Earlier this year, I tried to explain to Congress how today's special-interest-controlled pay-to-play campaign finance system is hostile to the conservative agenda.
It puts Republicans at an electoral disadvantage, I testified. It floods swing races with torrents of out-of-state negative advertising dollars. It guts federalism and the 10th Amendment. Crony capitalism now dominates our economy. Alarming to conservatives, young voters subjected to this rigged and corrupt economic system prefer socialism over free markets.
Support for campaign finance reform in Congress remains nonetheless deeply partisan. But what may finally compel conservatives to action is the grave threat to national security posed by the status quo.
Pay-to-play crony capitalism is much more profitable than the rough-and-tumble, generally incremental gains of market competition. Companies can generate a stunning 760-to-1 return on lobbying and campaign contributions in the form of no-bid supply contracts, regulatory favors, loan guarantees, bailouts and tax loopholes. Monopolies and market concentration are up. Innovation and new business startups are down. This is why we have the world's highest drug prices, way too many broadband and cellular dead zones and ethanol in our gasoline.
National security cannot be walled off from our corrupt and corrupting political money system.
Crony capitalism is why we have failed weapons systems like the trillion dollar fleet of F-35 fighters, the $30 billion Littoral Combat Ship and $85 billion in redundant ground-based nuclear weapons. All are designed more to spread pork and campaign money into almost every congressional district than to enhance our defense.
It has also been made weaker by the industrial concentration wrought by crony capitalism. The Center for Strategic and International Studies found there was no "effective competition" for more than half of military procurement four years ago — and only one viable recipient for 80 percent of the aircraft dollars. And the big five suppliers — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics — are claiming most new contracts, leaving competition "at extremely low levels."
Under "crony cap," in other words, weapons makers have militarized American foreign policy to grow revenue — and the result is a more destabilized world. Since 9/11, with crony cap military policy in full flower, the United States has engaged in a series of quagmire wars lacking defined missions or exit strategies. We have lost every one.
Today, we are flying military drones in the airspace of 17 nations and dropping bombs on seven. Silenced into submission by rivers of campaign money from the weapons industry, revolving door sinecures and a fog of think tank opinion-shaping, Congress has abandoned its non-delegable and sole constitutional authority to declare war. This summer, a bipartisan House Armed Services Committee majority memorialized its neutering of Article I, Section 8, voting to kill a measure to block war against Iran without congressional approval.
Republicans in Congress have ceased even pretending to be fiscal conservatives. The $1.2 trillion spent in the past year on national security got just added to our nation's record-shattering credit card balance. Our economy is only temporarily being insulated by the Federal Reserve's easy money policy. Most of the cost of this debt accretion and monetary distortion is dumped on our kids and grandkids. Of the world's 25 economically "advanced" nations, the United States has by far the largest national debt growth forecast. It's gotten so bad we are fast approaching a time when the U.S. dollar will lose its status as the world's reserve currency. Admiral Mike Mullen, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, ranks this credit-card patriotism as the single greatest threat to our national security.
Most unbearable, though, is the abuse of our armed forces by crony-driven military policy. During this generation of failed wars without defensible security objectives, our troops and their families have suffered over 300,000 deaths and injuries and record rates of active-duty suicide and PTSD. But most policy-makers are insulated from this suffering because neither they nor their family members have worn a uniform.
Money-equals-speech conservatives must confront yet another threat to national security. Supreme Court rulings in Citizens United v. FEC, which opened the door to unlimited campaign spending, and McDonnell v. U.S., which legalized most quid pro quo public corruption, have eliminated most of the guardrails in the political money system that Congress and states raised in the previous century in the wake of intolerable corruption.
The hawkish Alliance for Securing Democracy has issued a report cataloguing how Iran, China and Russia use our loophole-ridden system against us to influence our elections and foreign and military policies.
Our overseas enemies use unrestricted money to finance online political ads and web publishers. These hostile acts are concealed using in-kind contributions, favorable terms on loans from state-controlled banks, untraceable shell companies, American subsidiaries of foreign companies, nonprofit organizations, think tanks and "dark money" political groups. It's also likely software-based bots are pouring millions of untraceable cash into campaigns through straw donors giving $200 or less, the cutoff for remaining anonymous.
Writing in Foreign Affairs, Sarah Chayes makes the case that all this "weaponized corruption" is possible only because we soiled our own nest first — by allowing domestic crony capitalists to corrupt our political money system.
The solution is reform so candidates and elected officials are motivated to serve citizens rather than big businesses and our adversaries. Foremost among these reforms is to amend our Constitution to restore power to Congress and the states to impose reasonable limits on campaign money. Conservatives must confront the reality that our corrupt campaign finance system is dangerously weakening our ability to protect ourselves from foreign enemies.



















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.