midterms

United States President Donald Trump has said that he does not intend to bomb Iran again until the November midterm elections, even though several US media outlets have reported that the Pentagon has drawn up plans to relaunch attacks before that vote.

Trump has been accused of misdirection on the issue in the past. The US launched its initial attacks on Iran on February 28, as talks with Iran were ongoing and despite Trump saying just the day before that he had not made any decision. One year previously, the US struck Iran towards the end of Israel’s June 2025 12-day war, despite Trump saying he would announce a decision about attacks “in two weeks”.

Still, striking Iran ahead of the midterm elections would be risky for the administration as the war remains deeply unpopular with Americans.

Resuming the war afterwards may have less of a negative impact on Trump, who is not eligible to run for another term as US president anyway.

Here’s what we know about Trump’s plans.

In the past two days, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and other publications have reported claims by unnamed officials that the Pentagon has drawn up plans to attack Iran before the midterms, if authorised to do so.

On Wednesday, US publication Axios cited US and Israeli officials saying the Pentagon has instructed US Central Command (CENTCOM) to prepare for imminent major combat operations. The Atlantic also reported along similar lines.

What has Trump said?

On Thursday, Trump posted on his Truth Social media platform that he will not order a resumption of strikes on Iran before November 3, when the US midterm elections will be held.

“I want to make it clear to everybody that, while Iran is in very bad condition…we will not be attacking Iran at any time prior to the Midterm Elections to be held in the United States on November 3rd,” he said.

The president added that the US is presently “having productive discussions” with the Iranian side. However, that was also the case on February 28, the day the US and Israel first struck Iran, triggering the war.

Trump did not make any reference to preparing for potential military operations, nor did he provide more details on the state of talks.

Why might Trump be hesitant about resuming bombing before the midterms?

Trump and Republicans are worried about a voter backlash against the war at the polls. The US war on Iran is intensely unpopular domestically as Americans have had to grapple with surging prices of gas, food and other basic commodities because of the crisis in the Middle East.

Since the start of the war, surveys have shown that large numbers of Americans did not approve of striking Iran.

Now, about 65 percent of Americans say they “disapprove” of the way in which Trump has handled the Iran war overall, according to a Pew Research Center poll released on Thursday. Trump stated at the start of the war that it would go on for just a few weeks, however, it is now into its eighth month.

According to Pew, most Americans now believe the war will continue for at least another year. Even Republican or more conservative-leaning voters are growing more negative about the war, its poll found.

The conflict has also severely affected Trump’s personal ratings and eroded support for Republicans. A Reuters/Ipsos poll on Thursday found that only 30 percent of his supporters were enthusiastic about voting in the midterms, compared with 48 percent of Democratic voters.

About 13 percent of those who voted for Trump in 2024 say they are not sure who to vote for in the congressional elections.

Delaying attacks until after the elections could potentially shield Republican candidates from voter backlash, analysts say.

While analysts say Trump will see a good performance at the polls as approval for renewed strikes, a Republican defeat at the polls could equally further incentivise him to hit Iran again as he will calculate that he has little to lose at that point.

While that could further affect Trump’s ratings, the president is not eligible to run in the next presidential election in any case.

Will the US restart the war after the midterms?

In recent weeks, the US president has threatened to “end” the war with force after the elections as talks with Iran have dragged on.

At a Republican convention in September, he accused Iran of trying to affect the outcome of the midterms and said that conflict “is going to end immediately after the elections”.

In an interview with Time magazine two weeks ago, he also said it would be “possible” to ramp up bombing in Iran after the elections, but declined to elaborate. Analysts say his comments were designed to calm voters, while at the same time warning Iran of potential aggression after the vote.

Last week, the US military dispatched about 7,000 sailors and 2,000 Marines aboard several ships now sailing to the Middle East amid threats of new attacks from Trump. The vessel formation included the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group.

The deployment increases the number of US troops in the region to 20,000, alongside hundreds of aircraft and at least three carrier strike groups.

In the past, US troop build-up in the Middle East and the Caribbean has subsequently resulted in military action.

In June, Washington and Iran signed a ceasefire agreement that quickly broke down over control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump has repeatedly said that the US has the upper hand in the strait, citing more oil exports and Iran’s weakened economy. He has also voiced aversion to a deal with Tehran over management of Hormuz, but said he might consider it because “they’re willing to offer us anything to stop”.

Washington rejected a recent proposal from Iran to reopen the strait based on certain conditions it wants the US to meet, including the lifting of sanctions, unfreezing Iranian assets and guaranteeing an end to attacks. Last week, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran was considering a counterproposal from the US.

WASHINGTON — Republicans are entering the final month of the midterm campaign increasingly anxious that the $1 billion at their disposal may not be enough to fend off sweeping losses as the party reckons with President Trump’s unpopularity, persistent cost concerns and the fallout from the war in Iran.

The cash advantage, spread out across a half-dozen groups, is driven largely by the Trump-aligned MAGA Inc., which had nearly $416 million in cash on hand at the end of August and began stepping up its spending on critical races in September.

But that money may have come too late, forcing the president’s group to pay much higher rates because of the shrinking availability of air time. Four Republican Senate campaign officials said groups that reserved advertising time last spring paid much lower rates than MAGA Inc. and its affiliated groups.

Instead, by waiting until September, Trump-connected organizations are sometimes paying more than five times what they would have spent if they acted earlier.

A representative of MAGA Inc. familiar with the group’s strategy said its spending has allowed Republicans to keep races more competitive than they would have been otherwise. In some cases, the group has been the only one on the air criticizing Democratic candidates.

The MAGA Inc. representative and the Republican Senate campaign officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy.

The challenge is acute in places like Texas, where Trump will travel on Wednesday for the second time in a week to stump for Republican Ken Paxton’s Senate campaign. The state hasn’t elected a Democratic senator since 1988, yet MAGA Inc. has spent more than $22 million in the past month, according to the ad tracking firm AdImpact.

Another group, Texas PAC, which is aligned with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, has spent more than $83 million on advertising in the past month, an extraordinary amount to protect what’s normally a safe Republican seat.

One of those advertisements, which featured Paxton’s estranged wife saying she’s supporting the full Republican ticket, aired across the United States last weekend during a football game between the Dallas Cowboys and the Houston Texans.

Candidates are charged a lower advertising rate than outside groups, so the late infusion of super PAC cash has come at a steep price.

MAGA Inc., which is running ads primarily on streaming services, has been charged roughly $894 per airing, according to AdImpact, while Texas PAC has been charged roughly $809 for a mix of broadcast and streaming. That compares with about $290 for Democratic nominee James Talarico’s campaign, also on broadcast and streaming.

Those averages mask some of the more glaring disparities. For example, during a football game last month, Texas PAC was charged $450,000 to air a single spot in the Austin market. Talarico’s campaign paid $50,000 for a spot during the same game in the same market, according to AdImpact.

Elections are a referendum on the power of money

The 2026 campaign is shaping up as a referendum on the power of money in American politics. Democrats freely acknowledge their disadvantage, relying instead on anti-Trump sentiment among voters and targeted messaging on issues like corruption. Some Republicans, meanwhile, are open about the challenge of trying to spend their way out of a tough campaign at this late stage.

Neil Newhouse, a longtime Republican pollster, echoed concerns that his party was deploying its cash too late.

“After the votes are counted, I think we’re going to find the most effective advertising in terms of communicating message and moving voters and poll numbers, the most effective time was advertising that happened well before Labor Day, not after it,” he said. “A million dollars of advertising in October is a drop in the bucket.”

Thune’s group began pulling back in North Carolina last week, a sign of the party’s challenge in the Senate race there. The state’s outgoing Sen. Thom Tillis has been increasingly vocal about his party’s vulnerabilities and recently said that, even with a strong cash advantage, “in the last month, you pretty much have to place your bets.”

“If we have endless resources, then we should spend endlessly in every state,” he said. “Absent endless resources, you’ve got to make data-driven decisions about where you can win.”

The midterms mark the first national election since the Supreme Court in June erased limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president, injecting even more money into a political system already awash in cash.

Money alone doesn’t translate into victory

There’s plenty of evidence that money alone doesn’t translate into victory.

Democrat Kamala Harris entered the final stretch of the 2024 campaign with significantly more money than Trump but went on to lose every critical swing state and the White House. Elon Musk’s $25 million didn’t lift his preferred candidate to a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat last year. And Tom Steyer didn’t advance to the general election in the California governor’s race despite pumping $216 million of his own money into the campaign.

