Eric Holder's organization to combat political and racial gerrymandering is about to acquire Barack Obama's political organization.
The coming merger, between the former attorney general's National Redistricting Action Fund and the former president's Organizing for Action, guarantees that perceived abuses in the world of electoral mapmaking will gain unprecedented prominence during the coming campaign – in time to help shape the once-a-decade redistricting of the House and state legislatures.
But the consolidation also guarantees the burst of additional energy, and money, will be all about benefitting the Democratic side of the debate. And the potential for further partisan polarization of the issue will do nothing to draw the collaboration of Republicans, who will be essential to any widespread depoliticization of the process.
"Simply put: this is a leftist power grab that will undoubtedly bring on more election-time shenanigans," Cheryl Chumley wrote in The Washington Times today. While Holder "says it's all about fairness and equality and democracy and justice," she added, "as every good conservative knows: those are all leftist code words for killing conservatism, one district at a time."
The main consequence of the merger is that Holder's group will have access to Obama's database of supporters, donors and volunteers. The newly enlarged organization plans a series of small house parties across the country March 23 to launch All On The Line, its campaign to promote redistricting reform and participation in the 2020 nationwide headcount.
"The integration of OFA with NDRC, into our redistricting effort, is going to help us have activists all over the country who are fighting for fair maps and more representative democracy," Holder told The Hill. "The integration of OFA with NDRC is an organizational action, and it's really just designed to effectuate that which OFA has always stood for, which is to engage citizens at the local level."
Holder says he will be legally barred from using the Obama database if he decides to run for president.
The NDRC plans to focus its energies on establishing politically competitive and demographically balanced House and legislative maps in six increasingly competitive states where mapmaking is the province of politicians (Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado and Texas) as well as four bellwether states where bipartisan commissions control the process (Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Arizona).
Republicans controlled the redistricting process in seven of the states after the last census. Pennsylvania's delegation is now split, nine Republicans and nine Democrats, after the state's top court declared the earlier map a partisan gerrymander and ordered a new one. In the other six, the GOP holds 65 of the 101 House seats.
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.