Donald

Over a week after Democrats rode a historic wave of support to retake the United States Congress, divisions within the party seem to be threatening to undermine its newfound political momentum.

Despite growing calls for a change in Congressional leadership, Democrats Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries appear likely to remain at the helm of their respective US Senate and House caucuses.

After amassing the most Democratic power in Washington since 2009, the two New Yorkers are seeking to retain their leadership positions as their party prepares to take control of both chambers in January.

Schumer, the US Senate’s 75-year-old minority leader, is vying to lead Democrats’ new majority in the chamber, a post he previously held during Joe Biden’s presidency. On the other side of the US Capitol, the 56-year-old Jeffries, as the current minority leader in the US House, is seeking the top role of speaker, placing him second in the line of succession for the US presidency.

But the prospect of keeping Schumer and Jeffries in charge has frustrated some Democrats, exposing long-running tensions between Democratic lawmakers who want to maintain continuity and those who believe their midterm victories offer an opportunity to fundamentally reshape the party’s priorities.

Here’s why Schumer and Jeffries could prevail:

An election victory buys political goodwill

Perhaps the biggest reason the top two Democrats in the US Congress will hold onto their posts: the party’s massive electoral gains.

Schumer’s supporters argue he helped Democrats secure at least eight Republican-held Senate seats, including victories in traditionally conservative states. The party is poised to hold as many as 56 seats in the next Congress, giving it a substantial majority not seen since former President Barack Obama’s first term in office.

“When the manager takes you to the World Series, you give him another contract”, Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego, with Schumer by his side, told reporters on Tuesday. “And this has been a really good election cycle for us”.

Schumer also played a central role in recruiting candidates who could compete in states where Democrats have struggled in recent elections, including former Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and former North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper.

Adam Jentleson, a longtime US Senate aide and author of, Supermajority: How Democrats Can Build Lasting Power, argued Schumer’s electoral success makes it difficult for critics to mount a successful challenge.

“It’s hard to argue with somebody who just oversaw the biggest election the Democrats have had since Watergate,” Jentleson said during an interview with public radio station WBUR earlier this month.

“The only people who matter are the members of the Democratic caucus,” Jentleson said, explaining that lawmakers who had recently benefitted from the midterm results would have little incentive to remove the person who helped deliver those victories.

Schumer’s allies have made a similar argument. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who oversees the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, credited Schumer’s candidate recruitment and fundraising efforts for helping the party reclaim the US Senate.

“That takes vision. It takes clarity of thought. It takes strategic leadership,” she said.

Schumer himself has expressed confidence that he has enough support to retain the position.

In an interview with The Washington Sun on Wednesday, he said he had secured more than enough backing from his colleagues.

“I am going to be elected leader, OK, and we’re united on the issues,” Schumer told the Sun. “We’re united.”

Schumer faces a challenge

Not every Democrat believes last week’s victories are enough to anoint Schumer as the party’s leader in the Senate in the next Congress.

Senator Chris Van Hollen announced on Thursday he would mount a challenge for the role after factions of the Democratic base, particularly progressives, have called for new leadership.

The Maryland Democrat attracted attention at the start of US President Donald Trump’s second term after he travelled to El Salvador to meet with his constituent, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been deported to the country despite a judge’s ruling barring his removal.

That, according to a senior Senate Democratic aide who spoke with Al Jazeera, exemplified “the fight Schumer just doesn’t have”.

“This is not about any one individual, but it is about answering the call of the American people,” Van Hollen said during a Thursday appearance on MSNOW, adding that US voters sent a message to “reject the status quo and to reject business as usual”.

Another Senate aide, who would only speak on condition of anonymity to talk freely about an internal matter, suggested Van Hollen’s bid may be more about extracting concessions from Schumer, like a promise to serve as a short-term “bridge” to a new generation of Democratic leadership.

An analysis by Al Jazeera showed that 12 Democratic senators have publicly committed to backing Schumer in next month’s leadership election. At least 10 senators, including independent Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats, have said they will not. However, only half of those opposed to Schumer’s leadership have backed Van Hollen’s challenge.

In an interview with The Nation published on Wednesday, the Vermont independent senator acknowledged knowing Schumer for decades and even liking him personally. But he argued that personal relationships should not determine who leads the party.

“In this moment in American history, Chuck’s views are way out of touch with where the American people are at — and especially with where [the base of] the Democratic Party is,” Sanders said.

He added that Schumer was not in tune with Democratic voters on the issues, arguing the party needed a new and more ambitious direction.

Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin has also questioned Schumer’s leadership, calling for a concrete plan outlining how Democrats intend to use their newly won congressional power.

Slotkin went further on Tuesday, suggesting to reporters at the US Capitol that senators withhold a quorum — the minimum number of lawmakers required to conduct official business — if Schumer runs unopposed, until he presents a plan that gives members a meaningful voice in setting the party’s priorities.

Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock has also declined to commit to supporting Schumer, telling CNN on Tuesday that Democrats are at an “inflection point” and any senator who believes they should lead deserves an opportunity to make their case.

Still, there is a difference between public dissatisfaction and the votes needed to remove a leader. Senate Democrats select their leader through a private ballot, requiring only a simple majority of the caucus.

Tre Easton, vice president for public policy at the Searchlight Institute and a former deputy chief of staff for Democratic Senator John Fetterman, has also questioned the timing of the push against Schumer, arguing calls for new leadership would have carried more weight following the Democrats’ losses in 2024 rather than immediately after their electoral successes in 2026.

“The job of the leader in each legislative chamber here in the U.S. isn’t to articulate a vision for the party”, Easton said in a social media post. “It’s to keep each respective caucus together and count votes. Dassit”.

Jeffries faces a different kind of challenge

The outlook is considerably clearer for Jeffries, who is seeking to become the first Black speaker of the House when the new Congress convenes on January 3.

Unlike Schumer, Jeffries does not face a prominent challenger for his leadership position, despite criticism from some progressives over his approach to Trump and his longstanding support for Israel.

His backing from moderate Democrats has been particularly visible.

The New Democrat Coalition, a group of Democratic centrists representing 142 current and newly elected lawmakers, issued a statement on Tuesday endorsing his bid for speaker.

“Hakeem Jeffries is the right person at the right time to lead our party”, the group said. “He’s smart, strategic, and action-oriented, with strong relationships across the Democratic caucus”.

The coalition added that it “can’t wait to vote for Hakeem Jeffries to be Speaker of the House on January 3, 2027”.

But support from the party’s moderate wing has not eliminated dissatisfaction among progressives.

Representative Pramila Jayapal, a former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said she is withholding her support for Jeffries unless he commits to advancing Medicare for All, a proposal to establish a government-funded universal healthcare system.

Jayapal has also acknowledged that the lack of an alternative candidate complicates the leadership debate.

