Donald Trump

Vance cited trusted pollster saying Iran war, Israel ties were top of mind for Trump voters swinging to Democrats.

Vice President JD Vance has blamed the war on Iran for his party’s withering midterms defeat, suggesting that the conflict may not have been worth ceding control of the US Congress to Democrats.

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night,” he wrote in a lengthy post on X. “If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so.”

“Everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.”

Vance, a likely 2028 presidential candidate and heir apparent to Trump’s Make America Great Again movement, has been a key negotiator with Iran as the two countries search for a way out of the conflict, which has dented their economies and pushed global fuel prices up.

His statements on Tehran have been more dovish than those of other key members of the administration, and his post-election note appears to mark the closest he has yet come to publicly diverging from his boss on an issue that looks set to dog Republicans as the war continues.

Citing a pollster he describes as “one of the smartest people I know”, Vance said he was told ending the Iran war and “changing our relationship with Israel” were two of the top four answers given by Americans surveyed who had voted for Trump in 2024 but were planning to vote for Democrats in the 2026 midterms.

In stark contrast, Trump said, in the wake of the rebuke at the ballot box, that he had no regrets about launching the conflict.

“I did the right thing. I would have done it again,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

The Democrats have wrested control of the United States Congress from Republicans by winning majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in a stunning blow to US President Donald Trump.

Democratic Senate candidates have shattered decades-old electoral records across traditional Republican strongholds, in particular flipping key seats in Kansas, Texas and South Carolina.

How big is the Republican midterms loss? Is there any silver lining for the political party?

Here’s what we know:

How big is the Republican Party’s loss?

The Republican Party has suffered a historic, worse-than-expected rout, losing control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to the Democratic Party.

According to the results, in the House of Representatives, Democrats have so far won 228 seats, while the Republicans have won 139.

Democrats are also leading in 34 other seats which have yet to be called. If they win all of those, they could end up with more than 260 seats in the House, the party’s biggest majority since 1990, when the Democrats won 267 seats in the lower chamber.

Democrats also had a large majority in the House in 2008, with 257 seats, while the Republicans had 178 seats.

In the Senate, the upper chamber of Congress, Democrats have won with a majority of 54 seats while the Republicans have won 44 seats. They have not had such a clear majority in the Senate since 2008, when the party won 56 seats in the slipstream of Barack Obama’s historic first presidential election.

While President Donald Trump told voters to imagine he was on the ballot for this election, many of the Republican candidates he endorsed in key battleground states have been defeated by the Democrats.

In South Carolina, which had not elected a Democratic senator since 1998, Trump backed Darline Graham. But Democrat Annie Andrews won the seat.

In North Carolina, Trump had endorsed former national Republican campaign official Michael Whatley, who was beaten by Democratic Governor Roy Cooper.

In Texas, Trump promoted Attorney General Ken Paxton. But Democrat Talarico won the race.

Then in Michigan, Former US Representative Mike Rogers, Trump’s choice in Michigan, was defeated by Democrat Abdul El-Sayed.

How significant are these losses for the Republican Party?

It is usual for the governing party to lose some seats in the US midterms, but not on this scale.

A Republican Party member told Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher in Washington, DC that the results have been much worse than expected.

“Certainly their internal polling was telling them that they might hold on to the Senate. That obviously was so far off,” Fisher reported.

Chris Featherstone, a political scientist at the University of York in the United Kingdom, said the midterm results represent a “seismic loss” for the Republicans.

He noted that many Trump-backed Republican candidates have lost throughout the country, and to both progressive and centrist Democratic candidates.

“Texas is a great example of the extent of the loss, where [James] Talarico won [the Senate seat] by almost 10 points. Texas has long been a Republican stronghold, and has been close to the heart of the intellectual and emotional heart of the party,” he said. He added that Democrat Gina Hinojosa’s win over Texas governor Greg Abbott has “come as a huge shock”, especially after redistricting which took place ahead of the midterms and through which the Republicans had hoped to win five additional seats.

“The results will change the relationship between Congress and the White House, with a huge likelihood of significant investigations and potentially impeachments for several members of the administration,” Featherstone said. “They will also change the makeup of the Democrats in Congress, increasing the appetite for aggressive opposition to Trump.”

Sudha David-Wilp, vice president of external relations at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, said that the midterm elections are usually viewed as a referendum on the party in power. She said, “a blue wave was not out of the realm of possibility”.

She told Al Jazeera that the Democrats have not just flipped seats in places like Texas, Iowa and South Carolina, where Trump is highly popular, but may have also “ushered in a new political epoch”, following these elections.

“President Trump still has a loyal following but MAGA [his voter base] has splintered and it will be hard for the GOP [Grand Old Party, a nickname for the Republican Party] to run on his brand in 2028,” she added.

Are there any silver linings for the Republicans?

All is not doom and gloom for the Republicans who have had some wins in these elections.

In Florida, a state where Trump is very popular, Republican Senator Ashley Moody defeated Democratic state Representative Angie Nixon. Republican Byron Donalds also defeated Democrat David Jolly to win the Florida election for governor. Donalds will be Florida’s first Black governor.

In Wyoming, Republican Harriet Hageman won a Senate seat and, in Alabama, Tommy Tuberville won the race for governor of the state, defeating Democrat Doug Jones.

Republicans have also had victories in Idaho, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kentucky and West Virginia, among others.

The party has experienced similar scenarios in US election history.

In 1992, for example, when George HW Bush was president, the Republicans won only 176 seats in the Congress, compared with the Democrats who built on their majority by winning 258 seats.

Even in 2008, when George W Bush was president but Barack Obama was elected as the country’s next president, the Republicans won only 178 seats compared with the Democrats who won 257 seats.

In both those cases, however, the Republicans were able to turn things around within two years.