The $1 billion that Republicans have amassed compares with roughly $579 million held by a comparable collection of major Democratic groups.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said his party is facing an “obscene” amount of spending that could swamp them in the midterms.

“We’re never going to have as much money as them,” he said in an interview. “I sum up the election in this sentence: Can a massive Republican advantage in money beat a massive Democratic advantage in better candidates and political climate? I bet it can’t.”

In addition to Texas, Democrats have mounted competitive Senate campaigns in states like Ohio, Maine, Iowa and Michigan. A similar dynamic has emerged in governors’ races from Florida and Georgia to Wisconsin, Ohio and Nevada.

Former President Barack Obama is stepping up his involvement in the midterms and will headline a fundraiser for Senate candidates on Wednesday.

In the House, Democrats are growing so confident they can retake the majority that they’re expanding their targets deeper into traditionally Republican districts in Arkansas and Tennessee. But a lack of money could limit their gains.

“We absolutely need to spend enough to get our message out,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “And district by district, we are.”

Trump turns to his bond with supporters

From his earliest days as an unlikely political figure, Trump has consistently overcome expectations. Facing daunting prospects heading into the final weeks of his last midterm, he’s betting he can again outwit political gravity, relying in large part on the deep bond he’s built with supporters.

He has stepped up his campaign rallies in recent weeks, traveling to deep red territory to galvanize the party faithful. At events like the one this past weekend in Vandalia, Ohio, the crowd was enthusiastic and cheered at the lines that have become Trump staples over the years, particularly when he dips into profanity. The high school gymnasium that held the event was packed, though crowds began emptying out about halfway through the 90-minute rally.

In the closing minutes of a speech Monday in Grand Island, Nebraska, the president revived his plea that supporters who have stood so fervently by him pretend as if he is on the ballot one more time.

“In a true way, I am running,” he said. “We have to keep it going.”

Sloan and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. Beaumont reported from Des Moines, Iowa. AP writers Seung Min Kim in Vandalia, Ohio, and Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.

Hispanic voters are twice as likely to favour Democratic Party over Trump’s Republican Party in the November elections.

A new poll from the news agency Reuters and the research firm Ipsos has found that United States President Donald Trump’s approval rating remains at a record low as the midterm elections approach in November.

The six-day survey, completed on Monday, found that just 32 percent of US voters approve of the job Trump is doing as president.

While that low rate has held steady since September, the latest Reuters-Ipsos poll suggests his support among Latino voters is continuing to slide.

Trump’s approval rating shrunk this month to 24 percent among Hispanic voters, its lowest point in either of his two terms in office.

The Republican leader had previously made substantial inroads with that constituency.

The Pew Research Center estimated that Trump and his Democratic rival, Kamala Harris, were within three percentage points of each other in the 2024 presidential race, earning 48 percent and 51 percent of the Hispanic vote, respectively.

That rate marked a significant jump for Trump over the 2020 election, when he only earned 36 percent of the Hispanic vote.

Experts have credited the boost in Hispanic support with helping Trump win the 2024 race. His 2020 bid, by contrast, ended in defeat to Democrat Joe Biden.

The Monday poll found that Trump’s gains among Hispanics have largely evaporated.

About 52 percent plan to vote for the Democrats in the November midterms, compared to 26 percent for Republicans.

The upcoming midterm is largely viewed as a referendum on Trump’s second term and will decide whether the Republicans maintain their majorities in the US House of Representatives and the Senate.

Democrats have seized on Trump’s low approval ratings, hoping to translate frustration with the president into voter momentum for their party.

A Democratic majority in one or both houses of Congress would place substantial constraints on Trump’s agenda for the remainder of his time in office.

But Trump has also faced rumblings from within his Republican Party as the November 3 midterms approach.

One Republican incumbent, Representative Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida, released a campaign advertisement last month that addressed Trump directly, saying, “The same Hispanics who helped you get to the White House in 2024 feel betrayed today.”

She cited Trump’s hardline immigration crackdown as a source of tension. “Some of your immigration enforcement efforts have gone too far,” she said, pointing to the detention and deportation of immigrants with no criminal record.

Experts have also warned that the president’s shrinking popularity, driven in part by concerns about the cost of living and his decision to launch a war on Iran, could weigh down Republican candidates in key races across the country.

Still, Trump has continued to express confidence about the prospects of his Republican Party in the upcoming midterms.

He has also defended his decision to place himself at the centre of the Republican election campaign strategy. Trump recently launched a 32-day blitz of cross-country rallies ahead of the November 3 midterms.

“Just so you understand, they all want me to go,” Trump said, denying that some Republicans would prefer he keep his distance. “They all want me to go campaign.”

Washington, DC – Democrats have the momentum; Republicans are surging in defence and cash.

That narrative has emerged ahead of the United States midterm elections in November, as races across the country enter their final stretch.

With control of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate at stake, Democrats begin October with a surprisingly rosy outlook as more congressional seats are seen as in play.

Republicans, meanwhile, appear to be in damage control, pouring millions of dollars into races once seen as secure victories while injecting more funding into a handful of marquee showdowns.

The party’s standard bearer, President Donald Trump, who has embraced the notion of the election being a referendum on his leadership, enters the final month with staggeringly low approval ratings.

The most recent Associated Press-NORC polling, released on Thursday, showed Trump with 31 percent approval, the lowest during either of his two terms. Only 26 percent of respondents approved Trump’s handling of the economy, dipping two points below his predecessor, former President Joe Biden’s lowest rating on the topic.

Surveys continue to show voters rank the economy as their top issue, with topics like gas prices, made higher by the US-Israel war with Iran, dominating their concerns. Immigration and corruption have also regularly ranked high.

“The broad stroke is that Americans are disappointed, bordering on angry that President Trump hasn’t delivered on the core promises he made when he won re-election,” according to Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC.

House looking solid for Dems

Political trackers have long projected Democrats will take control of the US House of Representatives in the November 3 vote.

Winning a majority in the 435-member chamber from Republicans would give the party renewed legislative power to assert leverage over Trump, while launching investigations into his administration’s dealings. Top Democrats have already signalled that probes into Trump’s family business dealings would be top priorities.

Two election non-partisan prediction authorities, the Cook Political Report and the University of Virginia’s Sabato’s Crystal Ball, have recently assessed that the likelihood of Democrats taking the House has only increased.

The Cook Political Report recently shifted 15 House races in the direction of Democrats, moving some considered “toss-ups” to “leans Democrat” and some previously considered “lean Republican” to “toss-ups”.

One such shift was for a Texas border district represented by Republican Monica De La Cruz. Her district was emblematic of a wider Latino shift towards Trump in 2024. Once seen as holding the advantage over her challenger, Democrat Bobby Pulido, Cook now rates her race as a “toss-up”.

All told, the political analysis clearinghouse now predicts Democrats are on track to win 5 to 15 House seats.

Senate in play

With 30 days left to go, “there’s much more drama in the Senate than the House races”, according to Kyle Kondik, the managing editor at Sabato’s Crystal Ball.

Once considered a pipe dream for Democrats, who need a net gain of at least four seats to win a slim majority, the 100-member chamber has moved within a more comfortable striking distance.

Unlike in the House, where every seat is up for re-election, only 35 Senate seats are up for grabs in this cycle, creating a far narrower pathway to control.

“The trajectory of the polling since Labor Day (September 7) has generally been that a bad Republican environment is just getting worse,” Kondik said, adding that “the Senate just seems to get more and more competitive as the cycle has gone on”.

To be sure, the quality of polling can vary across the country, with Kondik cautioning that gauging the political temperature of the Midwest has been particularly challenging for pollsters.

Still, in North Carolina, former Democratic Governor Roy Cooper is expected to trounce former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Whatley in the race for a Senate seat currently held by Republicans. Top conservative donors have already begun to divert funds from the contest.

Surveys have consistently shown Democrats leading in three other races for seats currently held by Republicans: Democrat James Talarico against Republican Ken Paxton in Texas; Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown against Republican incumbent Senator John Husted in Ohio; and Democratic Mary Peltola against Republican Dan Sullivan in Alaska.

Races for Republican held seats in Iowa, between Republican Ashley Hinson and Democrat Josh Turek, and in Maine, between Republican incumbent Susan Collins and Democratic challenger Troy Jackson, remain separated by less than one point, according to Real Clear Politics polling averages.