“You can’t beat somebody with nobody,” the Washington state Democrat told Talking Points Memo, adding that the emergence of a challenger would change the calculations of lawmakers considering whether to support Jeffries.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, meanwhile, was asked by CNN whether she supported Jeffries.

“The race is unopposed. Yeah,” she responded, suggesting that the absence of a challenger was an important factor in the debate.

The tensions in the US House have also been illustrated by the case of Don Leonard, an incoming Democratic congressman from Ohio who said he will withhold his support for Jeffries unless the party commits to specific policy changes.

Leonard, who has called for an end to US support for Israel and the war in Iran, alleged in a video posted to social media that senior House Democrats threatened to make his life a “living hell” in Washington and undermine his chances of re-election in 2028 if he continued attaching conditions to his support for Jeffries.

He has not identified the lawmakers involved, and the allegations have not been independently verified. House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar told reporters on Tuesday he did not know which senior Democrats Leonard was referring to.

Jeffries, who has denied reports that US House Democrats have been receiving calls to oppose his bid for the speakership, spoke to reporters on Thursday about frustrations within the party over his leadership.

“We take nothing for granted, because all of us in the House of Representatives are on a two-year employment contract”, Jeffries said. “And we have to continue to make our case both with respect to our track record up until this point, as well as, perhaps even more importantly, our vision for the future”.

The pressure will come after the leadership votes

The leadership contests are scheduled for November 18 and 19 for House Democrats and at an unannounced date in December for Senate Democrats. 

If elected, both Schumer and Jeffries will likely continue to face competing demands from progressives seeking more aggressive action against Trump and from moderates representing districts and states where a more centrist approach may be politically important.

They will also have to contend with the practical limitations of governing. Even with control of both chambers, Democrats will not have the 60 Senate votes generally required to overcome a filibuster, meaning they will need Republican support for much of their legislation.

For now, however, the party’s electoral gains have given Schumer and Jeffries an argument for continuity.

“I welcome any discussion about the future of our caucus and the important work ahead,” Schumer wrote in an X post on Thursday. “I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished together—55 seats and counting is an amazing result—and I have the votes to continue serving as Democratic Leader.”

Saying it’s ‘a failed nation’, the US president considers military intervention in Cuba before he leaves office.

US President Donald Trump has said he would “certainly consider” using military force against Cuba, adding that he wants to “get Cuba done” before he leaves office in 2029.

In a phone interview on Thursday with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, of Salem News Channel, Trump was asked whether he was considering “freeing Cuba” through a military intervention.

“I want to get Cuba done before I leave,” he said, adding that the administration was “watching it very closely”.

Trump called the island “essentially a failed … place, nation, whatever you wanna call it”.

Politico reported that it was the first time Trump had put a timeline on a possible operation.

Trump said Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose parents are from Cuba, “would love to do it”.

“I’d love to be able to do it for the people, for the Cubans that came and were treated really badly, and they came to America,” Trump said. He added that he won the Cuban vote in Florida by a wide margin.

Pressure campaign

Trump has repeatedly threatened to topple authorities in Cuba.

On Monday, he said Cuba “will fall fairly soon” and that the US would help it “on a humanitarian basis”.

In March, he said he believed he would have “the honour of taking Cuba”, making the remarks as the island’s power grid collapsed.

Trump put Cuba under a de facto oil blockade in January, after the US seized Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro, and cut off Venezuelan oil to the island.

He signed an executive order declaring Cuba an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the US and threatened tariffs on any country that supplied it with fuel.

The blockade has caused repeated nationwide blackouts, fuel and food shortages, and a humanitarian crisis.

Cuban officials have called it “collective punishment”.

Washington has added sanctions, including on Cuba’s state oil company, President Miguel Diaz-Canel and relatives of former President Raul Castro, and announced a new round this month targeting 10 people and entities tied to the government, military and oil industry.

The US has also issued an arrest warrant for Castro. Officials from both sides have held talks on the blockade, but Cuba’s foreign minister said in June there had been “no progress”.

In March, the head of US Southern Command told senators that US troops were not rehearsing for an invasion of Cuba.

Cuban officials said the island was ready for any attack.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Nvidia loses more than $600bn in market value as CEO Jensen Huang steps down amid espionage and affair allegations.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has stepped down from the company following his reported affairs with a suspected Chinese spy and an Nvidia executive.

The $4.2 trillion tech giant has lost more than $600bn in market value this week as Huang’s scandals rocked the company, which supplies most of the chips powering advanced artificial intelligence (AI) technology. The stock slid more than 10 percent in premarket trading on Thursday.

The company appointed Colette Kress, Nvidia’s chief financial officer and executive vice president, as interim CEO on Thursday.

Nvidia’s board met on Wednesday night to discuss ousting Huang, whose relationship with the alleged Chinese spy triggered investigations by the FBI, the United States Congress and the California-based tech giant. Nvidia is also facing a shareholder class-action lawsuit.

The alleged Chinese intelligence asset, Alice Huang, is a former executive at Singapore-based Megaspeed, Nvidia’s primary business partner in Southeast Asia. Founded in 2023, Megaspeed has been investigated over whether it helped Chinese companies access its $4.8bn stock of powerful Nvidia chips.

The affair has raised national security concerns in the US, which restricts chip sales to China over concerns that the Chinese military, intelligence agencies or companies could use the advanced technology.

Huang, 63, is Nvidia’s co-founder, president and CEO. A close ally of United States President Donald Trump, he has pushed to ease US restrictions on chip exports to China. Trump said earlier this week that Huang told him he had “absolutely no idea” that he was in a relationship with an intelligence operative.

Huang owns about 3.6 percent of Nvidia’s stock, making him one of the richest people in the world. He is a powerful figure in the AI industry, which has driven record stock market and wider economic gains.

Nvidia’s board, which hired a law firm to investigate the affair with Alice Huang, met to decide Huang’s fate on Wednesday shortly after the New York Times reported that Huang also had an extramarital relationship with a Nvidia vice president who reports to him.

Nvidia’s stock has tumbled since the scandal erupted, falling to a 14-year low, the Reuters news agency reported.

Kennedy dynasty has filed a motion to stop Trump’s arch from obscuring JFK Eternal Flame and slain family gravesites.

Members of the prominent Kennedy family have filed a legal motion to halt the construction of US President Donald Trump’s 76-metre (250ft) “triumphal arch” in Washington, DC, arguing it mars the area near the graves of the family’s famous forebears.

On Tuesday, the nine plaintiffs, children and grandchildren of former Senators Robert F Kennedy and Edward M Kennedy, filed a motion to intervene and an accompanying complaint in two existing federal lawsuits to block the arch’s construction.

The project would sit near the final resting places of the late senators, buried alongside their brother, former President John F Kennedy, and the Eternal Flame commemorating him at Arlington National Cemetery.

Plaintiffs argued the proposed arch would “fundamentally alter the experience of visiting the gravesites”, a site that draws millions of visitors each year.

