united states

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Newsom’s decision has been praised by criminal justice groups as a step away from a practice they say is outdated, inefficient and immoral.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

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

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

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

Unprecedented Firsts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women also set new records in the House of Representatives:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night. If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that’s at least honest,” Vance said.

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

The elephant in the room was no more.

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

A poisoned chalice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unpopular, but not as unpopular as Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Blue tsunami’

There are other potential candidates to consider.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Months into Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Palantir’s CEO Alex Karp became the first chief of a major Western Big Tech company to personally visit Kyiv.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in June 2022 that he was “delighted” to receive the support of such a company in the fight against Russia “on the digital front line”.

The Florida-based software development firm’s partnership has paid off.

Ukraine has since become the first nation in modern history to systematically collect battlefield data, a crucial asset for training military artificial intelligence (AI) to recognise patterns and make predictions.

The trove of real-world combat data obtained from video and sensor feeds over four years of conflict is helping Ukraine monitor, predict and respond to Russian attacks with the help of Palantir’s products.

Yet observers say the data is also boosting the capabilities of the United States corporation whose technologies are implicated in human rights abuses, including in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, raising questions about the growing leverage that private tech corporations are acquiring over sovereign states.

A ‘strategic advantage’

Palantir was founded in the aftermath of the 2001 attack on New York’s World Trade Center to help the US defence industry build a single data environment from which to monitor and respond to incoming threats.

To reflect such a mission, the company was named after a stone in JRR Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings that grants powers that border on omniscience.

Yasir Atalan, deputy director of the Futures Lab at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said Palantir makes “different forms of data talk to each other”.

In the military context, data from missiles, radars, the automatic identification system (AIS) and open sources is gathered on one screen, offering a “larger view of the battlefield”, Atalan said.

Similar solutions are available to governments for civil purposes, including border control, health services, tax and revenue – and mass surveillance.

With more data, systems use statistical learning to recognise patterns to make accurate predictions, enabling military systems to make split-second, automated tactical decisions.

Under this premise, large datasets based on real-life scenarios are coveted by companies aiming to outperform their competitors.

“Good battlefield data is extremely rare and hard to come by,” Elke Schwarz, a lecturer focusing on digital technologies at Queen Mary University of London, told Al Jazeera. Because of its scarcity, “those with access to [it] have a strategic advantage”.

Data originating from Ukraine may not be directly applicable to another conflict but is still crucial for training, Schwarz said.

“Building a system that correctly identifies a tank, for instance, requires a large volume of tank images, ideally in all kinds of weather conditions,” she explained.

Similarly, large volumes of behavioural data – information on how people react to a given scenario – are key in tracking, profiling and predicting human activity in mass surveillance systems.

Ukraine’s invaluable battlefield data

The pinnacle of the collaboration between Palantir and Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence came in January with the launch of a specialised software platform, the Brave1 Dataroom, which uses battlefield data to train artificial intelligence for military applications.

But prominent figures in Ukraine’s defence sector have questioned their government’s decision to share the country’s valuable asset with a private tech company under undisclosed terms.

“Ukraine has something that no other country in the world has,” Valerii Markus, a serviceman and former chief sergeant, wrote on Facebook. “We are paying with blood for data that someone else can convert into capital, international influence, and big money.”

The company maintains it does not acquire customer data.

In an emailed statement to Al Jazeera, it said that “customers own and control their data”.

Palantir’s software helps them “integrate and analyse their existing data sets,” the company said, adding: “Palantir never uses or retains customer data for its own purposes.”

Schwarz, at Queen Mary University London, said Palantir does not need to possess the data to benefit from it. “Rather, it works with the data that is made available,” she said.

Civil liberties and data protection

Palantir’s technologies, contracted by private clients and government agencies around the world, are known to have been implicated in human rights abuses.

Its core software platforms, ICM and FALCON, facilitated the administration of US President Donald Trump in detaining and deporting thousands of people, including asylum seekers, since January 2025. Amnesty International found the company aggregated massive amounts of data, built detailed individual profiles to track migrants and asylum seekers and assisted with deportations, contrary to its obligations to avoid causing or contributing to human rights abuses under international law.

The company has also assisted Israel in its war in Gaza, which a United Nations inquiry found bears the hallmarks of genocide.

Last year, UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese found “reasonable grounds” to believe Palantir provided AI platforms used for battlefield data integration and automated decision-making in the war that has killed more than 74,500 Palestinians since October 2023.

In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service (NHS), police, military and local councils all signed multimillion-pound contracts with Palantir to integrate user data, but the agreements have been met with public backlash.

