Kull is Program Director of the Program for Public Consultation.
Thomas is Vice President of Voice of the People and Director of Voice of the People Action. Thomas is an organizer and government relations professional with years of experience working in campaigns, advocacy, and policy research.
Overwhelming bipartisan majorities favor prohibiting stock-trading in individual companies by Members of Congress (86 percent, Republicans 87 percent, Democrats 88 percent, independents 81 percent), as well as the president, vice president, and Supreme Court Justices (87 percent, Republicans 87 percent, Democrats 90 percent, independents 82 percent) according to an in-depth survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy.
While criticism of Members of Congress trading stocks while in office has been present for some time, the issue was given new life with accusations of Members making lucrative purchases of pharmaceutical stocks based on insider information on Covid-19 vaccines.
Legislation to prohibit any stock trading in individual companies among Members was introduced in 2022 ( S. 3494, S.1171, S. 439, H.R. 345, H.R. 1138, H.R.2678), as well as a ban on the president, the vice president and the Supreme Court ( S. 693, H.R. 389). Officials would still be able to buy and sell stocks in large portfolios, like mutual funds; and would still be able to own their existing stocks as long as they are put into an independently managed fund, also known as a blind trust. The ban would apply to any family that lives with them.
The public consultation survey of 2,625 registered voters ensured that respondents understood the issue by first providing a short briefing on the legislative proposals. They also evaluated strongly-stated arguments for and against. The content was reviewed by expert proponents and opponents to ensure that the briefing was accurate and balanced and that the arguments presented were the strongest ones being made.
“While the prospect of a stock trading ban is controversial within Congress, public support approaches unanimity,” commented Steven Kull, director of PPC. However, majorities did not favor a proposal to ban stock-trading for all federal employees ( H.R. 389). This was favored by just 40 percent, including just 42 percent of Republicans, 37 percent of Democrats and 42 percent of independents.
The most popular argument in favor of the prohibition on Members asserted that there are, “too many potential conflicts of interest when Members of Congress can hold and trade stocks in individual companies,” (92 percent convincing, Republicans 92 percent, Democrats 93 percent).The arguments against did not do as well. The most convincing was that this new law is not necessary, since there are already laws against insider trading that apply to Members of Congress but was found convincing by minorities (28 percent overall, Republicans 25 percent, Democrats 30 percent).
The sample was large enough to enable analysis of attitudes in very Republican to very Democratic districts based on Cook PVI ratings. In all types of districts, very large majorities were in favor of a stock-trading ban on Members, from very red (85 percent) to very blue districts (85 percent).
The survey was fielded online May 19-30, 2023 with a probability-based national sample of 2,625 registered voters provided by Nielsen Scarborough from its larger sample, which is recruited by telephone and mail from a random sample of households. There is a margin of error of +/- 1.9 percent.
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.