In 1994, while Bill Clinton was president, the Republicans won back majorities in both houses of Congress. In 2010, while the Democrats held on to control of the Senate under Obama after the midterms, they lost control of the House of Representatives.

This year could be different, for one main reason. Laurel Rapp, director of the US and North America Programme at Chatham House, said that midterms are rarely a referendum on a US president’s foreign policy, but this year, amid the US and Israel’s war on Iran, Trump’s foreign policy agenda has been a major source of ire among American voters.

She said voters have increasingly connected the Trump administration’s international affairs with rising fuel and food costs.

“And they delivered a pretty resounding verdict to the president that they would like to see a change,” she told Al Jazeera.

Rapp said that while Trump may face some constraints when it comes to navigating the global affairs landscape in the next two years, he will still have a lot of authority.

“The president still retains wide latitude to approach relations with foreign countries unilaterally, to continue to send US troops where he desires and to continue to wage wars,” she said.

To understand the coming collision between President Donald Trump and a Democratic Congress, one must first discard the textbook formulas of US governance. The United States is about to witness a political experiment for which there is no modern precedent: a purely transactional populist, entirely unmoored from traditional ideological orthodoxy, forced to share power with a legislative branch unified in partisan hostility.

The conventional wisdom predicts immediate, paralysing gridlock. That is a misreading of the terrain. Trump does not view politics through the lens of conservative dogma or constitutional restraint; he views it through the lens of the deal. Consequently, his governance will not be characterised by passive stagnation, but by an aggressive, volatile mix of transactional bipartisanship and raw executive unilateralism.

Domestically, the ideological lines will blur. For decades, the Republican Party was defined by its commitment to limited government and free markets. Trump has spent a decade dismantling that consensus. Confronted with a Democratic House of Representatives and a Democratic Senate, he will feel no tribal loyalty to standard conservative policy. Instead, expect him to seek out areas of populist overlap.

When it comes to massive infrastructure spending, protectionist trade policy and aggressive state intervention to protect domestic manufacturing, Trump is often closer to the Democratic centre-left than to the ghost of former President Ronald Reagan. He will dare the opposition majorities to vote against legislation that pours millions of dollars into their districts or levies tariffs that protect their blue-collar constituents. It will be an unholy, ad hoc alliance — issue-by-issue, fleeting, and transactional — designed to deliver the optics of victory for both a populist president and a vulnerable congressional majority.

Where such transactions fail, however, the venue will shift from the legislative chamber to the administrative state controlled by the executive. Trump will not accept the traditional boundaries of a divided government. If necessary, he will govern by decree. Executive orders, emergency declarations and expansive interpretations of federal statutes will be deployed to bypass a stubborn Capitol Hill. The administration will dare the Democratic leadership to tie up the government in the federal courts, turning the slow wheels of the judiciary into a political weapon.

Yet, the true test of this fragile constitutional architecture will not occur on the domestic stage. It will happen abroad, specifically in the volatile expanses of the Middle East, where the executive branch enjoys its greatest constitutional latitude.

The immediate flashpoint is Iran. The Trump doctrine rests on a foundation of maximum economic pressure backed by highly unpredictable, asymmetric tactical deterrence. It is a posture designed to keep adversaries off balance. But a Democratic Congress, historically wedded to the framework of multilateral diplomacy and deeply wary of congressionally unauthorised foreign entanglements, will view this unpredictability not as a strategic asset but as an existential danger.

The US is likely headed for a historic constitutional showdown over the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Democratic majorities will also aggressively use the power of the purse to place statutory fences around the commander-in-chief, attempting to defund military manoeuvres or explicitly prohibit unilateral escalations against Tehran. Trump will treat these attempts at legislative constraints with open contempt. Asserting an absolute, almost unrestrained reading of the Constitution’s Article II executive authority, the president will argue that modern geopolitical threats require executive agility, not governance by congressional committee. When the rockets fly, the president will act unilaterally, leaving Congress to meaningless academic debates.

Hanging over this entire drama is the ultimate constitutional weapon: the threat of impeachment by Congress. In a Washington where both the House and the Senate are controlled by the president’s opponents, oversight will cease to be an instrument of governance and become an engine of partisan political destruction.

Democratic congressional committee chairs will launch a relentless, multifront campaign of subpoenas and investigations. Every member of Trump’s cabinet will live in a permanent state of interrogation; every foreign policy decision will be audited for high crimes and misdemeanours. The House will almost certainly draft articles of impeachment, not as an extraordinary remedy for rare misconduct, but as a routine penalty for political nonconformity.

Yet, this strategy carries severe risks for the opposition. Trump does not fear institutional warfare; he thrives on it. He will transform the spectacle of congressional investigations into the theatre of public grievance. To his base, a hostile Congress will be framed not as a coequal branch of government performing its constitutional duty, but as an illegitimate, obstructionist cabal subverting the will of the forgotten American voter.

Because the structural math of the Senate requires a two-thirds majority for removal of the president, actual eviction from the Oval Office remains a statistical fantasy. Impeachment will therefore achieve not displacement, but a permanent state of institutional friction.

What the US is about to enter is not two years of legislative inactivity, but a phase of perpetual brinkmanship. It will be an era in which governance occurs only in the narrow, volatile intervals between constitutional crises. The US system was built to withstand institutional tension, but it also requires a basic reverence for institutional boundaries to function. With a transactional populist president in the White House and an adversarial army on Capitol Hill, those boundaries will be tested as never before. The architecture will hold, but the foundation will shake.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

While votes are still being counted in California, a handful of important races in the midterm elections have already been called or are pointing firmly in one direction.

Despite its status as a reliably Democratic stronghold, the Western state has played a dynamic role in Tuesday’s United States elections, acting as a testing ground for questions as varied as partisan redistricting and tax measures targeting billionaires.

