Trump's America: The Midterm Rebellion – A Political Humiliation with Global Consequences

Blog post description.

DONALD TRUMPUSAINFORMED INSIGHTNEWSELECTIONPOLITICSDEMOCRATSREPUBLICANS

11/6/202633 min read

There are political defeats, there are humiliating political defeats, and then there is the sort of electoral disaster that leaves a president contemplating whether the best response is to reconsider his policies or spend several hours discussing the decorative merits of marble flooring.

Welcome to Donald Trump's America, November 2026.

The United States has just experienced a remarkable midterm election, with voters delivering a devastating rebuke to Trump's Republican Party. Democrats have made substantial gains across the country, including in states that have traditionally been regarded as Republican strongholds. The results have been sufficiently dramatic to prompt questions about Trump's political authority, the future direction of his administration and, perhaps most importantly, the Republican Party's prospects beyond his presidency.

For readers outside the United States, a little explanation is useful. American midterm elections take place halfway through a president's four-year term. They determine the composition of Congress, the country's national legislature, which consists of two chambers: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Both are important because they make laws, approve government spending and exercise oversight over the president's administration.

When the president's opponents win control of Congress, they acquire considerable power to frustrate his legislative programme, investigate his administration and demand answers that the White House might prefer not to provide. They cannot simply dismiss the president, however, and the president retains important constitutional powers, including the ability to veto legislation.

That distinction matters. Trump remains president, but the political landscape in which he must operate has changed dramatically.

The election has also produced consequences beyond Washington. Democratic victories in traditionally conservative territory suggest that dissatisfaction with the administration is no longer confined to the usual Democratic constituencies. Economic pressures, the consequences of Trump's tariff policies, the war in Iran, immigration enforcement and concerns about the direction of American government have all featured in the reporting surrounding the results.

In Kansas, for example, voters have elected Democrat Adam Hamilton to the US Senate for the first time in nearly a century. The Guardian's reporting from the state describes voters who had supported Trump in 2024 but have since become increasingly frustrated by rising living costs and economic uncertainty. It is a particularly revealing development: a Republican defeat in a state where the party might once have expected a reasonably comfortable ride.

And while Democrats are celebrating, Republicans are beginning the familiar exercise of working out whom to blame. The president himself has shown little inclination to accept responsibility. Instead, the early post-election spectacle has included arguments over the administration's direction, speculation about possible resignations and the inevitable emergence of competing ambitions for the 2028 presidential election.

For an outside observer, there is something both extraordinary and deeply troubling about this moment. American democracy has demonstrated that voters can still deliver a forceful electoral verdict on a president. Yet the election does not automatically resolve the deeper problems that have developed during Trump's presidency. A change in congressional control is an important democratic safeguard, not a magic wand.

The following developments deserve closer examination. Taken together, they tell a story about an administration facing an increasingly hostile electorate, a Republican Party struggling to find its bearings and a country whose political divisions remain very much alive.

1. The electoral earthquake: Trumpism takes a beating

The scale of the Republican defeat is the starting point for understanding everything else.

The Guardian's election coverage describes Democrats winning control of both chambers of Congress, with their House representation exceeding 250 seats as further results came in. The Senate also changed hands. This was not simply a case of Democrats winning a few competitive districts while Republicans licked their wounds. The party suffered losses in places where it had expected to be relatively safe.

The Guardian's analysis of Trump-endorsed Republicans losing dozens of races is particularly damaging for the president. Trump has spent years presenting his personal endorsement as a political asset capable of delivering victories for Republican candidates. The results suggest that association with him can now be a liability.

The Guardian's live election coverage and its broader assessment, Republicans suffer a midterm rout, illustrate the extraordinary breadth of the Democratic advance.

The Independent provides another perspective in its analysis: Trump took a wrecking ball to the White House – voters just took their own to his MAGA movement.

One particularly revealing detail concerns Republican congressman Mike Lawler, who lost his New York seat to Democrat Cait Conley. Lawler subsequently suggested that not even Jesus Christ could have won his district. That is quite a concession from a political party that has traditionally enjoyed considerable confidence in its ability to secure divine endorsement.

Read the Independent's account: Defeated Republican claims not even Jesus could have won his midterms race.

The Guardian's report from Kansas offers a more human explanation for the results. In Deep-red Kansas votes for change as patience wears thin with Trump, journalist Gaya Gupta describes voters who had supported Trump in 2024 but subsequently became disillusioned.

Linda Olson, a Kansas resident who had hoped Trump would improve her family's economic circumstances, described rising grocery bills, expensive medication and higher fuel prices. Her experience illustrates the difficulty facing a president who has made economic improvement a central selling point of his political appeal.

Democrat Adam Hamilton's victory in Kansas was particularly significant. The state had not elected a Democrat to the US Senate for nearly a century. Hamilton also flipped six counties that had supported Trump in 2024.

The message is difficult to misunderstand. Conservative voters do not necessarily owe permanent allegiance to Trump simply because they once voted Republican.

There is an important distinction between supporting conservative policies and treating a particular politician as an unquestionable political leader. Some Republican voters appear to have rediscovered that distinction.

The Independent's analysis of why Trump lost the midterms and its report on the historic Democratic victories across the country belong alongside the Guardian's reporting.

The scale of the defeat also raises questions about the Republican Party's future. A president who has made personal loyalty a defining characteristic of his political organisation has discovered that loyalty is not necessarily a transferable electoral asset.

