From the moment a pro-Trump rally turned into an anti-democracy riot at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, we have heard the repeated use of terms like sedition and insurrection. But as we know, words matter.
So The Fulcrum asked Doron Kalir, clinical professor of law at Cleveland State University's Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, to help turn legal definitions into language everyone can understand.
Sedition
"In essence, sedition occurs whenever two or more people conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States, or to oppose by force its authority. The criminal prohibition against sedition appears in 18 U.S.C. (U.S. Code) § 2384, and carries a penalty of up to 20-year imprisonment. Interestingly, the law contains specific language against conspiracies to use force in order to 'seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority' of the government."
Insurrection
"An insurrection occurs whenever an organized and armed uprising takes place against the authority of the United States. The criminal prohibition against insurrection can be found in 18 U.S.C § 2383, which states that 'whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States ... or give aid or comfort thereto' shall be subject to up to 10 years in prison. Interestingly, the act adds that that person shall also be "incapable of holding any [Federal] office."
Treason
"Treason is the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the United States, either by making war against it or by materially supporting its enemies. The criminal prohibition against treason can be found in the U.S. Constitution, Art. III § 3 ('Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.'). According to U.S.C. § 2381, treason can be punishable by death, and in any event no less than five years' imprisonment. Again, a person convicted of treason cannot serve in public (federal) office."
25th Amendment
"The 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1967. It was adopted in part due to lessons learned following the Kennedy assassination. The amendment has four parts, the last of which is of interest today. It allows the vice president, together with a majority of the Cabinet members, to author a 'written declaration (attesting) that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.' When such a letter is sent to the House and the Senate, 'the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.' The section continues to explain what happens afterwards, but due to the short time that remains for the current administration, that is likely moot. That section of the 25th Amendment has never been used, and no vice president has ever been declared an 'Acting President.' Again, to trigger this section, a majority of Cabinet members — all of whom are nominated by the sitting president — have to agree to declare him as 'unable to discharge' his duties. That is not likely to happen anytime soon."
Other terms that have been used — like banana republic, coup, and putsch — may be fun to say but have no legal definition.
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.