Let’s take a quick look at some of tonight’s results:

Democrats ahead in key races

While vote-counting was still under way, Democratic candidates have pulled decisively ahead in several contests seen as must-wins for the party’s effort to take control of the US House of Representatives.

To boost the party’s chances, voters a year ago approved a partisan redistricting measure promoted by Governor Gavin Newsom to net Democrats five additional seats in the US House.

One such race took place in the state’s 22nd Congressional District, located in the agriculture-rich Central Valley.

Progressive educator Randy Villegas celebrated the results of the race on Tuesday night as the Democrat held a commanding lead of about 30 percentage points over Republican incumbent David Valadao.

Democratic candidate Marni von Wilpert is also ahead in the 48th district, located in Southern California near San Diego, where she is leading Republican Jim Desmond by about 20 points.

While those advantages are considerable, The Associated Press news agency has not yet officially called those races.

Progressive Aisha Wahab is also firmly ahead in her race against Melissa Hernandez, a fellow Democrat, in the 14th district.

Wahab overcame substantial spending by pro-Israel groups to defeat the establishment-aligned Hernandez in a special election in September. She is now on track to win a full term in that seat.

With her previous victory, Wahab became the first person of Afghan ancestry elected to Congress.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, moderate Democrat Scott Wiener is leading progressive rival Connie Chan in a race for the seat of retiring Representative Nancy Pelosi, the powerful former Democratic House speaker. Wiener has a lead of about 10 points with 50 percent of the vote tallied thus far.

Republicans face another bruising defeat in gubernatorial race

While Republicans across the country have laboured to turn California into a symbol of liberal dysfunction, voters in the state remain unconvinced that conservatives offer a better alternative.

The gubernatorial race was called for the Democratic candidate, former state Attorney General Xavier Becerra, immediately after the polls closed.

Becerra’s Republican rival, British political commentator Steve Hilton, had argued that years of unbroken Democratic domination had resulted in sky-high prices and public disorder.

But his bid to underscore cost-of-living issues by holding campaign events where he offered discounted petrol fell flat at a time when many voters blame President Donald Trump’s war on Iran for eye-watering prices at the pump.

Becerra’s victory comes more than five years after Republicans tried to dislodge Newsom through a recall election that failed by a margin of more than 20 points.

In the past, Republicans could console themselves that if they remained in electoral purgatory in the most populous US state, their Democratic rivals were likewise locked out of power in conservative strongholds such as Texas.

Tuesday’s losses will sting a bit more after a series of shock wins by Democrats in states that can usually be counted on to deliver easy wins for Republicans, including Texas.

Uncertainty over some ballot measures

While some results have come in quickly, tight contests over some of the state’s ballot measures, or policy questions put directly before voters, have yet to be called.

Proposition 40, which would institute a one-time tax on the net worth of billionaires in the state to help fund programmes such as healthcare and education, is trailing with about 44 percent of the counted votes in favour and 56 percent against.

The measure won support from progressive figures, such as Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna, but prompted a deluge of spending from wealthy donors and companies to oppose it.

The Associated Press has announced that Proposition 39, which would have instituted voter ID laws sought by conservatives, has been rejected by voters.

James Talarico has won the United States Senate race in Texas, the first time a Democrat has won state office since 1994.

Tuesday’s victory marks a seismic shift in Texas, which has become a standard-bearer for staunch conservative policies for the Republican Party.

The win comes after a primary intervention by US President Donald Trump, which saw him endorse scandal-ridden Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over Republican Senate candidate John Cornyn.

But Paxton failed to generate enthusiasm, even among his own party. That came despite record-breaking spending, topping over half a billion dollars.

The largest share came from billionaire donor Elon Musk, who spent at least $212 million supporting Paxton.

Musk’s SpaceX company is based in Texas. He has spent heavily across the country, with Democrats expected to investigate his role as head of the federal cost-cutting panel, DOGE, after taking control of Congress.

“It’s historic,” said Taylor Bell, a 27-year-old law student, who attended an election watch party in Houston.

“Hopefully we see money coming back to the people of Texas, and not more of the same we’ve seen — well, my whole life at this point.”

Congressman Christian Menefee, who represents Houston, told those gathered that “tonight Texas has restored the hope of a nation”.

“Tonight, I believe firmly that we can accomplish anything in this country if we just stand together and we fight back against hate and bigotry,” he said.

“The younger generation and all the people who want a better future came out and made their voices heard,” said 29-year-old Yvonne Nunga, who works in IT. “This party, this fight right now, is not about left or right. It’s about top versus bottom, and I’m so glad that we have candidates that are making this a pivotal point in their messaging.”

“The current politics of the current administration is not working for the people. It’s not for the people, by the people, it’s for the billionaires bought by the billionaires,” she said.

No ‘puppet governor’ for Trump

Tuesday also saw the surprise victory of Gubernatorial Democratic challenger Gina Hinojosa, whose challenge had been considered a long shot even into the final days of the race.

Hinojosa has become the first Latino governor in the history of Texas, despite Latinos making up 40 percent of the state’s population.

Alejandra Peimbert, a regional communications director for Hinojosa’s campaign, said the victory should be seen as a rebuke to the hardline immigration policies enacted under 10 years of outgoing governor Greg Abbott.

Abbott has cooperated closely with the Trump campaign in its mass deportation campaign, spearheading policies that saw local law enforcement officials conduct immigration enforcement.

“I think the Latino community and our vote has been underestimated by politicians constantly,” Peimbart told Al Jazeera, adding that the economy is so bad, and the horrendous things that ICE has done to our community, tearing apart families…I think my community finally had enough.”

“President Trump will no longer have a puppet in a governor,” she said.

Abbott’s tenure has been defined by a conservative lurch in the state, with hardline approaches not only to immigration, but to social welfare programmes, abortion rights, education and religious freedom.