Nonprofit organisation Corporate Accountability launched a campaign against the 330-million-pound ($440m) contract between the NHS and Palantir to provide a new data platform. The watchdog warned the company is “at the heart of the dystopian marriage of Big Tech, the surveillance and detention industry, and rising fascism”.

Palantir in April published a 22-point summary of Karp’s coauthored book on X, which was widely criticised for promoting an authoritarian, antidemocratic worldview by questioning the efficacy of liberal democracy and arguing that some cultures produce vital advances while others are regressive.

Fatimah Shaikh, Corporate Accountability’s deputy campaigns director, said, “Palantir is not a corporation we can trust” to hold British citizens’ sensitive personal information.

“We should all be able to get medical care without fearing for our safety or privacy,” she told Al Jazeera.

Ilia Siatitsa, senior legal officer at Privacy International in the UK, said tech companies like Palantir blur the line between military and civil applications. They are also opaque about how they use customers’ data by virtue of their involvement in national security, she added.

Siatitsa argued the company could potentially use personal information to train its products – including those with a military application – without explicit consent from the users.

“If my data is going to be feeding into a war machine, I want to know about it,” she said. “I need to have the choice, not only [as a matter of] privacy, but also from an ethical point of view.”

In June, Britain announced it was reviewing the NHS’s data contract with Palantir after parliamentary pressure.

Growing dependencies

Private tech companies are supporting military and civil infrastructure, to the point where governments may become reliant on them to conduct military operations or run national services, experts say.

Anna Nadibaidze, researcher at the Center for War Studies at the University of Southern Denmark, said the balance of power has been shifting.

“We’re used to state armies, nations’ armies being the main players,” Nadibaidze said, adding that now those players are reliant on products supplied by the private sector. “So what if they choose to not supply this infrastructure any more?”

She argued Elon Musk’s SpaceX offered a valid example.

Ukraine has come to rely heavily on the company’s Starlink satellites for communications on the battlefield and effective warfare, but in late September 2022, during a pivotal push by Ukraine to retake Kherson from Russia, the tech billionaire suddenly provoked a communications blackout.

Amid tensions between Washington and Europe, several countries are now refraining from using Palantir’s products. France’s Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu in June said domestic intelligence services would ditch Palantir’s products in an effort to avoid “strategic dependency”. Germany’s military also said it would no longer use the company’s products.

Spanish publication El Confidencial revealed in July that Spanish authorities quietly instructed state-backed companies to avoid signing new contracts with Palantir, citing concerns that sensitive national security information could be exposed.

Palantir’s reliability as a partner has also been called into question in Ukraine after the company finalised in September a strategic partnership with Nebius, a Dutch company founded as an offshoot of Russian technology giant Yandex.

Denys Shtilerman, chief designer and co-owner of Fire Point, a Ukrainian defence-tech company that develops and produces UAV and missile systems, said “the very same Palantir that works with Ukrainian combat data” had struck a deal with Yandex cofounder Arkady Volozh.

Volozh’s description of Russia’s war as “barbaric” has not eased Shtilerman’s concerns.

“Our combat data is not free raw material for Western technology corporations. It is a strategic asset of the state,” he wrote on X in a response to Kyiv’s collaboration with Palantir.

“Ukraine has paid for it with blood. We have no right to simply hand over the most valuable asset we possess.”

Victor Wembanyama had 24 rebounds and 52 points as San Antonio Spurs recorded their sixth straight win in the NBA.

Victor Wembanyama has set a career-high ‌‌24 rebounds before sinking the winning free throw with 24.2 seconds left ⁠⁠to cap his ⁠⁠career-best 52-point performance as the host San Antonio Spurs outlasted the Dallas Mavericks 112-111 for their sixth straight victory.

The Spurs led by ⁠⁠19 points early in the third quarter on Wednesday before Dallas pulled within two with eight minutes and 17 seconds remaining and then took a 103-100 lead on PJ Washington’s three-pointer with 5:38 to play.

The ⁠⁠lead seesawed from there as Dallas’s Naji Marshall tied the score at 111 with a 3-pointer with 1:41 remaining, and Wembanyama’s deciding free throw put the Spurs back on top.

The Mavericks called a timeout to set up a final shot, but Kyrie Irving missed a contested ‌‌turnaround jumper in the lane with 2.5 seconds left, and time ran out.

Wembanyama also blocked eight shots in the win. Dylan Harper added 21 points, Stephon Castle had 17 and De’Aaron Fox scored 10 for San Antonio.

