Government

Pedro Alliana has been sworn in as the new president of Paraguay, after a banking scandal led to the impeachment of his predecessor, Santiago Pena.

On Friday, Alliana, 52, took the oath of office to become the South American country’s 53rd president.

Previously, Alliana had served as vice president under Pena since the start of the latter’s term in 2023.

But Pena’s tenure came to an abrupt end earlier in the day, after 44 of Paraguay’s senators voted to remove him from office. One senator in the 45-member chamber abstained.

“I take my leave with gratitude, while fully acknowledging the anguish of those who are currently awaiting answers,” Pena wrote on social media on Friday afternoon.

The impeachment marked a rapid fall from power for Pena, a member of the long-governing Colorado Party. His departure coincides this week with the sudden collapse of a prominent lending institution, Ueno Bank.

Questions have arisen about whether the bank was properly regulated by government institutions, and whether Pena himself had conflicts of interests involving the bank.

After Pena’s impeachment, prosecutors announced they would seek his arrest on suspicion of breaching the public trust and other crimes. The former president was reportedly detained at his home.

An arrest warrant was also issued for Carlos Carvallo, the former head of Paraguay’s central bank, which has been accused of failing in its oversight duties. Carvallo resigned earlier this week.

The scandal erupted early on Tuesday, when the central bank announced that Ueno had fallen below the legal standards for solvency, meaning it did not have enough collateral to cover its loans and other ventures.

It seized the lender, transferring its remaining assets to other banking institutions as a safeguard.

Millions of Ueno clients, however, abruptly lost access to their accounts and pension payments as a result of the crisis.

With roughly 3 million members, the bank counted nearly two thirds of Paraguay’s adults among its customers.

The company had rocketed to prominence in recent years, consolidating in 2023 under the brand Ueno — sometimes stylised with lowercase letters as “ueno”. It had grown to be Paraguay’s fifth largest bank by deposits, with $800m in public money fuelling its growth.

Prior to its collapse, Ueno claimed that more than a million Paraguayans had opened their first bank account with the firm.

In 2023, Pena was identified as a shareholder of Ueno’s parent company, though he claimed to have sold his shares in early 2025.

Following the collapse of the lender, Pena offered to step down, citing the “the need to preserve our democratic institutions”.

But on Thursday, Paraguay’s Congress rejected his resignation and instead proceeded with his impeachment.

Pena’s conservative political movement, the Colorado Party, was among the groups in favour of the manoeuvre. The party has largely dominated Paraguayan politics since 1948.

“We support the impeachment of the president of the republic, Santiago Pena, in order to restore the republic’s institutions,” Horacio Cartes, a former president and party leader, wrote in a statement.

Had Pena been allowed to resign, he would have retained the right of former presidents to become a member of the Senate, with legal protections from prosecution.

In Thursday’s hearing, the Chamber of Deputies voted 78 to zero to impeach Pena, allowing for the Senate to remove him from office the following day.

It declined, however, to open impeachment hearings against Alliana.

The newly inaugurated president began his political career as the governor of his home department, Neembucu, in Paraguay’s south, and he served nearly a decade in the Chamber of Deputies, including three years as its president.

Alliana assumes the leadership of Paraguay at a time when it is facing one of its most severe political and economic scandals in recent history.

Prosecutors have questioned whether Ueno was shielded from accountability due to its government connections. Some $355m in state pension funds were invested in the bank.

At least 27 people are facing criminal charges in relation to the scandal, including lead shareholder Miguel Vazquez.

Among the crimes being investigated are attempted fraud, breach of trust, misappropriation of funds and influence peddling.

Pena has signalled he plans to cooperate with the investigation, though he did not appear at the impeachment hearings personally on Friday, sending his lawyers in his stead.

“I do not wish for my presence to be a source of greater division or instability. It is my responsibility to place the country above my own personal fate,” he wrote in a statement.

Earlier in the day, however, he signalled displeasure with the fast pace of the Senate impeachment hearing, requesting an extension “to exercise [his] constitutional right to a defence, as the time currently allotted is clearly insufficient”.

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.

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.”

SACRAMENTO — In his first news conference since being elected governor, Xavier Becerra remained noncommittal on taxes, energy and healthcare policy — even refusing to commit to reversing cuts to Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants, a campaign pledge.

But he asserted that he was already working with legislative counterparts on how to provide critical services and lower the cost of living.

