A major crisis may have been averted, but the short-term gain will lead to a much greater long-term cost.
Congress recently narrowly avoided another government shutdown after contentious back-and-forth between Democrats and Republicans and first failing to pass a federal funding bill. The potential shutdown would have affected key government services such as the certain health care programs, food stamps and national parks.
Preventing the shutdown with mere hours to go may seem like a political victory but, to be sure, no one is winning.
Yes, vital services have been given the lifeline to continue but at a high cost. The measures assure they will have enough funding to sustain through Dec. 3rd, at which point another spending measure must be secured or a government shutdown will occur.
The major issues and conflicts that led to the partisan divide in the first place are far from resolved. Instead of meeting the deadline with resolution and newly recommitted compromise, policymakers hastily made short-term deals. They valued speed over quality and disregarded compromise.
No one needs to be reminded that our nation is facing one of the worst public health crises of our time with Covid-19 reaching the recent milestone of 700,000 deaths. Nor has anyone likely forgotten the need for vital government services, many of which would have been impacted by a shutdown. While addressing these issues fiscally may have been avoided for now, the longer impact still remains, both in terms of the financial and political repercussions.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen recently warned of the implications that failing to increase the debt ceiling could have, citing the potential for "widespread economic catastrophe." Even by narrowly avoiding the government shutdown, the country is faced with potentially defaulting on its debt as it approaches the national debt limit.
The United States usually spends more than it takes in and that tradition requires outside loans to make up the difference. Defaulting would waver the confidence of creditors and could usher in a series of steep political consequences, from future financial security to diplomacy with current and former allies.
The quick fix to avoid shutting down the government is not likely to impress U.S. creditors or offer much promise in addressing the arguably greater financial crisis in the debt ceiling limitations.
Understanding how it got to this point is easy. Debt accrues when debits outweigh credits. Necessarily expanding the role of government, especially in the last 19 months of Covid has only added to the costs, estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be more than $2.4 trillion.
Yet identifying who is responsible becomes a far greater challenge. Some Democrats argue that both parties proposed policies that have led to this point while many Republicans have repeatedly said they will not pass a measure that will support policies they don't back. These include some items in the more liberal social agenda negotiated within the Democratic Party.
Recent polling indicates Americans generally agree with Republicans and subscribe blame to Democrats — as the party has enjoyed unified power in both houses of Congress and the White House since the last election.
With the congressional midterm elections looming next year, it is a political hot potato that no single party or politician wants to hold. And after seeing how leaders struggled to address government shutdown, the debt ceiling proves to be a far greater political challenge.
To be sure, the government has shut down 10 times in the last four decades but the circumstances have never been more dire and simultaneously avoidable.
Covid cases and deaths are slowly starting to drop nationally but the pandemic and its ravaging effects are far from over. Though government at all levels has been involved in economic recovery and public health measures, the federal government has borne the bulk of that responsibility, primarily under the American Rescue Plan. That plan allocated $1 trillion in tax credits and programs, $350 billion to emergency management funding, and $10 billion in relief for homeowners.
The price tag is hefty; the loss of lives is far greater.
Without congressional compromise to fund government agencies and avoid defaulting on credits by extending the national debt ceiling, the nation will face a substantial financial catastrophe. This would be the greatest challenge to the administration since President Biden took office in January.
Biden has been relatively quiet on this issue, seemingly leaving it up to Congress to work out the fight while he still reels from the debacle in Afghanistan and continues to focus on vaccination efforts as a reductive approach to Covid.
One of the challenges for Democrats is assuaging more liberal interests with more moderate pursuits and appeasing everyone in the party through the process. Biden initially ran against dozens of potential presidential candidates within his party, won his primary and ultimately the general election — all with the promise of compromise, moderate policies and strong leadership.
As the nation approaches the threat of the debt ceiling at the end of the month, Americans need compromise and strong leadership more than ever before.
This is the urgent season of change every American needs to witness.



















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.