Abbott’s supporters have touted rapid economic growth in recent years, spurred by tax cuts and rollbacks on regulation.

The state has long been a Republican standard bearer in the US

Critics have said the metrics of economic success have the most positive impact on corporations and the wealthy, while middle and lower class Texans see little benefit.

Texas’s poverty rate sits above the national average, with little in the way of social safety nets.

“It’s one of the biggest things Texas can ever experience because these are two strong candidates that took their time, they took their dedication, and focused with every community in Texas, and so they deserve this position,” said 21-year-old Dylan Sutter.

“Everything is blue. It’s like the ballot itself was painted blue by the time we were done with it.”

Iran says a ‘maximum deterrence’ plan is ready against any new US attack, warning of an immediate response.

With control of the US Congress on the line, results from Tuesday’s races will have marked implications for the country.

After a full day of voting, the first polls have begun closing in the consequential US midterm elections.

Control of the US Congress is on the line, with all 435 House of Representatives seats and 35 of the Senate’s 100 seats up for grabs.

Democrats, who have campaigned on promises to combat the country’s rising cost of living and end the US-Israel war on Iran, are eyeing a return to power in the US House. The party is also optimistic it could recapture control of the US Senate from Republicans when all ballots are counted.

The first clues to how the midterms may affect each party will appear in the US state of Kentucky’s highly competitive sixth congressional district, where polls closed at 6pm ET (23:00 GMT).

In the conservative district, which includes the state’s second-largest city, Lexington, Democrats have invested heavily in the campaign of US Navy veteran Zach Dembo, who is running against a Trump-backed physician and former state lawmaker, Ralph Alvarado.

If Republicans hold the seat, it could signal how the party may perform in other races across the country.

Results from all of the day’s races will continue to come in throughout Tuesday evening. But some may not be known until Wednesday, or later, as more states finish voting and officials start releasing their vote counts.

Follow all the returns on Al Jazeera’s live results page.

Americans head to the polls on Tuesday in midterm elections that will decide control of Congress and determine how much pressure President Donald Trump faces for the rest of his term.

After two years of unified Republican control, Democrats are fighting to reclaim both the House of Representatives and the Senate, while Republicans work to defend their narrow majorities and protect Trump’s agenda on immigration, the economy and the courts.

These 20 photos capture the pulse of this deeply polarised contest – from crowded polling stations and get-out-the-vote drives to last-minute campaign stops – offering a glimpse of voters at the booths and parents with children in tow across the country, all playing their part in a race set to shape the direction of American politics for years to come.

On November 3, as Americans vote in the midterm elections, the United States faces a defining test of presidential power, constitutional accountability and democratic resilience. The election will determine control of Congress, but its stakes extend far beyond partisan fortunes. At issue is whether constitutional checks and balances can constrain President Donald Trump, whether election officials can withstand political pressure, and whether the government will respect the voters’ verdict when the outcome threatens its interests.

The battle for control of elections

The administration’s efforts to reshape election procedures have encountered substantial judicial resistance. According to an October 20 review by the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 34 federal district court decisions had temporarily or permanently blocked administration initiatives involving election procedures and demands for voter registration records. The rulings included decisions by judges appointed by presidents of both parties, including Trump himself.

These decisions demonstrate that judicial oversight remains an important constitutional safeguard. Yet repeated litigation exposes a vulnerability: courts often intervene only after disputed measures have been introduced, leaving states to challenge policies that can generate uncertainty close to Election Day.

The controversy intensified on October 26, when a federal appeals court declined to order California to set aside ballots from approximately 20,000 registered voters whom the Justice Department alleges may be noncitizens. The court ruled that the lower court had not been given adequate opportunity to consider the government’s request. The underlying dispute remained unresolved.

The administration maintains that its actions protect electoral integrity. But investigating credible allegations of wrongdoing is fundamentally different from restricting eligible voters on the basis of unverified suspicions. Election security requires accurate voter rolls, but it equally requires protecting citizens from erroneous challenges.

Repeated allegations of fraud can undermine confidence even when evidence fails to establish that an election has been compromised. The danger is that routine election administration becomes suspect in the public mind, regardless of the facts.

Congress as a constitutional check

Republicans hold narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress, placing control of the House and potentially the Senate within reach of Democrats.

A Democratic House majority would strengthen the opposition’s ability to investigate administration policies, subpoena officials and scrutinise executive decisions. Immigration enforcement, election procedures, federal spending and the implementation of executive orders could face intensified oversight.

Such scrutiny could expose misconduct where evidence supports it and compel officials to explain decisions otherwise shielded from meaningful examination. Yet investigations do not automatically produce accountability. Subpoenas can trigger prolonged legal battles, and congressional hearings alone cannot force policy changes.

Control of the Senate would give Democrats greater influence over presidential nominations and judicial appointments. Nevertheless, Trump would retain his veto power and substantial executive authority. Even unified Democratic control of Congress would not automatically reverse his agenda.

The deeper question is whether Congress will exercise its constitutional responsibilities independently or allow partisan loyalty to take precedence over institutional accountability. Checks and balances cannot function effectively if one branch declines to challenge another when circumstances demand it.

The test after election day

Perhaps the most consequential confrontation will come after the ballots are cast.

Trump’s response to his 2020 presidential defeat remains a critical precedent. He challenged the result, made unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, and pressured Georgia officials to find enough votes to reverse his loss. On January 6, 2021, a mob attacked the Capitol as Congress met to certify the presidential election.

That history does not establish that similar events will recur in 2026. It does, however, make scrutiny of potential election disputes essential.

The danger may lie not in a single intervention capable of changing the result, but in successive confrontations: challenges to ballot counting, pressure on state officials, demands for investigations and attempts to portray ordinary procedures as evidence of fraud. Even unsuccessful efforts can delay resolution and weaken public confidence.