“I can’t make a commitment without knowing what exactly I’m facing,” Becerra said of reversing cuts to Medi-Cal. “I don’t think any voter, any taxpayer, any Californian wants to have a governor who’s still acting like a politician” on the campaign trail.

The governor-elect, speaking to reporters Thursday afternoon inside the state Capitol, had just concluded a meeting with Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro-Tempore Monique Limón. The three Democrats appeared side by side in a display of unity between two branches of government with a sometimes-prickly relationship.

“You guys should get used to this,” Becerra said, pointing thumbs at the lawmakers on either side of him. “We’ve got lots to do, and the public made it very clear we should be focused on jobs one, two and three, and that is: cost of living, cost of living, cost of living. Letting California families know we want them to stay, we want them to thrive. We want them to retire in California.”

Becerra has provided few specifics about his plans to ease inflationary pressures. Asked whether he would consider cutting income tax rates for low- and middle-income Californians, he responded that “everything should be on the table.”

“You’re probably going to be hearing me say that a lot, whether it’s on energy, whether it’s on revenue tax policy, whether it’s on healthcare,” he said. “Why should we take anything off the table? We will explore it. At the end of the day, what should stay on is what’s smart and makes sense.”

Although he did not support the billionaire wealth tax on Tuesday’s ballot, Becerra has said repeatedly that he thinks the state’s wealthiest should contribute their fair share.

As a trained lawyer who spent more than 25 years in Congress, Becerra has earned a reputation as a thoughtful politician who takes time to mull over decisions.

Rivas and Limón were equally noncommittal when asked about Becerra’s proposal to provide low-income people with two daily hours of free electricity, which he calls “power hour.”

“Could there be some alignment on this idea of power hour?” Rivas asked. “Possibly, but specific to this proposal, I don’t know enough about it.”

“There’s an opportunity here to look both short-term and long-term” at energy issues, Limón added.

California’s three most powerful elected leaders — for the first time, all Latino — in their private meeting discussed healthcare, energy costs, artificial intelligence and implementing funding from an $11.25-billion housing bond voters approved Tuesday. Becerra, the state’s first directly elected Latino governor, took several questions in Spanish.

The top Democrats will decide how to divvy up hundreds of billions of dollars in the state’s budget beginning early next year.

The state expanded Medi-Cal coverage to undocumented residents over several years, but the costs proved higher than anticipated. In an October 2025 report, the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated program expansions cost the general fund $10 billion annually, “more than double the initial estimates.”

However, thousands of undocumented immigrants disenrolled from the program last year after President Trump took office.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers imposed enrollment freezes and $30 monthly premiums for working-age undocumented adults, which take effect next year.

Becerra’s campaign website says he would “direct state agencies to protect access to essential, medically appropriate health services from federal restrictions, including reproductive care and healthcare for immigrant communities.”

Shortly before the news conference, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass conceded the race to challenger Nithya Raman. Becerra offered congratulations and said he would soon be in touch with the mayor-elect.

“I hope I can change the relationship with local government,” Becerra said, adding that he wants his administration to work closely with mayors and county supervisors around the state. “I know local government fears sometimes that Sacramento doesn’t pay attention to them and shortchanges them.”

On the Capitol grounds earlier in the day, Republican nominee Steve Hilton, whom Becerra defeated, said he hoped his opponent “can and will bring the change that people want to see in California.”

“There’s a desperation among regular working people in California,” Hilton said, his voice shaking with emotion. “Whatever they do in the next four years, I really hope they understand that Californians are at breaking point.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom has announced that he will commute the sentences of all 548 people on death row in the state, the largest mass clemency in United States history.

The announcement on Thursday effectively clears out California’s death row, although the state has not executed a prisoner for 20 years. Those on death row will instead serve life sentences without the possibility of parole.

“I take this action because I firmly believe that state-sanctioned killing is incompatible with California’s values, undermines the foundations of our legal system, and diminishes each of us,” Newsom said in an open letter.

Support for the death penalty in the US has largely declined since the 1990s, although it still holds majority backing.

A Pew Research Center poll released in August found that 66 percent of Americans supported the punishment for those convicted of murder. Roughly 73 percent, however, acknowledged there was a risk of executing an innocent person.

Because death penalty cases often involve long and arduous legal appeals, many of those on death row are never executed.

Twenty-three states have banned the practice outright, and others have effectively abandoned it even if the punishment remains on the books.

Still, President Donald Trump, a Republican, has championed the death penalty for serious federal crimes. In April, his administration pledged to expand the use of federal executions, including by employing firing squads.

