Kevin Frazier is an Assistant Professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. He previously clerked for the Montana Supreme Court.
Who decided the world should be disrupted by AI? Do you recall receiving a voter pamphlet on the pros and cons of AI development and deployment? Was I the only one who missed election day?
The truth of the matter is that the most impactful decisions about AI are being made by a few people with little to no input from the rest of us. That's a recipe for unrest if I've ever heard one.
A couple dozen AI researchers think there's a chance that AI could lead to unprecedented human flourishing. So, they have taken it upon themselves to develop ever more advanced AI models. At the same time, they have freely admitted that they increasingly have limited control over the technology itself and its potential side effects.
Is it any surprise that more than a few folks feel disenchanted with a governing system that purports to give power to the people but, in practice, empowers computer scientists to more or less unilaterally throw society into a potential doom loop?
It's as if we've been asked what we wanted for dinner, answered, "Thai," and then we're told we could decide between Pepperoni or Canadian Bacon. That's not a choice. That's not power. That's democratic gaslighting.
A functioning democracy should not leave decisions that may create irreversible harm for generations to a room of computer scientists.
In addition to allowing a small set of AI labs to introduce humankind-altering technology with no input from you and me, now our elected officials are asking these same unrepresentative and unelected tech leaders for advice on how best to regulate this emerging technology.
News from D.C. last week included headline after headline about Senator X consulting with tech leader Y. Missing from the headlines and, more importantly, from those meetings– representatives of the communities– foreign and domestic– who are going to bear the brunt of the good, bad, and ugly generated by AI.
It's again worth noting that some of us, perhaps many of us, think AI should not have been introduced at this point or at least not at this scale.
If you’re still with me and you still agree with me, you might be lamenting the fact that it’s already too late. We’re at the “Pepperoni” or “Canadian Bacon” stage of this decision making process, so whatever influence we wield now over the development of AI will have an insignificant impact on its long-term trajectory. Worse, there’s a chance that if we succeed in halting the deployment of AI models, China or [fill in the blank “bad guy” country] will just keep advancing their own models and eventually use those models against us in some war or economic contest.
Such arguments are flimsier than cheese-filled crust. I’d rather live in a U.S. that has strong communities where people perform meaningful work, still use their critical thinking skills, and trust their social institutions than a U.S. that leads the world in A.I.
In fact, I’d bet on that version of the U.S. to outlast and outcompete any other country that thinks technology is the key to human flourishing.
We need to shift the narrative from “how do we shape the development of AI?” to “when and under conditions should we permit limited uses of AI?” In the interim, it’s fine for our officials to consult AI experts and leaders but voters, not tech CEOs, should be the ones determining when and how AI changes our society.
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.