eliminating hundreds of positions intended for career officials. Last but not least, top officials are also being asked to reduce their offices by an additional 15%.

来自自由新闻，老实说，我是Barry Weiss。星期二，自由新闻发布了一条重要的独家新闻：国务院正在进行几十年来最大的变革，这项行动由国务卿马尔科·卢比奥领导。此次重组计划将删除132个专注于促进人权、推进民主和打击极端主义的机构办公室。这也将导致国务院取消数百个原本为职业官员设置的职位。最后，所有高级官员也被要求再削减他们办公室的规模15%。

So, why does that matter? For those of us from Washington, it's natural to ask that question. Well, Secretary Rubio says that this will make the department more efficient, eliminating bloat and redundancy at a critical time, one in which the U.S. is navigating one of most dangerous international moments since the end of World War II. But some, including critics of the Trump administration, see it as a sign of something more troubling. They see it as a signal of America's inward turn as we enter this dangerous multiple-er age.

那么，这有什么重要呢？对于我们这些来自华盛顿的人来说，问这个问题是很自然的。鲁比奥部长表示，这将提高部门的效率，消除臃肿和冗余，因为美国正处于二战结束以来最危险的国际时刻之一。然而，一些人，包括特朗普政府的批评者，认为这意味着更令人担忧的事情。他们视其为美国在这个危险的多重时代中转向内向的一个信号。

Today, Secretary Rubio joins me on honestly to discuss his goals for restructuring the department, and also how the U.S. is responding to so many crises at home and abroad, from controversial deportations to the American attempt to end the war in Ukraine to the possibility of a new Iranian nuclear deal. In his confirmation hearing at the Senate, Secretary Rubio talked about how the post-war global order is obsolete. I think a lot of us are feeling that way, but the question is, what's going to replace it? I ask that and more of the ban who has been charged with overseeing one of the most transformational shifts in our relationship to the world in American history. Stay with us.

今天，鲁比奥部长将参加我的节目 "坦率地说"。他将讨论他对重组部门的目标，以及美国如何应对国内外的众多危机，包括有争议的驱逐行动、美国试图结束乌克兰战争的努力以及新的伊朗核协议的可能性。在参议院的确认听证会上，鲁比奥部长谈到了战后全球秩序已经过时的问题。我认为，很多人都有这样的感觉，但问题是，新的秩序将是什么？带着这个问题，我采访了这位负责监督美国历史上最具变革性的全球关系调整之一的人。请继续收听我们的节目。

Secretary Rubio, welcome to honestly. Thank you. Well, I want to start with a report that came out today from Gabe Kaminsky and Maddie Rowley, and it's about this major reorganization that is now underway in your State Department. It is the largest shake-up at the State Department in decades, something like 132 offices are being cut. There's many other details, and I want to understand the significance here, beyond cost-cutting. How does this reorganization help advance American interests and the President's foreign policy abroad?

卢比奥部长，欢迎来《诚实面对》。谢谢。我想从今天由加布·卡明斯基和马蒂·罗利发布的一份报告开始谈起，这份报告涉及您在国务院进行的一项重大重组。这是国务院数十年来最大的一次变革，像这样的重组将削减大约132个办公室。其中还有许多其他细节，我想了解这里的意义，不仅仅是为了削减成本。这次重组如何有助于推动美国的利益和总统的对外政策呢？

Well, I think that's important to point out this is not a cost-cutting exercise, although it certainly will provide savings to the American taxpayer. This is a policy exercise, and here's why. Foreign policy, mature foreign policy, realistic foreign policy requires the balancing of both policy geopolitical considerations, which often involve pragmatism, and some level of idealism, you know, the promotion, for example, of human rights or democracy, and things of that nature. So this sort of balance.

我认为重要的是要指出，这并不是一项削减成本的行动，尽管它确实会为美国纳税人节省资金。这是一次政策演练，原因如下。成熟和现实的外交政策需要在政策和地缘政治考量之间取得平衡，这通常涉及实用主义和一定程度的理想主义，例如促进人权或民主等。这就是这种平衡的重要性。

Well, today, those two entities are housed in two different places. We have a group of people that are our regions, our embassies, and our regional bureaus that oversee those embassies, and they're involved in balancing our relationships with these countries, and then you have these other entities that are only looking at issues from a single source standpoint, human rights, human trafficking, whatever it may be. These two have to be brought together, and so we get rid of those bureaus that are where they call functional bureaus, and instead we move that function.

如今，这两个实体位于两个不同的地方。我们有一个团队负责我们的地区事务，包括我们的使馆和管理这些使馆的地区局，他们负责平衡我们与这些国家的关系。此外，还有那些只关注单一问题的实体，比如人权、人贩等。这两者需要整合，所以我们打算取消这些所谓的职能局，而是将这些职能整合到一起。

We're not getting rid of, for example, a group of people that care about human rights, but we're putting those people in the regions and in the embassies, so that all of our foreign policy is being balanced within those bureaus, so say it's Western Hemisphere. It's being balanced within the Western Hemisphere, and then ultimately empowering our embassies to pursue mature foreign policy that takes all of these factors into account. It really is about streamlining an entity that's continued to grow.

我们并不是要消灭那些关心人权的群体，而是将他们安排到不同的地区和大使馆中，这样我们的外交政策在各个部门之间才能达到平衡，比如在西半球的政策就能在西半球的地区得到平衡。这样一来，我们的大使馆就能进行更成熟的外交政策，将所有这些因素考虑在内。这实际上是为了简化一个不断扩大的机构。

If I show you the org chart of what the State Department looked like in the 70s, and what it looks like today, it's unrecognizable. So we have to bring back some stability, some organizational streamlining that allows us to further form policy in a way that balances all of the things we have to take into consideration when we pursue foreign policy, and we can deliver it efficiently and fast.

如果我给你看一下70年代的国务院组织结构图，以及它今天的样子，你会发现它们简直判若两人。因此，我们需要恢复一些稳定性，进行组织架构的精简，以便我们在制定外交政策时，能够更好地平衡所有需要考虑的因素，并能够高效和快速地实施这些政策。

One more point I know has been a long answer to a very short question, but it's important to talk about it. As the Secretary of State, I get these memos. They're called, you know, these decision memos. And if you look at all of the boxes that have to be checked before it even gets to me, in some cases, it has to be checked by six or seven people in one bureau alone before it gets to me. It's way too long. It almost renders the State Department irrelevant.

还有一点，我知道我对这个很短的问题进行了很长的回答，但这个问题很重要，值得探讨。作为国务卿，我会收到这些备忘录。它们被称作决策备忘录。你如果看看要送到我手中之前需要勾选的所有方框，有些情况下，仅在一个部门里就需要六到七个人勾选。这过程太冗长了，几乎让国务院变得无关紧要。

We have to shorten that approval process, and the way to do it is to get rid of all these offices that are all chiming in any one of whom could slow action for an indefinite period of time. Secretary, if you are a normal American and you don't know much about the bureaucracy at the State Department, and you just look at the headline out of today, you will see that many of the offices that are being cut seem to broadly be about America's soft power role in the world. Things like the promotion of human rights, fighting extremism, promoting democracy abroad. And I think critics of the administration are already saying in reaction to this news, this is sort of yet another sign that the Trump administration is pulling back from the world and leaving the vacuum to be filled by other contenders like China and Russia. What is that perspective get wrong? Is this a sign that America is no longer in the self power business?

