A pair of polarizing firebrands from opposite ends of the political spectrum have promised to work together to solve a perennial hot-button annoyance of clean government advocates.
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez agreed last week to collaborate on a bill to shut down the revolving door between Congress and K Street.
But it's unclear the extra attention drawn to the issue from such an odd political couple will jumpstart a legislative campaign that has always stalled in the past. And it's just as unclear a lifetime ban on former members lobbying on Capitol Hill, which the two proposed, could actually work as intended.
Among those who left Congress this year and taken jobs outside of politics, almost 60 percent are already lobbying or involved in work that influences federal policy, according to the watchdog group Public Citizen.
In response, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: "I don't think it should be legal at ALL to become a corporate lobbyist if you've served in Congress."
Cruz then tweeted his agreement, reiterating his previous call for a lifelong ban – and acknowledging a rare moment of harmony with a lawmaker he's excoriated several times on social media for her liberal positions, most recently in favor of doubling the minimum wage.
"If we can agree on a bill with no partisan snuck-in clauses, no poison pills, etc - just a straight, clean ban on members of Congress becoming paid lobbyists - then I'll co-lead the bill with you," Ocasio-Cortez replied. "You're on," came his reply.
A study three years ago by a trio of political scientists found that since the 1970s the number of senators who lobby has gone up by 55 percent and the roster of former House member lobbyists by 40 percent.
That's even though former senators are banned from directly lobbying Congress for two years and former House members for one year. But they are permitted to immediately lobby the executive branch, including administration officials who were once their lawmaking peers. And the Capitol Hill cooling-off period does not say anything about ex-members acting as advisers, consultants or even partners in lobby shops – so long as they don't have direct contact with their onetime colleagues.
It is that significant loophole that would seem to be immune from the sort of legislation Cruz and Ocasio-Cortez are talking about.
Republicans Mike Braun of Indiana and Rick Scott of Florida have proposed Senate legislation to ban ex-lawmakers from lobbying. Republican Trey Hollingsworth of Indiana of a companion bill in the House. Neither bill has any co-sponsors. Neither does a Senate bill by Democrat Jon Tester of Montana that would create a five-year limit on revolving door spinning. That is what Donald Trump proposed as part of his "drain the swamp" agenda in the 2016 campaign, but he has not done anything visible to promote the idea since becoming president.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.