When voters become unhappy, even the most enthusiastic endorsement from the White House cannot guarantee a winning result.

The outside perspective: I find the Kansas result particularly telling. A political movement can survive considerable controversy if its supporters believe their lives are improving. But when household expenses rise, economic promises go unfulfilled and political attention appears increasingly consumed by ideological battles, patience can wear thin. Apparently, even the most devoted Republican voter eventually has to visit a supermarket.

Further reading:

2. The economy, tariffs and the price of Trump's promises

If there is one theme running through much of the election coverage, it is the cost of living.

Trump's economic programme has placed considerable emphasis on tariffs. For readers unfamiliar with the term, a tariff is a tax imposed on imported goods. The intention is generally to make foreign products more expensive and encourage consumers and businesses to purchase domestically produced alternatives.

The theory sounds straightforward. The practical consequences are rather less convenient.

American companies frequently rely on international supply chains, importing components and materials from overseas before manufacturing or selling finished products. When tariffs increase the cost of those imports, businesses can pass the additional expense on to consumers.

In other words, a policy supposedly designed to protect American consumers can end up making their shopping bills more expensive.

The Conversation article by Elizabeth Mackie, Voters have sent a message to Trump on tariffs, but the White House still holds significant power, is especially useful here.

Mackie, a researcher at the University of Sydney's United States Studies Centre, explains that the tariff strategy has produced substantial costs for American households.

Her analysis reports that, by September 2026, 54% of US imports were subject to an applied tariff, compared with 44% a decade earlier. The additional costs were estimated to have increased taxes paid by the average American household by US$820 in 2026.

The article also highlights the impact on businesses and industries in northern states such as Michigan and Ohio, where trade with Canada is particularly important.

The political consequences are significant. Voters in those states have been able to connect national trade policy with the prices they encounter in everyday life.

And this is where Trump's political problem becomes particularly obvious. It is one thing to promise to make America economically stronger. It is another to convince voters that their economic circumstances are improving when they are paying more for everyday necessities.

Mackie also offers an important warning for those expecting the Democratic victory to produce an immediate reversal.

Although Democrats will control Congress, Trump retains the presidential veto. Overriding that veto requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers, something the Democrats do not possess.

The new Congress can investigate tariff decisions, hold hearings, scrutinise trade arrangements and challenge the administration's use of executive powers. It cannot simply switch off Trump's tariff programme.

This is an important distinction between electoral victory and political power.

The economic consequences are also being felt outside America. For Australian readers, Mackie's discussion of the Australia-US relationship is particularly relevant. She notes that approximately 5% of Australia's goods exports go to the United States and that Australian exporters face a 12.5% tariff, subject to exemptions, despite the longstanding bilateral free-trade agreement.

The article is worth reading in full, particularly because it explains why a change in congressional control will not necessarily translate into a change in American trade policy.

The Guardian's report on the Nasdaq's worst trading day in 18 months adds another dimension.

The technology-heavy Nasdaq index experienced a substantial decline, with semiconductor stocks among the worst affected. SanDisk fell 19%, while Western Digital dropped 16.5%.

The article connects the market turmoil with concerns about artificial intelligence investment and the wider technology sector. It should not, however, be treated as proof that the election alone caused the sell-off. Financial markets are influenced by numerous factors, and the article points to concerns about the sustainability of the AI investment boom.

For Trump, the combination of economic uncertainty, tariff-related price pressures and a stock-market setback makes for uncomfortable reading.

There is also a wider political lesson here. Economic performance is not measured exclusively by stock-market indices or presidential speeches. Ordinary people tend to judge governments by whether they can afford groceries, fuel, housing and healthcare.

A president can declare victory over foreign competitors as often as he likes. Unfortunately, the supermarket checkout is not particularly impressed by campaign rhetoric.

Further reading:

3. Iran, American foreign policy and the limits of presidential power

Perhaps the most consequential issue arising from the midterms concerns Trump's war in Iran.

This is not simply another domestic political disagreement. It is a military conflict with potentially enormous consequences for the United States, the Middle East and the wider international community.

The Conversation article by Andrew Gawthorpe, Donald Trump's Republicans suffer landslide defeat – what this means for the world, argues that the Republican defeat could have implications far beyond Washington.

Gawthorpe identifies three important sources of voter dissatisfaction: high prices, the war in Iran and growing concerns about corruption within the Trump administration.

He also points out that Republican losses in traditionally conservative states suggest that the political map may be changing in ways that could affect future presidential elections.

For international readers, however, his most important observation concerns what happens next.

A president who loses control of Congress does not necessarily become less dangerous internationally. In some circumstances, the opposite can happen.

With domestic legislation increasingly difficult to pass, a politically weakened president may devote more attention to foreign policy, where the executive branch retains substantial authority.

Gawthorpe warns that Trump could become more unpredictable following the election, particularly now that he no longer needs to worry about the immediate electoral consequences of his decisions.

The Guardian explores the same problem in A Democratic-controlled Congress will seek to constrain Trump's foreign adventures.

Congress has several potential instruments at its disposal, including investigations, control over government spending and the ability to scrutinise military operations.

But there are limits. The president retains important powers, and Congress cannot necessarily compel him to abandon a military campaign through ordinary legislation.

