The House of Representatives on Thursday passed legislation requiring the use of paper ballots and providing grants for replacing voting systems and improving security, but the bill stands minimal chance of advancing any further.
Everyone in the Democratic majority voted for the SAFE Act – for Securing America's Federal Elections – but only one Republican did so.
Similar Republican resistance in the Senate, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at the urging of President Donald Trump, means the bill looks to be shelved for the indefinite future. But Democrats in the House wanted to make a show of passing it nonetheless as a way of sending a message they care about protecting the 2020 presidential vote from foreign hackers.
"Every American, no matter their choice in politics, should know their vote will be counted as cast," said California Democrat Zoe Lofgren, the author of the legislation and chairwoman of the panel that oversees federal elections.
The bill is a response to Russian attacks on U.S. election systems during the 2016 election cycle, including intrusions into voter registration systems.
Rodney Davis of Illinois, the top Republican on Lofgren's panel, criticized the bill as a "top-down federally mandated approach" that dictates to local governments how to respond to election security concerns. He blamed the Obama administration for not responding as soon as intelligence officials began to report on Russian attempts to hack U.S. election systems.
"This bill is simply another partisan bill by the majority," he said.
Davis called for resumption of negotiations on a bipartisan bill, but Lofgren said Democrats had "tried in vain" to negotiate with Republicans and were not successful.
The requirement for paper ballots is intended to prevent fraud and to allow voters to ensure their votes on accurately recorded. The bill also authorizes $1.3 billion for grants to implement new voting systems and to carry out security improvements. Those funds would still have to be appropriated by Congress.
Meanwhile the House also passed on Thursday, again on a mostly partisan vote of 224-196, an appropriations bill that includes $16.2 million to operate the Election Assistance Commission in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. That is a 75 percent increase over the current year. In addition, the bill includes $600 million for the commission to dole out to states for election improvements, almost doubling the $380 million set aside for that purpose in this year's budget.
The bill is a sprawling package that sets spending levels for a long roster of agencies under the heading of financial services and general government. It now goes to the Senate, where interest in advancing the annual budget bills is stronger than in addressing politically fraught policy measures.
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.