Candidates have every right to pursue legitimate legal challenges. Courts must consider credible evidence, and election officials must correct documented irregularities. But allegations are not proof, and no president can simply declare an unfavourable result invalid.

An election can also be damaged without a single vote being changed. Intimidation of election workers, unfounded accusations and efforts to discredit established procedures can erode public acceptance of legitimate outcomes.

The distinction between lawful scrutiny and political interference is therefore fundamental. Electoral integrity depends on evidence, consistent procedures and respect for the law – not on whether the outcome favours the governing party.

Courts cannot defend democracy alone

Judicial intervention demonstrates that constitutional safeguards remain operational. Courts can invalidate unlawful executive actions, but they cannot independently administer elections across thousands of jurisdictions or guarantee that political leaders will respect every ruling.

Nor can judicial decisions alone restore public confidence after sustained efforts to discredit electoral institutions. Democracy depends on Congress exercising oversight, election officials counting ballots accurately, courts acting impartially and political leaders respecting lawful outcomes.

The willingness of judges appointed by presidents of both parties to rule against administration initiatives reinforces a fundamental principle: constitutional protections cannot depend on partisan alignment. Their effectiveness rests on whether institutions apply the same rules regardless of who benefits.

The broader danger is institutional erosion. Repeated confrontations can weaken public confidence, discourage election workers and normalise the idea that constitutional constraints are obstacles to political power rather than obligations governing its exercise.

A verdict beyond the ballots

The November 3 midterms will not resolve the struggle over presidential power. If Republicans retain Congress, Trump will continue to benefit from congressional majorities, although judicial and state-level checks will remain. If Democrats gain one or both chambers, the administration will face greater scrutiny, but substantial executive authority will persist.

Neither outcome guarantees effective constitutional government. The decisive issue is whether institutions exercise their lawful responsibilities and whether political leaders accept that presidential power is neither unlimited nor permanent.

American democracy has survived profound crises, but resilience should not be confused with invulnerability. Checks and balances work only when institutions enforce them and political leaders respect their limits.

The midterms are therefore about more than congressional arithmetic. They will test whether votes are counted according to law, disputes are resolved through established procedures and electoral outcomes are respected regardless of partisan consequences.

The ballots will determine who controls Congress. What follows will reveal whether American institutions can still uphold a principle fundamental to democratic government: no president stands above the law, no party owns the electoral process, and no exercise of political power is beyond accountability.

On November 3, Americans will vote to determine the composition of Congress. The aftermath will test something more enduring: whether the constitutional restraints that have sustained American democracy remain binding when their enforcement carries the highest political stakes.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Houston, Texas – The gospel music from Mount Hebron Missionary Baptist Church spills into the streets of Sunnyside, a predominantly Black neighbourhood in southern Houston.

It is a familiar scene on any given Sunday: hands in the air, immaculate bow ties on starched shirts, fabric flowers adorning perfectly pastel hats. But with the US midterm elections just two days away, the service held a special significance on the front line of a US redistricting battle.

Mt Hebron had long been located in the ninth congressional district, its politically engaged Black voters for two decades helping to elect Democrat Al Green, a flamboyant presence in Congress known for his cane-waving opposition to US President Donald Trump.

But following an appeal from Trump, the Republican state legislature last year conducted rare mid-decade redistricting, redrawing the church and its Black community into the Black-majority 18th district.

Critics call the process “cracking and packing”, diminishing the representation in Congress of minority groups, particularly heavily Democratic Black communities, by consolidating their voting power into fewer districts.

“It’s kind of one and the same when we talk about the voting and the civil rights,” said Pastor Max Miller, who has served at the church for 18 years.

“They are trying to manipulate and monopolise the vote and minimise the people who are in those districts,” said Miller. “We see so much rolling backwards that it looks like they’re trying to take a script from an old song and turn back the hands of time.”

As a result of the redistricting, Green was forced to run in a primary against 18th district incumbent Christian Menefee, another Black Democrat. He lost, and Houston lost one of its Black representatives in Congress.

The ninth district, meanwhile, was redrawn to favour Republicans, one of at least five US congressional seats the party hopes to pick up in the midterm vote.

The machinations have resonated with worshippers at Mt Hebron.

“I don’t like the redistricting at all because Al Green was moved out,” said 97-year-old Alice Jefferson, who had followed the congressman throughout his political career. “He always had good advice for the people.”

Janice Ray, a 61-year-old home health aide and entrepreneur, said state lawmakers were “trying to move people out of the district that they’re familiar with”.

“To me, it was all a bunch of BS,” she said. “There was no reason for it.”

“But we’ll stand firm, regardless of what they try to do,” Ray added. “Because just like it was changed, it can always be changed back.”

‘Voices have been weakened’

The redistricting process has undergone a generational transformation this election season, one that, experts say, has degraded longstanding guardrails protecting minority voting power.

“In political science, we have what we call descriptive representation,” Michael Adams, a professor at Texas Southern University in Houston, told Al Jazeera. “In terms of descriptive representation, minorities and others feel that if they can elect someone who reflects their values, for example, and who may look like them, their voting can be defined as one voice.”

“And certainly with not having an additional Black member of Congress representing Houston, a significant segment of Black voters may feel that their voices have been weakened,” he said.

Texas was only the beginning.

This year Republican and Democratic state legislatures across the country joined the spree: Republicans successfully redistricted in Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida and Ohio; Democrats did so in California, while a court-ordered map in Utah handed Democrats a favourable seat. A Democratic push in Virginia was subsequently invalidated.

Redrawing maps mid-decade, and not waiting for the latest demographic numbers from the US census, was already atypical. But many of the maps drawn this year would have been deemed illegal in previous cycles.

Section 2 of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, initially passed to counter blatantly racist voting practices in the US, had long prohibited redrawing congressional maps to dilute the electoral power of minority voters.