The Conversation's Markus Wagner provides a particularly useful explanation in With control of Congress, here's how Democrats could stop Trump's war in Iran.

Wagner, a law professor at the University of Wollongong, identifies three possible approaches:

Passing legislation or resolutions intended to bring the conflict to an end.
Investigating the administration's conduct of the war through congressional hearings, subpoenas and demands for documents.
Using Congress's constitutional power over government spending to restrict or terminate funding for the military campaign.

The third option is particularly important.

Under the US Constitution, Congress controls the public purse. This means that the president cannot simply spend unlimited amounts of public money without legislative approval.

Democrats could therefore attempt to prevent further funding from being allocated to military operations against Iran.

However, there is a considerable political complication. If Trump vetoes the legislation, Democrats could find themselves accused of withholding money from American troops.

That is a potentially damaging political confrontation, even if the underlying objective is to end an unpopular war.

Wagner draws comparisons with the Iraq War, when Democrats attempted to use funding restrictions to force President George W. Bush to withdraw American forces. Bush vetoed the proposed measure, and Democrats eventually backed down amid concerns about the political consequences.

There is no guarantee that the current Democratic leadership would be willing to take that risk.

The Independent's reporting adds another interesting dimension.

Vice President JD Vance has reportedly acknowledged that the Iran war contributed significantly to the Republican defeat. This is particularly striking given his earlier reputation as a critic of American military involvement overseas.

The Independent examines the growing uncertainty surrounding Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth in Pete Hegseth is now a problem Trump can't bring himself to solve.

Another article, Hegseth promises not to back down in pushing Trump's agenda, suggests that the defence secretary is determined to continue pursuing the administration's policies despite the election result.

The wider political implications are discussed in Who takes the fall? Hegseth, Rubio and Wiles caught up in White House civil war.

And for anyone wondering whether Secretary of State Marco Rubio might be considering an exit, the Independent has also published Marco Rubio 'on resignation watch' from the Trump administration.

These reports should be treated as accounts of political speculation and internal tensions, rather than confirmation that every rumoured departure will occur.

There is, however, a common thread: the election has created an environment in which senior Republicans must increasingly consider their own political futures.

My concern as an outside observer is that a president who feels increasingly constrained at home may look for opportunities to demonstrate strength abroad. That is not an inevitable outcome, but it is a risk worth taking seriously.

The rest of the world has a considerable interest in whether the new Congress can impose meaningful restraints on American military policy.

The uncomfortable reality is that a change in congressional control does not automatically produce a change in presidential behaviour.

Further reading:

4. Immigration, civil rights and the human consequences of Trump's America

Immigration has been one of the defining issues of Trump's political career. His administration's aggressive approach to deportations has been a central feature of his second term, and it remains a major point of confrontation with the incoming Democratic Congress.

The election has not, however, persuaded the administration to abandon its approach.

The Independent reports that Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has warned that deportations will continue despite the Republican defeat.

In DHS leader warns that deportations will continue despite disastrous midterms, Mullin makes clear that the administration intends to continue its immigration programme.

For readers unfamiliar with the terminology, ICE stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It is a federal agency responsible for enforcing immigration laws within the United States, including detention and deportation operations.

The Guardian's reporting on an incident in California raises more troubling questions about how those powers are being exercised.

In Outcry after ICE violently detains US citizen walking to high school, the newspaper reports the detention of Erik Zepeda, a 20-year-old American citizen with disabilities.

According to the report, ICE agents pinned him down and left him with a broken wrist. The incident has prompted considerable outrage, particularly because Zepeda was an American citizen rather than someone facing deportation proceedings.

It is an important reminder that immigration enforcement is not merely an abstract argument about border security. It involves real people, individual rights and the responsibilities of government agencies.

The Independent also reports an extraordinary disagreement within the Trump household.

According to Trump lashed out at Stephen Miller for going too far with deportations after Melania complained, the first lady reportedly raised concerns with her husband after people she knew were caught up in the administration's immigration operations.

Stephen Miller, the deputy White House chief of staff, has been one of the principal architects of Trump's hardline immigration programme.

The reported disagreement is interesting, although it should be treated as a media report rather than an independently established account of the private conversation.

It does, however, illustrate the political difficulties created when a government pursues an immigration policy with little apparent distinction between its political objectives and the human consequences of enforcement.

The election also produced an important development at the Department of Justice.

Harmeet Dhillon, head of the department's Civil Rights Division, has resigned. Both the Guardian and the Independent identify her departure as the first high-level administration resignation following the Republican defeat.

The Guardian's report, Harmeet Dhillon steps down from the Justice Department's civil rights division, describes her as a controversial figure in the department.

The Independent provides further coverage in Trump's ally and DOJ civil rights chief resigns after embarrassing midterm losses.

The Civil Rights Division is responsible for enforcing federal laws protecting people against discrimination and violations of civil rights. Its leadership therefore matters considerably, particularly in an administration whose policies have generated repeated disputes about equality, government authority and individual protections.

Dhillon's resignation is not, by itself, proof that the administration's wider approach is about to change. Nevertheless, it is an early indication that the political consequences of the election are beginning to reach inside the executive branch.

One final question concerns the extent to which Democrats will actually use their new congressional power to challenge immigration enforcement.

The incoming majority will have opportunities to investigate ICE, scrutinise detention practices and demand explanations from the Department of Homeland Security.

