Donovan is the support specialist at the Redistricting Data Hub. McBride is the redistricting and voting rights policy specialist at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Already, this redistricting cycle has been like no other in recent memory. A global pandemic and a fight to include a question about citizenship in the decennial census caused the Census Bureau to announce it will be unable to meet its statutory deadlines for delivering the data. Although a few legislatures have begun drafting and even passing maps, the delay means that most states will not begin redistricting until five months later than anticipated. Several states have already begun to have hearings, and will hopefully follow up with more after the pre-Sept. 30 data files release.
In addition, legislative and congressional redistricting will be conducted by citizen commissions in 11 states, up from seven in 2010. Citizen commissions are seen by many reformers as not only a means to greater public input and community representation, but also as a limit to gerrymandering. And the trend seems likely to continue: According to the Brennan Center, proposals to create redistricting commissions were the most common type of redistricting reform considered by legislatures in 2020, including 18 that specifically called for citizen commissions.
For those not directly engaged in the process, there is a third and critical difference in the process this cycle: widespread public access to nonpartisan data, tools and information necessary to engage meaningfully in the process.
Drawing legally compliant district maps requires a tremendous amount of data, which is often time consuming to collect and labor intensive to process. Legislators have staff on hand to collect and process this data, as well asprovide technical support and training. They also have taxpayer dollars to buy proprietary mapping software, allowing them to intricately manipulate district lines to produce friendly districts. Because the data and tools are difficult to acquire, the ability to suggest more legally compliant maps or analyze proposed maps for gerrymandering has been out of reach for all but the most well-resourced groups.
This time, however, individuals and organizations can turn to the nonpartisan Redistricting Data Hub, a one-stop shop for high-quality redistricting data. For instance, all states require compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The RDH website hosts validated precinct boundaries joined with election results, which are used for racially polarized voting analyses, an essential step in assessing VRA compliance. RDH also hosts American Community Survey and voter file data with racial and ethnic information, as well as population projections, that can be used to assess how the demographics of a district might change over time.
Numerous states also require redistricting to respect "communities of interest," a criterion that is generally viewed as a door to more equitable representation. These communities are often subjectively defined, but testimony in support of a community can benefit from quantitative evidence found in the ACS, voter file data and population projections.
But data will only get you halfway there — access to mapping software and the technical skill to use them are also necessary to draw and analyze maps.
Once again, this cycle is different, in that there are several high-quality redistricting tools available for free online, including Dave's Redistricting App, DistrictBuilder, Districtr, Representable and the QGIS Redistricting Plugin. RDH has partnered with these organizations to provide demonstrations on how to use their tools, and you can find recordings of these sessions on the RDH website. And anyone can send questions about redistricting data, mapping tools, and other aspects of the process to info@redistrictingdatahub.org; knowledgeable, nonpartisan and friendly staff will respond within one business day.
Only time will tell how effective these changes are in preventing gerrymandering. But there are clear reasons for hope this time around, as long as the public uses these tools to their advantage. If you spent the last 10 years bemoaning gerrymandering, now's your chance to make sure you don't spend the next decade doing the same. The data, tools and support you need to effectively participate and advocate for a fair and representative redistricting are all publicly available online for free from the Redistricting Data Hub. Use our resources and let's advocate for fair districts!
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.