In April, the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court ruled that anyone challenging such a map must prove “racist intent”. Critics have said the ruling effectively allows for racial gerrymandering, with proving such an intent an unreasonably high bar.

But critics of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act have said drawing maps to protect minority voting power is in itself discriminatory.

Defenders in Texas, meanwhile, have said the redistricting was based on the shifting political makeup of the state, and not racial gerrymandering.

“This plan includes political considerations, public testimony, recognition of population growth and recent changes in voter trends,” State Representative Todd Hunter, a Republican, said shortly after the new map’s passage last year.

“Each of these newly drawn districts now trend Republican in political performance. While there’s no guarantee of electoral success, Republicans will now have an opportunity to potentially win these districts,” he said.

A political test

There are no guarantees that a party’s redistricting plans will actually work.

Following the tit-for-tat map redrawings, Republicans hoped to net at least 13 seats nationally. Polling has suggested their gains may be much more muted.

All told, about 35 million US voters will be casting ballots in newly redistricted seats this election.

“Redistricting can change the political boundaries, but it can’t guarantee how voters will behave,” Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor at the University of Houston, told Al Jazeera.

In Texas, the Republican map was drawn largely based on recent Latino voting trends. The demographic swung heavily for Trump in the state in 2024, despite once being considered a reliable Democratic voting bloc.

Beyond the ninth congressional district in Houston, Republicans hoped to pick up four other districts, most based in South Texas, with an eye on shifting Latino sentiment.

But the political tides have again turned. Trump’s popularity has tanked among Latino voters, fuelled in part by unrest over the economy and the administration’s aggressive deportation campaign.

It remains to be seen how that will reflect at the ballot box when Texas voters pick a senator, governor, members of Congress and a slate of state and local officials.

“These districts are a test of whether political dissatisfaction can overcome an aggressively partisan map,” Rottinghaus said.

‘Trying to mobilise’

With new boundaries come new opportunities.

The ninth district is now considered Republican-favoured, but its large population of low-propensity Latino voters creates a pathway for a Democratic victory, according to Dayana Iza, Texas state director of Mi Familia Vota, a Latino voting organisation that has focused resources on the congressional race.

The state legislature “kept a big portion of Latino voters there, but the reality is that the Latino percentage in that district that votes is very, very low,” Iza told Al Jazeera. “So that then became a district that we are trying to mobilise in terms of turnout.”

On the Saturday ahead of the November 3 vote, Democratic candidate Leticia Gutierrez and State Senator Molly Cook zigzagged through a neighbourhood of single-family homes in eastern Houston.

Any path to victory, Gutierrez assessed, would be based on face time and a chance to connect with disillusioned voters.

“This community here has an average annual income of $63,000 a year. I make a little over that, and it’s difficult,” Gutierrez told Al Jazeera. “At this point, it’s not a left or a right thing anymore. This is an affordability crisis.”

“You’ve heard some of the voters out here say this is the first time someone actually came to my door,” she added. “That means a lot, and so we want to continue to do that.”

Among the residents was Christian Garcia, a 53-year-old who works at a local chemical plant and has not voted since moving to Texas from Puerto Rico in 2014. He said he is focused on his family, saving enough for retirement and eventually leaving some money behind for his adult children.

In the past, Garcia said, he felt voting was “wasting my time”.

“You know, it’s a lot of corruption and things,” said Garcia. “I just don’t believe in anybody anymore.”

Down the block, Esmeralda Gil, a 39-year-old teacher, said she hoped for a Democratic surge.

Gil questioned why taxes, particularly on housing, seemed so high, while so many struggled to access healthcare.

“We need affordable healthcare and affordable housing,” she said.

This comes as leading opposition leader, Maria Corina Machado, returns to Venezuela and hints at criticism of Trump administration.

The United States has urged Venezuela to continue on a phased plan of economic recovery and political reconciliation before embarking on democratic elections.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio discussed the gradual plan during a meeting on the country’s political future with Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs Oliver Blanco on Monday. The meeting comes nearly a year after US forces abducted former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from Caracas and brought him to the US to face drug trafficking and other charges.

Neither Rubio nor Blanco spoke to the media after the meeting, but in a readout. The State Department said in a readout that Washington had reaffirmed President Donald Trump’s “three-phase plan for Venezuela: stabilization, economic recovery and political reconciliation, and democratic transition”.

Last week, Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado returned to her country, thanking the US president and Rubio for their support. Machado, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who gifted her medal to Trump in 2025, said she had come to organise a movement in preparation for Venezuelan elections.

Rubio “has set out a sequence of events aimed at moving toward a democratic transition that makes clear the holding of presidential elections in 2027”, she said.

Machado is balancing an election campaign with a Trump administration that has sought to extract oil from Venezuela by striking deals with the government of interim President Delcy Rodriguez, who served as Maduro’s vice president and took over after his abduction.

In September, the Trump administration said it had struck a deal with Venezuela that would give Washington a stake in about one-fifth of the country’s oil resources.

The US said it was creating a joint venture with North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), owned by Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt, which is the second-largest private oil operator in Venezuela, behind Chevron.

Under the deal, Caracas is giving the company 100-year rights over 17 oilfields with proven reserves of 65 billion barrels. The Pentagon will have a 35 percent stake in NABEP, and the US will be guaranteed the right to buy 20 percent of its oil output at cost, the Trump administration has said.

Shortly before Machado’s statements on Thursday, Rodriguez assured the nation that elections would be held in Venezuela “with the world as witness”, but did not specify a date.

When asked about a possible meeting with Rodriguez, Machado said she had not received any message from the interim president or from Washington.

In remarks after returning Venezuela, Machado seemed sceptical of the oil agreement with the US.

“This agreement does not reflect the levels of transparency that Venezuelan society wants,” Machado said.