But congressional oversight and control of day-to-day enforcement are not the same thing. The president and his administration retain considerable executive authority.

My perspective: Border security is a legitimate responsibility of any government. But a government cannot reasonably claim to be defending the rule of law while treating the rights of individuals as an inconvenient detail. The treatment of citizens, migrants and people with disabilities should be judged by the same fundamental standards of dignity and due process.

A change of congressional control offers an opportunity to examine those standards more closely. Whether Democrats will use it effectively remains to be seen.

Further reading:

5. The political earthquake reaches beyond Washington

Although the congressional results have attracted most of the attention, the changes taking place at the state level could prove just as important.

American states have considerable authority over matters such as education, public health, taxation and the administration of elections. Governors and state legislatures can therefore influence everyday life in ways that are sometimes more immediate than decisions made in Washington.

The Independent's report, One big midterm result was overlooked by many – and it might have the biggest impact, highlights Democratic gains in state legislatures.

In particular, Democrats have achieved what Americans call trifectas in Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

A trifecta means that one party controls the governorship and both chambers of the state legislature. This gives the party a considerably stronger position to implement its policies.

The achievement in Arizona is particularly notable, with the article describing it as the state's first Democratic trifecta in 60 years.

These gains could have lasting consequences for education, voting laws, environmental policy and other matters that fall within state jurisdiction.

Abdul El-Sayed and the changing Democratic coalition

One of the most interesting individual victories belongs to Abdul El-Sayed, the newly elected Democratic senator from Michigan.

His victory has attracted attention not only because of his progressive politics but also because of the questions it raises about the Democratic Party's relationship with different groups of voters.

The Conversation's Christine Slaughter examines the numbers in Black Michiganders helped push Abdul El-Sayed to victory – but the numbers show he was less popular with this key voting bloc than some other Democratic candidates.

Slaughter, a political scientist at Boston University, explains that El-Sayed's support among Black voters was not guaranteed.

During the Democratic primary, 62% of Detroit voters supported his rival, Haley Stevens. El-Sayed subsequently worked to build support through policies addressing affordable housing, minority-owned businesses, food access and assistance for families.

In the general election, approximately 91.8% of Detroit voters supported him. He received 70.6% of the vote across Wayne County, which includes Detroit.

Statewide, El-Sayed won 52% of the vote.

Slaughter makes an important qualification: these figures do not necessarily demonstrate that Black voters embraced his progressive political programme. They may instead reflect opposition to the Republican Party, dissatisfaction with Trump or concerns about household finances.

That distinction is worth remembering.

Political commentators sometimes become so enthusiastic about identifying a new ideological movement that they overlook the possibility that voters are simply choosing the candidate they believe will do a better job.

El-Sayed's victory also has implications for the debate about American policy towards Israel.

Peter Beinart explores this in his Guardian opinion article, Abdul El-Sayed's victory has laid bare a truth about America's view on Israel.

Beinart argues that the divisions over American support for Israel should not be understood simply as a disagreement between left and right. He suggests that the divide increasingly reflects differences between political and economic elites and ordinary voters.

The Independent adds another interesting development. Its article, Abdul El-Sayed has already found something he wants to work with Trump on, reports that the senator-elect supports Trump's proposal to cut US aid to Israel by US$4 billion.

That is an unusual point of agreement between a progressive Democratic senator-elect and a Republican president.

It also demonstrates why it would be a mistake to assume that every Democrat elected in this wave will automatically support every position associated with the party's leadership.

A victory for representation

The election also produced a series of historic victories for candidates from groups that have traditionally been underrepresented in American political life.

The Independent's A night of firsts: Historic victories by Black, Native and LGBTQ+ candidates reshape US politics examines several of these achievements.

Among the wider significance of the results is the opportunity for a more diverse range of Americans to participate in political leadership.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, commonly known as AOC, also compared the excitement surrounding the Democratic victory to the atmosphere accompanying Barack Obama's election in 2008.

The Independent reports that AOC likens the 2026 midterm blue tsunami to the feeling millennials had seeing Obama elected president.

It is an interesting comparison, although the political circumstances are very different. Obama's election represented a historic presidential breakthrough; the 2026 midterms represent a powerful rejection of the incumbent administration.

The two events should not be confused, but both demonstrate the capacity of American elections to produce moments of considerable political excitement.

Florida: the red state that refused to turn blue

Not everything went the Democrats' way.

Florida remained firmly Republican, electing Byron Donalds as its first Black governor and returning Republican Ashley Moody to the Senate.

Donalds won the governorship by 1.3 percentage points, approximately 107,000 votes, according to Liv Coleman's analysis for The Conversation.

Her article, How Amendment 3, vaccine mandates and school vouchers will shape Florida under the leadership of Byron Donalds, is particularly useful because it examines what the election means for state policy rather than simply focusing on the national political drama.

Three issues stand out.

First, Amendment 3. Floridians approved a constitutional amendment limiting how local governments can spend tax revenue. It restricts spending to specified core areas, including public safety, education and natural resources. The change could reduce the freedom of local authorities to determine their own priorities.

Second, vaccination requirements. Donalds supports reducing school vaccine mandates and has indicated that he may retain Dr Joseph Ladapo as state surgeon general. Ladapo has proposed removing requirements for several childhood vaccines, including chickenpox and hepatitis B. The proposal has attracted opposition from paediatric medical organisations.