我们必须缩短审批流程，而实现这一目标的方法是取消所有可能导致无限期拖延的那些办公室。秘书先生，如果你是一个普通的美国人，对国务院的官僚体制了解不多，只是看看今天的头条新闻，你会发现很多被裁撤的办公室大多与美国在世界上的软实力角色有关，比如促进人权、打击极端主义、在国外推广民主等。我认为，批评人士已经在对这一消息作出反应，认为这是特朗普政府再次从世界舞台上撤退的一个信号，从而让中国和俄罗斯等其他竞争者填补空白。这种看法有什么误解吗？这是否意味着美国不再关注软实力事务？

Yeah, well, first of all, I don't think anyone should be too enthusiastic about China or Russia promoting human rights or democracy anywhere in the world. So it's not like they're going to displace us from that. No, no, no, no, no, I'm sorry, they don't be displacing America from the human rights promotion business. Simply that in the same way that China advances its own interests in Africa through the Belt and Road Initiative. America, his historically after the Cold War, as you know, advanced ours through many of these offices and people say we should still be in that business. And I think the Trump administration has a different answer to that.

好的，那么，首先，我认为不应该对中国或俄罗斯在全球范围内推动人权或民主过于热情。因为他们并不会取代我们在这方面的地位。不，不，不，不，不，他们不会取代美国在人权推广事务上的角色。正如中国通过“一带一路”倡议在非洲推进自身利益一样。你知道，美国在冷战结束后，通过许多机构推进我们自己的利益，有人认为我们仍应该参与这项事业。而我认为，特朗普政府对此有不同的看法。

So well, the answer is we still are, but we're going to do it in a way that's balanced across all of our other equities. So for example, we're still going to be involved in those things, caring about human rights, but it's going to be run at the embassy and regional level, not out of some office in Washington, DC that has that title. So just we need to be grownups here about how we talk about this promoting democracy and human rights in our relations, for example, with some country in the Middle East is probably going to look different than it would with some country in Central America or South America. That's just a geopolitical reality.

所以，答案是我们仍然在这样做，但我们会在所有其他事务中保持平衡。例如，我们仍然会关注人权问题，但这将由各个大使馆和地区层面来负责，而不是由位于华盛顿的某个办公室专门负责。我们需要成熟地看待这个问题，在不同地区推进民主和人权的方式可能会有所不同，比如在中东的某个国家，与在中美洲或南美洲的国家，这就是地缘政治的现实。

In geopolitical reality, we are going to have to have partnerships and alliances with countries whose system of government maybe is not like ours, whose view on religious tolerance, for example, may not be like ours. And we may not like that. And it doesn't mean we don't wish it was different. But we still have to have relations with these countries because it serves a geopolitical purpose. It serves the national interest to the United States. The national interest to the United States and the Middle East is stability. The national interest to the United States and the Middle East is preventing groups that would attack us here in the homeland from taking root. The national interest to the United States in Central America is different. It's migration. It's drugs. It's hoping to have countries that are prosperous so people don't migrate here and don't join drug cartels.

在地缘政治现实中，我们将不得不与一些国家建立合作和联盟，这些国家的政府体系可能与我们不同，例如他们对宗教宽容的看法可能也与我们不一致。我们可能对此有不满，但这并不意味着我们不希望情况有所不同。然而，我们仍需与这些国家保持关系，因为这服务于地缘政治目的，符合美国的国家利益。美国在中东地区的国家利益在于保持稳定，防止那些可能在本土发动攻击的组织扎根。而在中美洲，美国的国家利益则不同，重点在于移民和毒品问题，期望这些国家能实现繁荣，以减少人们向美国移民以及加入毒品贩卖集团的情况。

So we have to have foreign policies in different parts of the world that are different. And we have to have the regions and the embassies run it. Not some office in Washington that sort of applies the same standard all across the board. That's just not realistic foreign policy in today's world. 20 years ago, I think if you asked the Secretary of State and certainly the president is the national interest of the United States stability or democracy, I think they might have said democracy instead of stability. Was that view wrong? Was it fully? Well, I think it was a different world.

所以我们必须针对世界不同地区制定不同的外交政策。我们应当由各个地区和大使馆来执行这些政策，而不是让位于华盛顿的某个办公室统一应用相同的标准。这种一刀切的方式在当今世界中并不现实。20年前，如果你问国务卿或总统，美国的国家利益是稳定还是民主，我认为他们可能会说民主，而不是稳定。那个观点是错误的吗？完全错误吗？我认为当时的世界不太一样。

If you go back 20 years, we were a unipolar power. And we were often called in to do things because nobody else could or would. We don't live in that world anymore. We now live in a world where the near-pierre adversary in China, we live in a world where while Russia's economy is not large, they have the ability to project power and destabilize. We live in a world with a nuclear armed North Korea with a nuclear ambitious Iran. We live in a world where there are both opportunities and real challenges in the Middle East. We live in a world where in Africa, countries are going in two directions. Some are developing economically. Others are falling into chaos.

如果回到20年前，我们是一个单极力量，经常被要求去做一些只有我们可以或愿意做的事情。但我们不再生活在那个世界了。如今，我们生活在一个有中国这样近乎平等对手的世界里，虽然俄罗斯的经济规模不大，但他们有能力施加力量和制造不稳定。我们还面临一个拥有核武器的朝鲜和一个追求核武能力的伊朗。中东地区存在着机遇，但也有真正的挑战。在非洲，各国的发展方向不同，有些正取得经济进步，而有些则陷入混乱。

It's just a very different world. And in that world with that many problems, especially big ones like China, the United States has to make a mature decision about how to prioritize the use of our national power. There are some issues in the world that matter more than others from our national interest perspective. That doesn't mean we don't care about some terrible humanitarian crisis somewhere on the planet. But we can't put that ahead of some critical long-term challenge to the national interest of the United States.

这只是一个非常不同的世界。在这个充满众多问题的世界里，尤其是像中国这样的大问题上，美国必须成熟地决定如何优先使用我们的国家力量。从国家利益的角度来看，有些世界问题比其他问题更重要。这并不意味着我们不关心地球上某地的严重人道主义危机，但我们不能把这些放在对美国国家利益至关重要的长期挑战之前。

So we have entered an era where we have to, we are the most powerful country in the world, but neither our power nor our resources have ever been infinite. And so we have to prioritize them in a mature and sustainable way in this new era in which we live in. In essence, the world order is changing and we need to adjust our foreign policies to serve our national interest in that new world that's taking shape.

因此，我们进入了一个新时代。虽然我们是世界上最强大的国家，但我们的力量和资源从来都不是无限的。在这个时代中，我们必须以成熟和可持续的方式来优先安排这些资源。实际上，世界秩序正在改变，我们需要调整我们的外交政策，以在这个新形成的世界中服务于国家利益。

Okay, well let's talk about what I think is arguably the biggest story in America right now, which is the fight over deportations. And curious how that should rank in terms of priorities that you just lined up for me. But the president suggested in an Oval Office meeting with President Pukile of El Salvador that American citizens might be deported to El Salvador. Here is what he said. He said that Pukile in addition to the prison, I think it's pronounced Ciccote, you'll correct me if I'm wrong, have had to build, might have to build new places to house deported American citizens.

