When you join the lobbying profession, you know immediately you become Public Enemy No. 1. Frankly, you can't blame the public for feeling this way.
As a profession we let Washington define who we are and how we operate. We don't have a bully pulpit the way candidates, members of Congress and presidents do. We do not have a public forum where the people can hear us.
When attacks come, we bury our heads in the sand and don't stand up for ourselves and what we do. We simply hide and wait for the onslaught to pass. It's easy for elected officials to blame lobbyists for the dysfunction in Washington, the alternative being for them to look in the mirror and point the finger at themselves for their direct failures on behalf of those who elected them. When in doubt, create a boogeyman the public hates or distrusts more than you.
When you become a lobbyist, you know that every election year you will become the scapegoat for all the failures of both Congress and the incumbent president's administration. You know that in one breath members of Congress and the president will blame you for a policy stalemate — and then in the next breath call you and ask you for a campaign contribution. These same elected leaders will tell their constituents how they need to halt the influence that lobbyists have in Washington. But when they leave their campaign rallies, they will call us asking for help on their campaign.
The reality is that it's good politics to trash a profession the public does not know much about. It's good business to spread lies, and only then to turn to us and use us to get you elected. Frankly, shame on people in our business for allowing it.
Joe Biden campaigned on improving ethics in the capital, but now that he's been elected that seems like it was just a tagline to get votes. He is imposing restrictions on lobbyists serving in his administration and on government boards, yet his transition team is filled with big-name lobbyists. His team has said that not all lobbyists will be banned. Some will be given waivers to serve.
My questions for the president-elect are: Why some and not all? If our profession is the problem in Washington, as you claim, then why does your team include lobbyists? Why the need for waivers? Why not simply ban all of us, not just some of us?
The answer is simple. You have been in elected politics for more than 40 years and you know the true value of what we do — and the information and expertise we will offer you and your new administration. So, while it may get you a good public reception to claim you are banning lobbyists, then quietly you will enlist us. It is the Washington way.
But while Biden's policy discriminates against a class of people because of what they do, it makes exceptions for people close to you or who have been big donors to you over the years. The American people deserve better than this. Frankly, our profession deserves to be treated better than this.
The next president campaigned on the promise to create a diverse administration. Some will say he is doing just that. I take a different view. The policies he is putting in place not only discriminate against a whole class of professionals, but they also tell lobbyists of color they are not welcome to serve in the new administration. At a time when we should be celebrating public service and are asking corporate America to be more inclusive, Biden is doing the exact opposite. His bans limit lobbyists of color from creating opportunities to be selected to top positions in government and their chosen fields. That is exactly what the president-elect has criticized corporate America for doing.
As his new administration begins, I would urge Biden to reconsider his lobbyist ban for the reasons here. Barack Obama did much the same after he was elected president a dozen years ago and it turned into a black eye for his administration, which relaxed its rules six years later in the aftermath of an unfavorable federal appeals court ruling.
Since 2009 we have seen a growing trend of people taking themselves off the lists of registered federal lobbyists so they could serve in the Obama and Trump administrations. We suspect that will continue under a Biden administration unless he changes course.
Such shadow lobbying is a real problem — and one our profession is fighting against. The new president should work with us on creating policies that create more transparency, not less. But an outright ban is going to continue the rise of shadow lobbyists at a time when the American people are tired of corruption in government.
Please, Mr. President-elect: Work with us and not against us. I would urge you to be honest in your policies. If you ban lobbyists, you need to ban all lobbyists, not just some. You need to return the campaign donations you have taken during your campaign to every lobbyist or political action committee. You need to stop taking money from lobbyists or corporate America for your inauguration. And you need a universal diversity and inclusion policy that is inclusive of all, not just some.
As a profession, we want to work with you on transparency. We want to work with you on ethics reform. This is only possible if your administration is open and honest about your policies and does not create carve-outs for big donors or close friends. You cannot hold the rest of us accountable if you are not going to follow your own lead.
Leadership starts at the top with one policy for all, not just some well-connected Washington insiders.
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.