Democrats, meanwhile, have consistently led in polling in Senate races in Georgia, New Hampshire and Michigan for seats the party currently holds.

Big money in the race

For Republicans, salvation could be in the spending, with this year’s race continuing a US phenomenon of small fortunes poured into politics.

All told, at least $4bn had been spent on gubernatorial and congressional midterm advertising buys as of September 17, putting the race on track to become “perhaps the most expensive midterm on record”, according to Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

Republicans entered September with a considerable funding edge. The Republican National Committee had $125.6m on hand, with the Democratic National Committee trailing far behind with $16.9m and $17.6m in debt.

When accounting for the three major committees associated with both groups, the Republican Party had $233.4m in cash, according to a CNBC analysis, while the Democratic Party had $130.4m.

Trip Yang, a Democrat strategist based in New York City, told Al Jazeera such spending can be deployed to help boost a candidate’s name recognition or to tear down a competitor.

According to AdImpact, Republicans and their allies were set to spend $888m on advertising from mid-September to election day, with Democrats and their supporters set to spend $666m.

The firm found pro-Republican ad spending would be particularly pronounced in the key Senate races in Ohio, Texas and Michigan, outpacing Democratic spending by at least $24m in each state.

Trump’s unpopularity, Yang said, means “Republicans spending millions or hundreds of millions of dollars improving their candidates’ images by itself may not be enough”.

“If you’re a little bit handicapped because your president is so toxic, you try to spend your hundreds of millions of dollars attacking the Democrats to make it more of a food fight,” he said.

A New York Times analysis estimated by the end of August at least $1bn in so-called “dark money” had been poured into the midterms. The term refers to spending where the donor’s identity is shielded, typically through nonprofit and shell-company donations to Super PACs.

Industry groups, including those supporting Crypto, AI and online betting firms, are expected to be top spenders in key races, although their support tends to cut across partisan lines.

Trump, meanwhile, has pledged to spend between $400m and $500m from his MAGA Inc Super PAC, though it has so far spent about $15m to support Paxton’s Senate bid in Texas.

Pro-Paxton ad reservations far outpaced Talarico in September, according to AdImpact data analysed by NPR, with $94m spent compared with $30m to support the Democrat.

The Trump factor

Trump has pledged to spend the final days before the election in non-stop campaign mode, after urging supporters during his Republican Midterm Convention in Dallas, Texas, to “vote like I’m on the ballot”.

His plan to criss-cross the country for rallies underscores a “base turnout” strategy meant to energise voters already loyal to the party, according to conservative analyst Olsen.

“But the Republican problem is a persuasion problem with people in the middle,” Olsen said. “[Trump’s campaigning] might help with some turnout … but their real problem is persuasion, and it’s not something that’s going to help with that in the slightest.”

Polls have spelt trouble for Republicans when it comes to swaying independents, with a PBS News, NPR and Marist poll from September 23 showing unaffiliated voters breaking for Democrats at 57 percent compared with 32 moving towards Republicans.

The scenario has created a dilemma for some top Republican candidates over whether to break from the president on his most controversial actions, according to Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist University Institute for Public Opinion.

Senate candidates Ashley Hinson in Iowa, Jon Husted in Ohio and Mike Rogers in Michigan all recently put daylight between themselves and Trump on the war with Iran.

One Republican House candidate, Representative Maria Elvira Salazar, has criticised Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies as she seeks to rally Latino voters in South Florida.

Trump, in turn, reposted a social media message calling Salazar a “backstabber”.

“You need to have, you know, something else going for you other than endorsement of Trump,” said Miringoff. “Some Republicans are starting to have self-preservation kick in because they’re concerned.”

What can change?

Achieving a wide-scale shift in public opinion remains a tall order for Republicans in the final stretch of the race.

Many of the defining issues are unlikely to change before November, with Trump signalling a possible escalation with Iran following the vote as he has downplayed the prospect of short-term affordability relief.

At the same time, the US president has also not ruled out actions that rights groups say could upend voter turnout. Most recently, he refused to commit to not invoking the Insurrection Act or declaring a state of emergency surrounding the vote during an interview with Time magazine.

Miringoff said he believed that the “potential for more than just a marginal shift is there”, as he assessed some Democratic candidates have struggled to present clear visions beyond opposition to Trump.

“The result isn’t formed in concrete,” he said, “to the degree that there’s going to be a lot of money still spent.”

Analyst Olsen saw less remaining wiggle room for the party.

“Republicans have the time and the resources to change the outcome with respect to a few close Senate races,” Olsen said. “But to change direction, they would need something that would be apocal.”

United States President Donald Trump has kicked off a 32-day campaign tour ahead of the November midterm elections that could see his Republican Party hurt by his handling of the war on Iran and the economy.

On Thursday, Trump travelled from Washington, DC, for back-to-back rallies in Texas and Oklahoma.

At his first stop in Denton, Texas, Trump sought to shift the narrative around his drooping approval ratings, offering a personal assessment of his administration’s performance.

“I give us an A+ on the government, on economics, on everything,” Trump told a crowd of supporters at the Peterbilt Motors Company, a truck manufacturer.

The president also blamed unfair media coverage for his growing unpopularity, arguing that his pre-election rally blitz was necessary to set the record straight.

“We’re doing an extremely poor job of promotion and an extremely great job of running the country,” Trump said.

But Trump’s poll numbers have raised concerns about Republican prospects ahead of the November 3 midterm election.

Trump himself is not on the ballot, but Republican candidates across the country are seeking to defend the right-wing party’s majorities in both chambers of Congress, as well as key state and local offices.

The economy and Trump’s war on Iran are expected to weigh heavily on the election outcome.

On Thursday, The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research released new poll results showing that 71 percent of Americans disapprove of the war, which has driven up the price of fuel.

About half of survey respondents also said they were worried they would not be able to afford food and petrol. Only 26 percent approved of Trump’s handling of the economy.

Taking centre stage

Still, despite record low approval ratings, Trump has positioned himself as key to the Republican midterm strategy.

At a first-of-its-kind Republican midterm convention in September, Trump encouraged voters to consider his record while at the ballot box. “I’m asking you to pretend that I’m on the ballot,” he said.

During Thursday’s tour, he touted the impact of his tariff campaign, which he credited with creating thousands of manufacturing jobs.

“For decades, you were heartlessly betrayed by politicians, lousy politicians, who let foreign trade cheaters plunder your wages, loot your factories, close up your jobs,” Trump told Peterbilt workers. “They’d still be doing it if I wasn’t here, believe me.”

Trump’s tariffs, however, have been highly controversial, prompting a series of court challenges. Critics have argued that the sweeping import taxes surpass the president’s constitutional powers.

Trump also used his stump speech to ease concerns about the US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28. Both sides have declared victory, though a ceasefire remains elusive.

“Just as I promised, I’m ensuring that Iran will be very quickly ended. I will tell you the energy prices are going to be rapidly, rapidly coming down,” Trump said.

“We’ll win very easily right now,” he added. “I believe right after the election we’ll win, but maybe before the election.”

The war, however, resulted in Iran stopping commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway for the global fuel trade.

The price of diesel — the fuel the trucks built at the plant use — soared to record highs of more than $6 per gallon (3.8 litres) last week. Petrol prices have similarly skyrocketed.

Hurting or helping his fellow Republicans?

Trump, however, has acknowledged that the stakes are high for his presidency in the upcoming midterms.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs, as are 35 seats in the 100-member Senate.

Losing Republican control of either chamber could create roadblocks for Trump’s legislative agenda during the final two years of his second term.

But Trump has also expressed concern that he could be impeached for a third time, after two prior impeachments during his first presidency.

At Thursday’s second stop, in Durant, Oklahoma, the Republican leader repeated that fear. “Pretend I’m running, please,” he told the crowd. “If we don’t win, they’ll end up impeaching me.”

Many of the places Trump is scheduled to visit this month are perceived as reliably Republican voting districts. Following his stops in Texas and Oklahoma on Thursday, Trump will be heading to Alabama, Ohio and Nebraska in the coming days.

Still, some elections that ordinarily would be considered shoo-ins for Republicans have grown more competitive in recent months.

In Texas, for instance, no Democrat has won a statewide race since the 1990s. But this year, Republican Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, is struggling to win a Senate contest against Democrat James Talarico.

During both of Thursday’s stops, Trump sought to bolster Paxton’s prospects. At the Peterbilt factory, for instance, he called Paxton “the greatest attorney general in the United States of America”.

