Elections

In September, a poll found that 70 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Republicans supported limiting the construction of new data centres in the United States.

But that opposition was tested in Tuesday’s midterm election, with analysts examining key races to see if the public backlash would translate into votes.

It did. There were 41 ballot measures related to data centres in Tuesday’s midterms, spread across the country.

According to Data Centers on the Ballot, an election-monitoring project run by Redbud Consulting, voters are on track to reject data centre development in all but one of the contests.

Two of the races continue to be counted but are expected to result in majorities to reject or limit data centres.

Only Harwood, North Dakota, a small town with a population of fewer than 800 people, voted to oppose such limits. The measure it defeated would have required independent reviews of large industrial projects like data centres before they could be built in the area.

Experts say Tuesday’s midterm elections indicate that the debate around data centres has become a bipartisan issue, intertwined with cost-of-living concerns and fears over job stability.

A construction boom

As of April, the Pew Research Center estimated that there were already 3,000 data centres in the country, with more than 1,500 others in progress.

The construction boom has been driven in large part by the growth in the artificial intelligence (AI) sector. That industry, experts say, has fed concerns about a shifting economic landscape.

“The unchecked acceleration of AI development has been causing concern across the board,” Bhaskar Chakravorti, the dean of global business at Tufts University, told Al Jazeera.

“People worry about their jobs and what it might mean from a broader economic perspective. But closer to home, people could see the physical manifestations of AI in data centres being built in their back yards, or they were hearing about it from others.”

Not only are voters afraid that AI might replace human work, but they also fear the downstream costs of data centres, according to Chakravorti.

Data centres consume large amounts of water and energy, which critics say can drive up electricity costs for nearby communities.

“Whether higher energy costs were driven by broader factors, such as the Iran war or tariffs, AI competing for space on the electricity grid was certainly part of its unpopularity,” Chakravorti said.

Voters, he added, were seeing the results “in their energy bills”.

A 2026 working paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas estimated that, as of last year, wholesale electricity prices had risen by 6.9 percent as a result of data centres.

James Mercer, founder of Metro Colo Advisory, an independent data centre advisory firm, told Al Jazeera that those anticipated costs mobilised voters in many areas.

“What they push back on is a building down the road that needs as much power as a small city, when they suspect their own electric bill will cover it,” Mercer said.

“That’s why local resistance has grown so fast: counties pausing new projects, zoning fights and data centres turning into a ballot issue.”

An election-season talking point

That popular resistance led several candidates in high-profile races to make AI and data-centre development central to their campaigns.

Among them is Democrat Sherrod Brown, who flipped a key Senate seat in Ohio, the state that accounted for the largest share of data-centre ballot initiatives this year.

Some 21 votes were taken on data centres in the state, out of a total of 47 referendums and measures that took place across the country in 2026.

Brown, a former senator, made Republican incumbent Jon Husted’s support for data-centre development a key point of attack.

“One guy has led the charge on these. That guy’s responsible, and that’s Jon Husted,” Brown told NBC News earlier this year.

In Texas, meanwhile, Democrat Gina Hinojosa called for a moratorium on new data-centre approvals until stronger protections for local communities were put in place.

Though her position worried tech investors keen on expansion in the Lone Star State, Hinojosa ultimately defeated incumbent Greg Abbott in the governor’s race.

“While Abbott had a moratorium on data centres in Texas currently, the overriding view is this would end once he got re-elected,” Dan Ives, managing director at the bank Yorkville Ives, said in an analyst note.

“Hinojosa is a known anti-data center politician and negative on the AI buildout, which makes worries around the future of the data center buildout in Texas a real issue for tech investors.”

Another successful Democratic candidate, Senator-elect James Talarico, also flipped a Republican-held seat with a pledge to increase data centre regulation.

Texas has been at the centre of growing concerns over the water demands of AI infrastructure.

The city of Corpus Christi, for example, has faced severe drought conditions, with its reservoir falling to just 8 percent of its total capacity earlier this year.

The city has been described as at risk of running out of drinking water. Talarico proposed adopting closed-loop water systems to reduce data centre consumption. He also advocated for data centre operators to fund local infrastructure improvements.

He won Corpus Christi by a 12-percentage-point margin.

In another key Senate race, Democrat Abdul El-Sayed called for the creation of a federal agency to oversee the AI industry. He bested his Republican opponent with more than 52 percent of the vote.

Looming pressures

With Democrats poised to control both chambers of Congress, the AI industry is likely to face increased scrutiny from lawmakers.

“[We are] more likely to get real regulation and oversight,” Alex Turner, a former researcher who resigned from Google DeepMind, told Al Jazeera.

“I look forward to advising any congressperson who wants to get serious about the risks from AI, no matter their party affiliation.”

Congressional leaders are increasingly treating AI as a national security and public safety threat, after a string of alarming security failures over the past six months.

In one incident, OpenAI autonomous agents escaped a controlled testing environment and infiltrated the tech start-up Hugging Face. In another, AI agents accessed bank accounts without authorisation, according to reporting from the publication Axios.

In late October, Anthropic’s Claude AI model also accessed voter data in Georgia.

Once the 120th Congress is sworn in on January 3, Democrats are expected to use the legislature’s oversight committees to conduct investigations into AI malfeasance.

On Tuesday night, as it became clear that Democrats would win majorities in Congress, Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts pledged that new probes were on the way.

“They are going to need to plant new forests for all of the subpoenas we’ll be printing,” the Democrat wrote on the social media platform X.

Another congressmember, Yassamin Ansari of Arizona, posted on social media her support for more restrictions on AI growth.

“Top of the Democratic agenda on day one needs to be a pause on advanced AI development, regulation of this out-of-control industry, and a ban on artificial superintelligence,” Ansari said.

Tech companies themselves have responded to the midterm results with proposals for alleviating voter concerns.

After the election, OpenAI published a framework titled Setting a New Standard for Responsible AI Infrastructure. In it, the company pledged to “prioritize closed-loop or low-water cooling” and to “pay our own way on energy and infrastructure”.

Days before Tuesday’s contest, OpenAI also sought to rebrand its data centres as “compute campuses”.

The political shift is also hitting Wall Street. Investors increasingly see tighter oversight of AI on the horizon, and some of the sector’s biggest growth stocks have stumbled.

On Thursday, for example, chipmaker Nvidia lost $450bn in market value in a single trading day.

Despite Thursday’s losses, Nvidia rebounded on Friday, gaining 4 percent in early trading, although it remained down 6.8 percent over the previous five days.

Data-centre operators such as CoreWeave tumbled on Thursday before climbing 6.6 percent on Friday. The company remained down 16 percent over the previous five days.

It was the most expensive election in American history: nearly $12bn spent, much of it on advertisements, with the majority of that money going to Republican candidates. But most voters weren’t buying it. The result: a Democratic sweep on a scale not seen in half a century.

In the aftermath of the vote, United States President Donald Trump – who has long revelled in his ability to turn controversy and crisis into spectacle – appeared to lose control of the narrative. The scale of the Republican defeat amounts to a repudiation of Trump’s politics and the US-Israel war on Iran. Meenakshi Ravi and Richard Gizbert examine the political and media fallout.

Contributors: 
Alex Shephard – Senior editor, The New Republic
Rob Arlett – former Trump state campaign chair & Republican strategist
Maya Berry – Executive director, Arab American Institute

On our radar

Serbia’s new political leadership has yet to form a government, but the country’s media institutions are already being purged of voices who gave former president, Aleksandar Vucic, years of favourable coverage. Tariq Nafi looks at the news outlets being held to account.

Equator: a magazine for a post-American world

Equator magazine is the brainchild of a group of writers and editors – some of them ex-mainstream media – who came together during a “moment of moral despair” as they witnessed Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza unfold. One year after its launch, Equator has produced some quality stories and essays on global politics, culture and art – all presented with an eye for design. We speak to cofounder and former Guardian editor, Jonathan Shainin, about the magazine’s vision and how it’s going.

