It's been over six months since the 2020 presidential election, and Congress remains deeply at odds over how to build on the successes of the election while addressing some of the most significant challenges that were exposed. Intelligence officials warn that autocratic actors continue to engage in covert and overt efforts to influence U.S. elections. And according to at least one expert, the recent cyberattack on Colonial Pipeline, which carries gasoline, diesel and jet fuel from Texas to New York and moves about half of all fuel consumed on the East Coast, is just the latest reminder that the "core elements of our national infrastructure" remain vulnerable to cyberattack. Considering these events, there remains a strong need for congressional action.
With the Senate's version of the For the People Act at a standstill, and no clear path to passage in sight, Congress should narrow its focus to the individual components of S 1 (as it's also known) that have a better chance of becoming law, to help ensure our adversaries do not successfully interfere in future elections. Such a bill should focus on three policy domains that appear more ripe for bipartisan action: 1) limiting the influence of money in politics; 2) modernizing election infrastructure to increase security; and 3) preventing foreign interference in elections.
Each of these domains contains previously introduced pieces of legislation that originally had bipartisan support. This includes The Secure Election Act and the Prevent Elections Hacking Act, which would provide funds to states to bolster election security and protect election infrastructure from interference; the Honest Ads Act, which requires digital platforms to disclose political advertising; and the DISCLOSE Act, which mandates the disclosure of currently hidden independent election spending, thereby helping prevent foreign adversaries from meddling in America's political system.
These domains enjoy broad public support across the political spectrum. A recent survey found that the provisions limiting the influence of money in politics were supported by 86 percent of Democrats, 87 percent of independents and 80 percent of Republicans. Modernizing election infrastructure garnered 90 percent approval from Democrats, 83 percent approval from independents, and 80 percent approval from Republicans. And the provisions tailored toward preventing foreign interference in elections received 85 percent from Democrats, 82 percent from independents and 82 percent from Republicans.
Most importantly, such a bill could promote voter confidence and provide remedies for some of the toughest problems we continue to encounter with our elections. For example, adopting the Honest Ads Act could curb foreign influence by closing loopholes in online political advertising. Special counsel Robert Mueller discovered that Russian operatives used paid ads to influence the 2016 presidential election and spent more than $100,000 on digital ads in violation of the federal ban on foreign involvement in elections. And passing the Secure Elections Act would further streamline cybersecurity information sharing between federal and state agencies, support effective and efficient auditing, and facilitate a quicker push for the replacement of any voting system that does not produce a paper record of the vote.
State and local election officials continue to be asked to defend their systems against threats from autocratic actors, cyber criminals and purveyors of disinformation. While election officials were invaluable to ensuring a successful 2020 presidential election, many lack the personnel and resources to keep up with the growing risks to our elections systems on their own. Congress is uniquely positioned to help tackle these challenges and it is imperative that it continues to help support election officials and ensure that future elections are accessible, transparent and secure.
For those who believe that congressional involvement is unnecessary, or at least premature, consider what occurred in 2020: The coronavirus pandemic — and Congress' inaction — necessitated an unprecedented bailout of election offices with private money, money that proved essential to preventing an election meltdown, according to numerous election officials throughout the country.
Congressional intervention could help prevent a similar situation from recurring while ensuring our democracy remains resilient from malign actors. Inaction should not be an option.
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.