Kull is Program Director of the Program for Public Consultation.
Lewitus is a Research Analyst at Voice of the People whose research interests focus on policy, public opinion and democracy reform.
Thomas is Vice President of Voice of the People and Director of Voice of the People Action. Thomas is an organizer and government relations professional with years of experience working in campaigns, advocacy, and policy research.
The Federal government has failed to address many issues facing our nation, largely due to increasing partisan polarization that results in near-constant gridlock. Some speculate this polarization is a reflection of the American public. However, Voice of the People has found that majorities of Republicans and Democrats actually agree on numerous positions–nearly 200 as of now. These surveys, conducted mostly by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, differ from standard polls in that they provide respondents with background information and pro-con arguments, before they give their recommendations.
The level of trust in Congress and the Federal government in general has been decreasing for decades. A rising perception that officials too often act for their own benefit, rather than the public’s, is a key driver. The public wants to limit government officials from engaging in self-serving activities that can steer their priorities away from serving the public. Specifically, overwhelming bipartisan majorities favor proposals that would more severely regulate the ability of officials to trade stocks while in office, and become lobbyists afterwards – both of which can influence how officials legislate and govern.
Members of Congress trading stocks while in office has been criticized for many years, but the issue was given new life with accusations of Members making lucrative purchases of pharmaceutical stocks based on insider information on Covid-19 vaccines. Currently, the only regulation on stock-trading is a mandatory disclosure rule, along with the general law against insider trading. Numerous bills have been put forward to fully ban trading individual stocks by Members, as well as senior officials in the Executive Branch. None of these proposals have received a vote in Congress, yet are supported by overwhelming bipartisan majorities of the public.
Over eight-in-ten support prohibiting Members of Congress, and their live-in family, from trading stocks in individual companies (National 86%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 88%), as well as the President, Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices (National 87%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 90%).
However, a Congressional proposal to ban stock-trading for all federal employees, including Post Office workers, does not receive majority support, with just 40% in favor, including just 42% of Republicans, 37% of Democrats and 42% of independents.
Alongside regulations on what officials can do while in office, the public supports regulations on officials’ activities after they leave office, particularly lobbying the government they just worked for. There has, for a long time, been a concern that the temptation of well-paid lobbying jobs can cause officials to govern in ways more in line with the will of their future employer rather than the public. Currently there are some regulations on this: many former officials must wait at least one year before they can become a lobbyist. This has, however, not stopped the “revolving door”. Over the last fifty years, the number of Members of Congress that became lobbyists has increased almost tenfold. Nearly half of the Members of the 115th Congress (2018-19) who left office took lobbying jobs.
Numerous bills have been put forward to increase waiting periods for former officials, and in one case prohibit lobbying for life. Despite those proposals having large bipartisan public support, none have passed Congress.
Extending the lobbying waiting period for Members to five years is favored by 65% of voters (Republicans 65%, Democrats 67%). Extending it for other federal officials also receives large bipartisan support; for senior Executive Branch officials to five years is favored by 71% (Republicans 72%, Democrats 72%); and for senior Congressional staffers to two years is favored by 74% (Republicans 75%, Democrats 75%). When it comes to lobbying the US government on behalf of a foreign government, the public goes further: 71% support prohibiting senior Executive Branch officials from lobbying for a foreign government for the rest of their life (National 71%, Republicans 71%, Democrats 71%).
A list of nearly 200 policies with bipartisan support can be found on Voice of the People’s Common Ground of the American People website.
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.