好的，那么我们来谈谈我认为目前美国最大的话题，那就是围绕驱逐出境问题的争论。我很好奇在你刚才列出的优先事项中，这个问题应该排在什么位置。总统在椭圆形办公室与萨尔瓦多总统普基莱会面时表示，美国公民可能会被驱逐到萨尔瓦多。他说，除了现有的监狱（我想它的发音是Ciccote，如果我错了请纠正），普基莱总统可能还需要建造新的地方来安置被驱逐的美国公民。

And over the weekend, your old colleague in the Senate, John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, hardly a squish. He was unequivocal in saying that the president cannot do such a thing. He said we have our own laws. We have the Athe amendment to the Constitution. We shouldn't send prisoners to foreign countries. So is he correct? Should we take the president seriously, but not literally in that Oval Office meeting? Which is it?

在周末期间，你以前在参议院的同事，来自路易斯安那州的共和党人约翰·肯尼迪，他绝不是一个妥协的人。他明确表示，总统不能这样做。他说我们有自己的法律，有宪法的第八条修正案。我们不应该把囚犯送到外国。那么他是对的吗？我们应该认真地对待总统，但不要在椭圆形办公室会议上把他说的话字面化吗？到底是哪种情况？

Well, two things. The first to post president talked about the most dangerous and viral criminals imaginable. And the question is whether you could send them to be in a prison in some other country. But the second point the president made, and I was there when he said it, and I was there when he said it in the past is, I don't know about the legalities of that. You'll ask to ask DOJ. Maybe that's not possible because of our laws.

好的，有两点。第一点是前总统提到过，那些想象中最危险且传播性强的罪犯。问题在于，你是否可以把他们送到其他国家的监狱关押。第二点是总统提到的，我当时在场，他过去也说过，我不太清楚这在法律上是否可行。你需要去问司法部。也许因为我们的法律，这样做不可能。

So he acknowledged that in his statement. I think the broader point on deportations, and it's the one that really isn't the news these days is we have people here illegally in this country from other countries. And one of the things we've done at the State Department is work with those countries to take back their citizens, to take back people that are citizens. That's where you deport people. You deport them back to the country that they came from. They are lawfully in the country, and that's where they're supposed to be returned.

所以他在声明中承认了这一点。我认为关于驱逐出境的更广泛问题是，如今真正没有被关注的是，我们这个国家有来自其他国家的非法移民。我们在国务院所做的一件事就是与那些国家合作，让他们接收自己的公民，把他们遣返回原来的国家。你将这些人驱逐出境，是把他们送回他们合法所属的国家。

And that's what we've worked on doing. In the case of El Salvador, in addition to that, they've been willing to take trained at our gang members because Venezuela was refusing to take them. And this is now a designated terrorist organization, one of the most dangerous gangs in the history of the world that's infiltrated our country, and we want them out of our country. We don't want them in our country. One of the things the president and you have done in the past 90 something days, it feels like it's been a lot longer than that has been successfully.

这是我们一直努力做的事情。在萨尔瓦多的情况下，除了这些，他们还愿意接收我们训练过的帮派成员，因为委内瑞拉拒绝接收他们。这个帮派现在被认定为恐怖组织，是世界历史上最危险的帮派之一，他们已经渗透到我们的国家，我们希望他们离开，不希望他们留在这里。在过去的90多天里，感觉时间比那要长得多，总统和你做的其中一件成功的事情就是这个。

I cannot even imagine how long it's felt for you has been to successfully close the southern border. And yet that story has been just totally overtaken with the story of some of these individual deportations that have captured the national conversation and that many people, even people that voted for Trump, are opposed to. And so I want to just ask you a bigger question, which is what message is the president trying to send with these deportations?

我无法想象，对你而言成功关闭南部边境到底感觉用了多长时间。然而，这个故事完全被一些个别遣返事件所取代了，这些事件引发了全国的关注，甚至许多投票给特朗普的人也反对。所以我想问你一个更大的问题：总统通过这些遣返行动想传达什么信息？

You know, there's is it about deterring people from coming or is it about terrifying people that have been here for years that have paid taxes for many, many years and might even have American children? Should they be scared of deportation? Like what is the message that the president and the State Department is trying to send?

你知道，这究竟是为了阻止人们过来，还是在恐吓那些已经在这里生活多年、交了多年税、甚至可能有美国孩子的人？他们应该害怕被驱逐出境吗？总统和国务院到底想传达什么信息呢？

Well, two things, the State Department isn't involved necessarily in the issue of migratory enforcement. We're involved in making sure that foreign countries take back the citizens that are in our country illegally of their countries. So I would say two things. Number one, mass migration is almost entirely based on an incentive system. People were coming to this country under Joe Biden because they knew if they got to the border and claimed asylum, said these magic words, they would be allowed to come in and they would be allowed to stay almost 90% success rate if you said the magic words.

好的，有两点需要说明。首先，国务院不一定参与移民执法的问题。我们的职责是确保外国接收那些在我们国家非法滞留的本国公民。所以，我想说两件事。第一，大规模移民几乎完全是基于一种激励机制。在乔·拜登任内，人们来本国是因为他们知道，如果他们到达边境并申请庇护，说出一些关键的话，他们就会被允许进入并几乎有90%的成功率可以留下来。

So people were coming. Now they know that if they come, they won't get to stay and they stopped coming, which is why it's the most secure border we've had in modern history. And in fact, we've seen a new phenomenon, which is people that were on their way here sort of do a U-turn and go back. We've seen that play out and that's a known achievement because it stops the problem. That still leads us to the fundamental challenge. And that is that we have in this country millions of people, some who have been here many years, some who have been here for a year and a half or two, who are lawfully in the United States.

于是，人们曾经不断涌入。现在他们知道如果来了就不能留下，于是停止前来。正因为如此，我们拥有了现代历史上最安全的边境。事实上，我们观察到一种新现象，一些本来要过来的人掉头回去了。这种情况的出现被视为一个成功，因为它解决了问题。不过，这仍然让我们面对一个根本挑战，那就是在这个国家，有数百万人，他们有的是在这里住了很多年，有的是在这里住了一年半或两年，他们都是合法居留在美国的人。

And it's this simple. If you say the speed zone is 70 miles an hour, but you people know they're not going to get a ticket unless they go 90 miles an hour, no one's going to drive under the speed limit. You have to have laws and laws have to be enforced. If you don't enforce your laws, then your laws become meaningless. And that's what's happened in this country over the last 20 years. We were not enforcing our immigration laws and now we are. Obviously they're going to prioritize the most dangerous people, dangerous criminals.