Irving led Dallas with 29 points, while Marshall had 22 off the bench. Washington finished with 21 points and 10 rebounds, and Cooper Flagg contributed 19 points and 10 boards. The Mavericks ⁠⁠have lost two straight games.

Wembanyama became the first player ‌‌in the past 30 seasons to record at least 25 points, 10 rebounds and five blocked shots in a half. He made all 15 of his free throws and ‌‌reached ‌‌those totals in just 16:37 of playing time.

Harper added 13 points for San Antonio before half-time. Irving led the Mavericks with 17 points at the break, and Washington had 13.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has expressed hope that Democratic gains in the United States midterm ⁠elections will bring ⁠more help for Kyiv, as European officials urged the new US Congress to ramp up pressure on Russia to end Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War II.

Zelenskyy’s comments on Wednesday came after American voters rebuked US President Donald Trump and his Republican Party, handing control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives to the Democratic Party.

In an interview with German broadcaster ZDF, Zelenskyy said the Democratic gains could work to Ukraine’s advantage.

“I am also grateful to the Republicans, but the Democrats speak very clearly about supporting Ukraine and providing assistance to Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said.  “They speak about renewing the connection between the United States and Europe… Therefore, there is hope that a balance of power will emerge, and that we will receive more support.”

Zelenskyy said more US aid could have an effect ‌on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“If Congress now speaks of strong financial support or military assistance, as Europe is doing and demonstrating today, then that will be something positive that will have an impact on Putin,” he told ZDF.

Zelenskyy has worked to repair a rocky relationship with Trump since an Oval Office meeting in February 2025 at which the US president accused his Ukrainian counterpart of being “ungrateful” for Washington’s aid.

Pressure on Russia

In recent weeks, Trump has made several moves favourable to Russia, including a deal to import Russian diesel.

Last month, he waived sanctions on Russia that Congress had overwhelmingly approved as part of legislation supporting Ukraine.

Ukraine has also accused Washington of delaying deliveries of interceptor missiles.

Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, said she hoped the new Congress would “continue supporting Ukraine and also putting more pressure on Russia”.

“Europe as well as US, we are much stronger together,” Kallas said, expressing hope that joint pressure would force Moscow to end the war.

In Germany, leaders were divided. Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed scepticism on Wednesday that Trump would change course despite the Democrats’ sweeping victory.

“Quite frankly, over the last two years, Trump has largely governed by bypassing Congress. Why should that be any different now?” Merz said at an event in Berlin, a day after US voters handed Republicans a historic defeat.

His foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, was more hopeful. He said the “very clear” Democratic victory could create “a new opportunity to launch a fresh initiative” to end the wars in Ukraine and Iran. He added that he was “quite optimistic” that aid to Ukraine, which has been slashed under Trump, would get “more discussion” from US lawmakers of both parties.

Scepticism

Others in Europe cautioned that with Trump in office for two more years, Washington’s foreign policy was unlikely to change quickly.

The US president has berated European leaders, roiled their economies with tariffs, threatened to pull the US out of NATO, and said he wants to take over Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark.

“Our security and prosperity in Austria and Europe must not depend on how people in Kansas or Iowa vote,” Austria’s foreign minister, Beate Meinl-Reisinger, said. “That’s why we are strengthening our own defence capability and our own competitiveness.”

In Moscow, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia hoped Trump “will continue his peacemaking efforts”, regardless of the election result.

Democratic aides have told US media that helping Kyiv would be a priority when the party takes control of the congressional agenda in January. But diplomacy is moving faster.

Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy, said Washington would bring Ukrainian and Russian delegations together in Abu Dhabi on November 10 and 11 to discuss ending the war and security arrangements for Ukraine.

Zelenskyy said on Wednesday that he has had detailed conversations with Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, ahead of the meeting.

“The negotiations must move forward at full throttle to bring this war to an end as quickly as possible. Ukraine is ready to take the necessary steps,” he wrote on X.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promise to restore ties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s the hold-up in Mississippi?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When will we know Alaska’s results?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 candidate Randy Villegas has defeated Republican incumbent David Valadao in the race for California’s 22nd congressional district, clinching one of the state’s most closely watched congressional races and notching another win for the Democratic Party’s progressive left.

Villegas, an educator who grew up in the Central Valley as the son of Mexican immigrants, ousted the Republican representative after a campaign that won support from figures such as Senator Bernie Sanders and railed against the rising cost of living, healthcare cuts, and sweeping immigration raids.

