Adair is Communications and Operations Associate at Stand Up America, a pro-democracy organization.
A county election worker in Oregon recently found himself in an unsettling situation during his rounds collecting ballots from dropboxes. A disgruntled woman, driving erratically, had been following him for hours. As the situation escalated, the woman began shouting that she had a gun and would continue filming him doing his job. Unfortunately, this election worker is not alone.
One in six local elections officials in America have experienced threats while on the job. The dedicated citizens who keep our elections running smoothly face an increasingly hostile political environment. While they’ve repeatedly sounded the alarm about the need for increased security funding, their calls for help have mostly fallen on deaf ears.
Election workers serve on the front lines of our democracy, helping to ensure every American can exercise their freedom to vote. They do the often thankless work while acting as facilitators of our elections—from collecting ballots from dropboxes to opening polling locations in the early hours of morning. Before 2020, election workers carried out their duties largely unnoticed, but this drastically changed after Donald Trump falsely accused them of rigging the presidential election for Joe Biden.
Trump’s lies exposed election workers to escalating threats despite the non-partisan nature of their work. As a communications professional at a national democracy organization, I monitor election news trends and have witnessed a dramatic spike in threats to election workers over the last year. Many election workers feel unprotected: in fact, only 27% say the federal government is doing a good job supporting their needs. It’s not surprising they feel this way when their calls for much-needed election security funding have been ignored by Congress.
Because of these threats, election workers are leaving the profession at a disturbing rate. A recent survey found that one in five local elections officials is unlikely to continue serving through 2024. Election administration will suffer if institutional knowledge is lost en masse before the next presidential election.
The federal government’s lack of urgency is astounding. The U.S. Department of Justice established the Election Threats Task Force in 2021, but a year later, out of more than the 1,000 cases it reviewed, there was only one individual tried and sentenced. President Joe Biden’s 2024 budget called for just $5 billion in election infrastructure funding over the next ten years, even as a bipartisan coalition of state and local officials estimates they’ll need $53 billion to safely and effectively administer elections over the next decade.
Our leaders on Capitol Hill have fallen even shorter. Congress appropriated just $75 million for election administration in fiscal year 2023. While this year’s appropriations process is ongoing, House Republicans have advanced legislation zeroing out election security funding altogether, leaving state and local elections officials to fend for themselves. The Senate did not follow their lead and included $75 million. However, this is still significantly less than the $400 million election administrators hoped for to make important improvements and repairs before the 2024 election.
In 2022, with conspiracy theories swirling, election officials understood that voters had more questions about their work. Rather than shy away, most administrators seized the opportunity to communicate with the public frequently and transparently. This dedication resulted in a dramatic increase in Americans’ trust in election administration compared with 2020. As election workers repair our democracy, the least Congress could do is invest in them and in our elections.
Some states have taken steps to shield their election workers from intimidation and harm. Oregon, Colorado, and Maine enacted or increased penalties for threats against election workers. But a nationwide threat requires a nationwide response.
It is alarming that a job once conducted in obscurity has now become a target for harassment, threats, and conspiracy theorists. Election workers serve on the front lines of American democracy, and Congress must do all it can to ensure they have the critical resources they need to stay safe while administering our elections safely and peacefully. Safeguarding Americans’ freedom to vote also means protecting democracy’s vital entry point for every American: their local election office.




















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.