这很简单。如果限速区规定为每小时70英里，但人们知道开到90英里时才会被罚款，那么就没有人会遵守限速。法律必须存在并得到执行。如果不执行法律，那么法律就会失去意义。这正是过去20年里这个国家所发生的情况。我们没有严格执行移民法，但现在情况不同了。当然，他们会优先处理那些最危险的罪犯。

If you look at the manifests of these flights of people that are being deported, these are some of the most vile human beings imaginable that we're getting out of our country, sex offenders, rapists, killers. That's who we're prioritizing and being sent out. But let there be no doubt. We have immigration laws. And if you are in violation of those immigration laws, you have no right to be in the country. Now some will choose to leave voluntarily. Others may get caught up and be forced to leave. But we are there prioritizing the most dangerous.

如果你查看这些被驱逐出境的人的航班名单，你会发现我们正在送出国的人中有一些是最可怕的罪犯，比如性罪犯、强奸犯和杀人犯。这些人是我们优先驱逐的对象。但是，毫无疑问，我们有移民法律。如果你违反了这些法律，就没有权利留在这个国家。有些人可能会选择自愿离境，另一些人可能会被抓到并被迫离开。我们正在优先处理那些最危险的人。

But that said, you have to have him agree. There's no point in having immigration laws if you have no intent to enforce them. Okay, let's let's talk about Iran. Both you and President Trump were profoundly opposed to Barack Obama's nuclear deal known as that JCPOA. The Iran deal, and this was what the president said in 2018 when he withdrew from the deal. The Iran deal was one of the worst and most one sided transactions the United States has ever entered has ever entered into you yourself called it disastrous.

不过话虽如此，你必须让他同意。如果不打算执行移民法，那制定这些法律就没有意义。好吧，让我们谈谈伊朗。你和特朗普总统都强烈反对巴拉克·奥巴马的核协议，也就是所谓的JCPOA或伊朗核协议。这是总统在2018年退出协议时所说的话：伊朗核协议是美国有史以来参与过的最糟糕、最单方面的交易之一。你自己也称其为灾难性的。

Now it looks like the administration is heading into another deal. So simple question. What would a good deal with Iran look like? Well, you know, we have good people negotiating that involved in it. Obviously, let me just say a couple things about the previous deal and then I'll compare it to now. The previous deal was bad for a number of reasons. It gave Iran immediate and full sanctions relief in exchange for enrichment capabilities that at any point can be weaponized in the future.

现在看来，政府似乎正在走向另一项协议。那么一个简单的问题：与伊朗达成一个好的协议应该是什么样的呢？嗯，你知道，我们有一些优秀的人在参与谈判。显然，我想先谈谈之前的协议，然后再与现在做个比较。之前的协议因为几个原因不理想。它立即给了伊朗全面的制裁解除，而作为交换，伊朗获得了在未来任何时候都可能被用于武器化的浓缩能力。

They got to keep that permanently. They got to keep the sanctions relief permanently. And they only had to live by the enrichment limitations for a defined period of time. In fact, right now we are entering that period of time in which the requirements of that deal would have expired. So it was a bad deal all the way around. We gave them permanent concessions for temporary concessions on their part. So now we've reached that point.

他们可以永久保留那些好处。他们可以永久享受制裁减免。而他们只需要在一段确定的时间内遵守浓缩的限制。事实上，现在我们正进入这个时间段，这意味着协议中的要求已经过期。所以，这从头到尾都是个糟糕的协议。我们给了他们永久的让步，而他们只提供了暂时的让步。所以现在我们已经到了这样的一个节点。

Let me make a second point. And that is the worst thing that we do not want to war. We do not want to see war. This is not a president that campaigned on starting wars. And as he said very clearly, Iran is not going to have a nuclear weapon and he reserves every right to prevent that from happening, but he would prefer it not happen. He would prefer that there not be need to resort to military force either by us or anybody else. He would prefer that it be something that we can negotiate.

让我来谈谈第二点。最糟糕的是我们不希望发生战争。我们不想看到战争的爆发。这位总统在竞选期间并没有主张发动战争。他已经明确表示，伊朗不会拥有核武器，他保留一切权力来防止这种情况的发生，但他更希望此事不成为现实。他不希望我们或其他国家需要动用武力来解决问题。他更希望通过谈判来解决。

And that is the worst thing that we can do. And that is the worst thing that we can do. And that is the worst thing that we can do. And that is the worst thing that we can do. And that is the worst thing that we can do. And that is the worst thing that we can do.

而这正是我们最不应该做的事情。

而这正是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。

这是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。

这是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。这是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。这是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。这是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。这是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。这是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。

那是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。那是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。那是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。那是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。那是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。那是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。

这就是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。

And that is the worst thing that we can do. And that is the worst thing that we can do. And that is the worst thing that we can do. And that is the worst thing that we can do.

这是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。这是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。这是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。这是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。

And that is the worst thing that we can do. And that is the worst thing that we can do. And that is the worst thing that we can do. And that is the worst thing that we can do.

而这正是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。这样做最糟糕不过了。

And that is the worst thing that we can do. And that is the worst thing that we can do. And that is the worst thing that we can do. And that is the worst thing that we can do.

这是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。这是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。这是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。这是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。

And that is the worst thing that we can do. And they do that now. They do have a nuclear reactor that imports Russian and rich material at 3.67. And that is what you need for, but they do not enrich it themselves. So I think what Steve was the point he was trying to make in that interview and a subsequently clarified was he is talking about the level of enrichment that they would be allowed, the level of enriched material that they would be allowed to import from outside, like multiple countries around the world do for their peaceful civil nuclear programs.

这就是我们能做的最糟糕的事情。而他们现在正在这样做。他们确实有一个核反应堆，使用从俄罗斯进口的浓缩材料，浓缩度为3.67。这是他们所需要的，但他们自己并不进行浓缩。所以，我认为 Steve 在采访中试图表达的观点，以及他随后澄清的，是他在谈论他们被允许的浓缩水平，也就是他们被允许从外部进口的浓缩材料的水平，类似于世界上多个国家为其和平民用核计划所做的那样。

If the United States wanted to take out Iran's nuclear program with a strike, does it have the capability to do so or is everything buried so deep underground that there's no guarantee? Yeah, look, I think logistically, you know, I probably don't want to discuss all the logistics of this device. It's a say that I do believe the United States has options, but we don't want to ever get to that. We really don't. Maybe we could talk about it in a signal group together.

如果美国想通过打击来摧毁伊朗的核计划，他们有这个能力吗？还是所有设施都深埋地下以至于没有保证？是的，我认为，从后勤方面来说，我可能不想讨论这些设备的所有细节。可以说，我相信美国有选择，但我们绝不希望走到这一步。真的不希望。也许我们可以在一个通讯小组里谈谈。

Let's say this to you. Let me put it to you this way. Okay, we don't want it to get to that point. We're not at a stage now where we're going to be making threats or anything of this nature because honestly, this is not a president that ran on the promise of starting wars or armed conflicts. We've gotten involved in this who's the situation. It's a favor to the world that we're doing because these guys basically had shut down shipping in the Red Sea. That needed to end. But this is not a president that's looking to start wars.