The intervention motion was filed by veteran Washington lawyer Norm Eisen and Democracy Defenders Fund, a centre-left legal advocacy group.

It contends that the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior authorised the granite, gold-ornamented structure, dubbed the “Arc de Trump” by critics, without required congressional approval.

The plaintiffs also argue the megastructure would destroy the intentionally designed, century-old line of sight between the Lincoln Memorial and the cemetery’s Arlington House across the Memorial Bridge.

Many plaintiffs

The high-profile intervention adds to an already sprawling roster of plaintiffs who have launched legal challenges against the polarising monument, including Vietnam War veterans, a historian, and the governments of the District of Columbia, Virginia and Arlington County.

Last week, District Judge Tanya Chutkan prohibited the Trump administration from breaking ground on the structure for another 14 days following the string of lawsuits.

Building the arch would be a “permanent denigration” of the gravesites, and the Kennedy offspring “would never again be able to appreciate both sites as they always have before, and as the Kennedy family always intended”, lawyers for the relatives wrote on Tuesday.

The project is just one component of the president’s effort to remodel much of Washington, DC, alongside a historic golf course renovation and threats to demolish the Kennedy Center.

But with Democrats seizing control of Congress in last week’s midterm elections, the overhauls may be set for heightened scrutiny.

Speaking on behalf of the Kennedy family, Rory and Maxwell Kennedy, children of the late senator Robert F Kennedy, said the action is about “protecting sacred spaces that belong to the American people”. They said several members of their slain family are “among the more than 400,000 veterans and family members buried or honored on this hallowed ground”.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, a Trump appointee who is estranged from much of his family,  did not join the litigation.

Announcement follows Trump administration crackdown on visa programs for skilled foreign workers.

United States technology giant IBM has said it will stop sponsoring US foreign worker visas and green cards for most roles in its largest division.

A company spokesperson told Reuters on Tuesday that its consultancy unit had opted to end sponsorship for most roles.

The company said its participation in US high-skilled visa programmes had been declining for years, adding that the decision came “as skill availability and client needs have evolved”.

IBM Consulting employs more than 150,000 of IBM’s 264,300-strong global workforce.

IBM has become less reliant on so-called H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers in recent years. Only 1,611 H-1B petitions were approved for the company in fiscal year 2026, according to data from US Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The announcement comes as the Trump administration has increased pressure on major companies to cut down on their highly skilled foreign workforce in the US. US President Donald Trump has claimed the programme is often subject to fraud and takes work away from skilled Americans and gives it to immigrants.

Last year, the administration announced it would require a one-time $100,000 fee on new H-1B petitions.

The administration said in October it was suspending a number of tech companies from a programme that allows H-1B workers to apply for green cards, saying it was cracking down on fraud and ensuring American workers were not being laid off and replaced by foreigners.

The suspended companies included Adobe and top H-1B employers Cognizant, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services and Microsoft.

The suspensions were announced within hours of Trump honouring Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella with the National Medal of Technology and Innovation.

India-born Nadella was one of six business leaders honoured by Trump. Five were foreign-born US citizens, including Tesla boss Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa, and Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who immigrated from Russia with his family as a child.

Trump administration awarded more than $60m each to St Louis, Missouri, and Jackson, Mississippi, in crime push.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has said that it will award the cities of St Louis, Missouri, and Jackson, Mississippi, more than $60m each to expand law enforcement resources as part of a bid to combat violent crime.

The White House stated in a social media post on Tuesday that the so-called “Model Cities Initiative” would help the municipalities increase their capacity for prosecutions and policing activities.

“The Model Cities Initiative reflects the Trump Administration’s commitment to reducing crime across the country and ensuring the safety of every American,” Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a press release describing the programme last month.

The initiative has said that it will distribute nearly $300m for such efforts among the cities of St Louis and Jackson, along with Jacksonville, Florida, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The Trump administration has promoted a largely punitive approach to combatting crime in cities across the country, including controversial steps such as the deployment of the National Guard to large, Democrat-led cities that have drawn accusations of executive overreach, civil liberties violations and political intimidation.

While Trump and his supporters have credited their policies with a drop in violent crime, that trend predates his return to office and has taken place in cities with a wide variety of approaches towards criminal justice across the country.

Homicides in St Louis, for example, have been falling for several years after a brief surge during the COVID-19 pandemic, and hit their lowest levels in more than a decade during the first half of 2026.

While Democratic officials have denounced Trump’s crackdowns, some Republican-led states have embraced them.

The government deployed members of several federal agencies to the city of Memphis, Tennessee, governed by Democrats at the local level but located in a Republican-led state.

The Trump administration has touted that effort as an inspiration for the Model Cities Initiative along with other cases, such as Washington, DC.

The government has hailed the Memphis deployment as a success, but some residents and civil liberties groups have accused the task force of widespread civil rights violations and excessive force.

A video released earlier this month as part of an investigation into a shooting by a member of the Tennessee National Guard, deployed in Memphis as part of Trump’s task force, showed the soldiers aiming their guns at a man as he lay dying on the street after being shot in the back.

United States House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has thrown his support behind impeaching Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, as the Democratic Party prepares to use its incoming congressional majorities to probe President Donald Trump’s administration.

In a Sunday appearance on the Television show This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Jeffries weighed in on the upcoming impeachment resolution, anticipated for the coming days.

“I’m a hard yes on the Hegseth resolution,” Jeffries said. “The so-called secretary of defence has abused his power, undermined our national security, and engineered this reckless and costly war of choice in Iran.”

The impeachment resolution has been spearheaded by outgoing Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a vocal critic of the US-Israel war on Iran.

“Pete Hegseth has got to go,” Jeffries added. “I believe there will be incredibly strong support for that resolution.”

Investigating ‘unprecedented corruption’

Jeffries is poised to become the next speaker in the House of Representatives after Democrats notched a historic victory in the November 3 midterm elections.

Both the House and the Senate flipped into Democratic control, with the left-wing party making some of its biggest gains in the lower chamber in more than half a century.

Democrats are expected to use their new congressional majorities to launch investigations into the Trump administration.

There have also been concerns, voiced by Trump himself, that he and other top officials could face impeachment.

In Sunday’s interview, Jeffries said the Democratic majority would move “aggressively” in its first 100 days in office, both to address affordability and “unprecedented corruption” under Trump.

“We are committed to cleaning up the mess wherever it’s found,” Jeffries said. “That’s in Congress, in the Supreme Court, and with respect to this administration.”

Currently, Republicans hold a government “trifecta”, with control of both chambers of Congress and the presidency. The Supreme Court also boasts a conservative supermajority, shaped by three Trump appointees.

But a new Congress will be sworn in on January 3. In the coming weeks, Democrats will choose their party leaders for both chambers.

Representative Robert Garcia formally announced his bid to lead the House Oversight Committee in a letter to colleagues on Thursday.

The committee is the chamber’s principal investigative panel, with the power to subpoena witnesses and documents.

