united states

As the dust settles on the 2026 US midterm elections, two facts are clear: First, the Democrats have achieved a historic victory – and second, Donald Trump remains president for the coming two years.

That means Congressional Democrats will have three legislative lanes to pursue: The first is constraining Trump. This includes doing what they can through Congress to bring the Iran war to a conclusion, blocking many of his nominations, particularly to the judiciary, ending ICE’s aggressive immigrant detentions, and pursuing oversight of Trump and his allies’ financial networks and alleged corruption.

The second lane will be about demonstrating a positive policy agenda to inform the 2028 cycle, when Trump will be off the ballot. This is more about “messaging bills” focused on social issues, but could also include economic measures such as tax reform proposals, as well as significant reforms of US global defence cooperation authorities and shifts to major foreign policy questions, such as aid to Israel.

The final lane will be that – perhaps narrow – set of issues where bipartisanship and cooperation with the White House is possible. Putting guardrails around America’s burgeoning artificial intelligence (AI) sector may fit in that box, although some of Trump’s biggest funders are likely to do what they can to derail progress.

Many of the bills that will be put forward in the first and second lanes would be subject to presidential veto. Others will be toned down, as the Democratic establishment seeks to resist the progressive left’s ambitious agenda. These dynamics are likely to make the upcoming Congress less productive.

On foreign policy, in particular, Congress is able to pass just a slim set of acts without presidential endorsement, such as war powers legislation, limiting the president’s ability to wage war without Congressional approval; or measures like the recent Senate resolution advanced by Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen to demand reporting on Israel’s human rights record; or committee subpoenas, which can be used to investigate members of the Trump administration for wrongdoing. But they are likely to be ignored or stonewalled by the White House, leading to months, if not years, of fruitless litigation.

That is not to say that introducing “stand-alone” bills on issues, such as arms transfers to Israel, would not be important even if blocked by the president. They remain useful both for framing the conversation and for getting members of Congress on the record and establishing consensus positions.

In the Senate, where several incumbents are likely to throw their hats into the upcoming presidential nomination contest, such bills could be used to highlight the progressive credentials of some candidates – or to force more conservative members into awkward positions. That might ultimately make a difference in terms of the framing and debate for the 2028 election – and a potential Democratic administration thereafter. But it will not change anything in the immediate term.

There are at least three tools available to legislators where a fierce – and perhaps impactful – debate is likely to play out. The first is that enabled by Congress’ constitutional “power of the purse”.  If the current Republican majorities do not manage to pass an annual funding bill by the end of this calendar year, the Democrats will have both the current year and the next two years of US government funding under their control.

This includes, of course, Israel’s annual allocation of $3.3bn, which Trump himself put into doubt in a surprising and as yet unclarified statement on election day. If nothing else, the president’s call for an end to security assistance to Israel may accelerate what would likely have been a steady reduction under Democratic leadership.

The new Congress will also be able to reconsider a range of funding restrictions and requirements, such as the prohibition on funding the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), or the limitations on funding the Palestinian Authority.

Passing such bills will not be simply a matter of partisan rancour — we can expect some pretty tough battles to play out within the Democratic caucus itself on some of these issues. Then it is another matter of whether the Trump administration adheres to the law with the funding it ultimately receives.

The second area to watch is that of oversight. With the majority in hand, Democrats in the House and Senate can set the agenda – deciding which actions by the Trump administration are ripe for investigation, identifying witnesses, and using the committee gavels to drive the public debate.

Party leadership will be eager to focus on the issues that are most damaging to the current administration and its likely candidates for succession, such as Vice President JD Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio, while being least disruptive to party unity.

And because the system relies on seniority, control of the agenda of Congressional committees that can investigate the government would rest with Democratic establishment members who would be less likely than their newer or younger peers to be critical of the US-Israel relationship.

That said, it is hard to imagine a Democratic Congress that does not at least conduct oversight of Trump’s Board of Peace and its opaque sources of funding and influence. Another likely topic is the question of US involvement in the current war with Iran.

What the Democrats choose not to pursue via oversight will also be important: The weaponisation of anti-Semitism by the current and previous Congress to attack the US education sector and civil society should come to an end under the next Congress. Though certainly Democratic leadership will be keen to find ways to demonstrate that they still care about genuine concerns from the Jewish community, one would hope that these are pursued with a more concrete grounding in reality and shared security than as a tool for repressing pro-Palestinian speech.

