US & Canada

Michigan voters are casting their ballots in a charged, closely watched race that could make Democrat Abdul El-Sayed the first Muslim in the United States Senate and help decide control of the chamber.

Mike Rogers, his Republican opponent, cast his ballot at a polling station in White Lake, Michigan hours after polls opened. El-Sayed had already had his vote submitted and counted through an absentee ballot before Election Day.

The two candidates seek to fill the seat of retiring Democratic Senator Gary Peters. A final New York Times/Siena poll placed El-Sayed 11 points ahead of Rogers going into the election.

Polls opened at 7am local time (12:00 GMT) and close at 8pm (01:00 GMT on Wednesday). If the race is close, it may not be called until later on Wednesday. The US Department of Justice has announced that election monitors will be present at the polls in Michigan and all 50 other states, a first in US history.

El-Sayed, a Muslim born to Egyptian parents, is the former head of Detroit’s health department and has campaigned on progressive policies such as Medicare for All.

Rogers, a former congressman and close ally of US President Donald Trump, is seeking to come back after a narrow loss to a Democrat in a 2024 Senate race.

Democrats need to gain four seats in Tuesday’s midterm elections to wrest back the Senate from Republicans and rein in Trump. The race is also seen as a test of whether a progressive who openly criticises Israel can win in a swing state.

Both candidates made a final push on social media as voting got under way.

“It’s time. It’s up to us to show the country what’s possible. The world is watching,” El-Sayed wrote, sharing an upbeat campaign video that features former US President Barack Obama.

Rogers posted a video that featured interviews with supporters, one of whom called El-Sayed an “extremist”.

“We have a state to save”, the post read.

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer gave a firm endorsement of El-Sayed after casting his own ballot in New York’s race.

“There are millions of Michiganders whose number one issue is getting their costs down,” said Schumer.

“Abdul El-Sayed is … talking to the people about those issues and doing things about them … He is going to win tonight because he’s talking about what Michiganders care about.”

‘One vote’

The El-Sayed campaign’s final days were overshadowed by a rift with Congresswoman Haley Stevens, a fellow Democrat whom El-Sayed narrowly defeated in a primary election in August.

On Sunday, Stevens endorsed Rogers, saying she was “choosing country over hate” and capping off a weeks-long row about El-Sayed’s opposition to US support for Israel.

Stevens is a staunch supporter of Israel, and the pro-Israel lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spent more than $30m backing her against El-Sayed. A majority of her large donors lined up to support Rogers after her loss, channeling $9m into a Republican group that supports him, according to The New York Times.

El-Sayed, by contrast, has accused Israel of genocide in Gaza and argued that US aid to Israel would be better spent at home.

Asked by NewsNation on her way in to vote for Rogers whether her change in support was worth it, Stevens replied: “Absolutely. Voting is always worth it, right?”

Senate leader Schumer, who had initially backed Stevens, was asked whether her defection could hand the election to Republicans. “Haley Stevens is one vote,” he replied.

Islamophobic attacks

El-Sayed, the Michigan-born son of Egyptian immigrants, has faced persistent attacks on his faith. Republican Party ads have sought to link him to “terrorism” and radicalism, with Trump joining in the inflammatory rhetoric.

The US president has repeatedly called El-Sayed a “jihadist” and a “nasty guy”, mocking his name and repeating an unfounded, widely circulated Republican claim that he belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hours before polls opened, Trump once again took aim at El-Sayed, this time in a post on his Truth Social platform.

“Abdul El-Sayed Hates Jews and Hates Blacks. Don’t feel bad, he also Hates Whites. Only fools would vote for him in the Michigan race for the U.S. Senate! He will, 100%, do you in! VOTE FOR MIKE ROGERS,” Trump wrote.

The US president also mentioned El-Sayed in a Fox News interview early on Election Day, when he said annual US financial aid to Israel should stop at the end of 2026.

“Why should we suffer the slings from lunatics like an El-Sayed when they [Israel] don’t need it?” he said.

Americans head to the polls on Tuesday in midterm elections that will decide control of Congress and determine how much pressure President Donald Trump faces for the rest of his term.

After two years of unified Republican control, Democrats are fighting to reclaim both the House of Representatives and the Senate, while Republicans work to defend their narrow majorities and protect Trump’s agenda on immigration, the economy and the courts.