Featuring:
Jonathan Shainin – Founding Editor, Equator magazine

HOUSTON — The mayor of Houston on Friday said the city would limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, heralding “a new model” of immigration enforcement after Democrats won power in Texas for the first time in decades.

Mayor John Whitmire said the city would go after immigrants “that pose a danger, not those that are going about their family business, work and education.”

A traffic incident “will not even … you write a citation or you warn them and they go about their way. No contact with (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) over nonviolent, non-jailable offenses. It reduces the fear and anxiety.”

Details of the change were to be spelled out in an executive order but the move by the nation’s fourth-largest city is one of the first steps to curb ICE’s powers since Tuesday’s election.

The Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Houston has sparked protests after an ICE officer fatally shot a Mexican homebuilder this summer and another struck a man with a car.

A grand jury last week indicted ICE officer Mario Alberto Morales on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Prosecutors say Morales intentionally rammed his car into Miguel Parra Hernandez, whose leg was broken. ICE has asserted that Parra Hernandez ran in front of the vehicle, an account that prosecutors say is contradicted by video.

Oyekanmi writes for the Associated Press.

As the United States midterm election results landed late on Tuesday night, United States President Donald Trump took a phone call from the news outlet Politico.

A wave for the Democratic Party had sunk Trump’s Republican Party. For the first time in his two stints as president, Trump’s Republican Party no longer controlled either chamber of Congress.

But in the phone interview, Trump put on a brave face — and offered an olive branch: He said that he would be willing to work with Democrats.

“They’ve already called, and they want to work with me. I have the right to veto everything, but I don’t want to be just sitting there for two years just vetoing everything,” he said.

While a handful of seats remain to be counted, the Democrats have won comfortable majorities in both the House of Representatives, where they have secured at least 253 seats out of 435, and in the Senate, where they have won at least 54 out of 100.

Trump has since posted a picture on his Truth Social account using the Make America Great Again red baseball hat to read “VETO”. Despite the Democrats’ success, as president, Trump holds broad executive authority, with Article 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution stipulating that the president has the power to reject legislation passed by Congress through a veto.

Congress can override the veto, but would need to have a two-thirds majority, something that the Democrats do not have in either chamber.

But Trump’s comments to Politico underscore an alternate possibility — the president may pick and choose when to veto, and when to work with Democrats.

Bipartisan negotiations

As it stands, Trump has three options: veto legislation, enforce executive orders or make deals.

Since Trump was inaugurated in January 2025, he has passed 292 executive orders: 67 this year and 225 last year, according to the Federal Register.

But now, according to Andrew Proctor, a lecturer in US politics at University College London, Trump has even less leverage than before with Congress.

“I think the biggest thing is we’re probably going to see a decent amount of gridlock. The Democrats are going to try to pass policies, but he’s got the power to veto them, and Democrats don’t have enough seats in either chamber to overcome any vetoes that he has,” Proctor said.

“So that raises questions about, will he try to work with the Democrats at all on passing legislation? I think recent history says that’s unlikely.”

Still, some Democrats have said that they would work with the president to advance programmes central to their campaign promises.

Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed, the first Muslim elected to the US Senate, has already said he could work with Trump  — even though the US president had used racist and Islamophobic rhetoric to target El-Sayed during the campaign.

El-Sayed told MSNOW on Thursday that if Trump was interested in “getting money out of politics, putting money in pockets and passing Medicare for All, that’s what I ran to do, and I’m looking forward to working with anyone who is willing to do that”.

“He is the president of the United States,” he said. “I’m going to be one United States senator, and if he’s interested in working on issues that I want to work on – getting more people healthcare, ending the Medicare cuts, ending the stupid war, stopping these stupid tariffs with Canada – then let’s talk about doing that and go and deliver for the public.”

Progressive Senator Bernie Sanders has also said, in recent interviews, that he would not rule out Trump signing onto a Medicare for All bill if Democrats pass it in both chambers of Congress. He described Trump as a “politician” who was not “too ideological”.

Proctor argued that Trump could indeed make a deal with the Democrats based on how good it could make him look, but that getting Medicare for All passed in the next two years appeared unlikely.

“I do think that a place where common ground could emerge on healthcare is rolling back, specifically the sort of subsidies that were cut” under Trump’s earlier legislation, he said. “So that would make healthcare more affordable for millions of Americans.”

Proctor pointed out that some Republicans in 2025 had said they were willing to negotiate with Democrats on healthcare reforms.

“That didn’t end up happening, but I could imagine that might be a place for healthcare-specific policy where we could see something emerge,” he said. “I don’t think that a broader healthcare debate on passing Medicare for All, though, is really in the cards.”

Veto or filibuster

Though Trump has said he would be willing to use veto, he has historically not been among the most avid proponents of the practice.

He has so far used the veto twice in this term, and used it 10 times during his first term. Joe Biden used it 12 times in his single term, while Barack Obama used the veto a dozen times over two terms.

Overall, the presidential use of the veto has declined with time: Bill Clinton vetoed legislation 37 times between 1993 and 2001. His predecessor, George HW Bush, used it 44 times in his single term — almost once a month. Ronald Reagan used it 78 times over his two terms.

But Proctor said that Republicans also have a different tool to try and block legislation. That is the filibuster, a tactic that delays a vote on a specific piece of legislation by using an extended debate, which would impact the Democrats’ ability to get something passed.

“This is what they did to [former President Barack] Obama,” Proctor told Al Jazeera. “Senate Republicans will probably try to do the same thing, and it also means that we don’t even get to the point of Trump having the power to veto because the legislation never reaches him in the first place.”

Impeachment

Since the Democrats swept the midterms on Tuesday, calls for investigations against the administration have already emerged.

In his first term, Trump was impeached twice — first for the abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and the second time for “inciting” the US Capitol riots.

On Tuesday night, US Representative Robert Garcia, who is set to become chairman of the House Oversight Committee, wrote on X: “LAWYER UP.” Senator Ron Wyden, who is expected to lead the Senate Finance Committee, wrote in a post on X: “Subpoenas.”

However, the Trump administration has already denied any wrongdoing.

“If Democrats choose to pursue sham investigations and radical left policies, they are choosing to work against the American people,” said White House spokesperson Lauren Bis on Wednesday.

Reports also suggest that impeachment proceedings against Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth might be imminent, over the Iran war that Trump and other Republicans have blamed for the party’s losses.

A tech stock rout that began overnight in the United States has persisted in Asian trading.

Market authorities in South Korea paused trading on Friday as prices plunged across the region. Global markets have been rattled by a sharp fall in the trading price of tech stocks, which is driven by fears that the Democrats’ victory in the US midterm elections will increase regulatory scrutiny of AI and slow the country’s data centre build-out.

Japan’s Nikkei index slumped 6 percent, its deepest one-day drop since April 2025. Indices in South Korea and Taiwan plunged more than 8 percent after the opening bell, before cutting losses as authorities scrambled to stem the selling.

Wall Street’s volatility “fear gauge” soared overnight on Thursday and the tech-focused Nasdaq sank 5.5 percent, wiping $3 trillion off S&P 500 firms, as investors fretted that the Democrats could put the brakes on the AI boom being encouraged by President Donald Trump.

“It was a brutal morning for many investors here in Asia. We saw that the AI sell-off continues here across many countries,” Al Jazeera’s Katrina Yu reported from Beijing.

“Some of those major markets have fortunately recovered some of those losses, but all of them are still clearly in the red,” she said.

Analysts say the political jitters are hitting an AI trade already on shaky footing due to worries about returns on massive spending on related infrastructure.

“The selloff shows that AI stock prices had been built on rosy illusions about the future, and now that illusion is gone,” Dong Baozhen, chairman of asset manager Lingtong Shengtai, told the Reuters news agency.

“The US stock market has been the standard-bearer and backbone of the global AI bull run. Now that backbone has snapped. Can AI bull markets elsewhere hold up on their own?”

Authorities step in

Markets cut some of their losses by the time Asian markets closed, as authorities worked to stem the panic.

