Wrong Is Wrong

By Jonah Goldberg

Wednesday, February 04, 2026

 

U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s This Week on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Donald Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the United Arab Emirates’ national security advisor, Sheikh Tahnoon.

 

Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty Financial, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “The deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president's company.”

 

“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” host George Stephanopoulos asked.

 

“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn't do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.” Blanche went on to boast how the president is utterly transparent about his questionable business practices: “I don't have a comment on it beyond President Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don't do so in secret. We don't learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it's happening.”

 

Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “Okay, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”

 

Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.

 

Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge: “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”

 

This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.

 

Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in Democracy In America, the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.

 

In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of blacks, women, and Native Americans notwithstanding), no one has access to special carve-outs and exemptions to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal of the whole idea of equality.

 

The problem in the modern era is that elites—of all ideological stripes—have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not our own.   

 

Pick an issue. Violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption, and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately, the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.

 

Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor—or your client’s transparency—means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.