“We gotta get this guy elected,” Trump said, before pivoting to criticisms of Talarico, whom Republicans have sought to paint as out of touch with Texas’s large beef industry.

“He’s a vegan,” Trump said of Talarico, repeating an unsubstantiated rumour. “And vegans don’t do well in Texas.”

But leaked audio appeared to show Paxton lamenting the negative impact Trump had by holding the Republican midterm convention in Texas last month.

“It dropped our numbers. Everybody’s numbers dropped,” Paxton reportedly said.

Trump touts social conservatism

Trump has nevertheless used his pre-election tour to highlight social issues he feels will help rally voters to the Republican cause.

On Thursday, he returned to familiar subjects like immigration and transgender rights, which he depicted as a part of the Democrats’ “radical” agenda.

“They want women in men’s sports. They want open borders. They want transgender mutilation for your children,” Trump said. “What the hell are you thinking about, you liberals?”

The president also used his Texas appearance to push back against critics of data centres, despite bipartisan concern.

Critics worry that the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) has fuelled the proliferation of data centres, which require large amounts of electricity and water to process mass data quantities.

While Trump has dismissed fears about AI as largely unfounded, a poll last month found 53 percent of Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about the technology’s environmental impacts.

Even fellow Republicans in Texas are responding to public pressure about the growing number of data centres, more than 300 of which are operational, with hundreds more in progress.

In August, Governor Greg Abbott called for an audit of all data centres to map their water and electricity usage, and the following month, Paxton in his role as state attorney general launched an investigation into whether they were complying with water reporting requirements.

Trump nevertheless used his Texas rally to tout the expansion of such enterprises.

“It’s a huge thing. It’s bigger than the industrial revolution,” he said, dismissing the concerns as part of a “scam”. He then explained he had urged AI companies to “take care of the people”.

“They’re making a fortune for the communities,” he added.

Rising goods and fuel costs are cited as key factors in the sharp drop in consumer confidence.

United States consumer confidence has fallen to its lowest level since 2014, just over one month before the congressional midterm elections.

Consumers pointed to higher costs for goods and services as the primary reason for the decline, according to The Conference Board, which released its monthly report on Tuesday.

“The Consumer Confidence Index deteriorated notably in September, following two prior months of softening,” Dana M Peterson, chief economist at The Conference Board, said in a release announcing the report.

Consumers pointed to higher prices at the pump as one of the driving factors. The average price for a gallon (3.78 litres) of petrol has jumped 37 cents over the past month, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks daily petrol prices. The average price stood at $4.45 on Tuesday, compared with $4.08 a month ago.

“Oil and gas prices in particular rose to new heights, reflecting September’s surge in fuel costs. Comments about war/conflict eased this month but remained elevated,” Peterson said.

The consumer confidence report comes a day ahead of a key inflation report that the Federal Reserve uses to gauge the state of inflation, the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index, which was up 3.7 percent in June from a year earlier.

The US central bank raised interest rates for the first time in three years earlier this month, driving up costs of credit cards and car and bank loans. It is set to make another decision on interest rates at its October 27-28 meeting, putting pressure on Republicans as consumer sentiment tumbles across political affiliations.

Consumer confidence fell among all political affiliations, according to the report, the second-to-last major consumer confidence reading before the midterm elections, which will determine the balance of power in Washington, DC.

US consumers think the Democratic Party would handle the economy better than their Republican counterparts, with 42 percent saying Democrats would do a better job compared with 34 percent for Republicans, according to a recent Marist poll.

US markets are only slightly lower as the trading day comes to a close. The tech-heavy Nasdaq closed down 0.08 percent, the Dow Jones Industrial Average declined 0.2 percent and the S&P 500 was down 0.1 percent.

Amid tight Iowa midterm races, President Trump emphasises steel industry revival with project announcement.

Just weeks before the midterm elections, United States President Donald Trump has announced that a Minnesota-based steel manufacturer intends to build a $15bn steel mill project in Iowa, as the White House tries to highlight its focus on domestic manufacturing.

On Monday, joined by executives from Mesabi Metallics, which recently opened Minnesota’s first new iron ore mine in 50 years, Trump announced the project. It is expected to begin production in 2030 and could bring more than 1,700 jobs to the region, with an initial production capacity of 7.5 million tonnes per year.

The first phase of construction for the project will generate 5,000–6,000 construction jobs, a White House official told Al Jazeera.

The plant in Iowa will use iron ore from the Mesabi Iron Range in nearby Minnesota. Mesabi, which is owned by Indian conglomerate Essar Group, invested more than $2.5bn to build the mine in Minnesota.

“President Trump is delivering on his promise to rebuild American industry, re-shore manufacturing, and create new jobs. Today’s announcement underscores the president’s historic efforts to revitalize the US steel industry—supporting local communities, strengthening supply chains, and protecting our national security,” White House Spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement to Al Jazeera.

The steel industry has loomed over the first half of Trump’s second term in office. The president imposed 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminium imports last year in an effort to boost domestic production, but also threatened to increase prices of products that use those materials, from soda cans to washing machines to cars.

“These are your 232 tariffs, the steel tariffs at work. Without those tariffs, this mine does not get built, and this steel plant does not get built”, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in the Oval Office on Monday.

Trump also solidified the US government’s stake in US Steel, which was acquired by Japan’s Nippon Steel in June 2025. As part of the deal, the US government received a so-called “golden share”, which gives the president the authority to appoint a board member to weigh in on decisions that would impact domestic steel production.

Midterm stakes

The announcement comes a little more than a month ahead of the US midterm elections, and the economy is top of mind for US voters.

Among Republicans, Trump is losing steam on his handling of economic issues, with a new September 21 Ipsos poll finding that 56 percent approve of his handling of the economy, down from 80 percent.

Iowa is in play as a seat Democrats could flip in the midterm elections, with Republican Ashley Hinson facing Democrat Josh Turek in November and with polls suggesting a tight race.

Hinson joined the president in the Oval Office for the announcement.

A poll conducted by the Republican-aligned pollster the Trafalgar Group showed Hinson with a two-point lead, while an InsiderAdvantage poll, which is considered more nonpartisan, found Turek leading by two points.

NEW YORK — The nation’s cybersecurity agency on Thursday released an election infrastructure security plan 40 days before November’s midterms, laying out potential threats to election systems and listing services it would offer to election officials to protect the vote.

Election officials said the plan is both inadequate and belated after the administration gutted the agency’s election security work last year, prompting the officials to pay for private services to ensure they were prepared for the upcoming elections.

“For them to come in five weeks before the election, yeah, nice effort,” said Nevada’s Democratic Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, who added that he would have liked to see the federal government provide more funding for cybersecurity, rather than Nevada taxpayers having to pay for it.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin had originally promised to release the plan by mid-August as part of the Trump administration’s move to kickstart election security assistance after a hiatus. He announced the plan at the same time he threatened election officials for not cooperating with the administration’s preferred methods to hunt down noncitizen voting, a phenomenon that research shows is extremely rare.

The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is housed under the Department of Homeland Security, has since its founding in 2018 helped warn state and local election officials about potential threats from foreign governments.

But CISA, as it’s known, was largely absent from that role in last year’s elections after the Trump administration dismantled much of its role in election security. The administration cut some 1,000 employees from CISA and slashed $10 million from two cybersecurity initiatives, including one dedicated to helping state and local election officials.

CISA has also gone the entirety of Trump’s second term without a Senate-confirmed director, instead cycling through a series of acting leaders.

Plan refers to ‘consistent’ support that many election officials say has been lacking

The 13-page document released Thursday warns of various threats to election security, including software vulnerabilities, hacks of voter registration databases, insider threats and physical security incidents, such as bomb threats that targeted several polling locations in the 2024 elections.

But it affirms that many longstanding election practices can address such threats and says the agency’s goal is “to ensure the American people can trust voting systems and know that physical safety measures will be in place when they go to their assigned polling locations to cast their votes.”

It states that DHS has “consistently supported CISA’s delivery of cybersecurity and physical security services to election officials,” something numerous election officials around the country have said isn’t true.

Multiple secretaries of state told the Associated Press that services previously provided by CISA, such as live tabletop exercises and penetration tests to evaluate security of their systems, were not available in the lead-up to this year’s midterms.