Trading on South Korea’s Kospi market was temporarily halted amid the sharp slide. Finance Minister Lee Hyoung-il also eased rules on retail investors’ leveraged investments.

In China, state entities stepped in to buy up equities in a bid to stabilise the market, said Al Jazeera’s Yu.

The Taiwan stock market closed down 4.5 percent, recovering somewhat from its early morning slump. For the week, the index clocked a 12.2 percent decline, its biggest since 1991, LSEG data showed.

The government of the island state, a key producer of chips, sought to talk up the prospects for the sector.

Demand ⁠for emerging technologies like AI, ⁠high-performance computing and ⁠cloud services is expected to keep expanding, driving ‌demand for tech companies, the economy ministry said in a statement issued on Friday.

Korean AI chipmakers Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix fell nearly 6 percent and 9.4 percent respectively, cutting steep losses from earlier. TSMC fell as much as 8.5 percent in Taiwan, before closing down 4.7 percent.

In Japan, Kioxia plunged 11 percent while AI investor SoftBank Group slid 11 percent.

New regulations

The selling indicates investors are starting to factor in increased opposition to data centres. Analysts say markets have yet to fully consider the cost such building work has imposed on communities.

Toby Walsh, the chief scientist for the AI Institute at Australia’s University of New South Wales, said he expected new regulations on data centres in many countries, including the US, Australia and the United Kingdom.

“The developers were building them in a way that wasn’t actually getting social licence,” Walsh told Al Jazeera.

“They were building them in places where they didn’t need to build. You don’t have to build data centres in urban areas. You can build them in the middle of nowhere.

“I think it’s actually for the good of the tech industry in the United States that this has happened,” he added. “We’re spending money a bit too quickly. And maybe this is the way to let that bubble deflate in a manageable way.”

Messages popped up on my WhatsApp account from New York, Gaza, Pakistan and Australia. Friends and colleagues were following Michigan’s Senate race, talking excitedly about Abdul El-Sayed. As the results from Wayne County sealed his victory on Tuesday, I felt something I had rarely felt before in American politics: not a muted relief that someone had lost but genuine joy and hope that someone had won.

El-Sayed, a physician and former Detroit health director, defeated Republican Mike Rogers. He will be the first Muslim ever elected to the United States Senate. As a Muslim American from Michigan, this hit home.

Like many in Michigan’s Muslim community, I knew of Abdul long before he became a fixture in national headlines, from his 2018 gubernatorial campaign to his Friday sermons in local mosques. As Ramadan began this year, I attended one of his town halls for Muslim constituents. Before a few dozen community members and leaders, Abdul pledged to fight for all Michiganders. His sincerity and commitment to that pledge remained evident even as the pressures of the campaign intensified. I have seen him attend funerals for community members near my home and watched him go from person to person, greeting people with kindness. Even in the final days of an exhausting campaign, he responded personally to messages from the community, including mine.

We attended the same university, the University of Michigan, where he once helped lead the Muslim Students’ Association. I later served as a college student body president there. Just days before the election, Muslim alumni (including me) invited him to a football tailgate party with students, parents and graduates. His former teachers and students have spoken to me with pride about the person they knew.

Muslim Americans are often asked to celebrate any politician who occasionally says “salaam” or appears in a mosque before Election Day. Abdul was not an outsider to our community coming to court us. He belonged to it.

During the campaign, I welcomed hundreds of local Muslim community members, out-of-state political candidates canvassing for him and members of his staff into my home. People heard from those closest to him what this race could mean for Muslim Americans. The enthusiasm felt different from the familiar, dispiriting bargain of voting mainly to stop someone worse.

Two years ago, I wrote about why I would vote against genocide in the 2024 presidential election. That decision was shaped by my work with Palestinian healthcare workers, by witnessing the realities in Palestine firsthand and by outrage at the Biden-Harris administration’s complicity in the genocide in Gaza. Neither I nor many of Michigan’s Muslims have forgotten. But this time, the ballot offered something other than just a protest vote: a candidate who had opposed Israel’s genocide against Palestinians from the outset while also caring about the range of issues affecting Michiganders.

His willingness to speak truth to power attracted immense hostility from Washington’s elites. President Donald Trump repeatedly mocked Abdul’s name, treating “Muhammad” – his middle name, meaning “the praised one” – as an insult. Political opponents and even some voters insinuated that his faith alone made him suspect, recycling unsubstantiated allegations tying him to groups and movements he did not belong to.

Abdul responded with dignity and directness. When critics made his name the issue, he spoke about groceries, housing, healthcare and affordability. When challenged over his opposition to genocide, he questioned the premise that wanting children to live free of bombs was somehow hateful. He did not accept the proposition that a Muslim must disown his community or Palestine to qualify for public office.

And most importantly, he fought back. Many Muslim voters I spoke to felt they had found someone willing to fight for them, to challenge the presumptions and racism of journalists, pundits and media outlets rather than accept their unjust framing.

His victory speech began with the words his opponents had tried to weaponise: “My name is Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed.” He recalled having said “inshallah” – “God willing” – whenever he was asked about winning. Now, he said, it was time for “alhamdulillah”, or “Praise be to God.”

That moment was electric, not because Arabic phrases alone are a sign of solidarity – even former President Joe Biden said “inshallah” in a debate before proceeding to commit genocide against Palestinians and aid the bombing of mosques and burning of Qurans – but because his Muslim identity had survived a countrywide effort by special interest groups and racists to make it disqualifying. His faith, Islam, is a value system he actively chooses every day, a commitment he strives to live out in public life. His being Muslim mattered to me more than his Arab ethnicity or ancestral origins, a simple happenstance of birth.

There was money behind the attempt to stop him too. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC’s) affiliated super PAC spent roughly $30m in Michigan’s Democratic primary, an extraordinary investment to defeat someone who openly opposed US support for Israel’s genocide and apartheid. In his victory speech, Abdul thanked AIPAC for the chance to beat it twice. One loss will not dissolve the lobbying group’s power. But Michigan demonstrated that AIPAC spending need not amount to a veto over who can win.

After Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York, sceptics suggested that a Muslim candidate outspoken about Palestine could only win in a liberal metropolis, not a state that Trump carried in 2024. El-Sayed travelled from small towns and villages to industrial cities and suburbs, visiting churches and mosques, and he won statewide.

Michigan has long been a centre of Muslim American life, from Dearborn’s famous Arab restaurants and coffee houses to Hamtramck, the first Muslim-majority city in the US. Generations have built mosques, schools, businesses and institutions while enduring suspicion and discrimination. There is irony in Michigan electing a Muslim alumnus of the University of Michigan, which has faced legal challenges over its treatment of antigenocide protesters. Some of the voices that were treated as dangerous on campus found a home at the ballot box for the first time.

Other Muslims across the country made history too. My mentor, friend and colleague Adam Hamawy, with whom I served on a medical mission in Palestine documenting harm to people’s health, won his congressional race in New Jersey and travelled to Michigan to support Abdul. Darializa Avila Chevalier, Aber Kawas, Nabeela Syed and so many others won seats in Congress and state legislatures across the country, refusing to accept that their silence on human rights abuses is the price of participation.

Yet our celebration does not mean we have suspended all judgement. Some Muslims I spoke with vehemently opposed Abdul’s decision to campaign alongside former Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Barack Obama. Their administrations’ policies, from facilitating the genocide in Gaza to conducting drone strikes against civilians in multiple Muslim-majority countries, remain at the forefront of people’s minds. I understood their anger and shared their apprehensions about normalising the killers of children. Yet many of us still voted for Abdul because we believed in his sincerity and because he had repeatedly made clear that he did not agree with every policy of those backing his campaign. I am under no illusion that one senator alone will end the systems and structures of exploitation that fund war machines abroad and fail their own communities at home. Muslim representation risks becoming hollow if mistaken for the only tool for liberation.