‘Very serious’ allegations

On Sunday, Garcia told CNN that Stephen Miller‘s influential role in the Trump administration warranted investigation.

Miller, who was named last week as White House chief of staff, has been closely associated with Trump’s hardline immigration policies since his first term as president.

“What we think is that Stephen Miller is the architect of this horrific, unjust policy happening across the country,” Garcia said, pointing to policies of separating immigrant families and accusations of due process abuses.

“Stephen Miller is at the centre of major policy decisions that are happening in the administration, and it does deserve oversight and investigation.”

Garcia also signalled interest in questioning businessman Elon Musk over his leadership in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a federal initiative that led to widespread federal workforce cuts at the start of Trump’s second term.

DOGE also sought access to sensitive government data, including Americans’ personal information.

“What happened with DOGE, in particular, and the federal employees losing jobs the way they did and people’s data likely being compromised, I think, is very serious,” Garcia said.

Congressional committees have the power to hold hearings, subpoena witnesses, and demand documents, giving lawmakers a constitutional check on the executive branch.

The House can also impeach administration officials if a simple majority votes in favour.

Conviction and removal, however, require a two-thirds vote in the Senate, a high bar even with Democrats controlling the chamber.

Trump’s camp bites back

The White House was quick to draw its own battle lines.

Speaking on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Attorney General Todd Blanche said there could be investigations into Democratic lawmakers over their “threatening” rhetoric.

He added he was ready to counter Democratic efforts to probe and impeach Trump officials.

“If that’s what this new incoming leadership wants to do, we are ready,” said Blanche, a former personal lawyer for Trump. “If you work in this administration, you have a lawyer. It’s me.”

Trump, meanwhile, made similar remarks in a Truth Social post on Saturday.

He called on the Justice Department to investigate Democrats over their plans to haul his allies before congressional committees, branding them as “SLEAZEBAGS” who “should go to jail”.

“The threats being made by the Democrat Party against innocent Republican Donors and Party Members are absolutely unprecedented, and totally illegal,” the president wrote.

Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO says he will meet with the US president on Monday to discuss the offer.

Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) chief executive Dana White has said he will meet with Donald Trump after the US president offered him the job of White House press secretary.

Speaking at a new conference after a boxing event in London on Saturday, White said he would meet with Trump at the White House on Monday to discuss the president’s offer.

“Dana will be a Press Secretary like none other,” Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier on Saturday. “Dana, please take the job!”

Trump also requested that White “bring with him assistants, even though some are not from our Country”.

Trump listed and posted pictures of six current and former UFC title holders to join White: Islam Makhachev and Khabib Nurmagomedov from Russia’s Dagestan region; Americans Justin Gaethje, Daniel Cormier and “Kayla Harris”, likely a reference to Kayla Harrison; and Amanda Nunes, a Brazilian who became a US citizen last year.

“We need these people to defend us against the Lunatic Left,” Trump wrote.

The White House press secretary role has been vacant since Katie Zacharia’s tenure ended ‌last ⁠month after just five days.

Zacharia succeeded Karoline Leavitt, who stepped down from the role at the end of August.

White and Trump first worked together in the early 2000s, but they grew closer since ⁠the UFC chief publicly backed Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.

In recent years, Trump has attended several UFC events, and in June, the White House hosted a night of UFC fights as ⁠part of celebrations marking the 250th anniversary of US independence.

The White House press office already has a former UFC spokesperson among its ranks: Director of Communications ⁠Steven Cheung, who worked for White’s organisation from 2013 to 2016.

Cheung shared the president’s message on X and said, “Hell yeah! Do it, @DanaWhite! It’ll just be like old times!”

Trump lashed out at them on Truth Social and called the Democratic lawmakers “extortionists”.

United States President Donald Trump has ordered the ⁠⁠Department of Justice (DOJ) to look into Democrats ‌‌for “threatening a lot of people” with impeachment and other ⁠⁠forms of ⁠⁠punishment, following their midterm election victory.

In a Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump said what Democrats had done amounted to a “criminal act”, without providing evidence.

The post comes days after Democrats won control of both chambers of the US Congress from Republicans in Tuesday’s midterm elections. Democratic lawmakers and newly elected candidates have said they would pursue probes into the Trump family’s financial dealings, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as well as investigations into Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Attorney General Todd Blanche.

“The Democrats are going around threatening a lot of people,” Trump wrote, adding that some of his cabinet have been threatened with impeachment. “This is extortion at the highest level, and they should be held accountable for this.”

Trump also said, without evidence, that some Democrats were threatening his donors, whom he called “some of the most respected people anywhere in the World”. He said Democrats were targeting them for their political views, specifically calling out Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin. He gave no evidence of her threatening people over their views.

When Democrats take control of Congress in January, they will be able to conduct a range of investigations, in which they can order access to documents, summon Trump officials to testify, and hold hearings.

Democratic Representative Robert Garcia of California, who is likely to chair the powerful House Oversight Committee, which serves as the investigative committee in the House and has broad jurisdiction and power, posted “LAWYER UP” on social media after it was clear Democrats would take the House.

During his second term, Trump has called for investigations into his political enemies, including the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), James Comey, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

It began as something merely conceptual, a tantalizing possibility.

Last June, immediately after the Rams traded for star edge rusher Myles Garrett, the NFL grapevine began buzzing:

Would Aaron Donald, a three-time NFL defensive player of the year, consider coming out of retirement to play with Garrett, a two-time winner of the award?

After a summer of rampant speculation, Donald signed on to join what was already regarded as a Super Bowl-favorite team.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Gary Klein breaks down what to watch for Sunday when the Rams face the Washington Commanders.

But Donald’s ramp-up to achieve football shape precluded him from playing in the season opener against the San Francisco 49ers. And Garrett underwent knee surgery after that loss, so the two stars were unable to play together for seven games.

On Sunday, it will finally happen.

Barring an unexpected setback, Garrett and Donald will line up together for the first time when the Rams play the Washington Commanders at Northwest Field in Landover, Md.

Two players accustomed to being double- or triple-teamed — two players with a combined 236½ sacks — are eager for opportunities.

“The offenses are really going to have to pick their poison,” said Garrett, who amassed an NFL season-record 23 sacks last season. “‘Who’s going to be freed-up this play?’

“I think either of us are pretty good at winning one-on-ones, so we’ll have some fun.”

Said Donald, one of the most dominant interior linemen in NFL history: “It’s always good when you’ve got all the pieces to the puzzles out there.”

The Rams (4-4) aim to build on their modest two-game winning streak and get over .500 for the first time this season.

The defense will be without cornerback Jaylen Watson, who suffered a season-ending shoulder injury in last Sunday’s victory over the Chargers. Cornerback Trent McDuffie is questionable after suffering a back injury against the Chargers and not practicing this week.

Rams defensive tackle Aaron Donald tackles New York Giants running back Najee Harris for a loss during a Rams win on Sept. 21 at SoFi Stadium.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

But Garrett’s return should energize a team that still intends to play in Super Bowl LXI at SoFi Stadium.

