One maxim of democracy reformers is that governments will become more productive and confidence-inducing when they start looking more like the communities they represent.
To that end, nine groups with particular interest in Congress have collaborated on a nuts-and-bolts guide for lawmakers to create and sustain more diverse and inclusive teams of aides.
The booklet began circulating this week, an opportune time for altering a congressional workforce that is not keeping pace with American demographic shifts. Sixty freshly elected House members and seven newly minted senators are making their first hires, while dozens of returning lawmakers are confronting staff churn that has accelerated in the past decade — thanks to the high stress but low productivity of Capitol Hill, pays scales not competitive with the private sector, and sometimes racist and misogynistic office cultures.
At a minimum, the corps of 16,000 people who work for the House and Senate leadership, the committees and the rank-and-file membership is disproportionately white — so much so that "the last plantation" long ago became a widespread term of derision for Congress among its employees.
The disparity is across pay grades. Just 11 percent of people in top Senate jobs are non-white, although they make two-fifths of the United States population, according to research by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a think tank focused on improving the lives of Black Americans. And the advocacy group Pay Our Interns estimates that white students get 85 percent of internships in House Republican offices and 62 percent of Democratic offices.
An exception to the view that people of color have a particularly tough time thriving on the Hill appeared Wednesday, however. President-elect Joe Biden signaled he would name Katherine Tai, the Chinese-American chief trade lawyer for the House Ways and Means Committee, as United States trade representative. It would appear to be the first direct promotion ever of a congressional staffer into a Cabinet-level job.
"From entry-level to the most senior positions, a lack of representation means that much is missing from the debates shaping our national policy and priorities," reads the introduction to the guide book by the nine groups, which have named their coalition Representative Democracy. "Decades of studies have repeatedly shown that teams with more diverse experiences, backgrounds and ideas produce better and more innovative products. Democracy itself will be better served when we have the input and influence of more voices to formulate effective and responsive national policy."
And if that high-minded appeal does not resonate with senators and House members, the book offers a more practical rationale for making their office environments more diverse, equitable and inclusive.
"Consider the increased burden high turnover creates for the rest of your staff and the amount of time spent repeating the hiring process," it says, not to mention "the time lost to addressing staff grievances over alleged unequal treatment or denied promotions."
The 36 pages of advice that follow are similarly at once pragmatic and aspirational. Be sincere and intentional about establishing policies to ensure diversity, equity, inclusion and a sense of belonging for all staffers. Define what those terms mean for your office. Be clear about the atmosphere you want to foster during a wide-ranging period for recruiting, then through transparent and standardized personnel policies. Set clear job descriptions, pay scales and expectations for promotion. Assign new hires a senior staffer as mentor.
And finally, there's a pep talk for the bosses — politicians who have in many cases spent way more time fundraising and glad-handing than they allot to fostering a healthy workplace.
"You need to become an ally to your team," the book says, addressing senators and House members, 74 percent of whom will be white next year. "That means working on yourself. It also means doing everything in your power to eliminate structural barriers for your staff. Most importantly, it means you will speak up for them, and you will commit to seeking ways to better understand their experiences."
The authors were Laura Maristany, a senior official at the Democracy Fund, which gives grants to promote a more robust political system, and Maria Robles Meier, a former House and Senate leadership aide and executive director of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.




















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.