This past year has proven politically historic and unprecedented. In this year alone, we witnessed:
- The current president, who received the most votes in American history when elected four years ago, drop out of the presidential race at the last minute due to party pressure amid unceasing rumors of cognitive decline.
- The vice president, who was selected as the party-preferred candidate in his stead, fail to win a single battleground state despite an impressive array of celebrity endorsements, healthy financial backing and overwhelmingly positive media coverage.
- The former president, who survived two assassination attempts — one leading to an iconic moment that some would swear was staged while others argued Godly intervention — decisively win the election, securing both popular and Electoral College vote victories to serve a second term, nonconsecutively (something that hasn’t happened since Grover Cleveland in the 1890s).
Many of us find ourselves craving more precedented times, desiring a return to some semblance of normalcy, hoping for some sense of unity, and envisioning a nation where we have some sense of trust and confidence in our government and those who serve in it.
Restoring Trust
Public trust in government has been declining for decades and shows few signs of improving. A 2024 State of Public Trust in Government survey suggests only 45 percent say most federal civil servants can be trusted to serve both political parties, two-thirds of the country believe there are many civil servants who work to undermine policies they disagree with, and just under a quarter say civil servants are nonpartisan.
This certainly portrays public servants unfavorably and reinforces why, according to the same survey, a mere 23 percent of Americans trust the federal government. This distrust, coupled with reports of poor performance and efforts to resist administration policies, was, arguably, the impetus for such controversial polices as Schedule F.
The 2024 presidential election didn’t help matters. The demeaning, divisive and derisive campaigns further undermined trust in government, public servants and fellow Americans.
While many Americans believe the government is wasteful, civil servants who are competent, non-partisan, and professional are key to improved outcomes for the public, which leads to greater transparency, accountability and trust.
Public servants must know their roles and responsibilities; ensure top performance and responsiveness; and fulfill their public oath to serve the American people and serve them well. This includes seeing past the campaign rhetoric and preparing to advise on — and help implement — policies (whether the candidate they supported was victorious or not).
At the same time, demoralizing and over-the-top disparagement of government is not helpful. Yes, government can be streamlined and reformed (and it should be done, respectfully and responsibly), but wholesale, indiscriminate dismantling would be ill advised and would fail to appreciate the complexity of such an undertaking as well as the the everyday public good that civil servants provide.
Administering and Implementing Policy
Every voter wants to know how the election outcome will affect them directly, including the topics they expressed concern about, including:
- Inflation, which saw sharp increases during the current administration.
- Immigration, which has expanded beyond the southwest border and includes a reported 11 million unauthorized immigrants.
- Global conflict, which is changing in nature, increasingly includes more regions of the world and diverges from the more intense worries about what’s happening at our own front door.
But campaigning is different from governing. How lawmakers, advisors and public administrators execute policy on these, and a myriad of other issues such as healthcare will ultimately determine our future.
Guiding the way will be our next president, an unabashedly unconventional leader who has a major job ahead, particularly as we look to him to manage — and unite — the nation. Policy is important. How the policies are implemented, and the people who make it happen, matter just as much. And, career civil servants will play a key role, whether that role is contracted or expanded. It now comes down to the principles of public administration; economy, effectiveness, efficiency and equitable implementation
Supporting Civil Service, the President and All Americans
The landscape in which public servants do their work continues to shift. Fiscal constraints, ethical application of artificial intelligence, climate disasters and foreign affairs — all grand challenges in public administration — add to the difficulty of delivering good government.
Our future is as bright as our public servants are dedicated and accomplished. This is especially true if we support our civil servants, take an intergovernmental perspective, embrace bipartisan solutions, focus on data driven and evidence based policy and decision making, and deliver trusted analysis and research to our government leaders at all levels, including the next president.
While change in political direction is all but certain, the role our public servants play — and the value they impart — remains vital. And, they must lean into their responsibilities as they have for past administrations. There must be public servants who stand ready to support our next president with the much-needed, invaluable expertise only they can provide to ensure his and our country’s success.
Public service is honorable and should represent competence, nonpartisanship and excellence. Our public servants must faithfully give their best service and advice to our nation— playing their vital role in restoring public trust, impartially implementing the policies and laws that will change the lives of millions of Americans and countless others, and fulfilling their sacred obligation to the Constitution and the American people.
Blockwood, a former senior career executive in federal government, is an adjunct professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship of Public Affairs and incoming president and CEO of the National Academy of Public Administration.
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.