Kevin Frazier will join the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University as an Assistant Professor starting this Fall. He currently is a clerk on the Montana Supreme Court.
Jeremy is the author of American Inequality and an adjunct professor at Presidio Graduate School. His research focuses on the interconnected nature of inequality across regions.
“Una Nación bajo Dios, entera, con libertad y justicia para todos.”
How can a nation promote liberty and justice for all if it does not do its utmost to communicate with its citizens?
More than 75 percent of residents in Miami-Dade County speak a language other than English at home. Nationwide, as of 2019, 70 percent of Latinos ages five and older spoke Spanish at home. In total, upwards of 37 million Americans, at a minimum, would prefer if not benefit from more government resources being available in Spanish.
En otras palabras, esta es una nación mucho diferente de los Estados Unidos cuando Jefferson, Washington, y Hamilton eran las personas más importantes. Even though the number of Americans who speak another language other than English at home has tripled since 1980, the majority of our textbooks and statutes resemble a bygone era.
As long as our schools and systems of government and commerce fail to reflect our multicultural and multilingual society, we will fall short of our collective potential. By way of example, consider that eight states, including Louisiana, still require high school students to pass exit-exams to graduate--despite substantial evidence that such exams disproportionately result in Black and Latino missing out on receiving their diplomas. There is also no evidence that exit exams improve academic achievement or employment rates. For “English Learners” or students who do not speak English as their first language, this out of date insistence on the supremacy of English can come at a cost to the individual student and their community.
Louisiana provides a useful and infuriating case study. In 2019, 80 percent of all Louisiana high school students graduated; yet, for English Learners the graduation rate hovered around 41 percent. This discrepancy can be partially explained by the state’s insistence on assigning exit-exams--the same exams that research suggests fail to actually hold schools accountable for providing students with adequate instruction in core concepts.
The outdated and discriminatory effect of such exams became clear during the pandemic. When several states gave up on exit exams due to the practical difficulties imposed by COVID, graduation rates for English Learners increased seven percent. Es obvio que esta práctica debe permanecer en el pasado.
A multilingual education system and economy would lift up communities across the country. As evidenced by the graphic, there are pockets of the country where an outdated systemic bias toward English has caused poverty to spread where diverse, multilingual systems could blossom. In Starr County, Texas, one in two residents lacks proficiency in English. It’s the least English-speaking county in America. One in three people there live in poverty – the median income is $31K. White students graduate at a 25% higher rate than Hispanic students.
Meanwhile, in Miami-Dade County, Florida, one in three residents lack English proficiency and yet the median income is nearly twice as high. Additionally, there is a much smaller gap in high school graduate rates. In 2019, Hispanic students in Miami had 89% graduate rate and White students had a 93% graduate rate. Miami has embraced Spanish and also helped English become its most studied language, ensuring that students thrive regardless of their first language.
An increase in Spanish in our school and legal system would not transform Starr County into Silicon Valley. No esa la meta. In some parts of the country, an excessive focus on English proficiency has unnecessarily and irrevocably robbed communities of graduates--as well as future leaders and entrepreneurs.
Just as other countries have long insisted on providing students with a multilingual education and distributing government materials in several languages, the United States must recognize that a global, interconnected world will not prioritize English. Es difícil hablar una lengua nueva. But when has America ever been the country that cowers when challenged?



















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.