让我们这样说吧。我们不希望事情发展到那种地步。现在我们还没到威胁或采取类似措施的阶段，因为坦白说，这位总统并没有以发动战争或武装冲突为竞选承诺。我们参与到这个局势中，是为了维护全球利益，因为那些人基本上封锁了红海的航运，这种情况必须结束。但这位总统并不想发起战争。

He's a president that's looking to stop them and to prevent them. That's why we've been focused on Ukraine. That's why we've had these talks with the Iranians. I would tell everybody that this we're a long ways away from any sort of agreement with Iran. We recognize it's difficult and hard. Oftentimes, unfortunately, peace is, but we're committed to achieving a peaceful outcome that's acceptable to everyone.

他是一位致力于阻止他们并防范他们的总统。这就是为什么我们关注乌克兰的原因，也是我们与伊朗进行谈判的原因。不过，我要告诉大家，我们与伊朗达成任何协议都还有很长的路要走。我们认识到这其中的困难和挑战。不幸的是，和平往往如此，但我们承诺要实现一个对各方都可接受的和平结果。

It may not be possible. We don't know. I don't even know if Iran knows how to make a deal. They've got their own internal political dynamics in their country. They have to work through. But we would want to achieve a peaceful resolution to this and not resort to anything else or even speculate about it at this point.

这可能无法实现。我们不知道。我甚至不知道伊朗是否知道如何达成协议。他们国内有自己的政治动态需要处理。但我们希望能够以和平方式解决这个问题，而不是诉诸其他手段，甚至不想在此时对此进行猜测。

Okay, just one last question and then I want to go to Russia and Ukraine. Tucker Carlson has said that a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, now I'm quoting from him, would almost certainly result in thousands of American deaths at bases throughout the Middle East and the cost of the United States billions of dollars.

好的，最后一个问题，然后我想讨论一下俄罗斯和乌克兰。塔克·卡尔森曾经说过，如果对伊朗的核设施进行打击，他预计这几乎肯定会导致中东地区美军基地的数千人死亡，并给美国带来数十亿美元的损失。

Those aren't guesses. Those are the Pentagon's own estimates. Obama campaign against Iran will set off a war and it will be America's war. Is that true? I think, I think, here's what I can say. Any military action at this point in the Middle East, whether it's against Iran, by us or anybody else, could in fact trigger a much broader conflict.

这些不是猜测。这些是五角大楼自己的估计。奥巴马对伊朗的行动可能会引发一场战争，而这将是美国的战争。这是真的吗？我认为，我认为，我能说的是，目前在中东地区的任何军事行动，无论是我们还是其他国家对伊朗采取的，实际上都可能引发一场更大范围的冲突。

That will not be the sort of thing that people have become accustomed to watching on television, which is, well, a couple drones got shot down, but we took out 100 fighters or whatever. It will be more complex. I think we have to recognize it. It is important to be honest about it. Iran has taken both under sanctions and because of sanctions relief under Obama, they have spent billions of dollars developing military capabilities that we're seeing, for example, being used in Ukraine right now with drones and the like.

这不会是人们习惯在电视上看到的那种情节，比如说几个无人机被击落，但我们消灭了100名战斗人员之类的。事情将会更复杂。我认为我们必须认识到这一点，诚实面对是很重要的。伊朗在受到制裁和奥巴马政府实施制裁缓解期间花费了数十亿美元发展军事能力，比如我们现在在乌克兰看到的无人机等技术。

Is the United States capable of defeating and confronting all that? Absolutely we are. But I think it's important to understand it's much more complex than it would have been 10 years ago or five years ago. But that's why we hope to avoid this. So when you hear people make the points that they've made, it's true. Any sort of armed conflict in the region is going to be much messier than what people are used to seeing that we would want.

美国有能力应对和克服所有这些挑战吗？绝对有能力。但我认为重要的是要明白，现在的情况比10年前或5年前要复杂得多。这也是我们希望避免这种情况发生的原因。因此，当你听到有人发表相关观点时，他们说的没错。该地区任何形式的武装冲突都会比人们通常看到的更复杂、更混乱，而这不是我们所希望的。

And that's why the president is so committed to the peaceful resolution, the prevention of an armed conflict in this scenario, although he reserves every right to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He preferred peace. He has said that repeatedly. And that's why we want to end the war in Ukraine if that's possible.

这就是为什么总统如此致力于和平解决该情势、避免武装冲突，尽管他保留一切权利阻止伊朗获得核武器。他更倾向于和平，并多次重申这一点。这也是为什么我们希望在可能的情况下结束乌克兰的战争。

Okay, so let's talk about that. Is it possible? On Sunday, President Trump said he hoped that Russia and Ukraine would make a deal this week. What are the remaining obstacles to such a deal? Is there a chance that we could hear about a deal by the end of the week, as Trump said?

好的，那我们来谈谈这个。可能吗？周日，特朗普总统表示希望俄罗斯和乌克兰能在本周达成协议。那么，目前达成协议还存在哪些障碍？是否有可能像特朗普所说的那样，我们在本周末之前就听到有关协议的消息呢？

Well, I don't know about the end of the week. I'm hopeful that we can get to something quickly. And I remain hopeful that we can get something done because this is a terrible war and it needs to end. Because it has no military solution. There is no military solution to this war. We have to be frank. You know, Russia is not just going to roll over Ukraine and take the whole country and Ukraine is not going to push them all the way back to where they were before 2014.

嗯，对于这周末是否能达成一致，我不太确定。但我希望我们能尽快找到解决办法。我一直希望我们能有所作为，因为这是一场可怕的战争，需要结束。因为这场战争没有军事解决方案。确实没有军事解决方案。我们得坦诚面对这个现实。俄罗斯不可能完全占领乌克兰，而乌克兰也不可能把俄罗斯完全赶回到2014年之前的位置。

So what I would say we're involved in is understanding what is the Russian position. We have a better understanding of that now because we've actually spoken to them after three years of not speaking to them. What is the Ukrainian position and figure out are these guys even in the same neighborhood because of their completely different zip codes. Then we may have to conclude that there's so far a part that peace is impossible at this time.

所以，我想说的是，我们正在努力理解俄罗斯的立场。经过三年没有对话后，我们最近终于与他们沟通，因此对他们的立场有了更好的了解。同时，我们也在了解乌克兰的立场，并试图弄清楚他们之间是否有共同点，因为他们立场差距极大。最终，我们可能需要得出结论：目前两者之间的分歧太大，和平是不可能实现的。

We've done our best. We put a lot of time and energy at the highest levels of our government. We'll continue to be willing to do so as long as there's a realistic path forward. If at some point we determine that we're just too far apart and not enough movement is happening. We may need to move on to other priorities because there are a lot of important things happening in the world.

我们已经尽力了。我们在政府的最高层面投入了大量时间和精力。只要有切实可行的途径，我们愿意继续这样做。但如果我们发现双方的分歧太大，进展不足，我们可能需要把重心转向其他优先事项，因为世界上还有很多重要的事情在发生。

This is not our war. We didn't start this war. We're trying to help everybody end it. But they may be too far apart but I hope not. We should be optimistic. We should be willing as we are to do whatever it takes to bring the two sides closer. And hopefully we can be successful. But ultimately it's not up to us. It's up to Russia and it's up to Ukraine. They have to make the decision that they're willing to move closer to one another.

