Kevin Frazier is an Assistant Professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. He previously clerked for the Montana Supreme Court.
Elections are often described as being “referendums” on recent policy decisions. The 2010 midterm supposedly signaled the public’s views on the Affordable Care Act. Similarly, the 2006 midterm theoretically amounted to a vote on the Iraq War. If Congress rushes to regulate artificial intelligence, then the upcoming election could, in part, be a proxy election on that AI policy.
Given the potential of AI to upend our economy, alter our culture, and hinder our democracy, why not actually put the topic of AI on the ballot?
The stakes are simply too high to only give the people an indirect vote on what may be the most consequential regulatory challenge yet to face the United States. Now’s the time for the Biden Administration and a multitude of U.S. representatives and senators to make good on their commitment to shape AI policy in response to the will of the American people. The best way for them to practice what they preach is to hold a national advisory referendum on when and how to regulate AI.
Let’s get some important questions out of the way. Would an AI referendum be legal? Yes, Congress can pass a statute to place a non-binding advisory question on the ballot. Pursuant to the "necessary and proper clause" or, as the founder's called it, "the sweeping clause," Congress has the authority to exercise all implied and incidental powers "conducive" to the "beneficial exercise" of one its enumerated powers, such as the regulation of interstate commerce and the promotion of the general welfare. A nonbinding referendum related to a technology that has substantial, ongoing, and potentially irreversible economic consequences would surely fall within Congress’s expansive mandate.
One other preliminary question -- is there any historical support for Congress exercising such power? Yes, quite a bit. Throughout history both Democrats and Republicans have considered and introduced legislation advocating for a national referendum on important policy questions. Nearly a century ago, Democrats weighed asking the American people if they supported the nation joining the League of Nations. In 1964, Rep. Charles Gubser, a Republican from California, sponsored a resolution to hold an annual nationwide opinion poll on key policy questions.
Even high-ranking officials have recognized the viability and value of a national referendum. Case in point, in 1980, House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt proposed a modified version of Rep. Gubser's idea--calling for a biannual poll on three designated issues. It’s also worth noting that many Americans are accustomed to voting on initiatives and referendums; a majority of states afford the public some form of direct democracy.
Finally, the most important question: why is an AI referendum necessary? First, the nationwide impact of AI on nearly every aspect of our day-to-day lives--from education to health care, the economy to transportation--makes this a question too big to leave up to a handful of tech billionaires and career politicians. Though the referendum would be nonbinding on Congress, the results would give voters a chance to see if their representatives actually listen to their constituents.
Second, placing a series of questions pertaining to what values and goals should inform AI regulation would spur more concrete discussions on the topic. For instance, we may never have precise estimates of which professions will be displaced by AI and when, but surely we can and should try harder to provide the public with such information so that they can see if the supposed benefits of AI really outweigh the costs.
Third, this approach would prevent Congress from getting ahead of itself (and the public) by enacting legislation that not only diverges from the will of the public but also has long-term and irreversible unintended consequences. Big regulatory undertakings are akin to aircraft carriers--hard to steer in a new direction.
Rushing to regulate AI is not only unwise from a policy point of view; it’s also profoundly democratic. Let’s give the people a chance to directly inform how Congress governs what may be the most consequential technological advance of our time. #LetUsDecideAI
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.