Minnesota Secretary of State Scott Simon, a Democrat, said in August that his office expects to spend roughly $250,000 on private vendors to conduct penetration testing, which can expose security vulnerabilities and recommend actionable fixes.

Shenna Bellows, the Democratic secretary of state in Maine, told the AP the same month that communications with CISA had been “sporadic and irregular, to say the least.” She said it would be helpful if the Trump administration could restore intelligence briefings that used to be granted to election officials about threats from foreign adversaries, but noted that trust with federal officials had been broken with the cuts to the agency.

Thursday’s plan doesn’t mention any specific 2026 threats from adversaries like Russia, Iran or China, all of whom have sought to meddle in U.S. elections — either directly through hacking or indirectly through influence campaigns.

Kris Warner, the Republican secretary of state in West Virginia, said Thursday that some of CISA’s assistance to his state had been continual throughout the Trump administration, including no-cost reviews of its public-facing websites for cybersecurity issues.

Warner acknowledged CISA had cut back under the Trump administration but said he views the agency “as a resource and not as a service provider” and said his office had last year hired a departing CISA election security advisor who has helped fill any gaps that may exist.

Report follows August call between CISA and election officials

In early August, two CISA officials — acting director Nick Anderson and assistant director for integrated operations Jim Harrell — joined a National Assn. of Secretaries of State call attended by a bipartisan group of secretaries of state, according to several election administrators.

The call grew tense when Arizona’s Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes voiced his concerns about the withdrawal of federal resources.

Fontes told the AP at the time that he told the CISA officials he didn’t trust them. He said it seemed to him the officials were there “to cover their butts.”

“They even acknowledged on the call that it was too late for them to do anything for 2026,” he said.

Simon said the officials appeared interested in rebuilding relationships and previewing their future plans, which he appreciated. But he said the effort at goodwill came later than election officials needed.

“Secretaries of state have already moved on and sought other partners and other resources for the services that CISA has retreated from over the last year and a half,” Simon said.

In Michigan, a voting rights group has tried to fill the gap

In Michigan, where mail ballots have already been sent out for the Nov. 3 elections, Deputy Secretary of State Aghogho Edevbie said the state’s relationship with CISA has been “nonexistent” this year despite working together closely in previous election cycles.

“If the federal government wants to be helpful, they can’t do so at the 11th hour,” the Democrat said.

Ashiya Brown, the Michigan state director of the voting rights group All Voting Is Local, agreed. She noted the new plan says CISA has 10 regional directors to support election administrators but still doesn’t answer her biggest question.

“Does CISA still have the people and capacity to provide that support when clerks need it?” she asked. “I’m glad CISA has put forward a plan, but what matters now is whether the support described in it reaches local election officials before November.”

CISA has been hiring on its website for new positions, Brown said, but it’s unclear whether they are all staffed yet.

Meanwhile, Brown, a former security official with the Michigan Department of State, said her group has hired former CISA employees to help provide training and other support to election clerks and fill the gap.

Edevbie said even without collaboration with CISA, he is confident the state’s elections are secure.

“We are always prepared to defend our elections and to ensure that every voter who is eligible to cast a ballot can do so here in Michigan,” he said.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Jessica Hill in Las Vegas and Jacqueline GaNun in Lansing, Mich., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Despite rising political anxiety over the Iran war, senators on Thursday narrowly rejected a war powers resolution seeking to halt President Trump’s military action, which has been largely blamed for the spike in gas prices and become a flashpoint in the midterm election.

The Senate tally, 49-50, coming days after Trump’s bombastic address to the United Nations in which he threatened to “annihilate” Iran, was likely the last chance for lawmakers to go on record about the war ahead of November. More Republicans are peeling way from the president as the war drags on, a rare slap back to Trump, as they campaign for control of Congress. The Senate outcome fell short, with four GOP senators joining most Democrats in favor of the resolution.

“They have been carrying water for this ridiculous and illegal war for months and months and months and not listening to their constituents,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who pushed the war powers resolution forward.

About half of rural American voters believe the economy is worse off now than when Trump returned to office, according to a new survey from the Associated Press in partnership with KFF. The costs of groceries, gas and healthcare rank as top pain points for the rural voters.

“We’ve got to break the cycle,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who joined in voting yes.

Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky also voted for the resolution to end the war, as they have in many previous tallies, and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman voted against.

This was the 14th time the Senate has considered a war powers resolution since Trump launched the conflict Feb. 28.

War powers resolutions are largely political statements, without the full force of law, but stand among the sharper tools the House and Senate have to express disapproval of the White House, short of halting funds for Trump’s military actions. As resolutions, they do not go to the president’s desk for his signature.

As gas prices climb, Republicans start to question the war

Republicans in control of Congress have shied away from directly confronting Trump over the war, now stretching past the seven-month mark. But their unrest is surfacing as stubbornly high gas prices leave voters in a cash crunch back home.

Diesel costs, in particular, have almost doubled, topping $6 a gallon, according to AAA.

Just returning from a swing through Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska stumping for GOP candidates who are suddenly at risk in their elections, Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana called on Trump to hold a prime-time address to the nation to explain the Iran war strategy and the end game.

“People are confused about the war and upset about the cost of living,” he said.

But he and others were not yet ready to vote against the war.

“My own view is that the focus right now needs to be on attacking the cost of living issues,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who opposes the war powers resolution and believes the president is acting within his authority to conduct the military action.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries scoffed at the handful of Republicans now trying to distance themselves from what he called Trump’s failed economy. “Now all of a sudden they’re waking up,” he said.

Democrats keep pushing war powers votes in Congress

Earlier this month, the House for a third time approved a war powers resolution, this time with seven Republicans joining the Democrats, including two from battleground Iowa, Rep. Zach Nunn and Rep. Mariannette Miller Meeks, where affordability issues among rural voters are dominating the campaigns.

Senators, though, have rarely been able to confront Trump by passing a war powers resolution.

In June, the Senate approved a war powers resolution after four GOP senators joined Democrats, but Republicans abruptly reversed course the next day after Trump berated them during a private lunch over the outcome.

At the time, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana stood up to defend his vote only to end up in a shouting match with Trump. He later switched to oppose the war powers resolution after receiving a personal briefing from the White House.

Thursday’s vote was on a resolution that had passed the House in July with GOP support. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) who authored the House resolution, said the Senate outcome was “a slap in the face to the millions of American people who want this war to end.”

Other options to halt the Iran war

As the war drags on, costing $43.5 billion so far, Congress is also seeking other ways to force Trump to rethink his military strategy in Iran.

Rep. Thomas Massie, the renegade Republican from Kentucky, pushed forward articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth before the GOP leadership abruptly adjourned the House and sent lawmakers home to campaign for the election, avoiding any potential vote on the matter.

Lawmakers also have the power of the purse to curtail military spending, something Republicans have been reluctant to do but Democrats are sure to tackle if they win power in the midterm election. The White House’s request for an additional $87.6-billion funding package for the war and other needs has idled in Congress.

First created in the aftermath of the Vietnam War as a way to hold a president accountable for military actions, the war powers act has long posed a test of the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government.

While the Constitution says only Congress can declare war, the president as commander-in-chief is also able to engage the military. The war powers act seeks to provide clarity by requiring the president, within 60 days of any such action, to seek approval — or risk disapproval — from Congress.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Joey Cappelletti and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Republicans are growing increasingly grim about their chances in November, with aligned groups pumping money into reliably GOP states and candidates scrambling to distance themselves from unpopular White House policies.

From Texas to Ohio and Alaska to Iowa, campaigns are grappling with a fed-up electorate that is sour on the president and angry over soaring fuel prices driven by an unpopular war. While Republicans are flush with unprecedented cash that could move the needle in some races, overall the mood is glum heading into the election’s final stretch as campaigns try to counter palpable Democratic enthusiasm to maintain their narrow lead in the House and Senate this November.

“Everybody is tired. You see the poll numbers. Everybody is cranky about gas prices,” said Jeanette Hoffman, a Republican strategist from New Jersey. “The party in power is playing defense. This is a referendum on the incumbents.”

Trump is trying to protect Republicans with cash

After mounting pressure from endangered candidates in battleground states, groups affiliated with President Trump finally began unleashing their stockpile of campaign cash earlier this month, joining with Republican committees that have amassed a record fortune that dramatically eclipses their Democratic counterparts.

“Republicans have air superiority. House Democrats are scrambling to catch up with the very limited resources they have,” said Mike Marinella, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

But the spending underscores the extent to which Republicans are playing defense.