这不是我们的战争。我们没有挑起这场战争。我们正在努力帮助各方结束这场战争。但他们之间可能存在很大分歧，但我希望不是这样。我们应该保持乐观，并且愿意尽一切努力让双方更接近。希望我们能成功。但最终，这不是由我们决定的。这取决于俄罗斯和乌克兰。他们必须决定是否愿意彼此靠近。

And we need to start to see progress. A lot of Republicans and a lot of conservatives have become skeptical of NATO as an institution. They question the outsides. Funding the U.S. provides whether or not it's in our interest to remain in it. Why is NATO a good idea if you still think of the good idea? What would you say to people in your party that think NATO should be dissolved?

我们需要开始看到一些进展。许多共和党人和保守派对北约这个机构持怀疑态度。他们质疑美国所提供的资金，以及我们是否有必要继续留在北约。如果你仍然认为北约是个好主意，那么为什么会这样？对于党内那些认为北约应该解散的人，你会怎么说呢？

Well, I think there's two separate issues involved. Is NATO a good idea as a concept and as, yeah, it is. I think alliances are always good. To be able to enter into a defense alliance with advanced economies and advanced militaries. It's a force multiplier for the United States. So absolutely NATO is in our interest.

我认为这里涉及两个不同的问题。首先，作为一个概念，北约是个好主意吗？是的，我认为它是个好主意。结盟总是有好处的，尤其是能与拥有先进经济和军事力量的国家建立防御联盟。这对美国来说就像是增强力量。因此，北约绝对符合我们的利益。

Now the question is what kind of NATO? It has to be a NATO in which your partners are carrying their weight. And when you see a NATO where you have countries that are spending 1%, 1.1% of their GDP, 1.2%, then that's really not an alliance. That's a dependency. Now to be fair, there are other countries like Poland that are doing more than their fair share.

现在的问题是，北约应该是什么样的？它必须是一个各成员国都能承担其应有责任的北约。当你看到有些国家仅仅投入1%、1.1%或1.2%的国内生产总值时，这实际上算不上一个联盟，而是一种依赖关系。当然，为了公平起见，也有像波兰这样的国家，它们不仅承担了自己的责任，还做得更多。

And there are other countries that frankly have not invested in their defense capabilities for almost three decades. So what the president's point has been is he wants to be in NATO, but a NATO that's real. A NATO that actually is strong. A NATO in which every partner is contributing at scale. And we haven't had that. Now we've started to see movement. We have.

有些国家坦率地说，近三十年来几乎没有投资于国防能力。因此，总统的观点是，他希望加入一个真正的北约，一个真正强大的北约，一个每个成员国都大规模出力的北约。但我们过去没有这种情况。现在我们开始看到变化了。

We've started to see more and more countries dedicate more and more money to their to their defense. Thanks to the pressure that President Trump has put on. And by the way, virtually every Republican president, I'm sorry, virtually every American president in the last 25 years has complained that NATO partners aren't doing enough. Trump, President Trump is the only one that's actually insisted on it in a way that's actually gotten results.

我们已经开始看到越来越多的国家投入越来越多的资金到国防方面。这归功于特朗普总统施加的压力。顺便提一下，几乎过去25年里的每一位美国总统，不仅仅是共和党总统，都抱怨过北约伙伴国家投入不够。而特朗普总统是唯一一个真正坚持这一点并取得实际成果的人。

So it's on a good trajectory. So NATO is good as long as NATO is real, as long as it's a real defense alliance, not the United States and a bunch of junior partners that aren't doing their fair share. One of the areas where it's unclear to many people if it's strategic and a Trump sort of negotiating tactic or sincere is the question of tariffs.

所以，它在一个好的轨道上。只要北约是真正的防御联盟，而不是美国和一群不尽职责的小伙伴，北约就很好。在人们看来，关税问题是一个不明确的领域——不清楚这是战略性的，或者是一种特朗普式的谈判策略，还是真心实意的。

And that's because there have been sort of two messages coming out of the White House. There's Peter, the Peter Naviro School, which is basically tariffs earn in and in and of themselves. They're a way to rebuild American industries that have suffered from foreign competitions. And then the other view, and this is more the Treasury Secretary, is their strategic. They are pressure position.

这主要是因为白宫传递出了两种不同的信息。一方面是彼得·纳瓦罗的观点，他认为关税本身就是一种手段，可以用来重建那些因外国竞争而衰落的美国工业。另一方面，是财政部长的观点，他认为关税具有战略性，是施加压力的一种手段。

They are a way to extract meaningful concessions from other countries and get them to move. Which is it? I think it's both, and I think both are legitimate. I think there are some industries that are critical to the future of the United States, and we have to have a domestic capability. We have to be able to do things like build ships.

它们是一种从其他国家获取有意义的让步并促使其行动的方法。这是哪一种情况？我认为两者兼而有之，而且我认为这两者都是合理的。我认为有些行业对美国的未来至关重要，我们必须具备国内的能力。我们必须能够建造船舶等设施。

We have to be able to do things that are critical to our national security, our pharmaceutical industry. And then there's the broader question of whether the state of current global trade is fair to the United States. And unfortunately, across multiple administrations and presidents in both parties, especially since 1991, we have allowed very dangerous trade and balances to build up. As I travel around the world, and virtually every country I go to, you can't find an American car on the road. Many American products are not allowed in sometimes because of tariffs. Sometimes because of non-tariff barriers, all kinds of things they put up. That just can't continue.

我们必须能够完成对国家安全和制药行业至关重要的事情。此外，还有一个更广泛的问题，即当前的全球贸易状况对美国是否公平。不幸的是，从1991年以来，无论哪个党派，在多届政府和总统的执政下，我们都允许非常危险的贸易不平衡逐渐加剧。当我环游世界时，几乎在每个国家都找不到在路上跑的美国汽车。许多美国产品有时因为关税，有时因为非关税壁垒等各种障碍而无法进入市场。这种情况不能再继续下去了。

Maybe that made sense 50 years ago when these rapport developing countries that we hoped wouldn't fall into the Soviet orbit. But now these are advanced economies. The EU, if you take the EU holistically, its economy is the same as the United States. These are advanced economies. Why would there be such a massive trade imbalance between two advanced economies, the EU and the United States? That's not sustainable. That needs to be recalibrated, and that's to be fixed. In the case of the Chinese, it's an export-driven economy. They can sell and export whatever they want into the US, but they severely restrict what we can send them. That's not sustainable.

也许五十年前，这种做法是合理的，那时候我们希望发展关系的国家不会倒向苏联。但现在这些都是发达经济体了。整体来看，欧盟的经济实力与美国相当。这些都是发达经济体。为什么两个发达经济体——欧盟和美国之间会有如此巨大的贸易失衡？这是不可持续的，需要重新调整并解决。在中国的情况下，他们是一个以出口为驱动的经济体，他们可以把任何想卖的东西出口到美国，但却严格限制我们向他们出口。这也是不可持续的。

That has to be confronted. We don't have 10 years to figure this out now. We have like one, two, or three years to figure it out. So I think it's a combination of both industries that we need in our country and need to be protected, but also the broader issue of resetting the baseline for global trade in a way that's sustainable to the national interest of the United States. The Treasury Secretary reportedly told investors at this closed-door JP Morgan summit today, and I'm quoting from him, there will be a de-escalation. And then I'm reading in President Trump's trade war with China in the very near future. And then he added this, no one thinks the current status quo is sustainable.

