Nearly five months ago, insurrectionists stormed the Capitol, threatened the lives of lawmakers and attempted to subvert American democracy. But GOP opposition is likely to stonewall an investigation into this attack.
Failure to approve a commission investigating the events of Jan. 6 would signal significant dysfunction and polarization in Congress, further eroding the public's faith in the political system.
Following the House's bipartisan vote to approve an investigation commission last week, the Senate is anticipated to bring the legislation to the chamber floor Thursday. But ahead of the vote, many Republicans remained opposed or undecided, casting uncertainty on the prospects of meeting the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a procedural test.
Co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and GOP Rep. John Katko of New York, the bill would establish a commission consisting of 10 members, evenly appointed by the two parties' leadership in the House and Senate. Modeled after the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, this body would have the power to receive evidence and issue subpoenas.
The commission would be required to hold public hearings and submit a final report to Congress and President Biden by the end of the year.
Despite opposition from GOP House leaders including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, 35 Republicans joined Democrats in approving the commission last Wednesday. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has also come out against the probe, putting pressure on Republicans to fall in line with party leadership.
Failing to receive support from both major parties would be a noteworthy departure from historical precedent. Following both Watergate and 9/11, Congress overwhelmingly supported establishing investigative committees.
Ambassador Tim Roemer, a Democrat and former member of Congress who served on the Sept. 11 commission, emphasized during a press call Thursday morning that the creation of a Jan. 6 commission should not be a partisan issue.
"This is not about left or right. It's about right and wrong. It was wrong for people to violently attack and assault our police officers, our legislators and custodians and staff, to disrupt a peaceful transfer of power, plain wrong," Roemer said during the call, which was organized by the nonpartisan reform group Issue One. "It's not about Democrats and Republicans. It's about the constitution and our Capitol, and the sanctity of that Capitol."
Republican Chuck Hagel, a former senator and secretary of defense during President Barack Obama's first term, also participated in the call and echoed Roemer's remarks. Hagel said all senators should vote according to their oath of office, not political party or whomever the president is at the time.
"In representative government, if you stay close to your oath of office and don't get things confused, that's your North Star," he said. "It's not a Republican or Democratic vote, it's an American vote."
If the Jan. 6 commission does receive enough votes to pass, it could be thanks to a last-minute amendment pushed by Sen. Susan Collins. The Maine Republican's primary sticking point is making sure the chair and vice chair of the commission jointly appoint the staff, rather than do so separately. If the bill is approved with Collins' amendment, it would be sent back to the House for reconciliation.
But the more likely scenario is that the vote will be subject to the first Republican filibuster of this legislative session. Utilizing the procedural move, which was conceived as a way to ensure the majority doesn't run roughshod over the minority, would give progressive Democrats fodder to reignite their efforts to eliminate what has become merely a blocking tactic rather than a tool for forcing compromise.
Notably, Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the two Democrats largely responsible for the filibuster remaining intact, issued a joint statement Tuesday in support of the Jan. 6 commission. They called it "a critical step to ensuring our nation never has to endure an attack at the hands of our countrymen again."
"We implore our Senate Republican colleagues to work with us to find a path forward on a commission to examine the events of January 6th," Sinema and Manchin said.
Whatever the Senate decides Thursday, Hagel said, "history is going to reflect on this day pretty clearly." Not having Congress involved in investigating the insurrection would be "a terrible blackmark" on the institution, he added.
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.