Only 32 percent of voters approve of Trump’s job performance in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Ahead of the United States midterm elections, President Donald Trump’s job approval rating continues to sit near a record low, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Some 32 percent of respondents approved of Trump’s handling of the presidency, 1 percentage point above his rating two weeks ago.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party continues to be unpopular among those polled: When asked whether they would vote for a generic Democrat or Republican candidate, 46 percent of respondents preferred Democrats compared with 38 percent preferring Republicans.

Trump himself is not on the ballot, but he has repeatedly told his supporters to vote as if they are voting for him. If the Republican Party loses control of the US Congress, Trump has warned, Democrats may seek to impeach him for a third time.

Trump’s approval rating has dropped steadily, polls suggest, especially since the launch of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28. The conflict has driven up petrol and diesel prices and has had secondary effects for US consumers worried about inflation and the economy.

The president embarked on a nearly monthlong campaign blitz ahead of the November 3 midterms in an effort to shore up support for Republican candidates, who are trying to retain control of the US House of Representatives and Senate.

Trump wrapped up his campaigning on Monday afternoon with a rally in Washington, DC, at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. The president has devoted significant attention to the site as part of his attempt to renovate the capital. The job ran months late and cost more than 10 times its original estimate, with a special liner for the pool that Trump touted peeling away soon after it was installed.

“It was a work of art that never worked, but now it will work,” Trump said at the rally. He spent much of his speech on his renovation plans for the city, including a “Triumphal Arch”, which is facing legal challenges.

Trump seemed to acknowledge on Monday that his campaigning might not deliver the results he wants for his party, but said this was the political norm for midterm elections.

“For some reason, the sitting president doesn’t win the midterms,” Trump said. “But we gave this a very strong shot.”

California says the move to block ballots from suspected noncitizens could disenfranchise eligible voters.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to stop California from counting mail-in ballots from more than 20,000 voters it claims are not US citizens.

The emergency request, filed on Monday, just one day before the midterm elections, is the latest development in a legal battle between the administration and California, a Democratic stronghold and the most populous US state.

California says the move could disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters.

The Department of Justice wants California to set aside ballots from voters on a list compiled by the Department of Homeland Security until after their citizenship status is confirmed.

But California says the list is unreliable and could include thousands of US citizens.

Voting has been under way since early October, and state officials say it would be nearly impossible to separate the ballots in question.

Last week, a federal judge rejected the administration’s request, raising concerns about the reliability of the data on the list.

“If the executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger,” Judge David Carter wrote.

The administration has turned to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court also rejected the request on Friday.

The dispute comes as Republicans fight to retain control of Congress in Tuesday’s elections.

Trump has repeatedly made false claims about widespread voter fraud, but studies and state audits have shown that ineligible voting, including by noncitizens, is rare.

On Tuesday, Americans head to the polls for the United States midterm elections, held halfway through a president’s four-year term. Voters will choose all 435 members of the US House of Representatives and 35 of the Senate’s 100 seats. The voting will decide which party controls Congress for the next two years.

Although the president’s name won’t appear on the ballot, the vote is widely seen as a verdict on the presidency, and the president’s party almost always pays the price.

In 18 of the 20 midterms held from 1946 to 2022, voters took House seats away from the party in control of the White House. The average loss was 26 seats. Only Bill Clinton’s Democrats in 1998 and George W Bush’s Republicans in 2002 bucked the trend.

Political scientists call this the “presidential penalty”, or the “midterm penalty”. The president’s party tends to lose seats simply because it holds power as voters use the midterms to put a check on the White House.

The House: 18 losses in 20 midterms

The chart below shows how many House seats the president’s party has won or lost in each midterm since 1946 from Harry S Truman to Joe Biden.

Democratic presidents have suffered the biggest midterm defeats since 1946. On average, their party has lost about 29 House seats in a midterm, compared with about 23 under Republican presidents.

The largest loss came in 2010, two years after Barack Obama became the first African American elected president, when Democrats lost 64 House seats and Republicans took control of the chamber. The Democrats under Truman lost 56 seats in 1946, and under Clinton, they lost 54 in 1994, each time losing control of the House.

The worst Republican defeats came under Dwight D Eisenhower when the party lost 50 seats in 1958 and Gerald Ford when it lost 48 in 1974. Donald Trump’s first midterm in 2018 cost Republicans 42 seats and control of the House.

Big losses often cost the president’s party its majority. In seven of the 20 midterms since 1946 (1946, 1954, 1994, 2006, 2010, 2018 and 2022), the House changed hands.

The Senate: 13 losses in 20 midterms

The president’s party has lost Senate seats in 13 of the 20 midterms since 1946 but lost control of the chamber in only six: 1946, 1954, 1986, 1994, 2006 and 2014.

Unlike the House of Representatives, where every seat is up for election every two years, only about a third of the Senate’s 100 seats are contested in each cycle because senators serve six-year terms and their elections are staggered. That means which states are voting can matter as much as the national mood.

Eisenhower’s Republicans suffered the biggest Senate loss in the period, giving up 13 seats in 1958. Truman’s Democrats lost 12 in 1946, and Obama’s Democrats lost nine in 2014, handing control of the chamber to Republicans.

At times, the two chambers have moved in opposite directions. In 1982, Ronald Reagan’s Republicans lost 26 House seats but gained one in the Senate. In 2018, Trump’s Republicans lost the House but added a Senate seat, and in 2022, Biden’s Democrats lost the House while gaining one seat in the Senate.

These split results show that a backlash against the president does not land evenly across Congress. A party can hold its ground on a favourable Senate map while losing competitive House districts.

What does it mean to lose the House or Senate?

Losing seats and losing control are not the same thing. Lyndon Johnson’s Democrats lost 47 House seats in 1966 but kept their majority. Twenty years later, Reagan’s Republicans lost only four House seats but lost the Senate after an eight-seat setback.