Third, school vouchers. Florida already operates a universal school voucher programme, allowing families to use state funding towards private education or homeschooling. The programme cost an estimated US$4.5 billion in the 2026 financial year, and auditors have identified accountability concerns.

Donalds supports expanding school choice, although the Republican Party's loss of its supermajority in the Florida House could make some legislative changes more difficult.

The Florida story is important because it reminds us that the national Democratic victory does not mean that America has suddenly become a uniformly progressive country.

There are still substantial conservative constituencies, and their political influence remains significant.

It also demonstrates that state elections can have consequences for public health and education that extend well beyond the immediate excitement of election night.

Further reading:

6. Climate, healthcare and science: a rejection of the anti-expertise approach?

Another interesting theme emerging from the election coverage is the apparent success of Democratic candidates who connected environmental and scientific issues with the everyday concerns of voters.

The Guardian's article, How Democrats used the midterms to turn affordability concerns into green populism, examines how climate issues were incorporated into the wider cost-of-living debate.

Rather than presenting environmental protection exclusively as an abstract question about carbon emissions and the future of the planet, Democratic campaigns connected it with energy prices, household expenses and the impact of large data centres.

This is an important political development.

Climate policy is sometimes presented as though it requires voters to choose between environmental responsibility and economic security. The Guardian's analysis suggests that Democratic candidates found ways to challenge that assumption.

The argument is straightforward: people want affordable electricity, reliable energy supplies and protection from environmental problems. Those objectives do not necessarily conflict.

The newspaper also examines the changing political atmosphere surrounding science and medicine in Revenge of the nerds: US midterms deliver a win for science – and a rebuke of MAHA.

MAHA stands for Make America Healthy Again, the political movement associated with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The movement has promoted a range of positions concerning public health, nutrition, vaccines and medical institutions. Its critics have expressed concerns about vaccine scepticism and the treatment of established scientific evidence.

The Guardian argues that the Democratic victories represent a setback for this approach, particularly after years of disruption to American health and scientific institutions.

The important point is not that every American voter suddenly became a devoted supporter of medical research. Rather, the election suggests that there is considerable political support for candidates who emphasise scientific expertise and established medical knowledge.

For an outside observer, this is encouraging.

Scientific questions should be approached through evidence, research and proper scrutiny rather than through political loyalty. Public health is too important to become another arena for partisan point-scoring.

Of course, the election results do not guarantee that the incoming Congress will restore everything that has been damaged. Rebuilding public confidence in scientific institutions requires more than winning an election.

Nevertheless, the results provide an opportunity to reconsider the relationship between political ideology and scientific evidence.

Further reading:

7. Trump's America: gold-plated walls, presidential tantrums and video-game diplomacy

Now we arrive at what may be the most unintentionally entertaining part of this political saga.

One might reasonably expect a president whose party has just suffered a historic electoral defeat to spend the following days examining the reasons for the disaster, considering policy changes and consulting advisers.

Trump, apparently, has other priorities.

The Guardian's Arwa Mahdawi provides an entertaining account of how Trump is soothing the midterms loss with what he loves best: interior design.

Rather than offering a detailed explanation of the Republican defeat, Trump spent considerable time discussing the White House ballroom construction project.

The proposed ballroom has been a major renovation project, and Trump was particularly enthusiastic about its architectural features, including marble floors, columns and the arrangement of its kitchens.

Mahdawi notes that Trump spent more than 20 minutes discussing the building's design during his first public appearance following the election.

Apparently, the administration's post-election strategy includes an unusually vigorous commitment to interior decoration.

The Guardian's companion news report, Trump signs proclamation to try to prevent changes to gold-covered Oval Office, takes matters further.

Trump signed a proclamation intended to protect his redesigned Oval Office and Cabinet Room from alteration by future administrations.

He described the rooms as national monuments that should be preserved and expressed concern that future occupants might change the decorations.

The Independent covers the same development in Trump tries to prevent anyone from changing his gold-covered Oval Office by declaring it a landmark.

The two reports overlap substantially and should be regarded as complementary coverage of the same story rather than separate political developments.

There is something remarkable about a president apparently concerned with securing the historical permanence of his office decorations while his political party is dealing with an electoral disaster.

One wonders whether future historians will be required to consult a special committee before changing the curtains.

The Legend of Zelda enters the White House

If the Oval Office story sounds extraordinary, the White House's social-media activity provides another example of the administration's unusual approach to public relations.

The Independent reports that the White House released a video depicting Trump as a character from Nintendo's popular video-game series, The Legend of Zelda.

The video appeared after the Republican defeat and included the message that Trump was still president.

The article is titled Trump gets the Zelda treatment as White House tries to convince the world he is still working after midterms.

It is difficult to know what Nintendo made of the exercise, but the broader political point is rather more obvious.

Trump remains president. The election did not remove him from office, and the administration clearly wants to reinforce that message.

Nevertheless, there is something faintly desperate about a White House needing video-game imagery to remind the public that its occupant is still doing his job.

The president, the veto and permanent daylight saving time

The Independent also reports that Trump has been complaining about the early darkness associated with seasonal clock changes.

As Trump complains it's so dark outside early and begs Congress to end clock switching, the president calls on Congress to pass legislation making daylight saving time permanent.

This is a genuine policy issue, although it has little direct connection to the central causes of the Republican election defeat.

