Originally published by The 19th.
During the recent years that Democrats had new political power in the Virginia legislature, they helped expand health insurance for low-income people, lifted restrictions on abortion access, expanded anti-discrimination protections and made it easier to vote. Now, with Republicans' wins in Tuesday's elections up and down the ballot, the state's legislative priorities are set to change, a shift that could have broad implications for women and LGBTQ+ people.
Republican Glenn Youngkin's defeat of Democrat Terry McAulliffe, along with GOP gains in the state legislature, will give Youngkin, a former private equity executive, a level of legislative power that some Democrats predict could stifle abortion access, LGBTQ+ rights and voting rights. It could also have ramifications on education, a major focus of Youngkin, who campaigned both on expanding the budget and increasing teacher pay but also restricting lessons in public schools on the role of racism in American history.
Republican Winsome Sears made history Tuesday night, becoming the first woman to be elected lieutenant governor and the first woman of color to win any statewide office. Her tie-breaking power in the state Senate — where Democrats have a slim majority and no seats were up for election this year — could prove pivotal for conservative policymaking. During her campaign, Sears expressed opposition to abortion, as did Youngkin, and support for a Texas law that effectively banned the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.
Jamie Lockhart, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, said she expects newly emboldened Virginia Republicans to introduce anti-abortion legislation. She said the focus will be on blocking them in the Senate. Lockhart emphasized the election results should not deter people from seeking abortion services in Virginia.
“Today I'm thinking of patients and what this shift means for them and also means for the medical providers that are providing compassionate health care," she told The 19th.
During her victory speech, Sears did not discuss abortion. She said she would focus on “the business of the commonwealth," including funding historically Black colleges and universities, cutting taxes, making neighborhoods safer and ensuring children get a “good education."
Tuesday's preliminary election results show Republicans are likely to flip the House of Delegates, a chamber that Democrats won just two years ago. Since then, they expanded abortion access by removing restrictions on abortion provider facilities, ultrasound requirements and mandatory counseling. The Democratic-controlled legislature also passed anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people and expanded early voting.
“At this point, we have to just be on defense with those issues," said Del. Danica Roem, who was the first out transgender person to be elected and serve in a state legislature and who won a third term Tuesday.
More broadly, Republicans rejoiced at their political fortunes, which extended beyond the state. Their candidate in the New Jersey governor's race closely trailed the Democratic incumbent, and the party won big in statewide judicial races in Pennsylvania.
“This is what can happen when state Republicans run races with the right candidates, the right messages, and data-driven tactics," the Republican State Leadership Committee shared on social media.
Christina Polizzi, national press secretary for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, said the party expected an “uncertain political environment" in the leadup to Tuesday. But she noted that Democratic incumbents in several competitive districts in Virginia suburbs also kept their seats.
“The reality is, in those districts, our incumbents in the legislature held on because of their accomplishments, not in spite of them," she said.
Democrats' trifecta of government control during the 2021 legislative session in Virginia meant it did not advance bills that popped up in Republican-controlled legislatures around the country. That legislation included a record number of abortion restrictions, anti-trans proposals and voting restrictions.
During the campaign, Youngkin expressed opposition to marriage equality, alarming advocates. Youngkin told the Associated Press that he feels “called to love everyone" but when asked if he supports same-sex marriage, said, “No." Youngkin said he would support the law, which he described as “legally acceptable."
On a conference call with members of the press, Roem, a Democrat, predicted Republicans will file “a lot of bad bills" that they may not intend to pass but want Democrats to vote on to create a voting record for future elections.
Roem said she plans to file a series of bills aimed at addressing flaws in Virginia's adult guardianship system and hopes to work with Republican colleagues.
“We are at least at a place where I think that House Republicans, along with the governor, are going to have to understand that they have to work with a Democratic-held state Senate," Roem said. “In that case, if they want to get stuff passed, as opposed to just making headlines, what it means is that they're going to have to come together in a way on, 'OK, what bills can we deal with that are not inherently partisan?"
Much of Youngkin's closing argument was based on the role of public schools. In addition to promising to increase teacher pay and schools' budgets, he said parents should have more say in the curriculum and also greater access to charter schools. Much of the discussion of curriculum, in Virginia as in races around the country, was tied to accusations that students were being taught “critical race theory," an advanced academic framework and critics have broadly applied to lessons that teach about racism's role in U.S. history. The argument is seen as designed to appeal to White parents, with activists showing up at school board meetings to argue that their children are being taught that their race makes them bad.
“Friends, we're going to embrace our parents, not ignore them." Youngkin said in his victory speech. “We're going to press forward with a curriculum that includes listening to parents' input, a curriculum that allows our children to run as fast as they can, teaching them how to think, enabling their dreams to soar. Friends, we are going to reestablish excellence in our schools."
While McAuliffe highlighted plans to expand paid sick leave and a $15 minimum wage, a bulk of his focus was also on trying to tie Youngkin to former President Donald Trump, who lost the state by 10 points in 2020.
Instead, preliminary exit polling shows Youngkin — who expressed support for the former president but did not wholeheartedly embrace him — had the more effective message.
Sarah Longwell, a Republican strategist who did not support Trump, said that the results in Virginia's gubernatorial race showed that “Trump is on the ballot for the people he attracts and not on the ballot for the people he repels."
“The big thing I've been seeing across all the focus groups is the Trump voters were filled with rabid enthusiasm about going out to vote for any living breathing Republican," she said.
“It looks to me like the enthusiasm gap isn't that Democrats didn't turn out, it's that Republicans turned out, and over-performed in these rural districts — there's pent-up enthusiasm for Republicans that's almost overwhelming."
As Democrats survey what Virginia means ahead of the midterm elections, some are thinking that McAuliffe's loss shows the need for diverse faces in politics. A'shanti Gholar, president of Emerge, a candidate recruitment organization for Democratic women, said on the same conference call with Roem that some Democratic candidates across Virginia outperformed the former governor.
“Virginia should serve as a warning to Democrats that if we remain complacent and don't put in the work to run candidates who speak to the most pressing issues facing this country, 2022 will be a rough year at every level of office," she said.
Political strategist Alencia Johnson, a veteran of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's presidential campaign and Planned Parenthood, said that “maybe, just maybe, Democrats will finally realize that running moderate White men isn't the answer to galvanize our base of young people and people of color."
Johnson said while she'll always support Democrats who win their party's nomination, “But until then? It's time for new leadership. Especially as the GOP's racist and sexist culture wars are working for their base."
Johnson added that Democrats are tired of fighting against Trump's legacy and should instead focus on inspiring candidates or popular policies such as paid family leave, which House Republicans today said would be back in Biden's Build Back Better plan, though its ultimate fate is unclear. Voting rights legislation has also stalled amid Republican opposition.
“We need something to fight for, something to believe in," she said.



















image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.