While proponents of the death penalty have argued that the punishment has a deterrent effect, critics say decades of scholarship indicate otherwise.

They have also pointed to ethical and logistical issues, including the expense.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), California has spent $6bn on the death penalty since 1978 while carrying out just 13 executions in that time.

Capital punishment has also been criticised for being applied disproportionately to racial minorities and for the frequency of botched executions.

The DPIC says that, since 1973, at least 203 people wrongly convicted and sentenced to death in the US have later been exonerated.

Newsom’s decision has been praised by criminal justice groups as a step away from a practice they say is outdated, inefficient and immoral.

“Governor Newsom’s announcement marks a decisive moment in the history of the death penalty in the United States. Though other governors have granted universal clemencies, none have been at this scale,” Robin Maher, the executive director of the DPIC, said in a statement.

“By bookending his time as governor first with a moratorium and now this mass clemency, Governor Newsom has irrevocably changed California’s relationship with the death penalty.”

The DPIC noted that about two-thirds of the commutations must be reviewed by the California Supreme Court, which is required under state law to review clemency for anyone with multiple felony convictions, before they become final.

Despite its left-leaning reputation, California previously served as a laboratory for punitive criminal justice policies in the late 20th century, during the heyday of the US’s tough-on-crime politics.

The states of Washington and California, for instance, were among the first to pass “three strikes” laws in the early 1990s, punishing repeat offenders with high minimum sentences.

The state continues to have the largest death row in the country.

Newsom’s decision will reduce the number of people on death row nationally by nearly 30 percent.

The announcement also comes days after a blockbuster night for the Democratic Party in the US midterm elections, with major wins in formerly right-wing strongholds such as Texas and Kansas.

The so-called “blue wave” during the midterms has set off speculation over potential Democratic candidates for the presidency in 2028.

As governor for nearly eight years, Newsom has reached California’s term limits: His second and final term will end in January 2027.

He will be replaced by former US Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra on January 4.

But Newsom has long been seen as a likely presidential contender, and he has increasingly dedicated time to serving as a proxy to support Democratic candidates in key races nationwide.

He has, however, taken positions on criminal justice issues that have put him at odds with criminal justice groups and the state legislature.

In 2022, Newsom vetoed a bill that would have placed limits in state prisons on the use of solitary confinement, a practice defined as torture by the United Nations after certain lengths of time.

In 2019, he also vetoed a measure that would have limited cooperation between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and prison authorities, and a similar bill failed in the state Senate in 2022.

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.”

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.

Nov. 5, 2026 10 AM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration held secret talks with Iran on deporting Iranians even as the war there dragged on, court documents obtained by The Associated Press show.

The court documents unsealed Thursday show the Republican administration as recently as mid-October said it had plans to deport the Iranians through an unnamed third country, although it was unclear when it intended to do so. The judge in the case ordered the government to give the court 24-hour notice of any finalized plans to deport Iranians to Iran or to any other country and five days’ written notice before any such deportation is carried out.

The documents show that the administration maintained contacts with Iranian officials during the war over the removals, specifically for submitting travel documents and figuring out “possible avenues for removal.”

“We are at war with a country where the President of the United States has said, as recently as two or three days ago, if not yesterday, that it is essentially lawless … A country that is an enemy of the United States, according to the current president. A country that, according to our president, murdered tens of thousands of protestors,” Judge Ana Reyes said according to the Oct. 15 transcript.

“And what you’re telling me is that the United States of America is going to send individuals back to that region, facing what you and I and everyone who would ever look at this would know would be, at a minimum, a serious threat of certain death.”

“Yes, your honor,” Justice Department attorney Dimitar Georgiev-Remmel said. “The government is executing lawful orders of removal.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The development emerged from an ongoing lawsuit that alleges the Trump administration’s immigration agencies have been sharing confidential information about Iranian asylum seekers with the Iranian government, violating national immigration regulations and endangering countless Iranians, court filings argue.

The new court documents show the coordination continued during the war.

The lawsuit depicts a coordinated campaign between the U.S. and Iranian governments to identify Iranians in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody and pressure them to return to Iran — a marked departure from decades of diplomatic hostility between the two governments and an ongoing war. DHS has denied that it is sharing asylum application records with the Iranian government.

Hundreds of emails exchanged between U.S. immigration officials exposed how the two countries worked together to arrange for more than 100 Iranians to be flown back to Iran on three immigration flights in September and December 2025 and January 2026.

Deportations of Iranians back to their home country are historically rare, owing to the lack of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran and the possible persecution they could face if they were sent to Iran.