Control of the chambers decides who sets the agenda and passes legislation. A bill must pass both chambers before it reaches the president for his approval or veto, so an opposition majority in either can block the president’s plans.

A House majority can also mean a party is able to launch investigations and impeach a president while a Senate majority can reject the president’s nominees, including federal judges, who serve for life.

This year, Democrats need to gain three seats to win the House and four to win the Senate. A 50-50 split in the Senate would leave Republicans in control because Vice President JD Vance may cast tie-breaking votes.

Charleston, South Carolina – Avery Milton thought he was a die-hard supporter of US President Donald Trump. The 28-year-old South Carolina native had voted for Trump in the past three elections and believed in his promise to put America first. But ahead of the midterm elections, the president has left him feeling betrayed.

“He stabbed us in the back during his second term,” Milton told Al Jazeera.

Milton’s disillusionment is not isolated. He said many people close to him share this frustration, particularly younger conservatives around his age who are starting families and entering the workforce. Trump launching a war on Iran, after campaigning on a promise to avoid new wars, was a particular breaking point.

Now, Milton is helping lead a grassroots effort to write in Republican Congressman Ralph Norman for the US Senate, rather than support the party nominee, Senator Darline Graham, who has Trump’s endorsement.

A write-in candidate is someone whose name does not appear on the ballot but can still be chosen by voters who write it in themselves. The option is often used to indicate dissatisfaction with the official candidates, but rarely leads to a victory. One of those rare victories happened in 2010, when Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska won after launching a write-in campaign, having lost her Republican primary that year.

In the 2022 South Carolina Senate race, write-in votes accounted for just 0.1 percent of all votes cast.

Despite the president’s endorsement, Graham has struggled to unite conservatives behind her, potentially giving Democratic challenger Annie Andrews an opening in a state that has not elected a Democrat to the US Senate since 1998.

Darline’s unlikely path to Republican Senate candidate

After the sudden death of Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham on July 11, his younger sister, Darline, was appointed to serve out the remainder of his term.

Her appointment followed a tradition of family members succeeding deceased lawmakers, most commonly their spouses. But she made history as the first sibling appointed to fill a Senate vacancy.

Graham initially described the role as an opportunity to finish her brother’s work during the remaining months of his term. But days later, Trump urged her to run for a full six-year term, posting “RUN, DARLINE, RUN!” on Truth Social and promising his “complete and total endorsement” if she entered the race. Three days later, Graham announced on Fox News that she would run.

For some Republicans, the transition from temporary appointment to a full-term campaign happened too quickly. Milton said he felt the appointment had effectively “installed” a candidate.

Graham went on to defeat Republican Ralph Norman in the state’s August primary elections.

Norman, who represents South Carolina’s fifth congressional district, has repeatedly declined to campaign alongside Graham since losing the primary. He has made clear that his support for Graham is limited.

“You have to earn the vote. She hasn’t done that,” he told The Wall Street Journal. “The campaign has been about trying to prop up a candidate.”

The tensions have been particularly pronounced in Upstate South Carolina, where Norman has considerable support. Milton said Graham has done little to reach voters there during the campaign, aside from private dinners and appearances alongside Trump.

“She [Graham] never tried to reach out to everyday people here Upstate. And that spoke volumes about how this South Carolina GOP establishment feels about the grassroots conservatives. They just really don’t care,” Milton said.

Frustrated by what he saw as a failure to represent grassroots conservatives, Milton helped launch the Write-In Ralph movement, building a website and giving the campaign a public platform.

Milton said he and other supporters wanted a senator who would think independently, rather than simply fall in line with party leadership.

“We don’t necessarily want somebody that’s a rubber stamp for everything,” he said, adding that he wanted someone willing to “think of all the sides of an issue and policy”.

South Carolina’s independents

A sizeable group of South Carolina voters does not identify with either major party.

While the state does not register voters by party, a New York Times/Siena poll conducted in October suggested that 30 percent of likely voters identified as independents. Among those voters, Democratic Senate candidate Andrews led Graham by 20 percentage points.

The findings point to a potential blind spot for Republicans seeking to consolidate support around Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) coalition.

John Connolly, a 77-year-old retiree who lives in South Carolina’s Lowcountry, is one example of a voter whose political allegiances have shifted over time. He sees Graham’s appointment as part of a political culture that rewards loyalty over experience.

“I see her as nothing more than a puppet,” he told Al Jazeera. “To nod her head yes whenever she’s told to.”

Leila Ali, a regional campaign adviser who has spent more than a decade working with grassroots organisations across the US South, said political strategists often underestimate the diversity of the Southern electorate.

“The biggest thing that people get wrong is that they think the Southern vote is this monolith,” she told Al Jazeera.

Ali pointed to South Carolina’s early voting figures as evidence of that engagement. Nearly 950,000 early votes have been cast in the state, according to the state’s Election Commission, setting a new record for early voting in a midterm election.

An increasingly close Senate race

The stakes of this race have become increasingly apparent as the November 3 election approaches.

Despite Trump winning South Carolina by nearly 18 percentage points in 2024, he has made two trips to South Carolina in three months to campaign for Graham – an extraordinary show of presidential attention.

And polling suggests the race is far more competitive than Republicans might have expected. The October New York Times/Siena College poll had Graham and Democratic challenger Annie Andrews tied at 48 percent among likely voters.

For Democrats, this division offers a rare opening in a deep-red state where the party has struggled to compete.

Even with the race tightening, Republicans like Milton are willing to risk a Democratic victory by writing in Ralph Norman on their ballot. And if Graham loses, Milton says the blame should not fall on the write-in effort.

“They’re going to try to point the finger on this Write-in Ralph movement,” he said. “But I just want to make something very clear: that would assume that our votes would have gone to Darline anyway, and that’s just not the case.”