The timing, however, is rather amusing. With the incoming Congress preparing to investigate the administration, examine its spending and challenge its policies, Trump has also found time to discuss the nation's clocks.

One can only hope that the proposed legislation does not become another major constitutional confrontation.

A president with a rather different definition of historical preservation

There is another story that deserves mention here.

The Guardian reports that Trump is seeking to overturn his 2024 conviction in the New York hush-money case.

The article, Trump tries to get 2024 conviction in hush-money corruption case thrown out, concerns his continuing legal efforts relating to the criminal case in which he was found guilty on 34 counts in May 2024.

This is not a direct consequence of the midterm elections, but it belongs in the wider account of Trump's presidency because it illustrates how personal legal controversies continue to accompany his political career.

It is also worth distinguishing this legal development from the election itself. The result does not automatically determine the outcome of his legal proceedings.

What are the late-night comedians saying?

American late-night television has naturally found plenty to work with.

The Guardian's Seth Meyers on the midterms blue tsunami reports on the comedian's reaction to the Democratic victories.

Meyers celebrated the unexpected scale of the results, particularly Democratic successes in traditionally Republican states.

He also took aim at Trump's apparent reluctance to accept responsibility for the Republican defeat.

The article includes commentary from Jimmy Kimmel, who also found considerable entertainment value in the election results.

The Independent's former Trump official reveals the president's furious response to his previous midterm defeat offers another perspective, recounting former administration official Miles Taylor's description of Trump's reaction to the 2018 midterms.

And the Independent's report on Tucker Carlson declaring the Trump era over suggests that even some prominent conservative media figures are questioning what comes next.

Carlson described the election as an extraordinary political rejection and suggested that the Trump era, and perhaps the influence of Fox News, was approaching its end.

That is a striking assessment, although it would be premature to assume that one election has permanently transformed the American conservative media landscape.

Further reading:

8. The billionaires, the technology industry and political influence

Another important question emerging from the election concerns the relationship between America's wealthiest business figures and the Trump administration.

During Trump's second inauguration, some of the most powerful figures in the technology industry were prominently associated with the new administration.

Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg were among the prominent technology and business figures attending the event.

Their relationship with Trump has attracted considerable attention, particularly given the enormous influence that technology companies now exercise over communications, information, artificial intelligence and the wider economy.

The Guardian examines the issue in Tech barons cozied up to Trump. What will they do in newly blue America?.

The article argues that Democratic success was assisted by public anger towards wealthy technology figures, the influence of artificial intelligence and the concentration of economic power among a small number of extraordinarily wealthy individuals.

This is an important development because the relationship between government and big business is not simply a matter of political donations or personal friendships.

Technology companies increasingly influence how people receive information, communicate with one another and conduct their working lives. Their decisions can have consequences for employment, privacy, competition and democratic debate.

The question now is whether these companies will adjust their political relationships following the election.

A Republican-controlled Congress may have provided a more comfortable political environment for some of these interests. A Democratic majority could mean greater scrutiny of their activities and a more demanding debate about corporate power.

There is also a question of political consistency.

If Democrats campaigned against excessive corporate influence, they will need to demonstrate that their own political relationships are not simply a different version of the same arrangement.

That issue is addressed in another Guardian opinion piece, Democrats promised to end corruption. Here's how they can do that.

David Sirota argues that campaign finance reform must go further than simply reversing the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

For context, Citizens United is a landmark 2010 Supreme Court ruling that allowed corporations and unions to spend independently on political campaigns. It helped open the way for the enormous sums now spent by outside political organisations.

Sirota argues that public funding of political campaigns would provide a better alternative to reliance on private donations.

It is a proposal worth considering, particularly in a country where election campaigns can involve extraordinary amounts of money.

But the responsibility for reform will now rest with the Democrats as well as the Republicans.

They have promised to challenge corruption and excessive private influence. Their credibility will depend on whether they are prepared to apply those principles consistently, including when the beneficiaries might otherwise be their own political allies.

My perspective: Political influence should not be something that can simply be purchased by those with sufficiently deep pockets. Whether the money comes from technology billionaires, corporate interests or wealthy political donors, democracy becomes distorted when ordinary voters struggle to compete with the financial resources of powerful individuals.

A Democratic victory creates an opportunity to address the problem. It does not guarantee that the opportunity will be taken.

Further reading:

9. Gavin Newsom, the death penalty and the approaching 2028 presidential contest

While Trump is dealing with the consequences of the midterms, Democrats are already looking towards the next presidential election in 2028.

One name appearing repeatedly in the coverage is Gavin Newsom, the governor of California.

Newsom has long been regarded as a possible Democratic presidential candidate, and his recent decision concerning California's death row has attracted considerable attention.

The Guardian reports that Gavin Newsom commutes more than 500 death sentences in California that the governor has commuted the sentences of 548 prisoners.

The decision means that their sentences have been changed to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, rather than execution.

Newsom has opposed capital punishment for many years. He imposed a moratorium on executions in California in 2019, and the latest decision represents a significant step in his long-standing opposition to the death penalty.

The Guardian reports that the decision followed renewed international attention to capital punishment after the failed execution of Christa Pike in Tennessee.

The Independent also covers the announcement that Newsom commutes all 548 death sentences in California as he prepares to leave office.

This is an important story in its own right, particularly given the longstanding debate over whether the state should retain the power to execute prisoners.