The Rams have only 12 sacks, which is tied for 26th among 32 teams. Edge rusher Byron Young has a team-best 4½ sacks. Donald is still looking for his first.

The attention the Commanders and future opponents must pay to Garrett and Donald will open play-making opportunities for others, Young said.

“I always call it art,” he said of Garrett’s and Donald’s ability to excel despite double teams. “Because it’s not easy when you’ve got four hands on you 90% of the time. And they still make it work.

“So it’s going to be fun. I can’t wait.”

Defensive lineman Braden Fiske said players are acclimating to Garrett’s skill set and play style.

“I’m sure there will be some kinks to work out early on, but it’s still pretty early in the season,” Fiske said. “He’s been playing for 10 years, so it shouldn’t be too hard to catch his stride.

“But he looks damn good out there.”

Rams left tackle Alaric Jackson played against Garrett in 2023, when the Rams defeated the Cleveland Browns at SoFi Stadium. The 6-foot-4, 272-pound Garrett’s size, speed and burst at the snap is “amazing,” Jackson said.

“He’s like a running back with skill but like a D-lineman with his power,” Jackson said. “He’s good at change of direction — like on a dime…

“He’s kind of like a do-everything kind of guy who’s seen everything as far as looks.”

Coach Sean McVay wants Garrett to “play within himself” Sunday.

“He doesn’t have to do anything other than be Myles and play one-eleventh of what the rest were asking to do for the defense,” McVay said.

Garrett said he won’t fight the excitement, the joy and all the emotions of finally getting to play again.

“You don’t try to push them back,” he said. “You open yourself to them. You accept it.

“After acknowledging it, you go out there and do what you’ve always done.”

Barring a setback, Rams edge rusher Myles Garrett will return Sunday against the Washington Commanders, coach Sean McVay said Friday.

Garrett, the reigning NFL defensive player of the year, has not played since the season-opening defeat by the San Francisco 49ers in Australia. Garrett had no tackles in the 27-7 defeat and said afterward that his performance was “the worst version” of himself. He was placed on injured reserve after undergoing a procedure on his left knee, and returned to practice this week.

“It has been exciting to be able to get Myles back into the mix with the other guys that I think have played really well up front and we’ve got to be able to bring it to life, and it will be fun to see,” McVay said.

The Rams are 4-4 and won their last two games against the Las Vegas Raiders and the Chargers.

Sunday’s game will mark the first time that Garrett and defensive lineman Aaron Donald will play together. Donald ended a two-year retirement a few months after the Rams traded edge rusher Jared Verse, a first-round draft pick and two other future picks to the Cleveland Browns for Garrett, who amassed an NFL season-record 23 sacks last season.

Donald, 35, is a three-time NFL defensive player of the year. Garrett, 30, has won the award twice.

“He’s looked awesome in practice and I’m excited for him to just go play within himself, “McVay said. “Doesn’t have to do anything other than be Myles.”

Tight end Terrance Ferguson and running back Ronnie Rivers also are on track to be activated from injured reserve, McVay said.

United States President Donald Trump has said he is making Stephen Miller his new White House chief of staff.

Trump made the announcement on his Truth Social account on Friday, calling Miller “one of my most trusted advisors”. He said Miller would become chief of staff starting Monday, replacing Susie Wiles.

“Susie Wiles, who has done an outstanding job, will be moving over to the Trump Political Operation. I want to thank her for her service as Chief of Staff — She has done a great job!”

Miller has been one of Trump’s closest confidants and advisers across both his presidential terms, after joining then-candidate Trump as a campaign adviser in 2016.

He has been the main architect behind the president’s hardline border and deportation policies, a rallying issue in the US midterm elections.

Democrats are widely expected to launch investigations into Miller upon taking control of the US House of Representatives and Senate in January.

Trump had been widely expected to shake up his staff following the midterm drubbing, which saw Democrats net seven US Senate seats, with two states, Alaska and Mississippi, still counting their results. Democrats have also won 253 seats in the 435-member US House, with 27 races still set to be counted.

Despite the vote largely seen as a referendum on Trump, Miller’s appointment largely represents a doubling down on his most controversial policies.

Miller has not yet commented on the election results, but in a post on X on election day, he urged Trump supporters to vote.

“Send a message to the corrupt media, corrupt Democrats and corrupt leftwing politicians who want to steal your future and destroy the inheritance of your children,” he wrote. “Get to the polls and protect the ones you love.”

For her part, Wiles, who has been credited with orchestrating Trump’s election comeback in the 2024 race, said serving as a chief of staff was “the honor of a lifetime”.

“I’m so proud to have been a part of what we’ve accomplished together from securing our border and cutting taxes to strengthening our economy and putting America First,” she said.

“I think it’s safe to say that we are tired of being pitted against each other. We are tired of being told to hate each other. It has been 10 years of this kind of politics. Politics as blood sport. Politics as trolling and owning. Politics as professional wrestling. It tears families apart. It ends friendships, and it leaves us all feeling terrible all the time.”

So said Senator-elect James Talarico in his victory speech on election night after he won the first United States Senate seat in Texas for the Democratic Party in almost 40 years.

I don’t like Talarico or his policies, but I agree with him on one thing: The American people are tired of being pitted against one another. We need more uniters and fewer dividers in the Republican Party and US politics in general.

This is the conclusion many American voters seem to have reached after 10 years of Donald Trump dominating the right.

A decade ago, he forcefully entered the political scene with a radically different approach and provocative rhetoric. He won his first US presidential election by attacking his opponents with clever and cutting nicknames. Crooked Hillary. Low-energy Jeb. Pocahontas. Little Marco. Crazy Bernie. Lying Ted.

All were aimed at diminishing his rivals in ways that only a rapturous crowd of adoring MAGA fans could really appreciate. His attacks played well on social media and reflected an American culture that was far less deferential to the political establishment, far coarser in its language and far more interested in being entertained than being informed.

Trump’s attacks, performed live at his raucous rallies, had all the earmarks of a professional wrestling bout. It was blood sport at its most basic level. And Trump’s supporters ate it up, loving how he stood up to an elite that obviously despised them.

His opponent in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, called half of his supporters a “basket of deplorables”.

Seven years before Trump formally entered the race for the White House, Barack Obama in a speech in San Francisco had said that people like them “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.

Trump gathered up these angry voters, many of whom had protested during the Tea Party movement, and created “Make America Great Again” (MAGA). They loved the visceral way Trump communicated. They loved that he promised to end illegal immigration and free-trade policies that destroyed manufacturing jobs.

Trump’s rhetoric, coarse as it was, seemed honest, authentic, unscripted, and totally real, not poll-tested, not AI-generated, not written by expensive speechwriters. Trump was talking to them, not at them. He had listened to their fears and promised to fight back with a vengeance.