“I want to take a moment to acknowledge my family. Both of my parents, who I’m blessed to have with me here today. I’ve gotta tell you, the reason I believe in this country, the reason I believe in the United States, is because of the sacrifices that they made,” Villegas said in remarks to his supporters gathered in the city of Bakersfield on Tuesday evening, calling the result a “historic victory for the Central Valley”.

“And let me tell you, that victory is not because of me. It is because of us,” he added.

Here are some of the key takeaways from the race.

Cost of living concerns

The story of the district fits a larger one playing out across the country as votes come in on election night: angry about surging prices that were driven partly by the Trump administration’s decision to launch a war on Iran, and overreach in areas such as ICE raids, voters decided to punish the president and his party.

Polls had indicated for months that the president had become deeply unpopular, and that this trend was closely linked to collapsing faith in his handling of the economy and cost of living, issues that had previously helped return him to the White House in 2024.

Despite his image as a relative moderate with strong ties to the Central Valley, Valadao did not escape that trend on Tuesday night.

Immigration raids trigger backlash among Latino voters

Following Trump’s win in 2024, much was made of the Republican Party’s successful inroads with Latino voters despite the party’s embrace of rhetoric vilifying immigrants and restrictive immigration policies.

Less than two years later, those promising gains have entirely evaporated.

Incensed over the administration’s aggressive and often indiscriminate approach to immigration enforcement and the toll of rising prices, Latino voters across the country swung heavily back towards the Democrats.

“We have people who said that they regret having voted for him [Trump], because he has not done what he promised,” a member of the United Farm Workers (UFW) labour union who knocked doors in Latino communities for Villegas, told Al Jazeera on Monday.

Residents and officials in the Central Valley said that ICE raids sent shockwaves through immigrant and Latino communities, with arrests of farmworkers and family members cutting against the administration’s claims that it was targeting criminals.

Villegas slammed the raids and linked them to Valadao’s support for a massive increase in the budget for ICE, one of the agencies at the centre of the mass deportation raids.

A recent survey from the Pew Research Center found that 56 percent of US voters now view ICE unfavourably, making it one of the least popular agencies in the federal government.

Progressives make the case for their competitiveness

Before facing off against Valadao on Tuesday night, Villegas had to win a hard-fought primary race against California State Assembly member Jasmeet Bains, a candidate aligned with the party’s establishment wing who warned that his progressive positions would be too far to the left in the traditionally conservative region.

But Villegas and his supporters challenged that premise. His populist message seems to have resonated in a race dominated by concerns about the cost of living and access to healthcare, and at a time when many feel that politics and the economy are skewed in favour of the wealthy and well-connected.

Villegas won endorsements from Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and energised supporters from the party’s base, including members of organised labour who pounded the pavement to get out the vote.

“We beat the Democratic establishment. We beat the Republican establishment. We beat corporate PAC money. We beat AIPAC!” Villegas told supporters on Tuesday night.

Villegas can now add his name to the list of elected officials seeking to prove that progressives can win tough races outside of traditional strongholds.

“Randy’s race has shown us that the Central Valley cannot be counted out of following the really urgent change that we need in every corner of our country,” said Manpreet Kaur, the progressive vice mayor of Bakersfield who was an early supporter of Villegas. “And the Central Valley is included in that.”

Alaska is still waiting for the winners of its Senate, House and gubernatorial elections.

A Democratic romp in the midterms has rocked the US political landscape, but several closely contested races remain too close to call.

• Alaska Senate: Republican Senator Dan Sullivan is seeking to retain his seat against Democratic challenger Mary Peltola, who has a 626-vote lead. If neither candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, then it will go to ranked-choice voting under Alaska law.
• Alaska governor: Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins is facing off against Republican Bernadette Wilson. Kreiss-Tomkins’s share of the vote is 49.2 percent with an estimated 74 percent of ballots counted.
• Kansas governor: Democrat Cindy Holscher has a lead of less than a percentage point over Republican Ty Masterson. Holscher’s lead is 5,557, with an estimated 98 percent of the votes counted.
• Mississippi Senate: Democratic candidate Scott Colom leads Republican incumbent Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith by 43 votes with an estimated 96 percent of votes counted.
• Los Angeles mayor: Incumbent Mayor Karen Bass is locked in a tight contest with Nithya Raman, who is backed by the Democratic Socialists of America. Bass has 48.9 percent of the vote, compared with Raman’s 51.1 percent, with an estimated one-third of the ballots uncounted.
  

  

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”.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D) with María Corina Machado and her aides in January 2026.