And that is precisely why the substance of his campaign matters. Abdul connected the fight against endless war to the fight for healthcare, clean water and a liveable wage. He spoke of a mother trying to keep her children on lifesaving medication and a worker fighting for a union. He insisted that the money spent destroying someone else’s children has a cost for children in the US too. His politics asked whether Americans could both recognise their own self-interest and show humanity towards others.

His election does not make US government policies any more just overnight. It does not bring back a single Palestinian child. It does not absolve the Democrats, Washington or any of us of complicity. And it certainly does not entitle Abdul to six years in the Senate without scrutiny.

But it destroys one convenient lie: that Muslim Americans must choose between being unapologetically Muslim and belonging fully to American public life.

For years, we were told to lower our voices, soften our names and reconsider what we advocate for if we wanted to succeed. On Tuesday, Michigan delivered its verdict. The man they tried to make unelectable will now sit in the US Senate. Alhamdulillah, he does not need to become less Muslim to serve his state – and the rest of us do not need to police who we are to demand a better future for ourselves and the generations to come.

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

Israel’s President Isaac Herzog has said he will name a candidate to form the country’s next government by Sunday, after a majority of lawmakers backed opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Herzog made the announcement on Thursday after holding marathon talks with parties elected to the 120-seat parliament, known as the Knesset.

Some 67 lawmakers endorsed Eisenkot, a former military chief, while 46 backed Netanyahu.

In televised remarks at the end of the talks, Herzog said that although the “results of the consultations may appear clear”, there were “mutual vetoes between the blocs and within the blocs themselves” that make it difficult to say who has the best chance of assembling a governing coalition.

He said he would hold “personal talks with some of the party leaders” over the Israeli weekend, which runs Friday-Saturday, and make a pick on Sunday.

Israel’s October 27 election left neither Netanyahu nor Eisenkot with a clear path to a parliamentary majority, handing Herzog the difficult task of choosing a candidate in a deeply divided country.

Netanyahu’s Likud won the most seats of any single party with 27 in the 120-seat Knesset, ⁠but his wider religious-nationalist coalition garnered only 53 in total.

Eisenkot’s alliance of four Jewish-led parties, which spans the political spectrum from centre-left to right, won 48 seats despite polls that had predicted a close race.

Two parties representing Israel’s Palestinian minority won an unprecedented 19 seats.

Eisenkot, like Netanyahu, has ruled out forming a government with the Arab-led parties. Both of those parties nonetheless recommended him, giving him the support of a comfortable majority of lawmakers.

“We want to do things that we did not do in the past in order to remove this criminal government,” Ahmad Tibi, a senior member of the Joint List, which represents an alliance of Arab parties, told The Associated Press news agency.

Eisenkot’s party, Yashar, said his 67 recommendations were the most any candidate had received since 2015, and urged Herzog to give him the mandate “as soon as possible” so he could form a national emergency government.

Separately, Netanyahu suffered a setback on Thursday when United Torah Judaism, one of the two main ultra-Orthodox parties and a longtime ally, declined to recommend any candidate.

The party broke with Netanyahu over his coalition’s failure to pass legislation exempting ultra-Orthodox men from military service, The Times of Israel reported.

Yariv Oppenheimer, a member of the Democrats, a party in Eisenkot’s alliance, told Al Jazeera that he saw “no reason” Herzog would not choose Eisenkot on Sunday.

He said United Torah Judaism had signalled that its support was available for the right price, meaning that a good enough offer from Eisenkot could give him the numbers he needed.

“It’s very clear that Netanyahu doesn’t have a chance to establish a government at all,” he added.

Once nominated by Herzog, the candidate will have 28 days to try to forge a government, with a possible 14-day extension.

Netanyahu will remain prime minister in a caretaker government until a new coalition is formed, or through another election that must be held if no ⁠candidate succeeds.

Netanyahu, at risk of losing power, has seized on an investigation by election officials into possible vote tampering to cast doubt on the results, accusing Arab-led parties of stealing the vote.

Critics accuse Netanyahu and his partners of trying to undermine the results, which he denies.

Israel’s Central Election Committee said on ‌Wednesday that the election’s integrity had not been compromised. The head of the committee, Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, has called on Israel’s elected officials to protect public trust rather than shake it.

“This is a real danger. One of the foundations of democracy is the peaceful transfer of power,” Sohlberg ‌told ‌Herzog at his residence on Wednesday. High voter turnout, including among the Arab minority, was a blessing, he said.

Netanyahu’s allies on the far-right, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, have called for the immediate arrest and interrogation of Arab party leaders.

Dallas, Texas – Tuesday’s midterms were bruising for Republicans in Texas, a longtime right-wing stronghold.

The state elected its first Democrats to statewide office in 32 years, and the left-wing party held onto four congressional districts that were recently redesigned to favour Republicans.

But Republicans had one redistricting bright spot in a sea of unexpected defeats in Texas this midterm election cycle.

Amid the so-called blue wave, Republican Jace Yarbrough defeated Dan Barrios in Texas’s 32nd congressional district near Dallas, taking control of a heavily redrawn seat previously held by a Democrat.

Yarbrough became the only Republican this year to flip a Texas congressional seat, despite a push under United States President Donald Trump to shake up the state’s map for the right-wing party’s benefit.

So how did Yarbrough buck the trend? He was successful for two reasons, according to Matthew Wilson, a professor at Southern Methodist University who lives in the 32nd district.

“I think he did effectively pivot from a primary strategy to a general election strategy,” Wilson told Al Jazeera.

A constitutional lawyer, Yarbrough had defined his career by litigating progressive policies. But Wilson explained that the cost of living and other economic concerns took an increasingly prominent role in the final months of Yarbrough’s bid.

“In the primaries, the social issues, cultural issues were really important,” Wilson said.

“But then he pivoted very quickly and realised that those were probably not going to have the same resonance in the fall campaign. And so he did talk a lot about lowering prices. He did talk a lot about things that were of concern more to voters in the centre of the electorate.”

Wilson added there was another important factor in Yarbrough’s victory. “It was just the fact that his district was drawn to be so heavily Republican.”

The 32nd district had previously been composed of left-leaning Dallas and its immediate suburbs, but in August 2025, the Texas state legislature voted to reconfigure the congressional boundaries, with the aim of helping Republicans win five extra seats in this year’s midterms.

That push came at the behest of Trump, who called on Republican-led states across the country to follow suit.

Yarbrough’s district was redrawn to include only a portion of Dallas. It now stretches east instead, to encompass several Republican-dominated counties.

The demographics of the district also shifted dramatically.

In 2024, the district encompassed sizeable Latino, Black and Asian communities, accounting for about 60 percent of the population. The new map lowered the share of those demographics, while including several predominantly white areas.

Still, Wilson pointed out that Yarbrough’s victory was far more muted than initially expected. He won 51.5 percent of the vote to Barrios’s 48.5 percent.

“Even in his case, the race was a lot closer than he would have expected,” Wilson said. “So there was a pretty uniform Democratic swing across congressional districts.”

Latino backlash

With the dust settling on the election, Republicans will start the next congressional term in January with 24 representatives from Texas, losing one seat to Democrats this midterm cycle.

Democrats, who will have commanding control of both chambers of Congress, will have 14 House seats filled by Texans.

The four other Democrat-held districts Texas Republicans hoped to gain via redistricting were swept up in the groundswell of opposition to Trump.

In those districts, the party’s redrawn maps largely miscalculated Latino voters, a demographic that makes up 40 percent of the state’s population and swung towards Trump in 2024, according to political experts.

This year, the demographic tilted back towards Democrats with force, fuelled both by affordability concerns and dismay over Trump’s hardline immigration policies, which disproportionately affect Latino communities.

“In political science, there’s a body of literature we call ‘group threat theory’,” Michael Adams, a professor at Texas Southern University, told Al Jazeera. “When a particular group feels that they are threatened, that mobilises them, and we normally see a higher increase in terms of voter turnout.”

One of the most resounding defeats came in the ninth congressional district in Houston, which for years encompassed an area with large Black and Latino populations. Texas’s newly redrawn map cut out some Black communities but left a large population of low-propensity Latino voters.