Three Trump-aligned groups — MAGA Inc., No Going Back PAC and Safety and Affordability PAC — have spent more than $163 million on advertising and air time since Sept. 1. Nearly 40% of that money — more than $63 million — has been spent in states and districts where Trump won by 10 percentage points or more in the 2024 election, according to an Associated Press analysis of data from AdImpact, which tracks media spending and ad buys.

That includes 12 House districts and three states with major Senate races.

In Texas, Republicans have spent nearly $107 million on ads and reservations since the beginning of the month trying to bolster scandal-plagued attorney general Ken Paxton in his Texas Senate race against Democratic state Rep. James Talarico. The spending, which is for ads through Election Day, is nearly four times as much as Democrats in a state Trump won by nearly 14 points.

Further north in Ohio, Republican spending to defend Sen. Jon Husted has exceeded $152 million, compared with $90 million on behalf of Democratic nominee Sherrod Brown, according to AdImpact.

Terry Casey, an Ohio Republican strategist, said both Republicans and Democrats are “kind of sitting on pins and needles because of the national and economic circumstances.” The outcome, he said, would depend on whether Democrats can turn out voters.

Democrats are competing in Republican stronholds

States that Trump won by wide margins — like Texas, Iowa, Ohio and Alaska — have become some of the most competitive battlegrounds in the midterms.

The White House is even investing time in states that haven’t been considered competitive for years. Vice President JD Vance recently traveled to Kansas to campaign for Sen. Roger Marshall, who is facing a challenge from Democratic nominee Adam Hamilton.

The founder of the nation’s largest United Methodist church, Hamilton received a rousing welcome from scores of people who crammed into a Topeka coffee shop to see him Tuesday.

“In all my 50, 60 years in politics, I’ve never seen a candidate that quite has the momentum going,” said Jim Ploger, an 82-year-old longtime Democratic activist from Topeka who believes Hamilton gives the party “the best chance we’ve ever had” to win a Senate seat.

Vance has also been to Iowa, Ohio, Maine and North Carolina to bolster Republican candidates, while Trump is also hitting the road. The week after the party’s unusual midterm convention in Dallas, he traveled to North Carolina to hold a rally with Michael Whatley, his former national party chairman. Republicans are increasingly concerned that he could fall short in his Senate race against Democratic former Gov. Roy Cooper.

There are more concerns about Georgia, where Rep. Mike Collins is trying to unseat Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff. Although Ossoff began the cycle as Republicans’ top target, Collins has endured weeks of negative headlines about a House ethics investigation and his son-in-law’s white nationalist views.

“I don’t think anyone’s expecting Collins to win,” said Tim Waters, chairman of the Peach County Republican Party. “Do I like that? No, I don’t like that. But it’s just the facts.”

In Texas, officials are hoping a huge influx of last-minute cash will help save Paxton. Sen. John Cornyn, who lost his primary to Paxton after Trump turned on him earlier this year, isn’t so confident.

“I think it’s going to be very rough, lots of headwinds,” he said. “Even in places like Texas, which are pretty red, we’ve got flawed candidates who I think are going to have a hard time.”

Republican National Committee spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said the party is focused on turnout and is well aware of the historic trend in which the party in control typically loses seats in the midterm.

“We have money to spend and we’re not taking anything for granted this cycle,” she said. “This is very high stakes, and it’s unfortunate that other people feel glum and down. But we’re doing everything we can to protect and expand our majorities so we’re full steam ahead.”

Party officials are more bullish on races in Maine and New Hampshire, where Democrat Kamala Harris won in 2024, and remain optimistic about Michigan, where Trump won by less than two points and where former Rep. Mike Rogers faces progressive Democrat Abdul El-Sayed.

Some Republicans call for an end to the war

Some Republicans are taking steps to distance themselves from Trump even as he urges his supporters to vote like he is on the ballot.

Rep. Tom Tiffany and Rep. John James, the party’s nominees for governor in Wisconsin and Michigan, both joined calls for an end to the war in Iran.

“War is terrible, and no one likes war,” James told reporters.

Mike Rogers, the Republican Senate nominee in Michigan, released an ad in which he also called for ending the war. Standing in a grocery store, he bemoaned high prices and said the government should suspend gas taxes and stop diesel exports.

“The war with Iran needs to end and end quickly,” Rogers said. ”Michigan families can’t afford to wait.”

In Iowa, where Republicans are trying to hold onto the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Joni Ernst, Rep. Ashley Hinson, who is locked in a tight race against Democrat Josh Turek, voiced the same frustrations.

“Iowans are being squeezed and shouldn’t have to foot the bill at the pump or the checkout line for the war in Iran” she wrote on social media. “These actions to lower costs are needed ASAP, and the war needs to be brought to a successful and immediate end.”

Hinson, however, did not join two fellow Iowa Republicans in battleground districts — U.S. Reps. Zach Nunn and Mariannette Miller-Meeks — in voting with Democrats on a resolution intended to halt Trump’s ability to continue military action without lawmakers’ approval.

Perhaps the most dramatic break with Trump came from Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, a Republican defending her seat in a competitive, majority Hispanic South Florida district. Last week, she released an ad filmed in front of the White House as she criticized the president for going “too far” on immigration policy.

Others have continued to scrub references to Trump from their websites. The latest was Republican Byron Donalds, who is running for governor in Florida, who recently revamped his site so that it no longer includes a number of prominent references to Trump and his endorsement, the Miami Herald first reported.

‘It’s a very competitive environment out there’

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said Trump “is the unequivocal leader, best messenger, and unmatched motivator for the Republican Party” and that “the choice has never been more clear: doubling down on President Trump’s winning, commonsense agenda or the Democrats’ extreme liberal policies and obstruction.”

Some Republicans are acknowledging that voters aren’t satisfied.

“We shouldn’t say, ‘Hey everything’s perfect,’ because it’s not,” said Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio. “But look what we’ve done in 18 months, and we need two more years to finish the job.”

Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, who has traveled across the country campaigning for his colleagues, said Democrats appeared to have enthusiasm on their side in the midterms, and he said his party needed to level with the country.

“You can’t look the American people in the eye and say, ‘Don’t believe your lying checkbooks,’” he said. “The cost of living increase is real.”

He also said that voters are “confused about the war” and “they don’t understand how we’re going to get out.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., was measured in his assessment on Tuesday.

“Well, I’m hopeful, obviously, but also realistic,” he said. “It’s a very competitive environment out there.”

Colvin and Kessler write for the Associated Press. Colvin reported from New York. AP writers Mike Catalini in Morrisville, Pa., Bill Barrow in Atlanta, Thomas Beaumont in Des Moines, Iowa, John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., and Lisa Mascaro, Mary Clare Jalonick, Steven Sloan and Joey Cappelletti in Washington contributed to this report.

Until now, Trump has acted in Venezuela with no congressional involvement. The administration decided to work in tandem with Delcy Rodríguez, secure the oil, and run a negotiation between the old remnants of an opposition-controlled National Assembly and the regime. This framework won’t be renegotiated if the Democrats win the House of Representatives on November 3, a goal they will likely achieve. But a new Congress can exert real legislative pressure to potentially change how it moves forward.

What the Democrats have done since Maduro’s ousting

Since January, the Dems’ first efforts were two resolutions, sponsored by Tim Kaine in the Senate and Jim McGovern in the House, about war powers and who may authorize force, not about what the Venezuelan process should become. Both were supported by a few Republican leaders and failed to pass.

On February 25, Rep. Jared Moskowitz introduced the Venezuela Democratic Transition Strategy Act. It required the Secretary of State to deliver a strategy within 180 days, covering the release of political prisoners, foreign influence and assistance, followed by annual reports. Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Ted Cruz also introduced a bipartisan resolution in the Senate regarding the transition in Venezuela.

None of Trump’s numerous executive actions have required a vote, ratification, or budget allocation in the Capitol. 

The initiatives by Democratic lawmakers have not aimed to reverse what happened on January 3rd, because the US cannot backtrack from the military incursion which meant, at least, Nicolás Maduro’s removal from power. What they are seeking, however, is the establishment of a plan that will lead to free elections and, in the long term, a genuine democratic transition. What is the Democrats’ position? They have maintained a stance of recognizing Edmundo González as president-elect and María Corina Machado as the leader of the opposition.