The case also raises questions about the fairness and reliability of a legal system in which people can spend decades on death row awaiting appropriate legal representation.

The Guardian reports that 220 of those affected had waited at least 15 years to be appointed habeas counsel, the legal representation necessary to challenge their convictions and sentences.

There is also a political dimension. Newsom is widely regarded as a potential contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028.

His decision will inevitably form part of the wider discussion about the political direction of the Democratic Party.

Who might replace Trump?

The election has also accelerated speculation about the next Republican presidential candidate.

Vice President JD Vance has long been regarded as a possible successor to Trump, but his position has become more complicated following the Republican defeat.

The Guardian's Republicans hoping to succeed Trump in 2028 dissect their midterm rout examines the emerging debate among potential Republican presidential contenders.

Ron DeSantis and Ted Cruz are also part of the discussion.

The Independent's DeSantis in unlikely surge as Republican manoeuvres begin over presidential runs in 2028 considers the Republican succession question in greater detail.

Marco Rubio's possible presidential ambitions are another factor, particularly given reports that he may want to distance himself from the Trump administration.

On the Democratic side, the names attracting attention include:

Gavin Newsom, California's governor.
Jon Ossoff, the Democratic senator from Georgia.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the prominent progressive congresswoman.
Kamala Harris, the former vice president.
Abdul El-Sayed, the newly elected senator from Michigan.

The Independent examines these possibilities in Who will Democrats pick to run for president in 2028 after midterm elections triumph?.

Jon Ossoff is attracting particular attention following his successful election campaign.

The Independent's article, 'Next Barack Obama' becomes new clear frontrunner for 2028 presidential race, discusses his rising profile and his position on Polymarket, a prediction market where participants trade on the likelihood of future events.

It is important not to confuse prediction-market popularity with an actual nomination or election forecast. Two years is a very long time in American politics, particularly when the political environment is changing so rapidly.

The Independent also examines the wider presidential succession question in Midterm earthquake shakes up Republican and Democratic races for 2028 presidency.

There is another relevant article concerning Republican media personality Sean Hannity, whose response to the election included strong support for the Iran war and criticism of El-Sayed.

The Independent's Hannity unloads on first show after midterms massacre provides a glimpse of the ideological disagreements that remain within the American right.

The Democrats have their own problems

It would be tempting to assume that the Democratic victory has settled the question of the party's future direction.

It has not.

The Democrats have a diverse collection of politicians with different ideological positions, political styles and constituencies.

Newsom, Ossoff and Ocasio-Cortez do not represent identical political approaches. Nor does El-Sayed necessarily represent the views of every Democratic voter.

The party's immediate challenge will be to turn its electoral success into a coherent governing programme.

It must also decide whether it wants to build a durable political movement or simply remain the party that defeated Trump in 2026.

Those are not necessarily the same thing.

My perspective: The 2028 contest is already beginning to take shape, but Americans would be better served if politicians spent a little less time discussing their future presidential ambitions and rather more time addressing the problems that helped produce this election result.

A country facing economic insecurity, international conflict and serious questions about democratic institutions needs effective government, not an endless succession of presidential auditions.

Further reading:

10. Can Democrats actually hold Trump accountable?

The biggest institutional consequence of the election is that Democrats will soon have the opportunity to investigate the Trump administration from a position of considerable strength.

Congressional investigations are an important part of the American political system. They allow legislators to demand documents, question officials, examine government spending and investigate possible misconduct.

The new majority will therefore have opportunities to scrutinise matters that the Republican-controlled Congress was less inclined to investigate.

But there is an important question: will Democrats attempt to impeach Trump?

Impeachment is the constitutional process through which Congress can bring formal charges against a president or another federal official.

The House of Representatives can approve articles of impeachment by a simple majority. The Senate then conducts a trial, and removing a president requires a two-thirds majority of senators present to vote for conviction.

The Independent explores the issue in Trump issues ominous warning as Democrats get another chance to impeach him. Will they take it?.

The article considers whether Democrats will pursue another impeachment attempt or concentrate instead on investigations and legislative oversight.

There is a reasonable argument for caution.

Impeachment is an enormously consequential process, and Democrats may decide that a series of investigations into the administration's conduct would be more productive than immediately attempting to remove the president.

The challenge is that investigations take time, and their political value depends on whether they produce meaningful evidence and lead to consequences.

There is also the question of presidential veto power.

Trump has already indicated that he intends to use this constitutional power aggressively.

The Independent explains the situation in Trump says he will become Mr Veto after losing Congress. But what will he be able to do?.

A veto allows the president to reject legislation passed by Congress. Congress can override it, but only with a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

Democrats therefore have a majority, but not the numbers required to override presidential vetoes without Republican support.

This creates the possibility of significant political deadlock.

It also means that the Democrats will have to be strategic. They can investigate, expose and challenge the administration, but they cannot simply assume that every legislative proposal will become law.

The Conversation's tariff analysis and its article on stopping the Iran war both illustrate these limitations.

The coming two years will therefore be a test of the American system of checks and balances.

For those of us watching from overseas, this is perhaps the most important aspect of the election.

American institutions are designed to prevent excessive concentration of power. Their effectiveness depends not only on the written Constitution but also on whether elected officials are prepared to exercise their responsibilities.

The new Democratic Congress has an opportunity to demonstrate that congressional oversight still matters.

It should not be wasted.

