In an unusual show of bipartisan collaboration among campaign operatives, seven leading political consultants from each party have united to endorse efforts to boost the regulation of online political advertising.
The continued absence of disclosure rules about who's paying for such ads, which were central to Russian interference in the 2016 election, "pose substantial threats to vital democratic norms and institutions," the group said in a statement this week. "The funding sources of digital political ads on all platforms and all systems must be made transparent. Voters are entitled to know who is paying for these ads."
The 14 operatives issued their declaration after a meeting convened by the University of Chicago. The group urged everyone in their industry to voluntarily disclose the identities of clients who pay for social media spots.
And, while they did not endorse any government action, what they are proposing is effectively what would be mandated by both legislation and regulations that have recently stalled.
The bill enjoys some bipartisan backing in Congress and the support of most Democratic presidential candidates, but it has been shelved under Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's policy of keeping all measures designed to enhance election security and integrity off the Senate floor. Draft regulations were percolating at the Federal Election Commission before its membership shrank to three this fall, meaning it lacks a quorum for altering policy .
Both would subject paid political advertising to the same disclosure and disclaimer regulations as TV and radio spots. The bill would make Facebook, Google and other big-time social media platforms disclose the identity of those who spend as little as $500 on political ads on their platforms. The proposed FEC regulations would require the funders' identities to be displayed on the ads.
The statement from the 14 operatives did urge the government to focus on transparency measures that "target bad actors" without forcing "unnecessary disclosure of legitimate competitive information."
"Unfortunately, American policy makers, to date, have been largely unable to effectively address these threats, at least in part because they have been unable to identify, in today's highly polarized and contentious political environment, meaningful principles and policies that might receive the bipartisan support necessary for adoption," the seven Republicans and seven Democrats said in offering their proposals as a starting point.
The group also urged all campaign ad makers and political consultants to disavow any messaging that "incites violence or that is maliciously 'manufactured' to intentionally misrepresent actual events."
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.