But many in the Democratic base would like to see the party do much more – including holding hearings into the US role in enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza, a topic that would ensnare senior officials from the Biden administration in a very public accounting that the establishment is keen to avoid.

Here is where the details of the outcome of the midterms will truly matter. While there is no doubt that the centre point of the Democratic Congressional caucus has shifted to the left for the upcoming 120th Congress, particularly in the House, the size of the majority matters.

As recent Republican Houses have demonstrated, a small majority is a challenge for the speaker, as it empowers a small group of members to exert significant leverage through the threat of withdrawal of their support for basic procedural steps that are typically decided on a partisan vote basis.

As a result of the midterms “blue tsunami”, however, the Democratic majority is secure enough that leadership will have to make few real concessions to the left of their party, likely teeing up some tense, and almost inevitably public, tussling in the coming two years, particularly when it comes to appropriations bills.

In short, the Democrats’ campaign for legislative power has been a success, but particularly in the face of an imperious White House that has shown little interest in even longstanding legal precedent in its deference to Congress, it remains incomplete.

At the same time, being the party locked out of power has enabled the Democrats up to this point to dodge some degree of the internal wrangling that is already long overdue on key issues, such as foreign policy on Israel.

A majority in Congress may not give them complete control – but it does mean they will now own the legislative branch’s decisions. Whether they demonstrate a meaningful and proactive shift – or let themselves be constrained by establishment conservatism – may define the viability of their path to further electoral success in 2028.

Either way, the American people will be watching what Democrats do and do not do – as will the Republicans who, as Trump enters his “lame duck” years, are likely to undergo an evolution of their own on these key issues.

This makes progress in the coming Congress all the more acute an issue for the Democrats. The challenge for them is simple: take credible leadership on driving change or face the very real possibility of being outflanked by the “America First” right.

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

Vance cited trusted pollster saying Iran war, Israel ties were top of mind for Trump voters swinging to Democrats.

Vice President JD Vance has blamed the war on Iran for his party’s withering midterms defeat, suggesting that the conflict may not have been worth ceding control of the US Congress to Democrats.

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night,” he wrote in a lengthy post on X. “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.”

“Everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.”

Vance, a likely 2028 presidential candidate and heir apparent to Trump’s Make America Great Again movement, has been a key negotiator with Iran as the two countries search for a way out of the conflict, which has dented their economies and pushed global fuel prices up.

His statements on Tehran have been more dovish than those of other key members of the administration, and his post-election note appears to mark the closest he has yet come to publicly diverging from his boss on an issue that looks set to dog Republicans as the war continues.

Citing a pollster he describes as “one of the smartest people I know”, Vance said he was told ending the Iran war and “changing our relationship with Israel” were two of the top four answers given by Americans surveyed who had voted for Trump in 2024 but were planning to vote for Democrats in the 2026 midterms.

In stark contrast, Trump said, in the wake of the rebuke at the ballot box, that he had no regrets about launching the conflict.

“I did the right thing. I would have done it again,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

Russian strikes also cut power to Ukrainian cities as Moscow claims 700 Ukrainian drones downed across multiple regions.

Ukrainian drone strikes have killed three people in Russia’s Belgorod region, while attacks cut power to multiple cities in Ukraine and parts of Russian-occupied Crimea, officials reported.

Local Russian authorities in Belgorod, which borders Ukraine, announced the three deaths on Wednesday. In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Russia’s overnight attacks damaged power generation facilities and substations in nine regions leaving emergency outages in many cities.

Russia’s Defence Ministry confirmed on Telegram that it hit two power stations in Ukraine’s Kyiv and Zhytomyr regions. Ukraine has repeatedly said Moscow is targeting its energy grid as temperatures drop before winter.

Overnight, Russian attacks on critical infrastructure caused hours-long power and water outages across Kyiv and surrounding regions.

Residents in the capital were urged to use public drinking water fountains, and emergency centres offering hot tea and power points to charge devices were set up in the worst-hit areas.

There were also power outages in Crimea, the peninsula Russia seized from Ukraine in 2014, home to approximately 2.5 million residents. Russia’s Ministry of Energy said Ukrainian strikes hit energy infrastructure overnight and that temporary outage schedules were in force. It did not say how many households were affected.

But reports also indicated that Russia-held Crimea ordered power cuts after an accident outside the region, a Moscow-installed ⁠official said, according to the Reuters news agency.