Further reading:

11. The international reaction: relief, satisfaction and a warning

The American midterms are domestic elections, but their consequences are international.

The United States remains one of the world's most influential political, military and economic powers. Its decisions affect international trade, security arrangements, diplomatic relationships and the stability of global institutions.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Trump's electoral defeat has attracted considerable attention outside the United States.

The Conversation's Andrew Gawthorpe article, discussed earlier, specifically considers what the Republican defeat means for the wider world.

The Guardian's Rebecca Shaw takes a more openly celebratory approach in Seeing Trump and his acolytes lose so spectacularly is powerful schadenfreude for millions across the globe.

Schadenfreude is a German word describing the pleasure people experience when someone else suffers a misfortune.

It is perhaps an appropriate word for the reaction of many people who have watched Trump's political career with increasing dismay.

For critics overseas, the election represents a welcome reminder that American voters are not powerless and that even a president with an enormous political profile can suffer a substantial electoral defeat.

But there is a danger in celebrating too enthusiastically.

The election has not removed Trump from office. Nor has it eliminated the political movement that brought him to power.

That point is made particularly strongly in Andrew Long's article for Independent Australia, Trump's defeat won't end America's authoritarian threat.

Long argues that Trump's personal political movement may be weakened, but the grievances that fuel the authoritarian right could survive his presidency.

He warns that a future Republican leader could learn from Trump's mistakes, build a more disciplined political organisation and pursue similar objectives with greater strategic skill.

This is a sobering argument.

The defeat of an individual politician does not necessarily resolve the social, economic and political conditions that enabled his rise.

Long also argues that Democrats must do more than promise a return to normality. They need to address economic insecurity, provide a credible immigration policy and demonstrate that government can improve the circumstances of ordinary people.

I think this is an important observation.

Democrats should not mistake opposition to Trump for permanent support for their own political programme.

Voters have delivered a rejection of the Republican administration. They have not necessarily signed a blank cheque for everything the Democratic Party might wish to do.

The Guardian's Margaret Sullivan offers a more optimistic interpretation in There's a new feeling in America as kindness drives out cruelty.

Sullivan argues that the election represents a change in the national conversation after years of political division and hostility.

She sees the result as evidence that many Americans remain committed to a different vision of their country.

It is a welcome sentiment, although rebuilding trust and political civility will require more than a successful election campaign.

The country remains deeply divided, and the incoming Congress will face considerable challenges.

My perspective from Australia: I welcome the electoral setback suffered by Trump and the Republican leadership. I also recognise that the consequences of American politics extend well beyond America's borders.

The international community has an interest in a United States that respects democratic institutions, maintains reliable international relationships and approaches foreign policy with a degree of responsibility.

The election provides some grounds for optimism. But optimism should not be confused with complacency.

The authoritarian tendencies identified by Long will not disappear simply because the Democrats have won Congress.

Further reading:

12. The final verdict: Trump has lost the midterms, but America has not yet won its battle

The 2026 midterm elections have delivered a remarkable political verdict.

Donald Trump remains president, but his Republican Party has lost control of both chambers of Congress. His personal endorsements have failed to protect numerous Republican candidates, traditional conservative strongholds have become competitive, and Democrats have secured important victories at both national and state levels.

The consequences will be felt for the remainder of his presidency.

There will be investigations, congressional confrontations, arguments over government spending and attempts to challenge the administration's policies. The Iran war, immigration enforcement, tariffs and the conduct of government officials are all likely to attract renewed scrutiny.

But Trump retains substantial executive authority. He can veto legislation, continue pursuing many of his existing policies and exercise considerable influence over American foreign affairs.

In other words, the next two years could be extremely turbulent.

There is also a bigger question about what happens after Trump.

The Republican Party must decide whether it wishes to remain a political organisation centred on one man's personality or whether it can develop a credible identity beyond him. Meanwhile, Democrats must demonstrate that their electoral victory represents something more substantial than a temporary rejection of the incumbent administration.

They have an opportunity to rebuild confidence in democratic institutions, improve public services, address economic insecurity and restore some measure of international trust.

Whether they will succeed is another matter.

From my perspective as an Australian observer who has followed Trump's political career with considerable concern, the most encouraging aspect of this election is that American voters have demonstrated that political power is not necessarily permanent.

The president who has so often presented himself as the embodiment of American political strength has discovered that the electorate can deliver a rather different message.

And that message was not particularly complimentary.

I would also resist the temptation to suggest that the American political crisis is over. Trump's defeat is significant, but the movement, grievances and political divisions that helped bring him to power remain.

The challenge for Democrats is to demonstrate that democracy can deliver something better, rather than merely provide an opportunity to celebrate the misfortunes of their opponents.

That is a much harder undertaking than winning an election.

For now, however, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging the significance of what has happened.

Trump's Republican Party has suffered a historic defeat. The political landscape has shifted, the administration is facing a much more difficult congressional environment, and the prospects for 2028 have suddenly become considerably more interesting.

And somewhere in Washington, amid the marble floors, golden decorations and plans for a magnificent new ballroom, Donald Trump might want to consider one small piece of advice:

Perhaps it is time to stop worrying about the interior decorating and start worrying about the electorate.

After all, voters have just demonstrated that they are perfectly capable of redecorating the political landscape themselves.

Connect

Stay updated with my online activities.

CONTACT

NEWSLETTER:

Contact Admin

Email Me via the Link Below: