The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.
The American flag at the Capitol Building almost flew at half-staff during Trump’s inauguration. Should that be allowed?
The Bill
The Honor Inauguration Day Act would require the American flag be flown at its highest peak, never half-staff, on a presidential inauguration day.
The House bill was introduced on January 13 by Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-TX15). No Senate companion version appears to have been introduced yet.
Context
Following the death of a president or former president, the American flag is required to fly at half-staff for 30 days at all federal buildings and facilities. One of the most prominent such federal buildings is the U.S. Capitol.
When former President Jimmy Carter died on December 29, 2024, that meant the flag was supposed to fly at half-staff until January 28, 2025. That period would have included Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration at the Capitol on January 20.
Trump protested this possibility. “The Democrats are all giddy about our magnificent American flag potentially being at ‘half mast’ during my Inauguration,” Trump posted to Truth Social on January 3. “Nobody wants to see this, and no American can be happy about it. Let’s see how it plays out.”
How it actually played out: Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA4), who only had authority over the U.S. Capitol Building, ordered flags raised there on January 20 only. It almost didn’t happen, though—the weather in D.C. was so cold that particular morning that the flags’ cords froze.
Shortly after taking office, Trump ordered that the American flag be raised for the rest of the day at all federal facilities, from the White House to embassies overseas. He ordered flags lowered back to half-staff in Carter’s memory once again from January 21 to 28.
While Trump’s proclamation declared it the new policy “on this and all future inauguration days,” that’s not actually codified in federal law, so it could be instantly overturned by a future president. Thus, this bill from Congress.
What Supporters Say
Supporters argue that on a day intended for happiness and unification, the flag shouldn’t be flown in a position of sorrow and mourning.
“President Biden has decided… to fly the flag at half-staff during a successor's inauguration. Meaning, when President Trump is sworn in, the flag will not be fully raised,” Rep. De La Cruz said in a press release. “Inauguration Day celebrates the will of the American people and their sacred right to vote and determine their own governance. It is not a day for the flag to be at half-staff.”
What Opponents Say
Opponents counter that the 30-day tradition has always been followed. Indeed, during Richard Nixon’s second inauguration in 1973, flags at the Capitol flew at half-staff for former President Harry S. Truman’s death a few weeks prior. Eerie photos show the bizarre visual of an inauguration with half-staff flags waving, a sight seen neither before nor since.
Biden’s White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked whether Biden would unilaterally act to raise the flags on January 20. She replied with one word: “No.”
Odds of Passage
The bill has attracted 17 cosponsors, all Republicans. It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee, controlled by Republicans.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: Panama Canal Repurchase Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: Make Greenland Great Again Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: renaming Gulf of Mexico as “Gulf of America”
Congress Bill Spotlight: constitutional amendment letting Trump be elected to a third term
Congress Bill Spotlight: adding Donald Trump’s face to Mount Rushmore
Congress Bill Spotlight: BAD DOGE Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: Repealing Trump’s National Energy Emergency
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.