Key facts
- Trump's claim
- Only his own morality and mind can stop him
- Ukraine promise
- Vowed to end Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours
- Tariff term
- TACO trade – 'Trump always chickens out'
- Document author
- David King, businessman and caddy for Gary Player
- Claim in document
- Trump is 'the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet'
- Iran's role
- Middling power constraining Trump via Strait of Hormuz and pain tolerance
Background
In January, the New York Times asked President 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.”
Writing in the Los Angeles Times, columnist Jackie Calmes draws on Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” to argue that Trump’s statement exemplifies the ancient Greek concept of hubris. In Greek thought, hubris was an insolent act that offended the gods by claiming abilities reserved for supreme beings, and it was often contrasted with xenia, the obligation to treat strangers with respect.
Current situation
Calmes contends that Trump’s claim has been disproven by events. She notes that he vowed to end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours but has proved powerless to do so. She also points to his repeated hesitation on tariffs, which led Wall Street to adopt the term “TACO trade” — “Trump always chickens out” — and to concessions to China, including rescinding tariffs and allowing the purchase of computer chips.
The column highlights Trump’s embrace of a document by “Presidential Historian David King” — actually a businessman and occasional caddy for golfer Gary Player — that claimed Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” Calmes compares Trump to historical figures such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin, who believed in their own omnipotence and were ultimately defeated.
Calmes argues that Iran, a “comparatively middling power,” has become a greater constraint on Trump than his own morality or mind. Iran’s ability to absorb punishment and control the Strait of Hormuz, combined with fears of oil price spikes, Gulf state anger, diminishing weapons supplies, and domestic unpopularity, have limited Trump’s actions more effectively than international law or expert opinion.
| Figure | Comparison |
|---|---|
| Alexander the Great | Compared favorably to Trump |
| Attila the Hun | Compared favorably to Trump |
| William the Conqueror | Compared favorably to Trump |
| Napoleon Bonaparte | Compared favorably to Trump; had victories before defeat |
| Joseph Stalin | Compared favorably to Trump |
| Genghis Khan | Compared favorably to Trump |
| Mao Tse Tung | Compared favorably to Trump |
| Adolph Hitler | Compared favorably to Trump; had victories before defeat |
| Vladimir Lenin | Compared favorably to Trump |
Impacts
The column suggests that Trump’s rhetoric about destroying Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate shows weak moral restraint, yet Iran’s tolerance for pain and refusal to validate his victory claims leave him in a Sisyphean struggle. This undercuts his narrative that his presidency would make people “tired of winning.”
Calmes writes that the limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by forces less formidable than those that defeated Napoleon or Hitler. The combined pressures of oil prices, Gulf state reactions, weapons supplies, and domestic opinion are doing the work that international law, congressional oversight, and foreign policy experts cannot or will not do.
Future outlook
Scenario analysis: The possibilities below are not certain predictions.
Calmes invokes Sophocles’ warning that “Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue,” suggesting that Trump’s hubris may invite correction from forces greater than his will. If Iran continues to resist and Trump’s domestic and international constraints persist, his predicament could deepen.
Alternatively, if Trump adjusts his approach — for instance, by honoring deals or tempering his claims of victory — he might avoid the fate of mythic heroes. However, the column offers no indication that such a change is likely, and it remains unclear how the standoff with Iran will evolve.
The column’s analysis is one perspective; other commentators have framed Trump through different mythological lenses, such as the Icarus–Daedalus dynamic or as a Dionysian presence in democratic politics. These views suggest that his apparent hubris may not lead simply to downfall, but could reflect broader systemic incentives in modern governance.
Source: latimes.com