Besides, the impact of ICE and Border Patrol going after the Venezuelan community in the US has been repeatedly underlined by voices such as Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Rep. Darren Soto, who filed a discharge petition on March 19^th to force a vote on the Venezuela TPS Act.

What won’t change?

The broader US policy.

The oil agreement allegedly signed by the Trump administration, the company Nabep, and the Rodríguez regime is a 25-year project across 17 fields. That deal will not be undone by letters or congressional hearings. Not even Democrats attacking Trump’s dealings with Rodríguez have offered legislation to end them so far. A Democratic House will not be able to reinstate TPS without the Senate and a presidential signature.

The administration has shown it can take action on Venezuela without congressional involvement. That’s what it did with the military incursion on January 3rd, the deportations after invoking the Alien Enemies Act, the termination of TPS and the humanitarian parole, the formal recognition of Delcy Rodríguez as interim president, the lifting of sanctions on Delcy and sectors of the economy, the opening of the Venezuelan market to US companies, the removal of Venezuela from the list of countries that have failed to cooperate in combating drug trafficking, and the informal meeting with Rodríguez in New York. None of those executive actions required a vote, ratification, or budget allocation in the Capitol. 

The only formal check Congress has is the War Powers Resolution, which has already failed twice, and Trump has promised to veto it if it ever reaches his desk. Should he do so, even with a Democratic majority in Congress, at least two-thirds of the vote is required to override a presidential veto. That threshold remains very difficult to reach. 

Oversight already began

The clearest preview of what the midterm election can change came this month. Reps. Robert Garcia, Gregory Meeks and Jared Huffman, the ranking Democrats on Oversight, Foreign Affairs and Natural Resources, wrote to Secretary Rubio and Attorney General Blanche regarding the oil deal. They question why Alejandro Betancourt, who has faced investigations into alleged PDVSA money laundering, is treated as a business partner. They also say the administration has given Congress scarce details on the management of at least $13 billion in Venezuelan oil revenues.

The only thing that might change with a majority in Congress is the ability to obtain information, because those who are currently in the minority on the committees would become their chairs.

This issue is important if we expect a shift in the Legislative Oversight Committee on Venezuela. García has been the leading Democratic representative in the Oversight Committee since June 2025 and is well-positioned to chair the committee and exercise subpoena power if the Democrats win in November. Although his plans do not explicitly mention Venezuela as a priority, nor does the issue appear on the legislative agenda of Hakeem Jeffries (House Minority Leader), the agreements being negotiated and signed with Venezuela, as well as the management of oil resources, could fit perfectly with the demand for accountability and transparency that are indeed part of his priorities.

What’s happening in Florida?

We can’t talk about what we expect in November without discussing what’s happening in Florida. Although the Venezuelan vote isn’t decisive for the state, the Latino vote does carry significant weight and, in this case, naturalized US citizens or their descendants will consider immigration policies, as well as their economic impact, and abuses by ICE when they cast their vote.

The changes to electoral maps pushed by Republicans could have unexpected consequences. Moskowitz is seeking reelection and is in a competitive but winnable race. Wasserman-Schultz is in a better position in CD 20. Meanwhile, Angie Nixon, the Democratic Senate candidate, has been outspoken in her criticism of Trump’s immigration policies, demanding an end to deportations and the reinstatement of TPS.

If we want to see results regarding Venezuela that benefit Venezuelans, we have to look at the situation from an American perspective.

On the other side of the aisle, Maria Elvira Salazar’s recent announcement came as a surprise to many this week. In it, the Republican congresswoman tells Trump that his immigration control measures have gone “too far,” noting that half of the people detained by ICE in July had no criminal record. In June, she urged Trump to halt deportations to Venezuela following the earthquakes. Her actions appear to be driven more by the latest polls than by a commitment to defending immigrants’ rights.

How could a Democratic majority help the Venezuelan people?

To be honest, the only thing that might change with a majority in Congress is the ability to obtain information, because those who are currently in the minority on the committees would become their chairs. “Who negotiated the agreement? Where will the revenue go? What is the strategy behind the negotiation?” These are some of the questions that might carry more weight in the Oversight Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee if they were headed by a Democrat rather than someone from the ruling party.

Venezuela is neither the center of the world nor a priority for the Democratic Party. One might think that it would be “easier” for chavismo to deal with the Democrats. If we want to see results regarding Venezuela that benefit Venezuelans, we have to look at the situation from an American perspective. The military intervention by the US has already happened, and if the US controls much of Venezuelan politics, that isn’t going to change because of a shift in Congress.

Americans don’t necessarily care about Venezuela’s specific situation, but they do care that the president doesn’t have “superpowers.” In my opinion, this makes it possible for Democrats to use the Venezuela issue as a mechanism for congressional oversight and to seek alliances with non-“MAGA” Republicans to place limits on Trump.

Sept. 22, 2026 6:37 PM PT

NEW YORK — Earlier in the month, President Trump warned voters that democratic socialists — extreme, crazed, lunatics, he called them — were threatening to transform America into “a communist country.”

This week, a smiling Trump patted on the shoulder one of the nation’s best known democratic socialists, shook his hand, and said he was “off to a start” to being a great mayor of the country’s largest city.

Trump’s cozy relationship with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, which began last year, has confounded people across the political spectrum. But with the midterms approaching, Republicans are increasingly frustrated by the unexpected bromance, which threatens the party’s message about Democratic radicalism.

“You’re trying to say, ‘Here’s how extreme they are,’ and the president’s saying, ’I love this guy,’” said veteran Republican strategist Doug Heye. “It doesn’t help.”

It’s hard to overstate the extent to which Republicans are focused on the rise of democratic socialism in the midterm season. At a moment when the party is saddled with Trump’s weak approval ratings on virtually every major issue — the economy and the war in Iran chief among them — Republicans from Georgia and Texas to New York and Michigan are working to scare voters away from Democratic candidates by warning that the party is controlled by far-left extremists.

At Trump’s unusual midterm convention in Texas earlier in the month, Mamdani’s name was evoked over and over again.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz called the New York Mayor “Comrade Mamdani.” Rep. Tom Emmer, the No. 3 House Republican, called him “Mamdani the commie.”

Trump sent a similar message although he didn’t mention Mamdani.

“They call themselves democrat socialists, but actually they’re communists,” he said in his keynote address. “They’re crazy.”

In all, the words socialist or socialism were referenced dozens of times during the convention.

Trump did not mention those words while standing alongside Mamdani in New York on Monday, however. The president was in town for the United Nations General Assembly and made time to swing by Gracie Mansion.

Instead, the president highlighted efforts underway to work together, noting that he’s worked with numerous mayors over the years — “some great ones and some not so great ones.”

“Hopefully you’re going to be a great one,” Trump said while looking at Mamdani. “I’ll be able to say you’re going to be a great one. And you’re off to a start.”

Trump grew up in Queens, which Mamdani represented in the New York Assembly before running for mayor and winning a startling upset. He has since expanded his political power in the city, helping to push three candidates to victory in Democratic congressional primaries earlier this year.

It’s possible that Trump’s tone on Mamdani will shift again. After they had two surprisingly convivial meetings in the Oval Office, Trump started criticizing the mayor again.

“Sadly, Mayor Mamdani is DESTROYING New York! It has no chance!,” Trump wrote on social media in April in apparent response to a plan to create a new tax on luxury second homes in the city. “The United States of America should not contribute to its failure. It will only get WORSE. The TAX, TAX, TAX Policies are SO WRONG.”

Republicans in New York were quick to downplay the latest example of Trump’s friendliness with Mamdani.

David Laska, a spokesperson for the New York Republican Party, said, “President Trump is the greatest dealmaker in history, and he has proven repeatedly that he can deal from a position of strength with America’s enemies, be they foreign dictators or the mayor of New York City.”

Mamdani faced his own questions about why he was playing nice with a president that he’s previously described as a fascist.

“The president and I have both been very frank about the many disagreements that we have,” he said Monday. “I will continue to have conversations with the president, and frankly, anyone who can deliver relief to the people of this city.”

Peoples and Izaguirre write for the Associated Press.

President Trump came to battleground North Carolina doubling down on a tantalizing and implausible midterm promise. “If we win,” he said, “we’re going to get you $5,000. So that’s it. Very simple.”

The Republican candidates who spoke at the rally had nothing to say about it.

Their silence reflects a broader pattern. About a week after the president unveiled his “Trump dividend” pledge at the party’s unusual midterm convention in Dallas, there is little evidence that Republicans in competitive races have incorporated it into their campaigns.