‌In addition to the capital, Kyiv, Russia also hit the regions of Poltava, Dnipro, Kirovohrad and Rivne, Reuters reported, citing Ukraine’s emergency service and local officials.

In southern Russia, a Ukrainian drone attack started a fire at a major warehouse belonging to Ozon, known as Russia’s Amazon. The strikes were on an Ozon distribution facility in the town of Adygeysk, in the Republic of Adygea, regional head Murat Kumpilov said.

Ozon said all workers were evacuated and no one was hurt, and that it had removed damaged goods from its listings and rerouted deliveries.

Russia’s Defence Ministry also said it downed 709 Ukrainian drones across 14 regions, Crimea and the Black and Azov seas.

Kremlin response to US midterms

Amid ongoing fighting between Russia and Ukraine, Russia’s Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Kremlin hopes United States President Donald Trump will continue his peace efforts after a sweeping Democratic victory in the congressional midterms dealt a blow to the president.

“President Trump continues to exercise his powers. We sincerely hope that he will also continue his peacemaking efforts,” Peskov said in a statement.

Whether a change in Congress could hinder Trump’s peace efforts, Peskov said, as cited by the state-run Interfax news outlet, that it was “an internal matter for America”.

Democratic control of the legislature in January is expected to bring a more vocal pro-Kyiv majority in Congress that could pressure Trump to change tack, but there is little hope that the US will return as a major financial backer of Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s Zelenskyy awarded US First Lady Melania Trump the Order of Princess Olga, which honours women who have contributed to Ukraine, according to a presidential decree on Wednesday.

The decree noted Melania Trump’s “significant personal contribution” in providing support for humanitarian aid and children in Ukraine.

Ukrainian officials say the US first lady played a pivotal role in organising a six-day local ceasefire to evacuate civilians from the Russian-occupied town of Oleshky, which ended on Sunday.

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

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

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

Here’s what we know:

How big is the Republican Party’s loss?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How significant are these losses for the Republican Party?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any silver linings for the Republicans?

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

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

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

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

The party has experienced similar scenarios in US election history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has said that anyone expecting a shift in the United States’ policy towards his country is “seriously mistaken”, hours after midterm elections dealt a blow to President Donald Trump.

His comments came as other Iranian officials struck a more optimistic tone on Wednesday, following the results of the US vote, which saw Democrats score a major victory by taking control of both chambers of Congress.

“Those who still harbour even the slightest hope that the behaviour of the hegemonic system might change through partisan or factional shifts, or who imagine that making concessions to the United States can dissuade it from hostility towards the Iranian nation, are seriously mistaken,” Khamenei said in a written statement published on his website.

He said that Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz had shattered the “myth of America’s invincibility”, and warned that any renewed US attack would draw a far wider response.

Trump himself has acknowledged the US-Israel war on Iran that began in February likely impacted his Republican Party’s poor performance in the elections, saying voters were probably not ready “for the short-term consequence of paying more for gasoline”.

Khamenei said Iran’s confrontation with the US had reached a point where “every day and every hour” had become a time of resistance against “the Great Satan”. His message was to mark the National Day of the Fight Against Global Arrogance, which falls each year on November 4, the anniversary of the 1979 seizure of the US embassy in Tehran.

The supreme leader described Iran’s management of the strait and what he called the elimination of US military bases in regional countries as a reaction to US “aggression and crimes” during the war.

“In the event of repeated transgressions, it will take on much wider dimensions,” he said.

‘Americans said NO TO WAR’

The supreme leader struck a “cautious” note on Wednesday, warning that a party shift in the US would not persuade Washington to abandon its hostility against Iran, noted Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas, reporting from Tehran.

This contrasted with a more celebratory mood among other Iranian officials reacting to the Republican defeat, Atas said.

“Conscience or the cost of living, Americans said NO TO WAR, and we endorse this message,” said Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s chief negotiator with Washington and his country’s parliament speaker.

“If the US [government] betrays their public will to serve international paymasters and blackmailers, it will learn our NO comes with a Nightmare,” he added on X.

Mohammad Mokhber, an adviser and assistant to the supreme leader, said Trump had been “slapped in the face by his own people”.

“The true winner in this arena was Iran, which transferred the cost of the war into the United States,” he wrote on X.

Judiciary chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei wrote on Telegram: “Trump was defeated both in war and in politics; we will certainly impose further defeats on him; this is still only the early outcome.” He added that November 4 “has always been a day of defeat for the Americans” and honoured “the dear martyred students of Minab”.