But under the Trump administration, ICE has aggressively pushed to deport people even from countries that have typically been reluctant to take people back or with whom the U.S. has had icy or no diplomatic relations.

Sometimes that has meant sending people back to their home country but it has also meant deporting people to other countries that they have no connection with.

The Trump administration has deported people, including Iranians, to countries other than their own in an attempt to circumvent diplomatic hurdles with governments that won’t take their people back. During Trump’s second term, countries including El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama and across Africa have accepted noncitizens from the U.S.

In June, an Iranian woman was among the two dozen migrants the U.S. deported to the Central African Republic.

Activists abroad have expressed concern about deportees returning to Iran, whose theocracy has been cracking down on intellectuals and where the government vociferously cracks down on any dissent.

Kunzelman and Santana write for the Associated Press.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Paraguayan President Santiago Pena resigned on Thursday after calls for his removal swelled following the collapse of digital lender ueno that left millions of customers unable ‌to access their accounts.

“I do so with the stability of our country, social peace and the need to preserve our democratic institutions in mind,” he said in a video recorded address on Thursday.

Pena, an ally of US President Donald Trump, is stepping down after the ⁠opposition called an extraordinary session to begin the process of filing an impeachment motion in Congress, and as protesters demanded his resignation.

Earlier on Thursday Pena lost backing from members of his own conservative party. Vice President Pedro Alliana is set to take office as his replacement.

Lawmakers had accused Pena of conflicts of interest, misuse of pension funds and institutional cover-ups linked to the collapse of ueno, which had grown ‌quickly ⁠from a niche fintech player into a mid-tier bank administering close to $850 million in public funds.

“He is accused of negligence at the very least and complicity in covering up the fact that the bank was insolvent,” said Al Jazeera’s Latin America editor Lucia Newman.

“The congress right now is tying to impeach the president and the vice president, this session is underway,” she added. “As a I speak, there are people outside urging congress not to accept the resignation of the president because they say that they want him tried and impeached.”

Paraguay’s central bank intervened in ueno after determining ⁠that it had breached minimum solvency requirements, setting off a crisis that has left the company’s roughly 3 million customers, in a ⁠country of 6.5 million people, unable to access accounts.

“My greatest wish is that the return of those funds be guaranteed, that the deposit guarantee fund fulfill its purpose, and that ⁠public funds – as well as the resources that belong to all Paraguayans – be protected,” Pena added in his address.

Ueno has made no public statement on the issue.

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.

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.”

California is about to enter the “Becerra era,” though the governor-elect who coined that phrase has dropped few hints about what will define it.

After a decisive Tuesday night victory in the race to succeed termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, Xavier Becerra will take the helm with a slate of potential economic opportunities: luring back Hollywood production, drawing international visitors to the 2028 Olympic Games, implementing voter-approved housing bonds and responsibly growing the artificial intelligence industry.

But a long list of challenges awaits: grappling with worst-in-the-nation unemployment, solving the housing crisis, and preparing for and responding to seemingly endless fires, floods and other natural disasters.

The optimistic 68-year-old told supporters gathered for his campaign party in West Sacramento that his mission is to “deliver a California we can afford and defend a California we can’t afford to lose.”

“Here’s the good news,” Becerra, a Democrat, told the packed and cheering crowd. “Californians don’t expect a miracle from government; they just want government that works. A government that can build things. A government that keeps our streets clean and schools safe. Basic services delivered on time and on budget.”

Easier said than done.

“With billion-dollar deficits on the horizon … he’s going to be limited in his ability to break new ground,” said Steven Maviglio, a Democratic strategist who worked for former Gov. Gray Davis. “He’d be playing catchup on a lot of things.”

Becerra’s victory arrived during a monumental night for Democrats, who won control of the U.S. Senate and House in a stunning rebuke of the Trump administration.

California’s first directly elected Latino governor joined a wave of historic gubernatorial firsts, including Georgia Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms, who will become the nation’s first Black female governor, and New Mexico Democrat Deb Haaland, the first Native American woman elected to lead a state. Voters in Florida, Nevada and Wisconsin also picked their first Black governors while Texans selected their first Latina.

After a surprising emergence from a brutal top-two primary in June, and with Republican Steve Hilton placing second, Becerra sailed to election as Newsom’s successor. In a state where registered Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans, the matchup nearly guaranteed the former congressman, state attorney general and Biden Cabinet secretary would win.

