The policy battle for voting rights is reaching a fever pitch. Republicans are arguing vociferously that greater safeguards are needed to prevent widespread voter fraud, with a wave of state legislative efforts that limit mail-in balloting, restrict early voting windows and reduce locations for easy ballot drop-off. We witnessed Texas Democratic lawmakers become fugitives from justice as they fled their state in protest over proposed restrictive legislation. Congressional Democrats are fighting for expanded voter access through the For the People Act, which would create national safeguards against barriers making it harder for many citizens to vote.
The discussion is now framed as a zero-sum game, one that pits security versus access. For me, there's only one factor that matters: The strength of our democracy depends upon the ability of our citizens to have their voices heard. But the devil remains in the details. Simplistically pitting security versus access is not only inaccurate, it may result in more people having their right to vote restricted.
A case in point is the wording of the For the People Act. In their battle to protect and expand voting rights by increasing polling places and vote-by-mail, Democrats have inserted language that could end up making access for millions of people more difficult.
Tucked into hundreds of pages of the bill is the following language: "Nothing in this section may be construed to allow the marking or casting of ballots over the internet." This attempt to enhance security by creating a national mandate for paper-only voting is an anti-technology provision that could stop progress many states have made to deploy an evidence-based approach to utilize proven technology and improve access for people who need it. In response to Covid last year, many states passed laws to utilize secure remote voting options to protect the rights of disabled citizens and overseas military members. This one line could create significant barriers for persons who need assistive technology to cast their ballot, and makes it more difficult for overseas military to have their votes counted when sending paper ballots from overseas.
Military personnel, overseas citizens and people living with disabilities vote in far lower numbers than the population at large. History has shown time and again that those who don't exercise their voice at the polls have their needs ignored by elected officials. Banning technology in the name of security is myopic, halting proven methods we already use in the voting process. Disabled voters, for example, use Americans with Disabilities Act-mandated assistive technology when they vote in person at polling places. Overseas military currently use fax machines and email, which are less secure and lack privacy. The proposed language could either limit them to mail-in ballots that often don't reach clerks' office in time to be counted, or possibly restrict the utilization of current email or faxed-in balloting.
Last month, we saw a great example of a bipartisan effort to improve access for active members of the military. It is no surprise that the co-sponsor of the bill is Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a combat veteran. With Republican Sen. John Cornyn, she introduced the Reducing Barriers for Military Voters Act, which would establish a secure electronic voting system for active-duty service members stationed in hazardous duty zones or rotational deployments.
While the Democrats have taken on a generational battle over protecting voting rights, they may be committing legislative malpractice by actually impeding voters' ability to cast a ballot through existing and proven technology that is highly secure, ADA compliant and offers privacy that is not afforded within a "paper only" framework.
Good legislation should mandate outcomes (e.g. a safe, accessible, and auditable election) rather than specific methods. Restricting remote marking and delivery of ballots utilizing state-of-the-art technology could mean that, in the future, millions of people who cannot safely walk into a polling station will be denied their most important right our constitution provides.
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.