Democratic candidate Leticia Gutierrez ended up taking nearly 58 percent of the vote against Republican Alex Mealer.

Speaking to Al Jazeera before the election, Gutierrez said her strategy focused on reaching Latino voters through aggressive Spanish-language outreach focused on pocketbook issues.

“I always say that I have a big chunk of family that are citizens registered to vote, but if they don’t hear it in Spanish, they’re probably not going to show up,” said Gutierrez.

“I’m fortunate enough to be able to speak both languages fairly well, and so just again, doing a lot of that targeted getting out the vote, getting in front of voters, door-knocking.”

Latinos make up about 60 percent of the ninth congressional district. The demographic is even more pronounced in South Texas, where Republicans hoped to pick up the 28th, 34th and 35th districts in their redistricting push.

But in a district representing the suburbs of San Antonio, Democrat Johnny Garcia handily defeated Republican Carlos De La Cruz by more than 10 percentage points.

Along the US-Mexico border, incumbent Democrat Henry Cuellar carried his district with nearly 66 percent of the vote over Republican challenger Tano Tijerina, while in the 34th district, Representative Vicente Gonzalez skated to victory by more than 15 percentage points over Republican challenger Eric Flores.

In another border district, Tejano musician Bobby Pulido, a Democrat, unseated Republican incumbent Monica De La Cruz, whose 2022 victory presaged a wider conservative shift among Latinos in the state.

Two years later, Trump carried nearly every Latino-dominated border district in Texas, seizing on unrest over immigration policies under former President Joe Biden. He also leveraged the prevalence of conservative social views among the largely Catholic population.

The area had long been considered a Democratic stronghold.

“Democrats are very conservative here. So I’m not surprised that it went for Trump in 2024,” 37-year-old voter Donato Medina told Al Jazeera from the border city of McAllen before the vote.

“But now it’s like people are kind of waking up, because his policies are affecting them directly.”

DSA-backed Raman will lead America’s second largest city, promising action on homelessness and affordable housing.

Nithya Raman, a progressive Los Angeles City Council member, has defeated incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, putting her on track to become the first South Asian to lead the second-largest city in the United States.

The Associated Press called the race for Raman on Thursday, with Raman holding 52 percent of the vote.

Raman, 45, overtook Bass despite the incumbent’s support from prominent Democrats such as California Governor Gavin Newsom, former Vice President Kamala Harris and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Her campaign was backed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), with her victory coming as part of a surge in visibility and electoral wins for the left-wing political movement.

A record number of candidates backed or affiliated with the DSA won federal offices in Tuesday’s midterm elections. On its website, the DSA has claimed credit for contributing to at least 300 candidacies or ballot referendums during the midterms, and it said it is on track to count 105 of those as victories.

Some of those wins came in congressional races, with figures such as Darializa Avila Chevalier, Claire Valdez, Melat Kiros and Chris Rabb winning their first terms as US representatives.

Raman’s victory in Los Angeles follows another high-profile democratic socialist winning a mayor’s race in New York City last year: Zohran Mamdani.

Raman was born in India and worked as an urban planner before running for office. Once an ally of Bass, she had initially endorsed her re-election campaign but reversed course, entering the mayoral race in February, just hours before the filing deadline.

In her victory speech, Raman promised to restore what she called an ambitious, creative and entrepreneurial Los Angeles.

“For too long our broken and unjust status quo has convinced Angelenos that this is the best that we can do,” she told the crowd.

Raman also pledged to expand affordable housing, improve neglected city services and take a different approach to homelessness by deploying more medical teams to assist people who are unhoused.

In addition, she called for replacing the city’s police chief over concerns about cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Raman now faces the task of delivering on those promises in a city of more than 3.8 million people.

Los Angeles also faces the challenge of hosting the 2028 Olympic Games, which open in July of that year.

With the result, Bass has become the first Los Angeles mayor in more than two decades to lose a re-election bid.

Her defeat follows a difficult four years in office. Her administration faced mounting criticism over the city’s homelessness crisis and its response to the deadly Palisades Fire, which broke out while she was overseas and devastated communities across the Los Angeles area.

In a statement on Thursday, Bass congratulated Raman and said she was committed to ensuring a smooth transition.

“Four years ago, you elected me as the first Black woman mayor in the history of Los Angeles. You gave me the honor of serving the city that raised me, and every single day since, I have carried that responsibility with me,” Bass wrote.

“Moving this city forward is what Los Angeles needs from all of us.”

The ANC was on about 32 percent of the vote after almost half of the votes were counted in municipal elections.

South Africa’s early municipal election results have shown the African National Congress (ANC) with a sharply reduced vote share, weakening the long-dominant party’s control of key cities such as Johannesburg.

The ANC was on about 32 percent of the vote, with the Democratic Alliance (DA) in second place at 25 percent, after more than 60 percent of the votes had been counted in this week’s municipal elections, data from the election commission showed late on Thursday.

Meanwhile, former President Jacob Zuma’s breakaway opposition uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party was in third place with 8.5 percent, below levels suggested by opinion polls.

About 15.9 million of 29.2 million registered voters cast ballots, the electoral commission said, putting turnout at an estimated 54.5 percent, up from 46 percent in the pandemic-hit 2021 local elections.

The ANC, which has been South Africa’s largest party since it led the country out of apartheid in 1994, has tended to do worse in municipal elections than nationally and has acknowledged its failures in local governance.

From nearly 70 percent of the national vote in 2004, the ANC fell below 50 percent for the first time in the 2021 municipal elections, winning 46 percent.

At the 2024 national elections, it managed just more than 40 percent and was forced to accept a unity government with nine other parties, including the DA.

The party, now led by President Cyril Ramaphosa, has borne the brunt of criticism about years of municipal mismanagement that have left South Africans grappling with failing water supplies, persistent power cuts and crumbling public services.

It has also faced corruption allegations, while splinter parties have eaten away at its support base.

The results of this week’s local ballot will offer a key measure of voters’ sentiment ahead of the 2029 general election.

Control of the country’s eight major metropolitan municipalities is up for grabs, alongside dozens of district and local councils.

The MK party had been tipped as one of the few parties capable of securing an outright majority in the eastern port city of Durban.

But projections by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), a state-funded research body, put its support there at 32 percent.

The DA, meanwhile, was forecast to retain control of tourist magnet Cape Town with 56 percent of the vote, with its leader, Geordin Hill-Lewis, already declaring victory.

The party was also leading with 34 percent in Johannesburg, the country’s financial capital, after running a spirited campaign spearheaded by its former leader, Helen Zille, 75, according to CSIR projections.

With outright majorities far from assured in several major cities, the results could usher in another round of complex coalition negotiations, with parties bargaining to assemble the alliances needed to govern.

Final results are expected on Sunday.

Melat Kiros becomes the first Generation Z woman elected to Congress, embodying a new era of political representation.

The outcome of the 2026 US midterm elections has marked a historic shift in American politics, as a new generation of younger and more diverse leaders won key positions across the country.

Out of 117 Generation Z candidates who ran for Congress this year, 24 made it onto the general election ballot. Among them was Melat Kiros, a 29-year-old Ethiopian-born democratic socialist from Colorado, who became the first Gen Z woman elected to Congress. She joins Representative Maxwell Frost of Florida, who became the first Gen Z member of the House in 2022.

Unprecedented Firsts

The election brought several historic breakthroughs for marginalized and underrepresented groups:

First Muslim American Senator: Dr. Abdul El-Sayed won his race in Michigan, becoming the first Muslim American elected to the US Senate.

First Native American Woman Senator: Peggy Flanagan was elected to the Senate, following Deb Haaland’s victory as governor of New Mexico.

Historic Senate Representation: Illinois became the first state represented in the Senate by two women of color (Juliana Stratton and Tammy Duckworth).

Additionally, three Black women will serve in the Senate at the same time for the first time in U.S. history.