By the time former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race following sexual assault allegations (which he has denied), many of California’s liberal kingmakers had already made their picks in the governor’s race — and they weren’t Becerra, who was not even included in a four-way endorsement from the California Federation of Labor Unions.

Newsom won his 2018 gubernatorial primary with the help of the California Nurses Assn. He also secured backing from the powerful California Teachers Assn. after pledging to pause new charter schools and strengthen oversight.

Though Democrats flocked to support Becerra as he rapidly ascended in the primary election polls, he won largely without help from unions or influential organizations such as the California Medical Assn.

“A lot of those constituencies didn’t support him until he looked inevitable,” said Republican strategist Rob Stutzman, an alumnus of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration. “So he doesn’t owe a lot of people anything for any role they played in his campaign.”

Still, Becerra, who grew up in a working-class immigrant family, has shown a personal interest in allying with organized labor. He gave shout-outs to union locals at campaign events and has credited his father’s union construction job for giving his family of six access to healthcare while he was growing up in Sacramento.

Governors can’t please everyone, particularly when state funding is limited. Lobbyists, lawmakers and special-interest leaders will watch closely how the affable Becerra prioritizes his first budget proposal — due days after he takes office on Jan. 4 — for hints about his agenda.

California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton concedes the race Tuesday evening to Xavier Becerra at the Hyatt Regency Orange County in Garden Grove.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Though light on specifics, Becerra made his priorities clear during his campaign. He plans to declare a housing emergency and speed up construction. He will take the baton from Newsom on the thorny question of who is financially responsible when megafires burn. And he wants to ensure there are no disruptions to Medi-Cal coverage, a herculean task with as much as $30 billion in federal cuts looming.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), a Becerra ally, said he has had “ongoing conversations” throughout the campaign about the incoming governor’s agenda, though he declined to elaborate.

“He certainly asked a lot of questions. He’s come to the Assembly Democratic Caucus already, engaged with members to begin that conversation and build those relations,” Rivas said. “We’ve been laser-focused on affordability and we’re going to continue to do more work in that space.”

Becerra said he would look closely at regulatory reform to lower housing and business costs.

It could be a small needle for the governor-elect to thread. Regulatory reform could mean easing some environmental protections.

Environmentalists flex considerable muscle in the state and found an ally in Newsom, though the outgoing governor’s aggressive climate agenda ran into affordability and federal challenges in recent years.

Becerra may also be sympathetic to environmental justice communities — poorer neighborhoods, often of color — that have experienced disproportionately negative effects from extraction industries such as oil drilling and mining.

He vigorously defended the state’s environmental rules as attorney general and has credited them with improving air quality and the coasts. During the only debate of the general election, Becerra criticized Hilton for proposing to unleash new oil drilling in the state.

“He wants to, he said it himself, ‘Drill, baby, drill,’” he said during a September CNN debate. “Steve, you weren’t living here in California at the time. You weren’t living in America at the time. We went through that experience. We don’t want to see our coastline damaged.”

“For it to be meaningful, there would have to be substantial regulatory resets, recalculating — I would say even updating and modernizing — some of the climate policies to make sure that they’re affordable,” said Stutzman. Schwarzenegger, his former boss, ushered in the state’s landmark cap-and-invest program, which aims to reduce planet-warming emissions.

Hilton conceded the race to Becerra but told supporters gathered at his party that he would work to break the Legislature’s Democratic supermajority in 2028. His team issued this statement in advance of a news conference scheduled for Thursday: “The election is over, but the desire for change is not.”

Becerra is expected to bring a much different governing style than Newsom. In an interview with KQED days before his election, Becerra named Govs. Pat and Jerry Brown as inspirations, citing the younger Brown’s fiscal expertise and the elder’s work to build infrastructure and grow the University of California.

“After eight years of showmanship, it will be refreshing to have a governor who actually focuses on the issues facing the state instead of his own ambition,” Maviglio said.

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”.

WASHINGTON — Democrats heralded a new era in American politics Wednesday after voters broke Republicans’ control of government and delivered a pivotal rebuke of President Trump.

Victories that handed Democrats control of the House and Senate on Tuesday night came in historic form, with margins outstripping expectations, posting double-digit shifts to the left by nearly every voting bloc. In some of the reddest states in the union, even Republican redistricting efforts designed to shield districts from competition were not enough to prevent Democratic inroads.

The sweeping wins were driven by a rare coalition of voters across nearly all walks of American life, in cities and countryside, from the rural Midwest and Deep South to a traditionally conservative mid-Atlantic. Not since voters were repulsed by President Nixon after the Watergate scandal half a century ago has the popular vote swung so decisively in a single election cycle.

