Banks is executive director of UnKoch My Campus, which advocates for the elimination of undisclosed corporate financial influence over higher education.
Amid false claims of voter fraud and very real instances of voter supression, the 2020 election showed that our democracy is in need of an overhaul to create an electoral process that is fair, free of corporate influence and protected from discrimination.
That is why we the people are pushing Congress to pass the For the People Act, a revolutionary package of proven democracy reforms. The House is on course to pass the measure, also known as HR 1, this week.
But enacting this legislation could do even more than expand voting rights and election security. It might also be the key to finally disrupting Charles Koch and the larger dark money network that has succeeded at capturing our democracy over the past few decades.
We know what happens when dark money infuses itself in institutions that purport to benefit the common good — whether it's helping to install corporate-friendly justices on the Supreme Court, or creating university think tanks that produce climate misinformation that translates to lax environmental regulation. There has been plenty of work to investigate, name and organize against these sorts of outcomes.
And the work regularly confronts fresh areas for concern. Most recently, the whole country witnessed the incredibly violent result of the undue influence of Koch and other big corporate funders: The storming of the Capitol by Trump loyalists on Jan. 6, which for several hours disrupted the joint session of Congress for tabulating the electoral votes and certifying that Joe Biden had won the presidency.
Even after the riot ended, leaving at least five people dead, seven Republicans returned to the vandalized floor of the Senate and voted to overturn the results — in effect legitimizing the insurrectionists' cause.
The campaigns of each of those senators has been funded by the Koch network: Josh Hawley of Missouri, Ted Cruz of Texas, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Roger Marshall of Kansas, John Kennedy of Louisiana, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Rick Scott of Florida.
And despite the uproar from both sides of the aisle, Koch's spokespeople wouldn't even commit to no longer funding any of these complicit politicians.
It's no secret that networks such as Koch's thrive in secrecy, allowing for more money to flow to the politicians who will work to ensure corporate-friendly policies.
And, two days after the riot, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge by the Koch network and another conservative group to California's requirement that tax-exempt charities disclose the identity of their top donors.
The political advocacy organization Americans for Prosperity, founded by Charles Koch and his late brother David, and the Thomas More Law Center argue that the state should not be able to compel such disclosures. While they claim infringement of their freedom of speech, what's really at stake is this: Without the shroud of secrecy of dark-money donations, the entire ugly underbelly of who the Koch network actually funds will be exposed.
So it's no surprise that HR 1 is truly the worst nightmare for the Koch network and others of their ilk. If passed, it would require secret organizations that spend money in elections to disclose their donors. It would also create a small, donor-focused public financing matching system so candidates for Congress would no longer be so reliant on big-money donors to fund their campaigns and set their priorities — meaning that it would be just that much harder for billionaires like Charles Koch to buy his way into the House and Senate. In addition, the For the People Act would strengthen oversight rules to ensure those who break campaign finance laws are held accountable.
Not only would fixing these financial oversights help return elections to the interests of the common good instead of the corporate elite, it could be the first step in shaking up the foundation of the Koch network's hold on our 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.