Trump’s Political Setback: A New Balance of Power in Washington and Its Implications for the Middle East

by Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan,

The 2026 US midterm elections delivered a major political setback to President Donald Trump, fundamentally shifting the balance of power in Washington and raising important questions about the direction of American domestic and foreign policy for the remaining two years of his second term. By securing control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Democratic Party has transformed itself from a relatively constrained opposition into a powerful institutional counterweight to the White House. The outcome is particularly significant because public dissatisfaction with the economic consequences of the Iran war, rising living costs, and the administration’s policy direction appears to have played a substantial role in the Republican defeat.

This is not simply an electoral rejection of individual Republican candidates. It represents a broader demand for accountability, institutional checks and a reassessment of presidential decision-making. Trump’s political authority remains intact, but his ability to translate personal preferences into national policy has become considerably more complicated.

A Presidency Facing Institutional Resistance

For the first two years of his second term, Trump enjoyed the political advantage of Republican control of Congress. This alignment allowed his administration considerable freedom to advance its legislative priorities, secure funding and defend its foreign-policy decisions against congressional criticism. The midterm outcome ended that arrangement and ushered in divided government.

The Democrats’ control of both chambers will significantly strengthen their influence over the administration’s legislative agenda, government expenditure, senior appointments and policy implementation. Congressional committees can investigate executive decisions, summon officials for testimony, issue subpoenas and examine the administration’s handling of sensitive matters, including the Iran conflict, military expenditure, foreign agreements and alleged conflicts of interest.

The Senate’s role is particularly important because it confirms senior executive appointments, ambassadors and federal judges. A Democratic majority can delay or reject Trump’s nominees, forcing him to negotiate and consider candidates acceptable to at least some opposition lawmakers. Meanwhile, Democratic control of the House will give the opposition substantial authority over investigations, budget legislation and the initiation of impeachment proceedings.

Consequently, Trump’s grip over the broader machinery of government will face greater political and institutional resistance. His administration will have to devote more time and political capital to defending its decisions rather than simply implementing its preferred agenda.

Nevertheless, it would be incorrect to interpret the election as the end of Trump’s presidential authority. The American constitutional system divides power between the executive and legislative branches. The president retains considerable authority over executive appointments, administrative direction, diplomatic engagement, and military command. He can also issue executive orders and veto legislation passed by Congress. The new political environment therefore points towards a more confrontational presidency, not necessarily a paralysed one.

Iran War: The Most Immediate Geopolitical Challenge

The Middle East is likely to experience some of the most consequential effects of this political transformation. The Iran war has emerged as a central issue in American domestic politics, with its military, economic, and diplomatic consequences extending well beyond the region.

The disruption of energy supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, rising fuel prices and the financial burden of military operations have created significant pressure on the American administration. The reported destruction of oil tankers, drone incidents and continuing military tensions demonstrate the dangers of allowing the conflict to expand further.

The election results provide Democrats with an opportunity to challenge the legal basis, financial costs and strategic objectives of the war. They can demand detailed explanations from the Pentagon and State Department, examine intelligence assessments, investigate the decision to initiate military operations and seek restrictions on further military expenditure.

Most importantly, congressional control of appropriations gives Democrats leverage over the financial resources required to sustain military operations. They may seek to condition, restrict, or refuse additional funding unless the administration presents a credible strategy for ending the conflict.

Iran is likely to interpret the results as evidence that American public opinion is increasingly uncomfortable with prolonged military confrontation. Tehran may use this political opening to strengthen its diplomatic position, encourage international opposition to further escalation, and press Washington towards negotiations.

However, an immediate end to the conflict cannot be guaranteed. Trump has already indicated that he would not necessarily reconsider his decision to launch the war. As commander-in-chief, he retains considerable operational authority, and congressional efforts to terminate military action could encounter legal, procedural and political obstacles.

Israel, Palestine and the Future of Regional Diplomacy

US policy towards Israel could also enter a more complicated phase. Democratic lawmakers are increasingly divided over unconditional military assistance to Israel, particularly in the context of the humanitarian consequences of the Gaza conflict, developments in the occupied West Bank and continuing tensions in Lebanon.