Last night’s results confirmed what had long been signaled. As of this writing, Democrats are winning the House of Representatives with at least 228 seats, and the Senate with 54. Beyond Congress, they secured a majority of governorships for the first time in 16 years.

The White House’s reaction is a preview of what the next two years will look like. This morning, they posted a photo of the president with the caption: “Notice: Trump is still your president,” an idea echoed on X by his communications director, Steven Cheung. With this message, the administration appeared to signal that Trump will continue governing by executive fiat, bypassing Congress.

For Venezuelans, the question today is: what changes with this new majority? The answer remains the same: oversight. The tools Democrats have just regained could enable them to pressure the administration into accelerating an electoral process in Venezuela.

The races behind the shift

The surprise of the night came in South Carolina, where Annie Andrews won by four points in a state Trump carried by 18 in 2024. Results in Texas (James Talarico against Ken Paxton), Ohio (Sherrod Brown), Kansas (Adam Hamilton), Iowa (Josh Turek), and Maine—where Troy Jackson defeated Susan Collins—illustrate how White House policies exacted a toll on congressional Republicans.

This pushback was not confined to Congress: Democrats took governorships in Georgia, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. In Texas, Gina Hinojosa alongside James Talarico became the first Democrats to win a statewide race in more than three decades.

Even in Florida, which remains predominantly Republican, the figures make voter discontent clear. Byron Donalds won the governorship with 50% against David Jolly’s 48.7%. In a state Trump won just two years ago by 13 points, the margins secured by Republicans last night ought to worry them.

The line that could work for Democrats is the one led by Wasserman Schultz and Garcia: accepting that what happened on January 3 cannot be undone, while demanding that priorities shift.

In Miami, margins collapsed for Republican representatives. María Elvira Salazar leads Eliott Rodríguez by roughly 1,100 votes in a district Trump won by 20 points in 2024, and every sign points toward a recount. Mario Díaz-Balart is winning by less than a point in District 26, while Carlos Giménez dropped from 64.6% to 53% in District 28. Despite a district map redrawn to favor Republicans, Democrat Jared Moskowitz won District 25.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz retained her seat, now in District 20, with 74.4% of the vote. Her campaign exemplifies the platform currently working for Democrats in South Florida: she publicly distanced herself from the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA); criticized Trump for leaving Maduro’s inner circle in charge of Venezuela; and spearheaded the legal defense of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans. Her unyielding stance against chavismo paired with protections for the diaspora reflects both deep familiarity with the country and a roadmap for how Democrats may operate starting in January.

Translating victory into effective oversight

Over the past two years, the Republican Congress served more as Trump’s shield than as a check on his power. The president’s policies may stay the course or harden, but oversight is where the real shift occurs. Starting in January 2027, when the new Congress convenes, Democrats can leverage their victory across four fronts.

First, subpoenas. House committees will shift to Democratic hands. Robert Garcia and Gregory Meeks—previously ranking members on the Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees—will no longer be in the minority. They will have the authority to compel document production and testimony from the administration. In the Senate, the Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees will also change leadership.

Second, the budget. Unlike the past two years, Republicans must now negotiate spending bills with Democrats. This gives Democrats the leverage to condition funding on greater executive transparency.

Third, appointments. High-level officials require confirmation from a Senate Trump no longer controls. Should a Supreme Court vacancy arise, that same Senate will confirm the replacement.

Alongside Meeks, Garcia requested a copy of the agreement with Alejandro Betancourt’s firm and received only a single document. Come January, those letters can become subpoenas.

Fourth, legislation. War powers resolutions that stalled in a Republican-led Congress could now pass with both chambers under Democratic control. Immigration bills long shelved in Republican drawers might finally see progress.

Real constraints remain: most legislation requires 60 votes in the Senate, and overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers. Trump will continue advancing policies unilaterally, but sustained pressure on information flow and budgetary purse strings can alter outcomes.

Venezuela is a clear example of this new dynamic. Robert Garcia has spent the year probing the management of Venezuelan oil revenues. He has demanded accountability over more than $13 billion in proceeds and requested communications between the administration and companies including Chevron, ExxonMobil, Vitol, and Trafigura. Alongside Meeks, Garcia requested a copy of the agreement with Alejandro Betancourt’s firm and received only a single document. Come January, those letters can become subpoenas, and Salazar—who blocked Joaquín Castro’s subpoena request in September—will no longer chair the Western Hemisphere subcommittee.

