The second-guessing has not ended about the integrity of the vote in Wisconsin, where President Biden secured one of his narrowest victories last fall.
Republicans in charge at the state capital ordered the Legislature's auditing arm on Thursday to begin a comprehensive, monthslong review of almost the entire election system.
Democrats voted against the review as totally unnecessary, noting how Donald Trump's loss of the state — albeit by fewer than 21,000 votes out of 3.2 million cast — had been affirmed after a partial recount and following the flat-out rejection of an array of lawsuits alleging wrongdoing from Trump and his allies.
Rep. Samantha Kerkman, the GOP chairwoman of the panel that controls the auditors, said their work was needed to make sure the state's deeply divided electorate gains confidence in the fairness of elections, "the cornerstone of our government," before the 2022 midterm and gubernatorial contests.
"Divisions are more pronounced now than ever and my fear is — and I hope it's just a fear — that this audit will be a vehicle for more distrust and more misinformation," countered Democratic Sen. Melissa Agard.
State Auditor Joe Chrisman was ordered to examine issues including how the bipartisan Elections Commission and municipal clerks maintain the voter rolls, how they handle complaints, compliance with rules for assisting voters complete vote-by-mail forms, the security of voting equipment, the use of drop boxes, and whether there has been abuse of the exceptions for the elderly and disabled to obtain absentee ballots without showing identification,
Almost all these matters were raised in the barrage of election lawsuits that have flooded Wisconsin in the past year.
The state Supreme Court ruled against Trump in a series of 4-3 decisions that his side's suits lacked merit or evidence or were filed too late. But the high court is still considering a lawsuit that predated the election, filed by conservatives who want to make the Elections Commission move faster to remove people from the rolls after notifying them it believes they have moved or died. An appeals court last year found the commission has used a proper timetable for such purges.
No significant problems were found with the state's voting machines after audits and recounts in both 2016 and last fall. Both times, Wisconsin had the third-closest presidential margin in the nation. Trump carried its 10 electoral votes by a single point, or 27,000 votes, the first time. Last year, the margins were closer than Wisconsin's six-tenths of a point only in Arizona and Georgia, where Biden also prevailed.
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.