Dairanys Grullon-Virgil is the Associate Director of Alumni and Youth Voice at Generation Citizen. She leads research and program development focused on equity, youth civic leadership, and connecting rising leaders to advocacy opportunities. Dairanys, originally from the Dominican Republic, has a youth leadership development, public advocacy, and community organizing background.
Throughout different generations in the history of the United States, age-diverse stakeholders have come together to address public challenges in our society - ranging from the full enjoyment of civil rights and access to water in indigenous communities, to issues of gun violence and mental health. Today's young people are both heirs to and innovators within that tradition. They are bringing together their peers, from across differing backgrounds and viewpoints, to address the issues that confront them all.
According to CIRCLE, one of the nation’s leading researchers on youth civic engagement, 27% of young people between the ages of 18-29 voted during last year’s midterm election, marking the second highest level of voter turnout in nearly 30 years. Concurrently, voters in Florida elected Maxwell Frost, the first member of Congress from Generation Z, to represent their interests in Washington D.C. Defying misperceptions of political apathy and civic distrust, young people have demonstrated their care about our public life and are raising their voices to champion a better future for themselves - and for the entire country.
One barrier to age-diverse coalitions is the sentiment that young people have to fight for a seat at the table instead of being included with decision-making power. In a recent report examining cross-generational civic participation, Generation Citizen and partnering organizations found that negative stereotypes can arise when older generations devalue the contributions of young people. As a further example of this, our informal conversations often contain phrases like: “young people are the future,” or “the elders will show us the way”, but how exactly does cross-generational collaboration ensure young people have the tools they need to be successful in a pluralistic society?
Intentional investment and design practices that emphasize the power of intergenerational partnership can help young people overcome their disenfranchisement in a system that questions their civic engagement, based on characteristics like socioeconomic status, race, gender, and level education attained. As polarization and misinformation spread across our democratic practices, youth are often left alone to navigate the electoral process and identify opportunities for civic engagement.
At Generation Citizen, our Action Civics programming provides hands-on, relevant civic education to young people across the country. We connect civic knowledge and disposition to civic participation. We adopt this instructional approach because when young people understand the intricacies of how democracy works, our data indicates they develop a sense of stakeholdership in democracy and become more academically engaged. Further, our recent co-authored publication, entitled Beyond Passing the Torch: How Age Diversity Can Strengthen Democracy, identifies deep intergenerational collaboration as a vital element of realizing an inclusive, informed, and equitable democracy.
Additionally, we found there to be a power differential between young people and their older counterparts when they engage in civic spaces, such as city council hearings, coalition and community board meetings, electoral campaign opportunities, and the like. As a result, young people can experience barriers to their participation and become less engaged and less likely to engage in civic opportunities. Overcoming those roadblocks to civic participation takes cultivating an asset-based disposition of curiosity and collaboration, rather than reverting to shorthand descriptions and generalizations about the civic involvement of any one generation.
Cross-generational misconceptions about both older and younger stakeholders — sometimes referred to as ageism and adultism — have also played a role in deteriorating the perception of youth agency in our democracy. Ageism refers to the stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination towards others or oneself based on age. Ageism is often, though not exclusively, evident in misperceptions of how older adults participate in political life. Adultism, by contrast, is the act of prejudice or discrimination against young people as a group. When either of the two foregoing dynamics is not sufficiently considered, young people can be superficially engaged in campaigns, events, and activities without fully recognizing their needs, identities, or perspectives.
When cross-generational partnership is at its best, young people and adults co-create spaces where rising leaders feel welcome and needed not only for their opinions but also for their reflection on their lived experiences, their willingness to serve, and their courage to help make tough leadership decisions. We’ve found that this kind of partnership can — and does — happen in venues as varied as grassroots coalitions, community boards, and local and state government commissions.
To effectively and authentically move beyond passing the torch, young people must feel confident in their ability to participate in democratic practices and in their self-perception as existing, capable leaders of democracy. Young people are not trailblazers and changemakers in a distant, not yet arrived future—they are always, already citizens and community members with full standing in our current moment. In order to realize a society where youth civic leadership is included within our political institutions, our opportunity and charge is to build an ecosystem of cross-generational practice that prioritizes a reciprocal, continual transfer of skills, knowledge, and trust from older generations to younger ones, and inversely from younger generations to their older peers. It is a difficult, but doable task, and one that can help all generations do their part to light the path towards a more equitable, participatory democracy.



















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.