State governor races saw record-breaking diversity across the country:

Black Leadership: Keisha Lance Bottoms (Georgia) became the first Black woman elected governor in US history. Alongside new governors Byron Donalds (Florida), David Crowley (Wisconsin), Aaron Ford (Nevada), and re-elected Wes Moore (Maryland), a record five Black governors will serve together in 2027.

Latino Leadership: Gina Hinojosa became Texas’s first Latina governor after defeating incumbent Greg Abbott, while Xavier Becerra became California’s first Latino governor since 1875.

Amy Acton (Ohio), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), and Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee) all became the first female governors of their respective states. In total, at least 17 women will serve as governors in 2027, breaking the previous record of 14.

Women also set new records in the House of Representatives:

Democratic women won at least 100 House seats, setting a new record for the party.

Overall female representation in the House is projected to reach at least 139 seats in the upcoming 120th Congress.

New Democratic Congress expected to probe Trump Justice Department civil rights office’s handling of Epstein files and ICE killings.

As President Donald Trump’s administration prepares for a flurry of congressional investigations into shootings by immigration agents and the Jeffrey Epstein files, the top official in charge of the United States Department of Justice’s civil rights division has resigned.

US Attorney General Todd Blanche on Thursday confirmed Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon’s departure in a post on social media.

“Today, I accepted the resignation of Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon,” Blanche wrote on X. “She has defended the civil liberties of every American and enforced the law without fear or favor.”

A top Trump ally, Dhillon was confirmed to her role in April 2025 and has overseen a dramatic overhaul of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, which is tasked with enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Hundreds of former Justice Department officials penned a letter last December decrying the “destruction” of the agency division under Trump.

Dhillon is the first high-ranking official to resign from the Trump administration since US Democrats swept both chambers of the US Congress in the country’s pivotal midterm elections on Tuesday.

Democratic congressman Robert Garcia, who will likely become the new chair of the powerful House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Accountability, pledged on Wednesday to take on four major investigations, including abuses of power by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and the Epstein files.

Dhillon reportedly told her staff earlier this year that her office, which has typically been charged with investigating law enforcement killings by police officers, would not be looking into the fatal shootings of two US citizens – Renee Good and Alex Pretti – who were gunned down by ICE agents in Minneapolis.

In May, Garcia accused the administration of continuing to shield Trump from scrutiny related to unreleased documents tied to the Epstein investigation

During a closed-door hearing in which Blanche’s predecessor, Pam Bondi, was asked by lawmakers about the case, the California Democrat Garcia alleged Dhillon repeatedly intervened to block questions about the president’s connection to the release of the files.

The Justice Department referred Al Jazeera to Blanche’s social media post when asked when Dhillon submitted her resignation. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Hours after results confirmed that the Republican Party had lost control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the United States Congress in the midterm elections this week, senior Republicans were hand-wringing over what had gone so badly wrong and whether a major course correction would now be required.

As once-Republican strongholds like Texas fell to the enemy, US Vice President JD Vance took to X to declare that the “real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone”.

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night. 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. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that’s at least honest,” Vance said.

Former Trump voters had switched sides, he said, over the Iran war and the US ties to Israel.

The elephant in the room was no more.

“I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, ‘I told you so’: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview,” he wrote.

A poisoned chalice

Just days after the US and Israel launched strikes across Iran on February 28, Tehran effectively closed the critical Strait of Hormuz, which once transited roughly 25 percent of the world’s seaborne oil trade, triggering a massive spike in oil prices and a major global energy crisis. The price of Brent crude – the global benchmark – hit $120 in March and April and has hovered around $115 in recent weeks.

On Thursday morning, oil prices dropped to $93.82 a barrel on expectations that Republican Party losses would reduce the likelihood of US President Donald Trump renewing strikes on Iran following weeks of speculation.

But as consumers in the US struggle with sky-high petrol and diesel prices – not to mention the soaring cost of food, which has also been impacted by Trump’s trade tariffs – the midterms have forced a leadership rethink as the Trump brand appears increasingly toxic.

While no Republicans have declared their intention to run for the 2028 presidential election, some in the party are believed to be eyeing it now.

Andrew Payne, from the Chatham House think tank, told Al Jazeera that any Republican wanting to take on the 2028 election will now need to “distance themselves from the more unpopular aspects of Trump’s record”. That means the Iran war, the greatest poisoned chalice of them all.

“That, I think, is why Vance came out so clearly in blaming the war. It is evident to those who have been watching closely that he has always been the voice of scepticism behind the scenes, and he now needs to make that difference of opinion clear to the average voter. But doing so will be really hard while Trump is still in office and, presumably, wants to play an active role as kingmaker,” Payne said.

Unpopular, but not as unpopular as Trump

The most obvious pick and frontrunner for the Republican 2028 nomination is currently Vance, who is known to have ambitions to take over from Trump.

Regarded as an anti-US interventionist, Vance, while publicly supporting Trump’s Iran war, has also been privately urging him and others to end the conflict, according to the US news outlet Axios.

Last week, Vance sent a letter to the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Mohsen Rezaei, proposing a meeting between US and Iranian officials soon in a bid to prevent further escalation. By contrast, this week Trump said the war would only come to an end “when I want it to”.

This move, coupled with his post on X on Wednesday night, is increasingly being seen as Vance putting as much distance as he can between himself and the war.

Throwing off the Trump touch may be trickier than he thinks, however, according to one Vance ally close to the White House who spoke to Politico on Wednesday. While it is “possible for him [Vance] to modestly differentiate himself” from Trump, the source said, there is no way to completely delink himself.

“He’s still Trump’s vice president. This is still a Trump administration war. They’re still both unpopular. He’s not as unpopular as Trump but he’s unpopular,” the anonymous source said.

According to Tuesday polling from The New York Times on who is ahead in a theoretical Republican presidential primary, Vance is at 40 percent. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio follows at 21 percent, alongside Donald Trump Jr, also at 21 percent.

Rubio has yet to comment on the Republican wipeout. Still, like Vance, he is allied with Trump’s administration, which may make a presidential bid challenging.

Any potential candidate now faces a choice between two routes, Payne said. One is to “re-energise the [Make America Great Again or MAGA] movement, which I expect will be difficult, because Trump did it through sheer force of personality that is hard to replicate”.

“The second route is to keep as much of the base on board as possible while appealing to the traditional conservative groups who have drifted from the party over the past decade, thereby expanding the coalition. If he runs, I would think Marco Rubio has a better shot at doing that,” Payne said.

‘Blue tsunami’

There are other potential candidates to consider.

A former frontrunner for the 2016 presidential election, which saw Trump secure his first administration, Ted Cruz is now Texas’s only statewide Republican lawmaker.

In a post on X after the results, Cruz wrote: “2026 was not simply a blue wave; it was a blue tsunami. It was an a** kicking”.

“Food is too high, gas is too high, diesel is too high, insurance is too high, life is too high. Tariffs have made everything too expensive, and the Iran war has dragged on too long. It should have been brief, decisive, and over,” Cruz wrote.

“Understandably, people were pissed off, and elected Republicans didn’t do enough to address their very real pain. So, what do we do now? We need to listen and respond. We need to champion economic policies that make a real difference in working people’s lives, and we need to deal with the consequences.”

In September, the Wall Street Journal reported that Cruz was testing the waters for the 2028 nomination. But as one of the early cheerleaders for the Iran war, Cruz will struggle to disassociate himself from it, other than to criticise the manner of its execution.

As the blame game continues, the Republican Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, described the results of the midterms as “close to an extinction-level event” for the party.

“If the Republican Party doesn’t have Texas as an anchor, then we are not going to be viable nationally going forward,” he said.

“We’re in a very volatile political era, things shift quickly, and the leaders just got to recognise that.”

DeSantis’s time as governor ends in January after two terms, but speculation has grown about whether he also wants to throw his hat into the ring for the US presidential nomination as the playing field remains wide open.

Days ahead of New Zealand’s election, polls show the governing centre-right National Party and the opposition centre-left Labour Party neck and neck, with neither on course to win enough seats to govern alone.