Mehdi Tabatabaei, deputy head for communications at the president’s office, said Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, “blind adherence” to Israel’s interests and the “futile war” with Iran had handed the Republicans their biggest defeat.

Atas said Iranians believe a Democratic-controlled Congress could restrain Trump and make him “less reckless” over the war, with some Republicans wary ahead of the 2028 elections. But some in Tehran fear that because officials have framed the result as a defeat imposed by Iran, Trump could “personalise the matter” and launch a new round of war “in an act of revenge”.

The US has warned it could carry out a short but intensive military campaign against Iran after the midterms.

Hamidreza Moghadamfar, an adviser to the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), said Iran would hit targets beyond US bases if Gulf states allowed Washington to launch attacks from their territory. Speaking at a rally in Bandar Abbas, he named the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain and said Iran would respond with a “new doctrine and new technology”.

To understand the coming collision between President Donald Trump and a Democratic Congress, one must first discard the textbook formulas of US governance. The United States is about to witness a political experiment for which there is no modern precedent: a purely transactional populist, entirely unmoored from traditional ideological orthodoxy, forced to share power with a legislative branch unified in partisan hostility.

The conventional wisdom predicts immediate, paralysing gridlock. That is a misreading of the terrain. Trump does not view politics through the lens of conservative dogma or constitutional restraint; he views it through the lens of the deal. Consequently, his governance will not be characterised by passive stagnation, but by an aggressive, volatile mix of transactional bipartisanship and raw executive unilateralism.

Domestically, the ideological lines will blur. For decades, the Republican Party was defined by its commitment to limited government and free markets. Trump has spent a decade dismantling that consensus. Confronted with a Democratic House of Representatives and a Democratic Senate, he will feel no tribal loyalty to standard conservative policy. Instead, expect him to seek out areas of populist overlap.

When it comes to massive infrastructure spending, protectionist trade policy and aggressive state intervention to protect domestic manufacturing, Trump is often closer to the Democratic centre-left than to the ghost of former President Ronald Reagan. He will dare the opposition majorities to vote against legislation that pours millions of dollars into their districts or levies tariffs that protect their blue-collar constituents. It will be an unholy, ad hoc alliance — issue-by-issue, fleeting, and transactional — designed to deliver the optics of victory for both a populist president and a vulnerable congressional majority.

Where such transactions fail, however, the venue will shift from the legislative chamber to the administrative state controlled by the executive. Trump will not accept the traditional boundaries of a divided government. If necessary, he will govern by decree. Executive orders, emergency declarations and expansive interpretations of federal statutes will be deployed to bypass a stubborn Capitol Hill. The administration will dare the Democratic leadership to tie up the government in the federal courts, turning the slow wheels of the judiciary into a political weapon.

Yet, the true test of this fragile constitutional architecture will not occur on the domestic stage. It will happen abroad, specifically in the volatile expanses of the Middle East, where the executive branch enjoys its greatest constitutional latitude.

The immediate flashpoint is Iran. The Trump doctrine rests on a foundation of maximum economic pressure backed by highly unpredictable, asymmetric tactical deterrence. It is a posture designed to keep adversaries off balance. But a Democratic Congress, historically wedded to the framework of multilateral diplomacy and deeply wary of congressionally unauthorised foreign entanglements, will view this unpredictability not as a strategic asset but as an existential danger.

The US is likely headed for a historic constitutional showdown over the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Democratic majorities will also aggressively use the power of the purse to place statutory fences around the commander-in-chief, attempting to defund military manoeuvres or explicitly prohibit unilateral escalations against Tehran. Trump will treat these attempts at legislative constraints with open contempt. Asserting an absolute, almost unrestrained reading of the Constitution’s Article II executive authority, the president will argue that modern geopolitical threats require executive agility, not governance by congressional committee. When the rockets fly, the president will act unilaterally, leaving Congress to meaningless academic debates.

Hanging over this entire drama is the ultimate constitutional weapon: the threat of impeachment by Congress. In a Washington where both the House and the Senate are controlled by the president’s opponents, oversight will cease to be an instrument of governance and become an engine of partisan political destruction.

Democratic congressional committee chairs will launch a relentless, multifront campaign of subpoenas and investigations. Every member of Trump’s cabinet will live in a permanent state of interrogation; every foreign policy decision will be audited for high crimes and misdemeanours. The House will almost certainly draft articles of impeachment, not as an extraordinary remedy for rare misconduct, but as a routine penalty for political nonconformity.

Yet, this strategy carries severe risks for the opposition. Trump does not fear institutional warfare; he thrives on it. He will transform the spectacle of congressional investigations into the theatre of public grievance. To his base, a hostile Congress will be framed not as a coequal branch of government performing its constitutional duty, but as an illegitimate, obstructionist cabal subverting the will of the forgotten American voter.

Because the structural math of the Senate requires a two-thirds majority for removal of the president, actual eviction from the Oval Office remains a statistical fantasy. Impeachment will therefore achieve not displacement, but a permanent state of institutional friction.

What the US is about to enter is not two years of legislative inactivity, but a phase of perpetual brinkmanship. It will be an era in which governance occurs only in the narrow, volatile intervals between constitutional crises. The US system was built to withstand institutional tension, but it also requires a basic reverence for institutional boundaries to function. With a transactional populist president in the White House and an adversarial army on Capitol Hill, those boundaries will be tested as never before. The architecture will hold, but the foundation will shake.

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

Democrats in the United States have scored a major victory in midterm elections, taking control of both chambers of Congress in a stinging rebuke of President Donald Trump and his Republican Party.

The results are being carefully watched outside the US, as foreign leaders consider how the new political reality in Washington could affect US foreign policy – from the conflict with Iran to the Russia-Ukraine war and trade relations.

Trump himself has acknowledged the US-Israel war on Iran likely impacted his party’s poor performance in the elections, saying voters were probably not ready “for the short-term consequence of the price of gasoline”.

Here are the latest reactions from world leaders, as the scale of the Democratic victory continues to emerge:

Iran

Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who is also the chief negotiator in talks with the US, said voters had rejected conflict.

“Americans said NO TO WAR, and we endorse this message,” wrote Ghalibaf in a post on X.

“If the US govt betrays their public will to serve international paymasters and blackmailers, it will learn our NO comes with a Nightmare,” he added.

Israel

There was no immediate reaction from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Trump ally whose coalition lost its own majority in Israel’s parliament in elections last week.

However, opposition figure Yair Golan, whose party is in a coalition seeking to replace Netanyahu, said the US vote reveals “just how toxic Netanyahu has become” among US Democrats and Republicans alike.

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

Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, also part of the anti-Netanyahu coalition, said the US vote effectively ruled out “any possibility of a unity government led by Netanyahu”.

European Union

European Parliament Vice President Christel Schaldemose said the US results left her “cautiously optimistic on Europe’s behalf”.

“Not because everything now ⁠⁠changes for the better, but because it could benefit the support for Ukraine, the green transition, and ⁠⁠relations with the rest of the world,” said Schaldemose in a post on X.

“But the EU must continue the course of standing stronger and standing on its own two feet. That’s not up for debate,” she added.

United Kingdom

Health Minister James Frith stressed that the UK would maintain steady, strong ties with Washington despite an apparent “seismic shift in domestic politics for the Americans”.

“The change of emphasis of power in the States is frequent,” Frith told British media. “But the mainstay of the relationship with the UK Government, as its closest ally, is unwavering and unchanging.”

“So I don’t expect it to change the nature of the relationship at all; it remains very strong,” he added.

France

Finance Minister Roland Lescure said France would wait to see whether Trump, who remains in control of US foreign policy, adjusts his approach.

“Either he decides to rise above the fray – acknowledging that ‌‌changes are necessary, particularly regarding gasoline prices, which directly ‌‌affect people – and, I might add, he tones down his international involvement, or he does not,” Lescure told French TV. “Frankly, this is something we will need to keep an eye on in the ⁠⁠coming days.”

Spain

Left-wing Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said the US Democrats’ landslide victory was emblematic of the “unravelling” of the global far right.

“It happened in Brazil. It just happened in the US. And it will soon happen in Spain,” said Sanchez, whose own premiership is at stake in snap elections he called for November 29 .

Sanchez said US voters had rejected policies that “only ‌‌impoverish”, as well as hate, sexism, climate change denialism and “the privileges of the elites”.

Greece

Government spokesman Pavlos Marinakis said US-Greek relations would not be affected by the election results.

“Greek-American relations will remain strong,” he told local media. “The United States is our strategic ally, and this will continue for major projects ⁠⁠and all major agreements. Nothing will be affected by this outcome. It is obvious that we respect every outcome. The conclusions are clear.”