The wave was so comprehensive that it handed Democrats wins that for decades have been unthinkable — flipping Senate seats in Kansas, South Carolina and Texas — and gained a majority of governor’s seats for the first time in a generation. How large their House majority would be remained to be seen as states continued counting votes.

Statehouses in Arizona, Georgia, Minnesota, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania flipped for Democrats — and, as ballots were counted, Texas hung in the balance — while the party wrested at least five gubernatorial seats from Republican control.

“The only thing unusual here is scale,” said Andrew Sinclair, an assistant professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. “It is not at all unusual in American political history to see a poorly led party lose badly in the next election.”

“To build anything enduring out of this election,” he added, “Democrats are going to have to do the hard work of having honest conversations with each other about how such a diverse group of people can cooperate and deliver results.”

The seismic routing appeared to validate the populist messages Democrats — in many cases, both progressives and moderates — ran on, from lowering costs to addressing healthcare and housing issues to confronting the power of corporations in American society.

Party leaders vowed the morning after to respond to voters’ mandate on affordability and to check executive power, as members of both parties predicted the results would reshape politics for years into the future.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called it “a generational remake of the Senate map that is going to change America not only now but on into the future.”

He pledged Democratic senators would be intent on working for their constituents and delivering on promises to relieve Americans’ economic “anguish” and clean up government corruption. He also nodded to the responsibility the party now shoulders.

“With this majority, Americans have given we Democrats the opportunity to prove ourselves worthy of their trust, and that’s our most important job,” Schumer said.

In every demographic, whether cut by gender, race, age, education or region, voters shifted to the left compared to 2024, in most cases by double digits, according to New York Times data. Men 18 to 44 moved to the left by 31 points, Latinos by 28 points, voters under 30 by 32 points.

The nation also elected several historic “firsts,” including the first Muslim senator, the first openly gay male senator and the first Black female governor, in spite of Republican campaign attacks around identity. And Democrats defied Republican redistricting efforts in at least 11 districts, including four in Florida,four in Texas,one each in Ohio, Alabama and North Carolina.

The results showed the success of economic populist messages, said Alex Jacquez, a Democratic consultant and former policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

“The throughline for all the Democrats [who won] is the corporate-friendliness era of moderation is over and we are much more squarely in the prairie populism of the 80s and 90s,” Jacquez said. “You saw a real resurgence of that.”

The unambiguous nature of the victory helped repel the notion that Republicans might attempt to challenge election results, as Trump had telegraphed as a possibility before the election.

Republicans swiftly began trading blame as they parsed the results.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a likely 2028 presidential contender, predicted the results could “reverberate for the next decade or most,” saying the routing was worse than anticipated.

It was “close to an extinction-level event for Republicans across the country,” DeSantis told reporters Wednesday.

Republicans will now face questions about the party’s future direction, and how they prevent a repeat of Tuesday’s wave in 2028. President Trump signaled his willingness to accept the election results and work with Democrats, while evading blame for himself.

“For Republicans, it is clear that President Trump has led the party to disaster — again,” Sinclair said. “Looking to the future, Republicans should reconsider following his style of governance and his policy agenda.”

Democrats will now have to deliver on the affordability and accountability agenda. With full control of Congress, they will be able to send legislation to Trump’s desk, and could force him to sign bills or make unpopular vetoes. Schumer told reporters Wednesday that the party would work to lower costs “with the president or without him, period.”

“It is critically important now that Democrats, now that we’ve been given the keys to the car here, we’re able to drive it,” Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who won reelection Tuesday, said on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe.”

Shapiro, a likely presidential contender, projected confidence in the new majorities and said Democrats would need to show that they “can legislate, bring down costs, end these wars.”

The mood among Democrats was quickly turning to “resolute” amid the jubilation, said consultant Andrew DeStefano. Party operatives want to build lasting power, he said, not become just another swing in the electoral pendulum.

“Folks don’t want this to be the latest ping-pong volley,” DeStefano said. “Laser focused on how we can deliver on some achievable concrete policy.”

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

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

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

Here’s what we know:

How big is the Republican Party’s loss?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How significant are these losses for the Republican Party?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any silver linings for the Republicans?

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

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

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

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

The party has experienced similar scenarios in US election history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats ahead in key races

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republicans face another bruising defeat in gubernatorial race

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncertainty over some ballot measures

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

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

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

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