The pledge hasn’t been a staple of television advertising, whether from Trump’s own political operation or his party’s candidates. It usually only comes up when reporters ask about it, prompting most Republicans to sidestep the idea.

The Republican National Committee considers the proposed payments part of Trump’s broader economic vision and says candidates should get behind it.

“Of course we encourage all Republican candidates to run on his agenda, and that includes efforts to put more money in the pockets of the American people,” spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said.

There are some exceptions. Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who is seeking reelection in a battleground Wisconsin district, has praised the proposal.

The idea comes as the economy confronts rising interest rates, continuing inflation and climbing fuel costs. Republicans are fighting to keep their majorities in the House and Senate.

Trump previously promised to use savings from his White House advisory team, which he calls the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, and revenue from tariffs on imports to distribute payments of $2,000 or more, but none of that came to pass. The president has said he did not think congressional approval would be needed for the idea, which could cost more than $1 trillion, but House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) indicated the promise would require lawmakers to act.

Democrats point to those previous suggestions for a payout to raise skepticism about the $5,000 pledge.

“This idea is nothing more than a recycled broken promise that voters know Republicans will never deliver,” said Viet Shelton, a spokesperson for the House Democratic campaign arm.

Republican campaign advertising has largely focused on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including provisions that temporarily cut taxes on tips and overtime. Other candidates are concentrating on local issues or attacks against their opponents.

Doug Heye, a Republican strategist and former Republican National Committee communications director, said there is little mystery about why candidates have been reluctant to embrace the pledge.

“It’s a dumb idea,” Heye said. “There’s no way to pay for it and it would spike inflation.”

Catalini writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A nonprofit run by Black federal lawmakers launched a multimillion-dollar effort Tuesday to engage lower-propensity voters in key districts in the midterm elections, following years of dissatisfaction over traditional efforts to reach such voters.

The Congressional Black Caucus Institute’s “SO VOTE” campaign will seek to register and mobilize young voters, as well as voters in majority-Black and rural communities, across the South, Midwest and West. The campaign involves partnerships with dozens of local organizations, the institute said, with in-person and online outreach to voters often sidestepped by major political campaigns.

“For decades, as far as I can remember, there are those of us who have always complained about the fact that neither party spends the significant and requisite time with Black and brown and poor and rural communities,” said Marcia Fudge, a former Democratic congresswoman from Ohio who served as the secretary of Housing and Urban Development during the Biden administration.

“So we finally decided to take it upon ourselves to do something that we didn’t think anybody else in the industry was doing,” said Fudge, who is spearheading the new effort alongside former Black Caucus colleagues.

Effort blends old tactics with new technologies to boost turnout

Voter engagement efforts will cover outreach across Georgia and Mississippi, as well as target voters in 16 congressional districts that are likely to determine control of the House.

Instead of traditional television advertising, the campaign will convene local civic groups and houses of worship, as well as fraternities and sororities. The effort will also use some now-widespread techniques in political campaigns, such as geotargeting online ads and partnerships with local content creators for audiences who mainly receive their news online.

While the voter engagement efforts are officially nonpartisan, the Black Caucus’ targeted races are in many regions where Black voter turnout could prove key to whether a Democratic candidate prevails in closely divided House districts. Cedric Richmond, a former Louisiana Democratic congressman who served as a senior adviser to President Joe Biden, said the effort would focus on repeatedly engaging voters in rural communities who feel alienated from Democratic campaigns.

“If you’re not happy with the way things are going, then voting is part of the solution, but it takes constant communication,” Richmond said.

The Black Caucus’ institute has raised about $1 million for the campaign, primarily from individual donors, and plans to spend at least $4.5 million in the midterm election cycle.

Campaign responds to GOP redistricting and disappointing turnout in the past

The new outreach effort follows years of disappointment and frustration among some in the Black Caucus at the broader Democratic Party’s efforts to court Black, rural and younger voters.

Rep. Jim Clyburn, an influential South Carolina Democrat who decried the lackluster voter turnout in the 2024 election, said the campaign “allows us to put to practice that which we have been proposing, and we have never had the resources to do it. But this year we do.”

The effort is also a response to Republican-led redistricting efforts in multiple states, said Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat.

“These Southern states are trying to minimize Black political participation and ultimately Black political strength,” he said. “So what we have to do is take that low-propensity voter and elevate their participation so they become an additional voice to be reckoned with.”

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A bold military push by Iran and its proxies to create a choke hold on global oil supplies has once again caught the Trump administration off guard, threatening a market shock and a steep political backlash in the U.S. midterm elections.

A drone attack on Saudi Arabia’s most crucial pipeline, which siphons crude oil from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, has led to the line’s closure, potentially taking 4% of the world’s supply off the market.

And a lightning advance by Iran-backed Houthi rebels along Yemen’s Red Sea coast threatens commercial traffic through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, second only to Hormuz in its importance to regional shipping.

The strikes put the Trump administration in a newly precarious position less than two months until the November midterms. President Trump’s military advisors have warned him that any retaliation could lead to a further depletion of critically low U.S. munition stockpiles, endanger American personnel in the field and risk escalation that could spiral out of Washington’s control.

A semi prepares for departure from a Pilot fuel station Monday in Buda, Texas.

(Brandon Bell / Getty Images)

On Tuesday, the global price of oil topped $107 a barrel — the first time in U.S. campaign history that an incumbent president has faced rising pump prices at this stage of an election.

The Iranian strikes come as Europe and the United States are facing increased energy needs entering the fall and winter months, and as Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure have surged, pushing diesel prices up to record highs.

Signs are emerging that the latest attacks could trigger an acute market panic, with Brent crude buyers paying a steep premium for early delivery — an indication that the industry fears an impending supply crisis.

“I fear there is a considerable risk of much higher gas and diesel prices in the weeks to come,” said Michael O’Hanlon, director of research of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution.

“No one is quite sure how to predict the fuel markets,” he added, “but the military dynamics are seriously worrisome.”

Last week, Trump told reporters that the Iranian government is “desperate to try and affect the election” and could be trying to keep oil prices elevated to hurt Republican prospects.

“Right after the election, oil prices are going to be tumbling downward,” Trump said. “I think it’s going to take a little bit longer than the midterm.”

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Monday morning.

(Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images)

Polls have found that likely voters are prioritizing the economy far beyond any other policy matter going into the fall election season, with a New York Times poll published Tuesday showing voters trusting Democrats to handle the economy more than Republicans.

“There’s no quick fix,” said Simon Henderson, the director of the Washington Institute’s Gulf and Energy Policy program. “The main question is whether it is a big shock to the oil market or just another more minor shock. The answer depends on whether the damage to the East-West pipeline cable is repaired quickly.”

Region on edge

The latest Iranian campaign threatens Saudi Arabia’s economic core, straining a long-standing alliance built on robust U.S. defense of Riyadh’s vital interests.

The attack on the East-West oil pipeline originated in Iraq, where Iran continues to operate proxy militias, according to government officials in Riyadh and Baghdad. Saudi Arabia agreed not to retaliate militarily against targets on Iraqi soil, temporarily staving off a regional conflagration.

While the Iraqi militia group denied involvement, it also praised the Houthi advance in Yemen and the militants’ “ongoing battlefield victories against Saudi forces.”

Israel has been providing Saudi Arabia with intelligence to help thwart further attacks, using American military intermediaries, according to Israeli media reports.

Active combat in the war between Iran and the United States eased after a ceasefire was brokered in June. While that truce collapsed in July, the two sides have opted for asymmetric tactics over the resumption of direct attacks, with the United States maintaining a full naval blockade of Iranian ports.

The Trump administration has since focused instead on targeting Iran’s economic partners with aggressive secondary sanctions, seeking to further pressure Tehran into a meaningful peace agreement. But negotiations have failed for months to get back off the ground.

When he first launched the war in February, Trump projected the mission would last roughly six weeks. He said the goal of the U.S. operation was to incapacitate Iran’s ballistic missile program, its navy and its nuclear program.

Trump was warned ahead of the war by his joint chiefs of staff that Iran could attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz in response. But he dismissed the threat, anticipating Tehran would quickly back down from a direct confrontation with the United States.

More than six months on, Iran’s ballistic missiles continue to pressure U.S. defense systems across the Middle East. Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted and discussions on Iran’s future nuclear work have broken down. In private, Trump administration officials fear the war could drag through the remainder of the president’s term.