Russia

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stressed the need to wait for the final results of US elections to come into focus, but noted that leaders in the US Democratic Party had a “sharply negative” approach to relations with Moscow.

Russia’s position on Ukraine and broader foreign policy “is not based on short-term considerations and, naturally, does not depend on the fluctuations of the political barometer in other countries,” Ryabkov was quoted by Russian state media as saying.

“We will continue our work in accordance with the directives of the President of the Russian Federation,” he added.

China

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said Beijing would continue its “constructive strategic relationship” with the US, stressing that US elections are a “domestic affair”.

“China is willing to work with the US to safeguard and implement the important consensus reached by the two heads of state, strengthen communication, properly manage differences and expand cooperation, build a constructive strategic relationship based on respect and equality,” Mao told reporters in Beijing.

Japan

Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara said whatever the outcome of the US vote, “the Japan-US alliance the is the cornerstone of Japan’s foreign and security policy.”

“As the international situation becomes turbulent and increasingly uncertain, a strong Japan-US alliance is essential for maximising Japan’s national interests and for peace and stability in the international community,” Kihara said at a press briefing.

South Africa

⁠President Cyril Ramaphosa, who has clashed with Trump over the US president’s promotion of debunked claims of a white genocide in South Africa, said the election marks “a new era in world relations”.

“We have seen that the ⁠⁠Democrats have taken ⁠⁠control of the Senate and of ⁠⁠the House, and ⁠⁠the ⁠⁠people of America have spoken,” Ramaphosa told ‌‌reporters.

Democrats have seized control of the United States Congress, winning the Senate and the House of Representatives in a nationwide rebuke of President Donald Trump that is expected to slow the final two years of his term.

In a series of historic firsts, the first Black female governor, the first openly gay male senator, the first Muslim senator, and the first female Native American governor have all won office, securing landmark victories in a vote that delivered resounding gains for the Democratic Party.

The sweeping Democratic gains in Tuesday’s election hand the opposition significant power to block legislation, open wide-ranging investigations into Trump’s administration, and challenge his judicial and senior government appointments.

The results reflect deep public anger over rising living costs, tariffs, and Trump’s confrontation with Iran, which has driven up fuel prices and amplified frustration with an already deeply unpopular president.

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

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

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

Democrats ahead in key races

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republicans face another bruising defeat in gubernatorial race

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncertainty over some ballot measures

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

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

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

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

Longtime Republican Senator Susan Collins had held the seat for nearly three decades, but was swept away in the blue wave.

Democrat Troy Jackson, a former Maine Senate president and labour organiser who entered the race in July, has won the Senate race in Maine, flipping a seat held by the Republicans for 30 years.

Longtime Republican Senator Susan Collins conceded the race to Jackson early on Wednesday, ending nearly three decades as Senator for Maine.

Maine’s race was one of the most closely watched in the country. Republican groups spent heavily on the race, donating $76m compared with $40m by Democrats. Jackson’s campaign raised $26.9m, slightly more than the $25.2m for Collins through mid-October.

Located in the far northeastern United States bordering Canada, Maine’s economy has been affected by Trump’s tariff wars with its northern neighbour and key trading partner.

Collins, who has served as senator since 1997, has framed herself as sharing voters’ moderate politics and serving the state’s 1.4 million residents as chair of the Senate’s powerful Appropriations Committee.

Polls released shortly before the election suggested Jackson edging out Collins in a tight race shaped by negative campaigning.

Collins distanced herself from Trump during the campaign but drew criticism for voting in favour of Trump’s legislation and judicial nominees after the Supreme Court ended abortion rights.

Jackson, who campaigned on strengthening the economy and government accountability, framed Collins as a Trump ally and accused her of corruption, which she has denied.

Collins focused on her independence – she was one of the few Republicans who voted to remove Trump from office after the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol – and attacked Jackson for his federal inexperience and his voting record in the state legislature.

Kim Yo Jong refuses dialogue with US after denying responsibility for theft of more than $6bn in crypto assets from Binance.

North Korea has fired several missiles into the Sea of Japan, according to South Korea’s military, hours after Pyongyang denied allegations that it was behind the theft ⁠of more than $6bn in crypto assets from Binance.

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said on Wednesday that it had detected the launch of several missiles from the Sondok area on North Korea’s eastern coast towards the Sea of Japan.

It said authorities in South Korea and the United States were analysing the details of the launches.

