For many people, modern technology makes voting online a no-brainer. But implementing such a system nationwide presents many risks and challenges.
To assess the opportunities and pitfalls of remote digital voting, the Center for Security in Politics at the University of California, Berkeley announced Wednesday the formation of a working group that will rigorously study the issue. The goal is to develop best practices for election officials who want to offer safe and secure digital voting options.
While not yet widely used, digital voting is already an option for overseas military and civilian voters in 31 states and disabled voters in eight states. Proponents see it as an opportunity to make voting more accessible, especially during natural disasters or other emergencies.
The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the need to further study the feasibility of online voting. A recent report by the Election Assistance Commission found online balloting rose in popularity during the 2020 election, when voters were taking advantage of new opportunities. In last year's general election, more than 330 jurisdictions across eight states used mobile voting.
"How people think about — and participate — in voting is changing," said Janet Napolitano, founder and faculty director for the Center for Security in Politics. "We cannot turn a blind eye to the lessons of the 2020 election or overlook the voters who face inherent barriers to voting. We need academically rigorous, evidence-based standards that will guide the development of safe and secure remote balloting technology."
There are no national standards regulating the use of remote digital voting, which presents security and privacy concerns. The working group will dive into the potential challenges of casting a ballot online, such as voter and device authentication and vote verification.
"As technology changes, we must continually reassess opportunities to keep voting not only safe, secure and resilient, but also accessible for all Americans," said Mike Garcia, a cybersecurity expert and member of the working group.
Many election security experts strongly oppose remote digital voting because they say it is highly susceptible to hacking and does not provide the paper backup one gets when voting by mail or in person. And for election officials in jurisdictions where it is allowed for certain voters, there is little guidance on best practices.
"Having a report from a balanced group of experts can help inform the discussion, and importantly give guidance to election officials who are frequently caught in the middle, unsure of what is the 'least dangerous' path forward," said Jeremy Epstein, a voting security expert and member of the working group.
In addition to Epstein, the working group will consist of academic researchers, election administrators, cryptographers, and cybersecurity and election security experts, including:
- Ben Adida, executive director of VotingWorks.
- Michelle Bishop, voter access and engagement manager at the National Disability Rights Network.
- Allie Bones, assistant secretary of state for Arizona.
- Josh Benaloh, senior cryptographer at Microsoft Research.
- Henry Brady, professor in the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC, Berkeley.
- Anthony Fowler, professor in the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago.
- Michael Frias, CEO of Catalist.
- Mike Garcia, a cybersecurity expert who previously worked at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
- Matt Masterson, former senior cybersecurity advisor at the Department of Homeland Security.
- Amber McReynolds, founding CEO of the National Vote at Home Institute.
- Maurice Turner, cybersecurity fellow at the Alliance for Securing Democracy.
- Mark Weatherford, chief information security officer at AlertEnterprise and chief strategy officer at the National Cybersecurity Center.
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.