After an increase in threats to election workers during and following the 2020 election, a bipartisan group is calling on the Department of Justice to bolster and reinforce protections for the people who maintain the integrity of U.S. elections.
The Alliance for Securing Democracy and the Bipartisan Policy Center released a report last week with recommendations for improving the DOJ’s Election Threat Task Force. The report focused on reimagining federal laws and enhancing the DOJ’s guidance for law enforcement and local and state governments.
Threats against poll workers had been exacerbated by false, widespread claims of election fraud in the 2020 election. Two years later, as the country holds primaries and caucuses for the midterm elections, the danger of those threats has not waned.
In June, the DOJ released a report warning that calls for violence against poll workers is likely to increase as elections continue, designating that violence as part of their summary of terrorist threats to the country.
However, there is worry the Justice Department has not done enough to address the problem. That is leading to a number of issues - including the loss of experienced election officials who are leaving the field.
David Levine, a co-author of the report and the elections integrity fellow for the Alliance for Securing Democracy, said it’s critical to make sure the people on which American democracy rests feel safe and remain in their roles.
“What we want is the DOJ then to be able to provide guidance to others involved in these efforts… we want them to be aware of what other tools exist to help make election workers feel safe,” Levine said.
The main call to action of the report was for the DOJ to release guidance for local law enforcement, the FBI’s field offices and all others on the “front lines” of elections to show how federal laws can deter and hold accountable those threatening election officials.
The report states that such guidance would serve three purposes:
- show that the issue of threats to election workers remains a priority;
- ideate around safety mechanisms for poll workers, and;
- help explain when a threat can be prosecuted.
Even if a threat to an election official isn’t criminally prosecutable, there are still measures to take to ensure the safety of election workers. The DOJ’s Election Threat Task Force could be a resource for issuing guidelines for how legislatures can go about holding individuals civilly accountable for threats toward or intimidation of election workers, the report said.
Levine thinks the report offers a way for the DOJ to more effectively achieve the purpose of its task force and protect election security.
“People don’t perceive the folks that run our elections to be our stewards of democracy,” Levine said. “They see them as obstacles to their own political ends, and that’s just a really dangerous place to be.”
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.