If the ambitious "good government" legislative package put forward by the House Democrats was on a fast track to enactment, there'd be less urgency to launch The Fulcrum. But because the bill has no such bright prospects, there will be plenty for us to cover for the indefinite future.
The legislation's sweeping objectives – limit the influence of money on politics, ease access to the ballot box and intensify government ethics – reflect the aspirational themes of many advocacy groups assembled under the banner of "political reform."
Having gained 40 seats to reclaim the House majority in January, the Democrats will have more than enough muscle to push their bill halfway through the Capitol. But then it's set to come to a full and lasting stop on the doorstep of the still-Republican Senate, one of many measures that seem destined to show brief signs of life before dying in the newly divided Congress.
Thirteen Senate Republicans, or one quarter of their number, would have to cross Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and join the Democrats in order to advance the bill over a GOP leadership filibuster. That isn't even a remote possibility at this point. In fact, the bill is unlikely to make it anywhere near even a preliminary test vote.
The House bill is "not going to go anywhere in the Senate," the Kentucky Republican declared the day Congress returned for its post-Thanksgiving lame-duck session.
The most powerful House Democrats understood this even before McConnell said it so plainly. But they have decided to press ahead anyway, promoting their policy wishes without any cross-party compromise. As such, the bill has all the hallmarks of what's known in Washington as a political messaging measure – one that will help define the two parties differently from now until the next election almost two years from now.
A collection of provisions that might draw a measure of bipartisan support has been lashed to "poison pill" proposals that, while galvanizing the Democrats in salivating enthusiasm, makes the GOP collectively nauseated.
Some Democrats, though, are open to breaking the package apart so some provisions with Republican supporters have a shot at air time in the Senate – understanding full well that would doom the most far-reaching provisions, including a restoration of the heart of the Voting Rights Act and language to squeeze "dark money" out of campaigns.
Dozens of incoming first-year House Democrats campaigned on a platform to "fix" the political system. Not only do they want to make good on those vows, but they want to do so quickly to persuade voters they'll tackle other hot-button issues – from gun control to health care — without being beholden to big donors.
"These are transformative reforms that we're putting forward," said Rep. John Sarbanes of Maryland, the leadership's major domo for the effort. "It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a bold, proud declaration to the American people, 'We get it, we hear you.'"
The legislation is going to be designated HR 1 as something of an honorific, signaling its symbolic primacy in the eyes of the newly empowered Democratic majority. (HR 1 in the current, Republican-run Congress was a bill to revamp the tax code that morphed into the 2017 Trump tax cut.) But the name does nothing to convey any place at the head of the legislative calendar; there's no guarantee, at this point, the package will be the first piece of legislation put before the House in the new year.
In fact, it has not even been formally introduced and is still subject to alteration before the 116 th Congress convenes on Jan. 3. But, at this point, these are the principal provisions:
- Reinstates a central provision of the Voting Rights Act, struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2013. Known as Section 4, the provision set the ground rules for determining which parts of the country have such a bad record of racial discrimination in voting that every decision to do with elections in those states or counties should be subject to federal approval, or "preclearance." The effect would be to end several restrictive voter ID laws that states, mainly in the South, have imposed in the five years since the court ruling.
- Requires states to eliminate the role of their legislatures in House redistricting and create independent commissions for drawing congressional maps.
- Enacts a nationwide system that would automatically register all U.S. citizens, after they turn 18, to vote whenever they conduct business with any government agency, such as renewing a driver's license or showing up for jury duty.
- Mandates regular federal investigations into the security of voting systems against interference by foreign entities, with funding to help states upgrade their election hardware and software.
Campaign Finance
- Creates federal subsidies for House and Senate candidates, through which the government would contribute $6,000 for every $1,000 raised in relatively small donations from individuals.
- Increases public disclosure requirements for non-candidate political expenditures, including at the end of TV ads. (The aim is to shed light on the surge of "dark money" unleashed by the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling that independent campaign spending is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment.)
Ethics
- Requires major party nominees for president to make public their most recent three years of tax returns within a month of securing their nominations.
- Limits first class air travel by members of Congress and the executive branch.
- Bans the use of federal funds to settle sexual harassment claims against members of Congress.
- Prohibits members of Congress from receiving bonus payments from their former employers and from serving on boards of for-profit enterprises.
- Bolsters the oversight authority of the Office of Government Ethics.
- Increases congressional oversight of foreign lobbying.
- Creates the first binding ethical code of conduct for Supreme Court justices.
Correction: This article was updated to properly describe the bill's campaign finance provision targeting dark money.
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.