The tests marked Pyongyang’s fourth such weapons launch in a month. They came a day after North Korea denied involvement in the Binance hack, dismissing an FBI announcement that North Korean hackers were responsible as “a trite provocation”.

Binance, the world’s biggest cryptocurrency exchange, said on Friday that hackers stole more than $6bn in what appears to be the largest cryptocurrency heist on record.

The FBI later said North Korean hackers had orchestrated the theft, attributing it to a hacking group known as TraderTraitor, which was also behind a $1.5bn hack of the Bybit exchange last year.

Early on Wednesday, Kim Yo Jong, the sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, said Pyongyang viewed the FBI announcement as “an extension of Washington’s invariable hostile policy toward” North Korea.

She ruled out dialogue with Washington until the US abandoned that policy.

“It is our clear stand that we have no need to sit face to face with such unreliable and hostile persons,” she said. “The choice for peace includes dialogue, of course, but this is not surely equated with national interests for us.”

US President Donald Trump said in August that he plans to meet Kim Jong Un later this year, seeking to revive the bond he claims to have forged with the North Korean leader during his first term.

Trump said it was important to “get along” with Kim, adding that Pyongyang had 57 “very powerful” nuclear weapons.

Previous rounds of talks between Kim and Trump in 2019 abruptly ended amid disagreements over Pyongyang’s nuclear programme. In October, the US, South Korea and Japan again reiterated their call for the “complete denuclearisation” of the Korean Peninsula.

The call came as North Korea has accelerated its weapons testing this year, in what analysts say is likely a bid to increase its leverage in any future diplomacy with the US.

Its recent tests have included a submarine-launched ballistic missile, hypersonic missiles, attack drones, and cluster bombs designed to be carried by ballistic missiles.

On Tuesday, Pyongyang said it had tested a new cluster warhead for strategic cruise missiles the previous day, claiming it could destroy an area of 5 to 6 hectares (12 to 15 acres) with “high-density power”.

The latest launches followed a North Korean state media report that Kim had visited a naval shipyard building a destroyer and stressed the importance of a powerful navy.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Bottoms, who formerly advised ex-President Joe Biden, beat Republican Rick Jackson.

Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms has made history as the first Black woman elected governor in the United States.

The former Atlanta mayor emerged victorious over her billionaire opponent, Republican Rick Jackson, who spent more than $200m of his personal fortune in an attempt to succeed popular outgoing Republican Governor Brian Kemp.

Bottoms, an adviser to former US President Joe Biden, was propelled to victory in part by the state’s significant Black voting bloc, which turned out in large numbers during early voting.

During the campaign, she faced Republican attempts to characterise her time as mayor as a crime-ridden decline for the state’s largest city.

“It’s a longstanding playbook to paint Atlanta as this big bad place,” Bottoms told the Associated Press news agency.

Bottoms’s win marks the third consecutive time that Georgia Democrats have nominated a Black woman for governor. Stacey Abrams lost in 2018 and 2022 to Kemp, who is leaving office in January after eight years due to term limits.

Iran says a ‘maximum deterrence’ plan is ready against any new US attack, warning of an immediate response.

Polls to start closing in waves across the country, with the earliest closures at 23:00 GMT in Indiana and Kentucky.

With control of the US Congress on the line, results from Tuesday’s races will have marked implications for the country.

After a full day of voting, the first polls have begun closing in the consequential US midterm elections.

Control of the US Congress is on the line, with all 435 House of Representatives seats and 35 of the Senate’s 100 seats up for grabs.

Democrats, who have campaigned on promises to combat the country’s rising cost of living and end the US-Israel war on Iran, are eyeing a return to power in the US House. The party is also optimistic it could recapture control of the US Senate from Republicans when all ballots are counted.

The first clues to how the midterms may affect each party will appear in the US state of Kentucky’s highly competitive sixth congressional district, where polls closed at 6pm ET (23:00 GMT).

In the conservative district, which includes the state’s second-largest city, Lexington, Democrats have invested heavily in the campaign of US Navy veteran Zach Dembo, who is running against a Trump-backed physician and former state lawmaker, Ralph Alvarado.

If Republicans hold the seat, it could signal how the party may perform in other races across the country.

Results from all of the day’s races will continue to come in throughout Tuesday evening. But some may not be known until Wednesday, or later, as more states finish voting and officials start releasing their vote counts.

Follow all the returns on Al Jazeera’s live results page.