These 20 photos capture the pulse of this deeply polarised contest – from crowded polling stations and get-out-the-vote drives to last-minute campaign stops – offering a glimpse of voters at the booths and parents with children in tow across the country, all playing their part in a race set to shape the direction of American politics for years to come.

Supermarket refrigerators and freezers across Europe have been targeted by a cyberattack that raised the temperature of internet-linked units, destroying and damaging large quantities of food.

On Monday, fridges and freezers at more than 100 shops in several European countries ran hot. Cyberattacks on supermarkets began last month, when hundreds of French supermarkets were left with spoiled food and damage to units which had overheated, costing millions of euros.

So far, it remains unclear why hackers targeted the supermarkets, but attacks have spread across the continent and even to the United States.

Here’s what we know:

Which countries in Europe have been targeted?

On Monday, several supermarkets in Europe were affected, including the following:

• Dutch supermarket operator Delhaize said dozens of its shops in Belgium and Luxembourg were hit by an “IT incident”.
• French retailer Carrefour said about 15 of its 700 Belgian locations were hit by refrigeration problems.
• The Colruyt group, which runs Spar stores in Belgium as franchises, said five of its shops were affected.
• Swedish Coop said cooling systems at seven of its 800 stores were affected, with disruptions ranging from complete shutdowns to partial operation.
• Swedish furniture retailer IKEA, which also operates restaurants at its stores, said one site in Mons, Belgium, had been affected by a cyberattack.
• De Laet & Van Haver, the Belgian butchery chain, said the temperature in its fridges at its store in Hove, south of Antwerp, was raised as high as 18 degrees Celsius, ruining meat worth about 15,000 euros ($16,764).
• The food wholesaler Musgrave said a cyber-incident affected refrigeration systems in 13 of its SuperValu stores in Ireland.
• In October, hundreds of French supermarkets suffered cyberattacks, spoiling tonnes of food, causing fires and melting parts of refrigeration units.

What has happened in the US?

In August, freezers at a market in Fort Huachuca, an Army base in Arizona, went into defrost mode, spoiling all the frozen food they contained, according to a post on Facebook by the base.

The same month, the naval station in Newport, Rhode Island, reported on Facebook that its refrigeration system was affected, leaving only dry goods were available for purchase.

The Pentagon considered the freezer malfunctions on the military bases to be a suspected hack, the Reuters news agency reported late last month, citing four officials close to the matter.

One official said Pentagon investigators were communicating with the French authorities about the issue.

How are cyberattackers targeting fridges and freezers?

Hackers can access the controls of fridges and freezers which use internet software and raise their temperature in order to spoil frozen food.

In some cases, hackers have increased the temperature of appliances to as high as 50C (122F) in European supermarkets, causing them to melt or even catch fire.

Awais Rashid, a professor of cybersecurity at the University of Bristol in the UK, explained that many supermarket refrigeration systems which are remotely managed and, often by third parties, have not been given necessary software updates to prevent hackers.

“In line with established cyber security practices, these systems should be managed via secure networks. However, this is not the case in these incidents and they are accessible on the Internet,” Rashid told Al Jazeera.

“A remote managing party can access a web server on the controller to configure the system including temperature changes and maintenance. There are known vulnerabilities in several controllers (many of which are past their end of life),” he said.

Rashid added that vulnerabilities include “easily guessable” passwords, which would mean anyone could gain access.

Why are hackers doing this?

The motive behind the attacks is unclear, but authorities believe it may be a deliberate attempt to disrupt food supplies.

On Monday, the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Food, Christophe Hansen, said the attacks on fridges were a “deliberate attempt to disrupt” the bloc’s food supply and to undermine consumer confidence.

He added that while “food security is not currently at risk … the food waste and impact on businesses are real”.

Rashid said that while there are few details about who may be behind the attacks or what their motives are, it is likely that these are “the motive here is likely disruption”.

“This has financial impacts on the supermarkets but also societal impacts in terms of security of the food supply chain. Critically, this risks undermining trust in infrastructures on which people rely daily,” he said.

Who is behind the attacks?

On Monday, Belgium’s prosecutor’s office announced that it had opened a criminal investigation into the latest fridge cyberattacks. But so far, no one has taken responsibility.

Theories have emerged linking state actors to cyberattacks generally, with North Korea most recently accused of being behind last week’s $6.3bn Binance cryptocurrency heist, which forced the crypto group to freeze accounts.