When Trump claimed the political establishment had stolen his re-election, he didn’t sit idly by, accepting the results. He consulted his lawyers, came up with a dubious legal strategy and then unleashed his supporters on Capitol Hill, hoping upon hope that their pressure would bend the hallowed traditions of presidential succession to his will. It didn’t work, but it also didn’t disqualify him.

Over the four years of President Joe Biden’s administration, Trump survived legal attacks, threats of imprisonment and assassination attempts to become an invincible force who seized power again in 2024. His ascent seemed like destiny.

But as it often does, the fickle winds of the electorate changed direction. They used to love his unconventional approach to politics, but now they wanted him to deliver on his promises to lower inflation and gas prices. He had once promised to keep us out of foreign wars, but that promise was broken, too. Perhaps he had a good reason to attack Iran, but he failed to make a convincing case to the American public, and voters quickly grew disenchanted with another broken promise. The vice president himself said that the war is what cost the Republicans the election. But it was more than just the war. Voters were tired of the whole act.

When Trump told his voters to imagine that he was on the ballot, it wasn’t just his supporters who made this election a referendum on Trump. So too did angry Democrats, disgusted independents and more than a few former MAGA minions.

They said this election was about affordability, but it really was about an undisciplined president who refused to colour inside the lines, who blundered into a costly war, who didn’t stop his administration from detaining and deporting high school baseball coaches and Uber drivers and domestic employees, and harboured too many white supremacists within his ranks.

He alienated women, Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, African Americans and offended well-educated Midwesterners who couldn’t stomach his language or his antics any longer. The great MAGA coalition that he assembled for his historic 2024 victory dissipated in one election night, tired of the nonsense and wanting a change in direction.

Things are so bad for Republicans that they lost all kinds of members, from House leaders like Richard Hudson, to tremendously flawed MAGA warriors like Ken Paxton to seasoned and effective Appropriators like Susan Collins. Conservative Republicans lost. Traditional Republicans lost. Moderate Republicans lost. All kinds of Republicans lost. It is a total and complete rejection of the GOP, top to bottom. An unmitigated disaster.

There are two questions that remain. What will happen to the MAGA movement now? And can we ever return to the good old days before Trump made politics a blood sport more akin to Ultimate Fighting than to the World Wrestling Federation?

The answer is this: Unless Republicans fundamentally change how they communicate to voters and what they promise to do for them, they will not win another election. MAGA will be lost forever. Governing is about building coalitions, not about belittling potential allies with sophomoric attacks and needlessly partisan rhetoric.

Like Andrew Jackson, President Trump has forever changed American politics, and it is highly unlikely that we will ever completely return to the good old days of disagreeing without being disagreeable. But voters showed that they had grown tired of Mr. Trump’s brand of disagreeableness by delivering to the Democrats a huge political victory.

This election was not an endorsement of Democratic policies. It was a referendum on Trumpism and his caustic brand of politics. We will see if he got the message.

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

Since coming out of retirement before this season, Rams defensive lineman Aaron Donald adopted a humble approach, always allowing younger, less-accomplished players to go ahead of him during drills.

But on Thursday, the future Hall of Famer enthusiastically moved to the front of the line.

The Rams practiced scooping fumbled footballs off the turf.

“I needed that,” Donald said Thursday, chuckling. “Learn bending and getting down.”

Last Sunday against the Chargers, Donald missed the opportunity to score his first NFL touchdown when, with a clear shot to the end zone, he failed to come up with a fumble, albeit in hilarious fashion.

“I saw what he was thinking because it’s going right in front of you and he’s thinking, ‘I’m going to scoop and score,’” coach Sean McVay said after the game. “Then he knocks that … out of bounds. I mean, what the hell?

“His face, he couldn’t even look at me and make eye contact after that. But at least we can laugh about it right now.”

Donald was still laughing about it Thursday.

“I should have slowed down, but I felt people behind me and I’m like, ‘I’m going to get hit in my back. That’s going to hurt,’” he said. “So I tried to go full speed and scoop it. I thought the ball was going to bounce this way but it bounced that way, and it just looked all damn silly.

“Then I hit the ball out. I just laid down. ‘I can’t believe I just did that.’”

Donald was grinning throughout his session with reporters while replaying the missed opportunity — and the new opportunity on the horizon with edge rusher Myles Garrett back at practice.

McVay has not said whether Garrett will be activated from injured reserve and play for the first time since undergoing knee surgery after the season opener.

But Donald sounded as if that could happen Sunday when the Rams play the Washington Commanders in Landover, Md.

Donald did not play in the opener, so whenever Garrett returns would mark the first time the future Hall of Famers will play together.

“If Myles is 100% ready to go, and plays this week, that’s going to be amazing for us,” Donald said. “It’s always good when you have all the pieces of the puzzle.”

Donald, a three-time NFL defensive player of the year, and Garrett, a two-time winner, have a combined 236½ sacks. Last season with the Cleveland Browns, Garrett set an NFL season record with 23 sacks.

Donald has played in six games for a team that opened the season as the Super Bowl favorite but is 4-4 after its win over the Chargers.

Donald does not have a sack, but he has 12 tackles, three for losses.

Will Garrett’s return free Donald from double teams and other schemes?

“I’m pretty sure,” Donald said. “The guy did have 20-something sacks last year.”

Donald said the season has not gone as expected, but he is enjoying it.

“I’m enjoying the process, I’m enjoying myself week in and week out getting better, enjoying being out there with the guys,” he said. “And just playing this game.”

Etc.

The Rams activated kicker Joshua Karty to the roster from the practice squad and signed cornerback David Long to the practice squad. The Rams selected Long in the third round of the 2019 draft and he played three-plus seasons before stints with four other teams. … For the second day in a row, cornerback Trent McDuffie (back), tight end Colby Parkinson (ribs) and safety Kam Curl (foot) did not practice.

After Democrats delivered a once-in-a-generation midterm thumping of Republicans in the United States midterms, their current leader, Chuck Schumer, has expressed confidence he will helm his party’s larger-than-expected majority in the US Senate.

“I’ll be re-elected as majority leader,” the New York Democrat told reporters in Washington on Wednesday.

But as calls for change reached a fever pitch among voters in this week’s pivotal elections, not every newly elected Senate Democrat is open to the idea of having Schumer, a 75-year-old stalwart of the chamber, reprise his role as the head of their agenda.

At least seven incoming Democratic freshmen have publicly suggested – or said outright – they will not commit to supporting Schumer in next month’s leadership vote:

• Illinois Senator-elect Juliana Stratton, through a spokesperson, said she will not support Schumer.
• Kansas Senator-elect Adam Hamilton told CNN in September: “I’m not supporting Schumer”.
• Maine Senator-elect Troy Jackson said on Monday he told Schumer he will “support somebody else”.
• Michigan Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed reiterated in an interview with CNN on Thursday that he will support his soon-to-be Democratic colleague, Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, as leader.
• Minnesota Senator-elect Peggy Flanagan told reporters on Wednesday, “It is time for new leadership”.
• New Hampshire Senator-elect Chris Pappas said in an interview last week that “voters are hungry for … a new generation of leadership in the Senate”.
• Texas Senator-elect James Talarico has called for “new blood” in Washington, and since being elected, has indicated he wanted to “hear about [Schumer’s] vision” for the Senate before committing to back him.