这必须要直面解决。我们没有十年的时间来弄清楚，现在只有一到三年的时间来解决。因此，我认为我们需要在国家内部保护和发展的行业，以及重设全球贸易基准，使其符合美国国家利益的更广泛问题。财政部长今天在JP摩根的闭门峰会中对投资者表示，据报道，他提到会有降级。我在这里引用他的话，总统特朗普与中国的贸易战很快将在近期内降温。他还补充道，没有人认为目前的现状是可持续的。

So what can we expect next? Well, I can't answer for what he said. I wasn't in that meeting, and I strongly don't speak. It's not the State Department is not running the tariff negotiations. I will say this, you know, as far as people are talking about the price the tariffs are going to have on the US economy, it's also having a tremendous price on the Chinese economy. That's an export-driven economy. Their entire economy is built not on consumption domestically, but on what they can overproduce and dump onto economies all over the world.

那么接下来我们可以期待什么呢？嗯，我无法替他说话。毕竟我不在那个会议上，我也极力避免发言。并且，这不是由国务院负责的关税谈判。我可以说这一点，你知道，人们谈论关税对美国经济的影响，其实也对中国经济造成了巨大影响。中国是一个以出口为导向的经济体，整个经济不是建立在国内消费上，而是依靠过度生产并将产品出口到世界各地。

All over the world, not just the Europeans had to stop them from selling electric cars that were going to wipe out the European electric car industry. So I think China is paying a heavy price. So I would say without coming on what the Secretary of Treasury said that, yeah, there's vulnerability to the Chinese side as well. But at some point, this issue had to be brought to a head because the trade imbalance and the unfairness that exists between the Chinese and the United States is simply unsustainable. It's more than unsustainable. It's dangerous. It's geopolitically dangerous.

全世界范围内，不仅仅是欧洲人不得不阻止他们销售那些可能摧毁欧洲电动车产业的电动车。所以我认为，中国正在付出沉重的代价。我不会直接评论财政部长的话，但我认为，中国方面也存在脆弱性。然而，这个问题迟早要得到解决，因为中美之间的贸易不平衡和不公平现象是无法持续的。这不仅无法持续，而且是危险的，从地缘政治角度来说，这是一种危险。

And it needed to be confronted. And we can't wait any longer to do it. We've allowed this to go on for 25 years, and it cannot continue. Or we're going to wind up living in a world in which we depend on China for everything critical to our security and to our prosperity. And that's not a world that we intend to leave for our children and grandchildren. Is China the number one defense priority that America faces? I think China is the number one challenge on every front that I can imagine. Geopolitically, national security, economically, industrially.

我们必须面对这个问题。我们不能再继续拖延了。我们已经让这个情况持续了25年，不能再这样下去了。否则，我们将生活在一个在安全和繁荣方面对中国处处依赖的世界。这不是我们想要留给子孙后代的世界。中国是美国面临的首要防务优先事项吗？我认为中国是在地缘政治、国家安全、经济和工业等各个方面给我们带来的首要挑战。

And look, the President says it's all the time. And I agree. We don't blame the Chinese. The Chinese have done what we would have done if we were the leaders of China. They looked, we, the previous leaders in this country and around the world allowed them to cheat and steal and get these unfair advantages. And they took them. Why wouldn't they? But now it's got to be fixed. It's got to be fixed. Let's look just objectively at where we stand versus China.

看看，总统一直在说，我也同意。我们不责怪中国人。中国人做了我们作为中国领导人也会做的事情。他们看到我们国家以前的领导人和世界上的其他领导人允许他们作弊、偷窃并获得这些不公平的优势，他们就利用了这些机会。他们为什么不这样做呢？但现在问题必须解决，问题必须解决。我们现在需要客观地看清我们与中国的相对位置。

The US Navy is the smallest it has been since World War One. Our army is the smallest it has been since World War Two. Our Air Force is smaller and older than it used to be. And meanwhile, China has the world's largest army and the world's largest Navy. They build more ships in a month. I think this will shock people than we do in a year. And meantime, we are cutting defense spending. What are we doing to prepare for a possible war with China? And if one came, could we win it?

美国海军是自第一次世界大战以来规模最小的。我们的陆军是自第二次世界大战以来最小的。我们的空军比以前更小、更老。而与此同时，中国拥有全球最大的陆军和海军。他们一个月建造的舰船比我们一年还多。我认为这会让人感到震惊。与此同时，我们正在削减国防支出。我们正在做些什么来为可能与中国的战争做准备？如果战争爆发，我们能赢吗？

What we want to do is prevent a war from China by being strong enough to make them understand that they could never win a war against the United States. A war against China would be a terrible thing. I know, but if I'm looking for a better. But if I'm China and I'm looking at that reality, I'm thinking I could win this. And that's how that's why it's dangerous. Because China is undertaking the fastest, most rapid, most expansive peacetime military buildup in the history of the world. Not in modern history, in the history of the world. Meanwhile, the United States has lagged behind for a variety of different reasons. You talk about the Navy as an example. We don't have a shipbuilding industry. We have some shipbuilding in the United States, but not nearly at the scale that Chinese do.

我们希望通过自身的强大来预防与中国的战争，从而让他们明白，他们永远无法在与美国的战争中获胜。与中国开战是一件可怕的事情。我知道，但如果我是中国，看到这样的现实，我可能会觉得自己能赢。这就是为什么这种情况很危险。因为中国正在进行史上最大规模、最快速的和平时期军事扩张。这不仅是现代历史中最快的，而是整个历史中最快的。同时，由于各种不同的原因，美国在这方面一直落后。以海军为例，我们没有一个真正的造船工业。美国有一些造船能力，但远不及中国的规模。

It's not just that we're not spending the money on it. It's we don't have the ability to do it. Because we allowed the nation to be deindustrialized. We allowed the United States to become deindustrialized, especially since 1991, with both free trade agreements and the cheating that we allowed when we assumed the allowed China to ascend to the World Trade Organization. And what it has done is deindustrialized this. We can't just build ships, Boeing struggles to build planes. We can't make pharmaceuticals. We depend on China for 88% of all the active ingredients in most of the pharmaceuticals that we rely on in our country. You can go down issue after issue after issue.

这不只是我们不愿意花钱的问题，而是因为我们已经没有能力去做这些事情了。因为我们让国家去工业化了。我们允许美国去工业化，特别是自1991年以来，通过自由贸易协议，以及我们在允许中国加入世界贸易组织时的放任，使这一情况加剧。结果就是我们的工业被削弱了。我们不仅无法造船，波音公司在制造飞机方面也遇到困难。我们不能生产药品，而是依赖中国提供的活性成分，占我们所需药品成分的88%。这些问题层出不穷，各种问题接踵而来。

And you can see that it's not just that we're not spending money on it. It's that we can't do it. Because the industries that would produce it domestically are long gone. They were outsourced. They were sent somewhere else, not just to China, but other places, but primarily to China. That's dangerous. It cannot continue. In your Senate confirmation hearing, you talked about how the post war global order is not just obsolete. It is a weapon being used against us. And that right now we're being called to create a free world out of the chaos. And I think a lot of people have different explanations clearly about how we got to a place where the post war global order is obsolete.