The outcome of the November 7 election could be decided by smaller parties under the country’s unique electoral system.

Here is what you need to know:

How does the election work?

New Zealand holds a general election every three years under a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system.

Voters cast two ballots: one for a candidate in their local electorate and one for a party.

Winning candidates in each of the country’s 71 electorates take their seats automatically. There are seven electorates reserved for Maori, New Zealand’s Indigenous people. Maori voters can choose to enrol on either the Maori electoral roll or the general roll.

The party vote decides how many seats each party gets overall. About 49 more seats are filled from party lists so that each party’s share of parliament matches its proportional share of the vote.

A party needs either 5 percent of the party vote, or one electorate win, to get a seat. In New Zealand’s 120-seat parliament, a majority usually means 61.

If a party wins more electorates than its share of the party vote entitles it to, it keeps them and extra seats are added to parliament. That happened in 2023, when Te Pati Maori won six of the seven Maori electorates, but had only 3.1 percent of the overall party vote.

Because seats in parliament closely track with the party vote, one party rarely wins a majority.

Every government since the MMP system was instituted in 1996 has been a coalition headed by Labour or National, except in 2020, when Labour under then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern won big and governed alone.

Who are the two main candidates?

Incumbent Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is seeking a second term.

A former Air New Zealand chief executive, he entered parliament in 2020 as the MP for the Auckland seat of Botany and became leader of the National Party a year later.

He led National back to power in 2023, promising better economic management and ending six years of Labour-led government. He now governs in a three-party coalition with New Zealand First and ACT.

But his leadership has come under pressure. He survived two attempted no-confidence votes by National MPs in April and August, the second orchestrated by his own defence minister at the time.

The challenges came as his popularity declined, with rising economic pressure and political tensions within the governing coalition.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins, 48, is bidding to return to the top job.

First elected to parliament in 2008, he became prime minister in January 2023 after his predecessor, Ardern, resigned.

He lost power in an election that October but stayed on to lead Labour in opposition.

What are the key issues?

Most parties are campaigning on the economy, but their suggested remedies differ widely.

National is pledging to return the budget to surplus through fiscal discipline while expanding the national pension scheme.

Labour is focusing on the cost of living, promising cheaper healthcare and transport. It also plans to invest in jobs, housing and infrastructure, and to strengthen public services.

Smaller parties on both sides are taking aim at power companies and supermarkets. The right-wing populist New Zealand First party wants to break up major electricity companies and split one of the largest supermarket operators in two.

The Greens want a state-owned power company, a publicly owned supermarket chain and tougher rules against excessive grocery prices. They are also calling for a wealth tax and higher taxes on big companies and banks, while cutting income tax for most people.

Opportunity, a centrist party, wants a land value tax.

Immigration and voting rights are on the agenda too. ACT wants to deport serious offenders regardless of how long they have lived in New Zealand. New Zealand First is seeking to restrict voting to citizens. Currently, the right to vote also extends to legal residents who have lived in New Zealand for more than 12 months continuously.

Why is there no clear winner?

The real contest is between two rival blocs. National would need both its current coalition partners again, while Labour would depend on the Greens and possibly Opportunity.

Recent polls show no clear winner. A handful of seats either way could decide who governs.

That makes the 5 percent threshold for party participation in parliament crucial. If a smaller party narrowly misses it and also wins no electorate, its votes produce no seats, which could cost its bloc the majority.

Opportunity, for example, must either clear the 5 percent threshold of party votes or win an electorate for its votes to help Labour secure a majority coalition.

The final size of parliament is another unknown. Polls suggest Te Pati Maori may again win more electorates than its share of the party vote entitles it to, adding extra seats.

Each extra seat raises the bar for a majority. If parliament grows to 122 seats, a bloc would need 62 to govern instead of 61.

Who are the smaller parties?

New Zealand First is led by Winston Peters, who has said he wants the country to leave the Paris climate agreement and the central bank to target employment and inflation.

ACT, led by David Seymour, describes itself as a classical liberal, right-libertarian party. It holds 11 of parliament’s 123 seats.

The Greens, a left-leaning environmental party led jointly by Chloe Swarbrick and Marama Davidson, have made social justice, living costs, nature and political funding reform their central themes.

They also want to expand home insulation and offer zero-interest loans for household solar panels and batteries.

Te Pati Maori is co-led by Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. Its campaign has centred on enrolling more voters on the Maori electoral roll, housing, health, education, environmental protection and constitutional transformation.

Opportunity, founded by economist Gareth Morgan in 2016, has never won a seat in parliament, peaking at 2.6 percent of the vote in 2017.

Its leader, Auckland businesswoman Qiulae Wong, says the party is neither left nor right and is focused on boosting economic growth.

Who will be the kingmakers?

Smaller parties often end up deciding which of the two main parties governs.

In 2017, although National won 56 seats to Labour’s 46, it could not form a majority. Labour took power instead by forming a coalition with New Zealand First, supported by the Greens.

New Zealand First has played kingmaker for both sides, having also backed National after the 1996 election, the first held under MMP.

Te Pati Maori, now in opposition, has helped the two main parties govern too, supporting National-led governments after the 2008, 2011 and 2014 elections.

The role can secure senior posts in government for the junior parties. Winston Peters secured the role of deputy prime minister in Luxon’s government until May 2025, and ACT’s David Seymour has held the job since mid-2025.

This time, the newest potential kingmaker is Opportunity. If Labour needs its seats to govern, the party would play the role for the first time, a decade after it was founded.

Israeli opposition politicians have blamed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for eroding support for Israel in the United States after Democrats won control of Congress, and pledged to “strengthen bipartisan” ties if they form the next government.

The comments on Wednesday came after Democrats won majorities in both the Senate and the House on Tuesday in a sharp rebuke to US President Donald Trump, fuelled in part by deep frustration over the US and Israel’s war on Iran.

The vote came a week after Israel’s own election, in which Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition lost its parliamentary majority but did well enough to deny his main rival, Gadi Eisenkot, a clear path to replacing him.

Yair Lapid, a former prime minister whose party is part of the coalition seeking to unseat Netanyahu, said on Wednesday that the US results showed “Israel cannot afford” for Netanyahu to remain in office.

“It endangers our security, it jeopardizes our democracy, and it will ruin our standing on the global stage,” Lapid wrote on social media.

For decades, the US has been Israel’s staunchest ally for generations under presidents of both parties, providing billions of dollars a year in military aid since the 1970s. But unlike previous Israeli leaders, who carefully courted Democrats and Republicans alike, Netanyahu has openly sided with Republicans.

Some Democratic candidates made criticism of military aid to Israel amid its genocidal war on Gaza a central campaign theme. On Tuesday, Trump, who had endorsed Netanyahu in Israel’s election, pledged to halt $4bn in annual funding to Israel, saying the move would take away a “bad talking point” for Democrats.

Promise to restore ties

Lapid said Israel must go “back to the rule that worked for us for seventy years and broke in 2015, when Netanyahu went to speak in Congress” against then-President Barack Obama. He was referring to Netanyahu’s controversial speech to Congress that year, in which he warned against the nuclear deal Obama was negotiating with Iran, aligning himself with the former president’s Republican opponents.

“I said it then, I say it today: Israel doesn’t choose sides in America. We work with everyone,” Lapid wrote on X.

Lapid acknowledged that there was “no question” that the “anti-Israel core” in Congress “has grown,” but said it amounted to less than 10 percent of the Senate. He noted that Democratic lawmakers Hakeem Jeffries would lead the House and Chuck Schumer the Senate .

“Both are my friends; both voted with Israel this year even when the majority of their party caucus voted otherwise,” he said.

Eisenkot said that under his leadership, Israel would restore its bipartisan ties with Washington.

“We will renew and deepen that partnership, strengthen the bipartisan foundations that have long sustained it, and work with our allies to advance a Middle East defined not simply by the absence of conflict, but by the presence of opportunity and cooperation,” he wrote on X.

