When I was the U.S. ambassador to Equatorial Guinea, a small, African nation, the long-serving dictator there routinely praised members of the “loyal opposition.” Serving in the two houses of parliament, they belonged to pseudo-opposition parties that voted in lock-step with the ruling party. Their only “loyalty” was to the country’s brutal dictator, who remains in power. He and his cronies rig elections, so these “opposition” politicians never have to fear being voted out of office.
In contrast, the only truly independent party in the country is regularly denounced by the dictator and his ruling party as the “radical opposition.” Its leaders and members are harassed, often imprisoned on false charges and barred from government employment. This genuine opposition party has no representatives at either the national or local level despite considerable popular support. In dictatorships, there can be no loyal opposition.
In fact, the term “loyal opposition” was coined during the 19th century in democratic Great Britain. It referred to members of parliamentary opposition parties who, as long as they pledged loyalty to the crown, could criticize the incumbent government’s policies. This allowed members of the British Parliament’s loyal opposition to dissent without fear of being accused of treason.
The concept of a loyal opposition also exists in our country albeit in somewhat different form. Members of Congress as well as those who serve in government and the military swear an oath of loyalty not to a president, but rather to the U.S. Constitution. Protected by the First Amendment, the party out of power as well as the media, civil society and citizens are free to oppose policies of the president and members of his party by doing so peacefully and abiding by our laws.
But this has not always been the case. In 1798, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Alien Enemies Act, which not only imposed restrictions on immigration, but also limited free speech. Specifically, the Sedition Act criminalized what the Federalist Party then in power deemed to be false and malicious statements against it. Members of the opposition Democratic-Republican Party, as well as journalists supporting them, were sometimes prosecuted. After the Democratic-Republicans came to office, Congress repealed the Sedition Act. But this was not the last time the U.S. government used its power to repress free speech in violation of the First Amendment.
The Sedition Act of 1918, passed during World War I, threatened prosecution of anyone who expressed opinions viewed as undermining the war effort. Beyond that, it prohibited language judged to be “disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive” against the U.S. government, the American flag and the U.S. armed forces. Justified as necessary in wartime, the act was repealed in 1920.
Sadly, this history could be repeated. At an October rally in Colorado, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump announced Operation Aurora. He said his plan would employ the Aliens Enemies Act of 1798 to arrest and deport criminal gang members allegedly here illegally. And while Trump has not called upon Congress to pass new sedition laws, he has threatened to abridge free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. This includes silencing domestic critics he claims are “enemies from within” who imperil U.S. security. Additionally, the president-elect has said he may cancel broadcast licenses of network-affiliate television stations due to their “unfair” coverage of him and his campaign.
In the coming months, Trump will assume the presidency, and his Republican Party, which already has a Senate majority, is likely to control the House of Representatives as well. For this reason, it is essential they regard the Democratic Party as the loyal opposition. In a democracy, there is a distinction between “enemies” and “adversaries” that should never be forgotten.
Democrats will certainly differ with Republicans and President Trump on major policy issues, but this does not mean the Democratic Party will be “disloyal” in its opposition. Although in the minority, Democratic lawmakers have the right to be heard. Along with President Joe Biden, they are committed to the peaceful transfer of power as required by the U.S. Constitution.
The bedrock of U.S. democracy is showing respect toward political opponents who are loyal to our system of government, its values and our country. Regardless of how you voted, this is what must unite us as Americans.
Asquino is a retired career diplomat and author of “Spanish Connections: My Diplomatic Journey from Venezuela to Equatorial Guinea.
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.