Venezuela in the new dynamic between Trump and Dems

In September, I wrote that Democrats would likely take the House, that reclaiming the Senate was an uphill climb, and that Venezuela was not a party priority. The first proved accurate; the second underestimated the field. While polls anticipated Democratic gains, yesterday’s wave reshapes Venezuela’s place in the broader policy conversation.

With the White House on the defensive, Venezuela stands as one of the few accomplishments Trump can point to. Consequently, the administration will likely double down on its Venezuela policy—not out of concern for Venezuelans, but because it yields political capital. For Democrats, Venezuela exemplifies what Trump can execute without Congress, while underscoring that the diaspora does not tolerate leniency toward chavismo.

If Democrats approach Venezuela as an anchor for institutional oversight and work to make it a bipartisan cause, it will serve as one of the few issues where this new majority exercises its mandate while projecting moderation.

In other words, amid this anti-Trump wave, the reflexive impulse will be to oppose everything the president does regarding Venezuela. That would also be an error. The viable path forward for Democrats is the one charted by Wasserman Schultz and Garcia: acknowledging that the events of January 3 cannot be undone, while demanding that priorities shift—placing free elections and the release of political prisoners ahead of oil contracts.

This approach mirrors the incentives driving Republicans in Miami. Even as they supported Trump’s hardline immigration policies (only voicing reservations weeks before the election), they also urged the White House to back María Corina Machado.

If Democrats treat Venezuela as an anchor for institutional oversight and steer it toward bipartisan consensus, it will become one of the few areas where this new majority executes its constitutional duties while projecting moderation, turning Congress into a venue for governance rather than another theater in the partisan war.

State governments also act as counterweights: governors determine whether to cooperate with ICE, sign 287(g) agreements, and administer election systems. Holding a majority of statehouses, including Texas and Georgia, gives Democrats greater influence over how the 2028 presidential race is run.

A first step toward 2028

This outcome is not a blank check for Democrats. Just as yesterday’s results served as a reprimand to the governing party in the White House, failure to convert this win into tangible outcomes will leave Democrats with little leverage by 2028. To preserve their gains, they must deliver on three fronts:

First, visible results. Voters penalized the cost of living, not just the president. If the new majority limits itself to holding hearings and releasing findings, it will alienate those who voted based on economic concerns.

Second, safeguarding the coalition. The margins in Texas and Florida demonstrated that Latino voters shifted over immigration and the economy rather than an ideological realignment. Retaining the Latino vote through 2028 will require legislative momentum on immigration reform.

Third, discipline. If oversight devolves into a weekly spectacle or a bid for social media engagement, Republicans will frame it as obstruction. Limiting executive overreach is not a partisan campaign; it is a constitutional imperative. Republicans who have broken with Trump on select issues remain natural allies.

What matters is forging a shared vision among potential Democratic contenders that enables them to demand swift, free elections in Venezuela.

Throughout the campaign, Republicans routinely characterized Democrats as socialists—a narrative fueled by statements from the DSA, some of whose members went so far as to demand Maduro’s release. Yet the DSA’s actual leverage within the party remains far smaller than Republicans suggest. Its candidates expanded margins primarily in safe Democratic seats.

The decisive shift in this election occurred where centrists won over independent voters by substantial margins, such as Jon Ossoff taking 59% in Georgia or Chris Pappas winning by 14 points in New Hampshire. A sensible Venezuela policy should therefore focus on building bipartisan ground: advancing mechanisms like the Jeanne Shaheen–Ted Cruz resolution or Jared Moskowitz’s transition framework.

It is too early to settle on Democratic presidential contenders, but early discussions include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jon Ossoff, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, and Gavin Newsom.

Beyond Ocasio-Cortez’s consistent critique of interventionist foreign policy and former Vice President Harris’s familiarity with the Biden administration’s stance toward Caracas, none of these figures has really managed a deep portfolio on Venezuela.

Harris endorsed Machado while running against Trump, while AOC refused to recognize Maduro as the winner of the July 28, 2024 election. Among the potential candidates, AOC, Newsom, Buttigieg, and Harris have all commented—some with sharp criticism, others with calculated ambiguity—on the events of January 3.

What matters moving forward is forging a shared vision among these leaders that enables them to demand swift, free elections in Venezuela. At its core, Venezuelans are demanding a government that improves everyday life, rather than one distracting the public with opaque oil deals that benefit a narrow few.

Democrats now have an opening to help shape Venezuela’s transition. Doing so requires activating the oversight and transparency tools they have long championed, including demanding visibility into the White House negotiations that began this past August.