Jackson has openly questioned Schumer’s ability to connect with working-class voters, while Flanagan’s staff has said the senator-elect wants “a progressive champion” who will shepherd Democrats through the final two years of Donald Trump’s presidency and into 2028.

New members, like El-Sayed, may not be won over after Schumer backed the former public health official’s opponent, Haley Stevens, in Michigan’s Democratic primary.

Schumer, the first Jewish Senate leader, has often found himself at the centre of brewing cultural and foreign-policy debates within his party.

In remarks that were posted online in February, Schumer told Jewish leaders in New York City one of his core duties was “to fight for aid to Israel”.

“We delivered more security assistance to Israel, our ally, under my leadership than ever, ever before”, he said. “We will keep doing that.”

Schumer has also faced fierce criticism for not doing enough to block Trump’s cabinet members from being confirmed. Some have even chastised the leader for retreating during last year’s government shutdown after he backed a Republican bill to reopen federal agencies without getting anything in return.

Critics in his party, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, called that a “capitulation” that abandoned key Democratic priorities, like healthcare subsidies. Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib said Schumer should have stepped down as leader over the matter.

The Democratic leader said on Wednesday the party’s new Senate plan would include launching investigations into the Trump administration, challenging the president’s agenda and ending his war in Iran.

However, that’s not good enough for some current members, like Van Hollen, who recently told Bloomberg that Democrats should not commit to Schumer without promises of a “bold agenda”.

Before Tuesday’s election, a senior campaign staff member for Senator Jon Ossoff, who was easily re-elected to his seat, would not say whether the Georgia Democrat would back Schumer.

“I do not have an answer,” the Ossoff source told Al Jazeera. “We can do all the fantasy football stuff later.”

When Democratic lawmakers return to Washington next week, voters and Democratic-aligned groups will likely pressure them to support an alternative candidate.

After calling for new leadership after the election, Indivisible, a progressive US-based organisation that bills itself as a movement “to stop the rise of authoritarianism”, released a memo on Thursday detailing their opposition to Schumer.

“Everyone with a Democratic senator – including those with newly-elected senators on their way to DC – should be demanding a contested leadership election, not a cleared field for Schumer”, the memo read.

“Any Democrat who is considering business as usual, or unwilling to fight at a level that matches the public’s demand for action – is not qualified to lead the party at this moment. Who leads the party in this era must be an open question, not a coronation. It’s time to define what the next era of the Democratic Party will be.”

Al Jazeera asked Schumer’s office how he plans to address those concerns and whether he is speaking with frustrated Democrats, but it has not yet responded.

To be re-elected, Schumer needs a simple majority of the Democratic Senate caucus, projected to comprise 54-56 members, and Schumer, who previously served as majority leader during the duration of former President Biden’s term in office, still has allies he can count on.

One of those is Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who told ABC on Wednesday that he commended Schumer’s handling of the midterms, saying he delivered “one of the most historic sweeps” for the party.

“We’re gonna have a family discussion,” Booker said. “But I think America should give … Chuck Schumer his due for what we were able to achieve.”

When asked Wednesday about building criticism of his leadership, Schumer demurred, saying Tuesday’s elections were “not about” him.

“This is about the American people and what they want and what they need and what we can do to help them. Plain and simple”.

Democrats rode a blue wave to victory in the United States midterm elections, winning control of both chambers of Congress. Now comes the question of whether they can deliver on their promises.

The party campaigned on bringing down the cost of living, ending the war on Iran and holding President Donald Trump accountable, as well as pushing back against his immigration crackdown.

But Democrats won’t take control of Congress until January. Even then, there’s only so much they’ll be able to do without Republican cooperation.

Most bills need 60 votes to get past a filibuster in the Senate, and even if Democrats manage that, Trump can still veto their legislation. He has already threatened to do just that, telling a podcast on Monday, “I’ll veto everything.”

But the Democrats now also have other tools at their disposal, including power over Senate confirmations and control over committees that can launch investigations.

So what can Democrats realistically accomplish over the next two years, and where might they struggle to make good on their promises?

Can Democrats bring down the cost of living?

Affordability was one of the biggest issues for voters heading into Tuesday’s midterm elections, and Democrats seized on that, promising to bring down the costs of energy, housing, healthcare and groceries.

Dean Baker, an economist and cofounder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a US-based think tank, said one of the most effective things Democrats can do to bring down costs is push for an end to the war on Iran.

Since February, the conflict has driven up energy prices, as Iran has restricted commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for the oil and gas trade.

Baker argued that Democrats could use congressional investigations and oversight to pressure the Trump administration to end the war, potentially helping to give consumers relief.

Foreign policy is an area where some Republicans could find common cause with Democrats, said Baker.

Another area, he added, might be healthcare, an issue that similarly hits voters in the pocketbook.

The expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies in 2025 has left many Americans facing higher insurance premiums.

With their new congressional majorities, Democrats could push to restore those subsidies and reverse cuts to Medicaid, the government healthcare programme for low-income Americans.

A possible path to accomplishing that goal would be to include those measures in government spending bills that Congress needs to pass, according to Baker. That would also make them harder for Trump to reject.

“Republicans living in a post-Trump world, I don’t think they want to be on the side of preventing people from getting healthcare or basically paying more for healthcare,” Baker said. “They can make the politics such that he doesn’t want to veto it.”

Trump’s tariff campaign is another factor driving up consumer costs. But Baker warned that they could be tougher to reverse, without substantial support from Republicans to override a Trump veto. Even if they do manage that, prices could take a while to actually drop.

“Prices are like rockets and feathers. They shoot up like rockets; they come down like feathers,” said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive economic think tank.

Jacquez, however, pointed to another path Democrats could take that wouldn’t need Trump’s approval.

With majorities in Congress, Democrats could wield congressional committees to investigate companies that have been raising the prices of everything from groceries to electricity bills.

“There’s a lot of precedent for getting some real material outcomes just through having the gavels and being able to subpoena CEOs and haul people in front of Congress,” Jacquez told Al Jazeera.

While there’s no guarantee these investigations would bring down prices, they could put pressure on companies to explain or adjust their decisions.

Could a Democratic Congress hold Trump accountable?

Laura Blessing, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute, expects Democrats to make extensive use of their new investigative powers.

“In terms of time spent and newspaper ink spilled, this is where you’re going to see the most action from Dems, by a mile,” she told Al Jazeera in an email.

Congressional investigations do not require White House approval. But they could make life harder for Trump by scrutinising his actions both within and outside of government.

