Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
Three years after the Capitol riot, President Joe Biden headed to Valley Forge, Pa., where George Washington’s army endured a bitter winter before turning the tide in the Revolutionary War. Biden delivered a campaign speech that cited the founders’ collective resolve, as a not-so-subtle comment on our polarized era. He did not mention that these same men soon split into nasty and divisive factions that became America’s first political tribes and parties.
Smears and lies abounded. Loyalties were attacked. Vengeance was pledged. Sound familiar? Barbs were hurled by men who today are lionized as America’s founders. If you want details, read Ron Chernow’s “Alexander Hamilton.” Today’s polarizing splits — rural red vs. versus urban blue, federal vs. state, stoking or fearing mobs — are in our political DNA.
And so, it is no surprise on this infamous anniversary the latest brief from Donald Trump’s lawyers arguing that he can’t be prosecuted for any actions while president cited an authorless “ summary ” of long-debunked 2020 election grievances. The Washington Post spotted the footnoted document and refuted its allegations. However, the newspaper’s latest poll also found that Trump loyalists, now a third of the GOP, believe these myths more than ever.
Such is the season before us. There was more disturbing propagandizing this week. In Georgia, a federal judge found a right-wing voter vigilante squad, True the Vote, did not violate the Voting Rights Act when it challenged the credentials of 364,000 voters in 2020. (The judge wrote the allegations “ utterly lacked reliability,” but found they did not harm voters. Instead, they wasted untold hours of election workers’ time, as the workers ended up verifying most voters’ credentials.)
As 2024 begins, election facts are still losing ground to fictions, or to fantasy-filled narratives and vanities. The question is: What can be done to elevate public trust? The 2020 election and elections in every year since have been almost entirely free of errors that would have altered the legitimate results. But these days, the most fervent partisans are not thinking about the facts. Not when triumphant tribalism beckons.
“This [court] victory is a testament to every American's constitutional right to free speech and the importance of actively participating in the electoral process,” True the Vote’s press release proclaimed. That assertion handily overlooked the fact that the Texas-based group sought to block 360,000 Georgians from casting ballots — votes that altered the U.S. Senate majority.
The Democrats and their allies who sued lamented the decision. But their comments ducked the key question of whether their lawsuit was misconceived: It focused on harming voters, not election operations. As the Post’s poll showed, 2020’s false narratives have staying power. And now a group targeting voters and election workers feels newly empowered in a swing state.
What can conscientious citizens do? One answer, for those of us who know that American history has seen an evolution in the primacy of facts, science, law and democratic norms, is to arm oneself with more knowledge of how voting works and elections are run. Most people, of course, don’t want homework like this. But how else can trust in elections be rebuilt?
This column, Restoring Trust in Elections, will be a regular feature in The Fulcrum. It will delve into the nuts and bolts of how elections are run as claims, counterclaims, real and fake issues arise. We will highlight what is and isn’t reliable. We will say why. Our hope in describing these details is that more voters can know what they are seeing at voting sites, understand that the process is professionally managed, and trust its checks and balances – and outcome.
Whether or not you like Trump, what does it tell you when his lawyers cite documents in Supreme Court filings that contain known falsehoods? What does it say when liberals file suits that fail because they overreach, allowing voting vigilantes to celebrate their thuggery? Stay tuned. Trust in elections may be fragile. But it can be revived with clear thinking and civic knowledge.



















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.