“Israel will remain one of America’s most reliable and capable strategic partners in the Middle East, a partnership that is mutually beneficial for both peoples, in every aspect,” he added.

Yair Golan, whose party is also part of the anti-Netanyahu coalition, said the US vote showed “just how toxic Netanyahu has become” among Democrats and Republicans alike.

He warned that if Netanyahu and his far-right government stayed in power, Israel would be on “a path toward international sanctions, global isolation, and a confrontation with the United States”.

Netanyahu did not immediately respond to the opposition’s criticism.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the leading pro-Israel lobbying group, struck a similar note to Lapid.

In a post on X, it congratulated “the hundreds of pro-Israel Democrats and Republicans who won their elections last night,” saying that 234 candidates it had backed won.

It singled out Schumer and Jeffries and pledged to “increase its support for Democrats and Republicans who recognize that a strong partnership with Israel helps keep both countries secure”.

Democrats regained control of both chambers of the United States Congress in this year’s midterm elections, with a wave of victories that party leader Hakeem Jeffries likened to an “American tsunami”.

But as of Wednesday night, two US Senate races remain undecided.

A cliffhanger in the southeastern state of Mississippi and a scandal-plagued Alaska race are the final Senate contests to be tallied.

As it stands, the Democrats will usher in the 120th Congress on January 3 with a majority of at least 54 seats in the 100-member Senate.

If they win both Mississippi and Alaska, they will need fewer Republican breakaways to avoid the filibuster, a means by which the minority party can indefinitely stall legislation in the chamber. Filibusters can be avoided with a 60-member vote.

So, why are Alaska’s and Mississippi’s Senate races still up in the air? Al Jazeera breaks it down with this brief explainer.

What’s the hold-up in Mississippi?

The Republican stronghold of Mississippi was an unlikely Senate battleground this year.

The last time the state voted for a Democratic president was in 1976. The last time it elected a Democrat to statewide office was more than a decade ago, in 2015.

But the race between incumbent Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, a staunch ally of President Donald Trump, and her Democratic challenger, Scott Colom, proved tighter than expected.

The contest remains too close to call, with both candidates holding about 49 percent of the vote, according to The Associated Press (AP) news agency. Ninety-six percent of the ballots have been counted so far.

As of Wednesday night, Colom was leading Hyde-Smith by a razor-thin margin of 1,138 votes, with a few thousand provisional and mail-in absentee ballots left to be counted.

Provisional ballots, also called “affidavit ballots”, are supplied to voters whose eligibility is uncertain. This can happen when a voter fails to present the appropriate identification documents at their local polling precinct.

Mississippi allows 10 days for such votes to be processed. Mail-in ballots, meanwhile, have a window of five business days to be received after the election, according to state officials.

In a statement released on Wednesday, Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson counted roughly 3,600 mail-in ballots still to be tallied, along with an “unknown” number of affidavit ballots.

“Counties have 10 days from the date of the election to submit their certified results to our office, which is November 13,” Watson wrote.

In the event of a deadlock, Mississippi is the only state in the country with no formal provision that would automatically authorise a recount. The candidates would need a court order to request one.

When will we know Alaska’s results?

In the northwestern state of Alaska, the Senate race could take days or weeks to be called, owing to the state’s vast rural distances and its ranked-choice voting (RCV) system.

Democrat Mary Peltola leads incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan by a meagre 637 votes as of Wednesday night, according to AP.

The race has become one of the most closely watched in the country. Nearly a quarter of the votes remain uncounted.

Ranked-choice ballots allow Alaskan voters to number the candidates in order of preference.

But the system can result in multiple vote counts. The initial count tallies the candidates ranked as voters’ top choice. If one of those candidates gets more than 50 percent of the vote, they win the election outright.

If no candidate passes the 50 percent threshold, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and a new round of vote-tallying commences. Supporters of the eliminated candidates see their votes redistributed to their second choice.

This process of elimination and recounting continues until one candidate ultimately wins a majority.

Alaska is one of only two states in the US to use ranked-choice voting for statewide elections, and critics blame the system for the slow vote tally.

According to Alaska’s Division of Elections, ranked-choice results will not be published until 15 days after the election, on November 18.

The state is also under a microscope due to a controversy in the Senate race. Two candidates named Dan Sullivan competed in the contest.

One, Dan S Sullivan, is the state’s incumbent senator and an ally of President Trump.

The other, Dan J Sullivan Jr, is a retired schoolteacher widely rumoured to have been a Democratic plant to draw votes away from the incumbent.

Trump’s Department of Justice filed a lawsuit to prevent Alaska from certifying its election results, claiming the second Sullivan amounted to an attempt to pervert voter choice.

But a federal judge dismissed the suit on Sunday. The Justice Department has nevertheless pledged to appeal, a prospect all the more likely if Peltola prevails in the vote count.

After Democrats’ stunning blowout in the United States midterm elections, five Republican election deniers have come up short in their races to become governor in top battleground states.

Congressman Andy Biggs in Arizona, Congressman John James in Michigan, State Treasurer Stacy Garrity in Pennsylvania and Congressman Tom Tiffany in Wisconsin all lost their gubernatorial races on Tuesday.

So too did billionaire Rick Jackson of Georgia, a state that was central to President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential results.

All five candidates had either cast doubt on or voted to block Joe Biden’s victory over Trump in the 2020 election.

Jackson, for instance, had called Biden’s win “totally ridiculous” and criticised Georgia state officials for not complying with Trump’s demands to “find” extra votes.

“Our people really let us down,” Jackson said when he was pressed on the 2020 election during a campaign event earlier this year.

In January 2021, Biggs and Tiffany voted to overturn the 2020 results as members of the US House of Representatives.

Both lawmakers also signed on to a lawsuit that sought to invalidate results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, all states that Biden won in that year’s contentious presidential race.

James was not in Congress when it came time to certify the 2020 election results. He had unsuccessfully run for the US Senate during that election cycle. He later made a successful bid for the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms.

That year, he acknowledged Biden’s victory. But he reversed his position in June, when he told podcaster Benny Johnson that the 2020 election was “rigged and manipulated”.

Garrity, who was elected to her current position in 2020, was among the right-wing politicians to campaign with Trump to reverse his election defeat.

She appeared at a rally in Pennsylvania on January 5, 2021, to call on state lawmakers to decertify the 2020 results. A day later, Trump supporters would storm the US Capitol, echoing the Republican leader’s claims of voter fraud.

Tiffany, Garrity and Jackson have since released statements or clarified their previous actions regarding the 2020 election and acknowledged that Biden won. Biggs and James, however, have not.

Al Jazeera has reached out to both of their offices for comment but has not yet heard back.

Tuesday’s midterm results are likely to have significant implications for the next presidential race in 2028.

Trump is entering the final two years of his lame-duck second term, and under the US Constitution, he is ineligible for re-election. It is unclear who will succeed him as the Republican standard-bearer.

Battleground states like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have all vacillated between presidential nominees of both parties in recent elections.

They will play critical roles in 2028, as the US looks to determine its next leader.

In some US states, governors play a major role in issues like voting access, election administration and efforts to redraw congressional maps.

Over the past year and a half, Trump has sought to rally state leaders to redesign congressional maps to help Republicans get elected.

Some Democratic-led states, notably California, under Governor Gavin Newsom, have responded with their own efforts at gerrymandering.

But it is unclear whether the push for redistricting will retain its momentum after Tuesday’s midterm results.

Already, Georgia’s Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican who was prevented by term limits from running in this midterm cycle, said on Wednesday that he would not call a special session of the state’s legislature to redraw the state’s congressional maps before his Democratic successor, Keisha Lance Bottoms, is sworn in.

Trump, after years of casting doubt on US elections, told The New York Times on Tuesday night that he was “absolutely willing” to accept the midterm results.

He also pledged to engage with the Democratic Party, which handily retook control of both chambers of the US Congress.

“We’ll, you know, look forward to working with them,” Trump said of the Democrats. “We’ll probably work something out.”