你可以看到，不仅仅是因为我们不愿意在这方面花钱，而是我们根本做不到。那些可以在国内生产这些产品的行业早已消失，因为这些行业被外包了。它们被送到其他地方，不仅仅是中国，还有其他国家，但主要是中国。这很危险，不能继续下去。在参议院的确认听证会上，你谈到战后的全球秩序不仅过时，而且成了对付我们的武器。现在，我们被召唤要在混乱中创造一个自由的世界。我想很多人对我们如何走到这个战后全球秩序过时的地步有不同的解释。

But everyone is seeing the reality of that. And I think feeling a lot of anxiety and concern from many different points along the political spectrum about what is going to replace it. And I think some people are feeling that the US has almost accepted a declineist position and we're now in a kind of managed decline. So I've wanted for a while to ask you two questions. Are we in decline and is the role of our leadership to manage it as best as they can? And the second is what comes next? What is the new global order going to look like? And what are some of the parameters of the American position inside of it?

但每个人都看到了这个现实。我认为，不同政治光谱上的人们对未来的替代方案感到非常焦虑和担忧。我觉得一些人觉得美国几乎接受了一种衰退主义的立场，我们现在处于一种被管理的衰退中。所以我想问你两个问题。我们是否处于衰退中，我们的领导角色是否应该尽力管理这种衰退？第二个问题是，接下来会发生什么？新的全球秩序会是什么样子？美国在其中的位置和角色是什么？

Well, the only reason why the US would ever be in decline is if we made bad decisions and continued to allow them to perpetuate. I think the road we were on under Joe Biden and previous administrations before that put us on a road to decline. I think what the president and President Trump is doing now is addressing the causes of it. You talk about the post war post Cold War era and why it's bad. That post Cold War era basically said free trade is important above everything else. We've now recognized that there are industries critical to a country and its national security and national interests that you have to be able to have domestically. You can't rely on foreign sources for and that's why we're addressing that in a trade space.

美国唯一可能衰落的原因是我们做出了错误的决策并继续让这些决策延续下去。我认为，在乔·拜登和之前几届政府的领导下，我们走上了一条衰落的道路。我认为，现在总统和特朗普总统正在解决这个问题的根源。你提到二战后和冷战后的时代，为什么这段时期是不好的。在那个时期，自由贸易被认为高于一切。如今，我们意识到有一些对国家安全和国家利益至关重要的产业必须在国内拥有。你不能依赖国外的资源，这就是我们在贸易领域解决这个问题的原因。

I think we realize that mass migration is not something that we can just tolerate. It undermines your country, it undermines your security and that had to be addressed. I think you look at our alliances around the world and I get it. You're a country that has this vast social safety network that you have high taxes to pay for and you're spending very little on your national security because I'm not going to be able to do that. You're a country that has this vast social security because America has got your back. That can't be sustained. We can't continue to engage in that way. That has to be correct that we've talked about NATO a moment ago.

我认为我们意识到，大规模移民不是我们可以简单容忍的事情。它会削弱你的国家，危害你的安全，这个问题必须得到解决。我想如果看看我们在世界各地的盟友，我能理解。你是一个拥有庞大社会福利网的国家，为此你征收了很高的税，但同时你在国防支出上投入很少，因为美国在支持你。但这种情况无法持续。我们无法继续这样下去。这个问题必须得到纠正，我们刚才谈到北约的问题。

You think about all these conflicts going on in the world. We have to prioritize them. I think if we become a country that spreads itself too thin, that basically is trying to go 100% all in on five major conflicts around the planet, you begin to exhaust, overreach and over extend yourself even for the most powerful country in the world. I think we're beginning to address all of these challenges that could lead to American decline, not because somebody else, but because of the things we failed to do. That includes rebuild our industrial capabilities here at home.

你想想世界上正在发生的所有这些冲突。我们必须优先处理它们。我认为如果我们成为一个过于分散精力的国家，试图百分之百投入到全球五个主要冲突中，即使是世界上最强大的国家，也会疲惫不堪、用力过猛并最终超出能力范围。我认为我们正开始面对所有这些可能导致美国衰退的挑战，这并不是因为其他国家，而是因为我们自己没有做到的一些事情。这包括在国内重建我们的工业能力。

One final point I would make is we are entering an era in which our foreign policy has to be more focused, more pragmatic and more balanced. And that is that if we have to clearly define what is our national interest. Remember what the issue is and then we have to pursue that. And that means balancing things that in the past weren't balanced. In the past it was democracy promotion at any cost or human rights promotion at any cost. We're not abandoning democracy, we're not abandoning human rights. We're just saying that has to be part of the overall analysis when we decide where to spend our time and what to spend our money on.

我想强调的最后一点是，我们正在进入一个时代，我们的外交政策必须更加专注、务实和平衡。这意味着我们必须清楚地定义国家利益是什么，记住关键问题，然后全力以赴去追求。这也意味着要在过去没有平衡好的事情上找到平衡。过去我们不惜一切代价推动民主和人权，但现在我们并不是放弃民主和人权，而是说在决定如何分配时间和资金时，这些因素需要纳入整体考量。

Secretary Ruby of the poem on the Statue of Liberty, the Amalazza's poem, give me your tired, your poor, your huddle masses yearning to breathe free. Is that still true? Yeah, and there's laws that allow people to come here every day. You know, the United States every year on average, about a million people legally enter the United States on a green card and five, three to five years later can become United States citizens. We remain despite all the specter out there, the most generous country in the world in terms of allowing people to come to the United States. All we're asking is that they do it through a process.

美国国土安全部长引用自由女神像上的诗句，艾玛·拉撒路的诗中写道：“给我你疲惫、贫穷、渴望自由呼吸的人们。”这句话仍然适用吗？确实适用，并且美国法律允许人们每天来到这里。每年大约有一百万人合法地持绿卡进入美国，三到五年后他们可以成为美国公民。尽管外界有各种声音，美国仍然是世界上最慷慨的国家之一，允许人们来到美国。我们只要求他们通过正规的程序来办理。

All we're asking is that they even the most generous charities in the United States generally require people that show up for help to fill out a paper and wait in line and sort of have their case evaluated. So we're not a charity, but when it comes to our immigration policies, no country in the world allows as many people to come in. We just ask people to do it legally through an appropriate process. What we can't be as a country where you can just show up at the border and say I'm here and I'm here to stay, no questions asked. That's let's lunacy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, thank you so much for the time. I really appreciate it. Thank you.

我们所要求的只是，就算在美国最慷慨的慈善机构通常也要求来寻求帮助的人填写表格和排队，并对他们的情况进行评估。所以我们并不是慈善机构，但是在移民政策方面，没有哪个国家像我们这样允许这么多人进入。我们只是要求人们通过合适的程序合法地进行。我们不能成为一个允许人们仅仅出现在边境说“我来了，我要留下”，而不问任何问题的国家。这是不合理的。国务卿马尔科·卢比奥，非常感谢您的时间。我真的很感激。谢谢。