Many Democrats have signalled they plan to investigate the source of the Trump family’s wealth as part of January’s incoming Congress.

Trump’s personal wealth has soared by about $2.2bn since the start of his term, according to financial disclosure forms released earlier this year.

His family’s business empire has likewise expanded over the last two years into everything from cryptocurrency and drones to artificial intelligence and prediction markets — industries his government has favoured in its policies.

Democratic senators have already been laying the groundwork for potential investigations, sending letters to companies and government departments demanding that they preserve records.

Among the issues they could examine are whether donors to Trump’s White House ballroom received favourable treatment from the government, and whether the Justice Department targeted his political opponents.

There is no guarantee, however, that everyone will cooperate.

Trump administration officials could challenge subpoenas in court, delaying investigations. But while Blessing doesn’t expect “Trump’s nuclear family to show up to a subpoena”, she said Democrats could still question government employees and others connected to Trump’s inner circle.

Even if they uncover wrongdoing, however, there is no guarantee of legal consequences, since it’s Trump’s own Justice Department that would have to decide whether to take up the cases.

Impeachment is another possibility. Lawmakers have already introduced articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for multiple reasons, including allegations that he waged war against Iran without seeking congressional approval first.

Republican Representative Thomas Massie has said he will try to force a House vote on Hegseth’s impeachment when the outgoing Congress returns to session next week.

Trump, who was impeached twice during his first term, however, dismissed the prospect of facing a third impeachment himself, telling reporters on Wednesday that he was “not even a little bit” worried.

“I think it would destroy the Democratic Party if they did that, because it would be impeachment for no reason,” he said.

Trump also defended Hegseth, saying he was doing “a very good job”.

Even if the House of Representatives votes to impeach a government official, the case must still be weighed in a Senate trial.

Removing an elected official would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate, meaning many Republicans would need to get on board to oust a figure like Trump or Hegseth. No president in US history has ever been removed from office as a result of an impeachment proceeding.

Could Democrats end the war on Iran?

With less than two months until the 120th Congress is sworn in, experts anticipate Trump will use his final weeks with the outgoing Republican majorities to push through any remaining legislative priorities.

It also leaves Trump a critical window in which to escalate the war on Iran, according to Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a foreign policy think tank.

“He has shown a pattern in which, in the face of humiliation and defeat, he becomes more reckless,” Parsi told Al Jazeera.

Democrats could pursue a binding resolution to wind down the war. After all, the US Constitution assigns Congress the sole authority to declare war, and laws like the War Powers Act of 1973 give lawmakers a path to ending unauthorised conflicts past the 60-day mark.

But there is no guarantee that those efforts would work, given the possibility of Trump vetoing their proposed measures.

Experts, however, say there is another way that Democrats could rein in Trump’s war powers. One of their most powerful tools will be control over government spending.

The Trump administration can continue using money already allocated for military operations, but Democrats could try to block additional funding for the war.

“It creates a limitation for how long he can pursue the war,” Parsi said. “If he needs more funding for it, we’re not talking about small sums that he can just reallocate from other places easily.”

With control of congressional committees, Democrats could also investigate the administration’s conduct during the war, including whether its military operations complied with US law.

“Rigorous oversight would not restrict military operations by itself but could raise the political costs of the war beyond what the president or other key officials are willing to endure,” said David Janovsky, a policy analyst at the Project on Government Oversight.

How much political will Democrats have to end the conflict, however, is an open question.

Blessing, the government affairs fellow, noted that the party has historically been reluctant to withhold military funding out of fear of being accused of undermining US troops.

But Parsi warned that failing to act would be politically unsustainable — and could be seen by the party’s base as a tacit endorsement of US military involvement in the Middle East.

“It will no longer be just Trump’s war,” Parsi said. “They will also co-own it, because they will be complicit, because they have the ability to stop it.”

Could Democrats rein in Trump’s immigration crackdown?

Another target for the incoming Democrat-led Congress could be Trump’s hardline immigration crackdown.

His pledge to oversee the largest mass deportation in US history has sparked widespread public backlash. A public opinion poll earlier this year found that 65 percent of Americans believe Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has “gone too far” in its efforts.

With control of both chambers of Congress, Democrats could launch investigations into ICE and other agencies involved in the crackdown.

Their probes could seek information about conditions inside detention centres, allegations of abuse and how taxpayer dollars are being used for immigration enforcement, said Heidi Altman, the vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center.

Altman argues Congress could also claw back the roughly $240bn already given to the Trump administration for immigration enforcement over the past two years.

That amount of money, she explained, has allowed ICE to operate with few constraints, without having to prioritise which communities to go into or who to detain.

“The only way to force a slowdown and actual sort of decision-making and prioritisation and enforcement is to dramatically curtail their budget by taking back the funding from the last session,” she said.

Doing so would require passing legislation that Trump could eventually veto. But Altman argued that Democrats should push ahead anyway.

“The worst possible thing we could do is throw up our hands and say we have limited power,” she said.

“Pass the bills, see what happens, put them on the president’s desk, and dare him to look at the American people and say he’s not signing something that they overwhelmingly demanded.”

Democratic leader says party expects at least 255 House seats and promises to deliver on affordability.

Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries has celebrated his party’s sweeping victory in the United States midterm elections, calling the results an “American tsunami” as Democrats have taken control of both chambers of Congress.

“It wasn’t simply a blue wave. It was an American tsunami,” Jeffries said at a news conference on Wednesday, a day after Democrats pulled off upsets in several Republican strongholds.

Jeffries said Democrats expect to win at least 255 House seats once all vote counts are final, giving the party what he described as a historic majority.

“The American people have chosen common sense over corruption, chaos and cruelty,” he said.

Jeffries, who is set to become the first Black Speaker of the House when the new Congress takes office in January, said the results showed Americans wanted a change in direction.

“We’re humbled by the outcome,” he said, promising a “relentless effort to make life more affordable for everyday Americans”.

Speaking earlier on MS Now’s Morning Joe, Jeffries said Democrats would focus on getting things done rather than seeking revenge against President Donald Trump and his allies.

“We ran on affordability. We won on affordability. And now it’s our job to govern on affordability,” he said.

Democrats campaigned on bringing down the rising costs of groceries, petrol, housing and healthcare, which have left Americans feeling increasingly squeezed. But with Trump’s threats to use his presidential veto to block legislation he’s opposed to, Democrats may struggle to push through new laws even with a majority in Congress.

Jeffries pointed to a bipartisan housing affordability bill passed in July as an example of the types of legislation Democrats could pursue. The bill became law without Trump’s signature after he dismissed it as “a yawn” and “so unimportant”.

Jeffries also said Democrats would work to hold the Trump administration accountable for any wrongdoing, even as he acknowledged Americans wanted them to get things done, not “get even”.

“There’s a cost to corruption,” he said, adding that Democrats would follow the facts and the law, and “let the chips fall where they may”.

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.