The new congressional majority may intensify scrutiny of arms transfers, military assistance and the conditions attached to American support. It could also encourage greater pressure for humanitarian access, civilian protection, respect for international law and a renewed diplomatic process towards a sustainable Palestinian settlement.

The election of Abdul El-Sayed as the first Muslim member of the US Senate is symbolically significant. His victory, despite substantial political opposition and Islamophobic attacks, reflects the growing visibility of diverse political constituencies in American public life. It may strengthen congressional discussions about Palestine, Muslim communities and the wider consequences of US policy in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, a Democratic majority should not automatically be interpreted as a fundamental reversal of America’s traditional support for Israel. Democratic lawmakers themselves hold different positions, and many continue to regard Israel’s security as an important American strategic interest. The likely change is greater debate, scrutiny, and conditionality rather than an immediate abandonment of the bilateral relationship.

For Israel’s government, this could mean dealing with a less politically predictable Washington, particularly on military assistance and diplomatic protection.

Regional Implications Beyond Iran and Israel

The consequences will extend to Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Yemen and Lebanon. Regional governments have strong interests in preventing a wider war, protecting energy infrastructure and maintaining secure maritime trade routes.

A more assertive Congress could encourage diplomatic engagement and place greater emphasis on regional stability. However, continued confrontation between Washington and Tehran could undermine these opportunities. Gulf states will therefore need to balance their security partnerships with the United States against the economic and strategic costs of prolonged regional instability.

The European and Asian economies will also remain exposed to developments in the Strait of Hormuz. Energy security is no longer simply a regional concern; it has become a global economic and geopolitical issue. The International Energy Agency has warned that disruptions to Gulf LNG supplies are creating substantial pressure on international gas markets.

For countries such as Pakistan, which are particularly sensitive to imported energy prices, regional stability is essential. A diplomatic settlement would help protect energy supplies, reduce economic uncertainty and create better conditions for regional connectivity and economic cooperation.

How Far Can the Democrats Go?

Despite their electoral success, Democrats face several important limitations.

First, the president retains the constitutional authority to veto legislation. Overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers, a threshold the Democrats are unlikely to achieve independently.

Second, Congress cannot directly take control of the executive administration. Trump retains authority over his cabinet, executive agencies, and the implementation of existing policies, subject to applicable laws and congressional oversight.

Third, Democrats are not politically united on every issue. Progressive lawmakers may demand a rapid end to the Iran war and stronger restrictions on military assistance to Israel, while more moderate members may prefer a gradual diplomatic approach. Such differences could weaken their ability to sustain a unified strategy.

Fourth, impeachment remains a political and constitutional possibility, but removing a president requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate following impeachment by the House. Without substantial bipartisan support, this would be extremely difficult.

Finally, Trump may respond to congressional resistance by relying more heavily on executive orders, administrative discretion, and direct presidential diplomacy. His political influence within the Republican Party also remains an important factor.

A New Phase of American Politics

The 2026 midterms have demonstrated that even a powerful president cannot remain insulated from public dissatisfaction and institutional accountability. Trump’s political leadership will now face greater scrutiny, stronger opposition, and more complicated decision-making.

For the Middle East, the election creates both opportunities and uncertainties. It may strengthen the political momentum for reconsidering the Iran war, encourage greater congressional scrutiny of military assistance, and open additional space for diplomacy. Yet the possibility of further escalation remains because presidential military authority has not disappeared.

Ultimately, the most important question is whether Washington will use this new balance of power to pursue a more sustainable foreign policy or become trapped in another cycle of institutional confrontation. American credibility, regional stability and global economic security will depend considerably on the choices made in the coming months.

The election has not ended Trump’s presidency, but it has changed the political environment in which he must govern. His authority remains substantial; his freedom of action, however, is no longer what it was.

Author:

Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan,

Sinologist – Diplomat – Advisor – Consultant,

Founding Chair, Global Silk Route research Alliance.

(E-mail: [email protected]).