European intelligence officials have also warned that Russia is escalating its shadow war on the continent amid the ongoing conflict with Ukraine, with cyberattacks among the methods it uses.

On Tuesday, the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre warned that Britain needs to be prepared for an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered cyberattack on its critical national infrastructure within the next two years.

“By 2028, it is highly likely that Russia, China and other nation states will routinely use AI-cyber to achieve their geopolitical goals, with the UK facing an increase in scale and speed of sophisticated cyberattacks,” the NCSC said in a report.

The report comes shortly after the UK launched its “Be Ready” campaign, calling on citizens to stockpile enough tinned food, bottled water and cash to last three days in the event of a cyberattack or national emergency.

Rashid said that as our infrastructure becomes increasingly digitised, the risk of disruption from cyberattacks, especially “cyber-physical infrastructures such as refrigeration systems”, has risen.

“However, we should also note that a lot of our digital infrastructures operate safely everyday because good security practices enable that. The world works because cyber security works effectively. So it is important that all businesses follow good cyber security practices,” he said.

The chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces has laid out five conditions for what he calls a roadmap to lasting security, as Qatar said it was “hopeful” that Tehran and Washington could reach a deal paving the way for future negotiations, despite overnight US strikes on Qeshm Island.

Major-General Ali Abdollahi’s plan calls for an end to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, the complete lifting of sanctions and the unfreezing of Iranian assets and war reparations, Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported on Tuesday.

The plan also calls for recognition of Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, and a guarantee against future aggression under a regional security framework for West Asia.

The plan comes as Qatar steps up mediation efforts amid fears the US-Israel war on Iran, launched in late February, could escalate after the midterm elections in the United States on Tuesday.

Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Majed al-Ansari said in his weekly briefing in Doha on Tuesday that a Qatari delegation held a meeting with Iranian officials in Tehran for more than three hours on Monday, before returning to Doha that evening. Both sides are now reviewing Qatar’s proposal, he said, with mediators exchanging proposals between them in real time.

“If there were no glimmer of hope, there would be no negotiations,” al-Ansari said, adding that Qatar would not speculate on whether an agreement or a military escalation was more likely.

He warned that any escalation, whether attacks on Iranian territory or on shipping, “will have an impact on the negotiations”, and said continuing the Qatari-Pakistani mediation remained a priority. He reiterated that freedom of navigation in Hormuz was nonnegotiable, referring to Doha’s condemnation of the targeting of the Qatari tanker Al-Mayda.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas said mediators were aiming to avert a new round of fighting.

He said a Qatari delegation visited Iran on Friday in response to a letter to Iran from US Vice President JD Vance, and an Iranian delegation travelled to Qatar the following day.

“The Qataris are trying to mediate with Iran, not on a peace deal, but on a framework to restart the negotiations,” he said. Of Monday’s brief visit, he added: “The reading is that the Qataris carried a message to Tehran and immediately left after that.”

“The main issue is the mistrust between the two parties,” Atas said. “The Iranians say that twice previously the US attacked them when they were engaged in diplomacy. That’s why they’re asking for concrete steps, such as lifting sanctions, removing the naval blockade, returning frozen Iranian assets and letting Iran sell oil on the global market.”

US officials reportedly said the military carried out limited strikes on Qeshm Island on Monday that did not amount to a resumption of major combat operations, saying Iran had tried to target a US aircraft and the attack took out the launcher.

One official called it “a defensive measure for Iranians using surface-to-air missiles against US assets”. IRNA reported five explosions on the island, with more blasts heard in Bandar Lengeh. President Donald Trump had said on October 8 that the US would not attack Iran before the midterm elections.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Tuesday it downed two US MQM-170 reconnaissance drones south of Qeshm and destroyed an MQ-9 drone east of the strait.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s lead negotiator, said, “The ball is in America’s court to prevent war.”

Tehran’s Hamshahri newspaper reported that Iran had updated its target bank to include US bases and infrastructure in Europe.

Zeidon Alkinani, the founding director of the Arab Perceptions Institute, said both sides remained open to diplomacy.

“Diplomacy and force are running in parallel,” Alkinani told Al Jazeera. “The diplomatic channel is alive – it has always been since March, but there hasn’t unfortunately been a fundamental breakthrough.”

Vance had said on Monday he was optimistic about reaching a negotiated settlement.

However, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on Tuesday Iran was neither waiting for the outcome of US midterm elections nor shaping its policies around them.

Amid growing concerns about renewed attacks on Iran following Tuesday’s midterm elections in the United States, US forces have struck Iran’s Qeshm Island in what officials have reportedly described as a defensive measure.

In the first attack since June on Qeshm Island, which serves as the primary platform for Iran’s “asymmetric” naval power, according to analysts, the US strikes come as both sides continue to adopt military and diplomatic postures.

Mediation efforts led by Qatar are continuing in a bid to avert a return to all-out war, which began on February 28 when the US and Israel launched strikes across Iran, triggering the closure of the critical Strait of Hormuz, surging oil and gas prices and massive damage to military, civil and energy facilities around the Gulf.

Here’s what we know:

What happened in the attack on Qeshm Island?

Several explosions were heard on Qeshm Island late on Monday, as US media reported that the US military had carried out what officials called “defensive strikes” in the Strait of Hormuz.

The blasts came in rapid succession, according to Iran’s state-owned IRNA news agency. Witnesses told the agency they saw two planes flying over the island, located off Iran’s southern coast along the waterway.

According to The Wall Street Journal, which quoted an unnamed official, the strikes on Monday night appeared limited and were not a resumption of a major operation.

The Associated Press news agency also quoted an unnamed US official as saying Washington had conducted the defensive strikes against “Iranians using surface-to-air missiles against US assets”.

The attack came after IRNA reported that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had destroyed a US MQ-9 drone east of the Strait of Hormuz.

The US first struck a critical desalination plant on Qeshm Island on March 7 – one week into the war. The strike, which Tehran branded a “flagrant crime” against civilians, cut off freshwater supplies to 30 surrounding villages.

But isn’t diplomacy ongoing?

It is, but it is fragile, and mixed messages are coming from both sides.

Qatari mediators have been engaged in indirect talks with Iranian officials in recent days. They have passed messages between the two sides, but the talks appeared to come to an end on Monday with no news of a breakthrough.

An official briefed on the talks told the Reuters news agency that Iran’s delegation had departed from Doha on Sunday, but that a draft proposal was still being circulated, without elaborating on the content.

Qatari mediators travelled to Tehran on Monday night for talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi regarding a version of a draft US-Iran deal which has been under negotiation for the past eight days, an official told Reuters.

Araghchi told IRNA on Monday: “Consultations through mediators are very intensive. We have presented our conditions and proposals, and everything depends on the political rationality of Washington.”

Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei also told a news conference on Monday that the “ball” was in the US’s court as Iran’s demands were “clear and logical”.

He said the plan Iran submitted in September to end the war remained the focus of talks, but that the proposal could be shortened and implemented in “two days”, including reopening the Strait of Hormuz and returning to talks about Iran’s nuclear programme.

On Monday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also said Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei had given the government “certain authorities” over talks with the US, local media reported.

The president added that Tehran would look to resolve the conflict through dialogue.

Khamenei’s apparent approval of diplomacy marks a change since the breakdown of the June memorandum of understanding, which allowed a brief ceasefire and peace negotiations, when the supreme leader said the US could not be trusted.

For the US side, Vice President JD Vance also told reporters on Monday that he was hopeful for a diplomatic solution – just hours before the strikes on Qeshm Island.

“The president and I both feel pretty good about the prospects for potentially coming to a negotiated settlement,” Vance said. “We’ve certainly made some progress. We’ll see if we can make some more.”

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf reiterated on Tuesday that Iran’s response to any US “miscalculation”, such as launching strikes, would be unpredictable.

“The enemy seeks to force the Iranian nation into submission through threats and military action, but they are sorely mistaken; Iran will not submit,” he said.

What has Trump said about diplomacy?

Oil prices dropped by more than 7 percent on Monday. In response, Trump wrote on his Truth Social account that people believe the war with Iran will not resume as mediation efforts continue.

“Iran wants a settlement, as soon as possible. It could happen!” Trump wrote.

He told media at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, DC, that it looked like efforts were “coming together very nicely”.

“That’s why I guess the oil prices dropped. People found out about it.”

However, Trump also told the US media outlet Axios before his post on Truth Social that he was “in no rush” to decide whether to resume strikes on Iran.

“One way or the other, we will do something, but there is no rush. We crippled them financially. They have no money, no gasoline, and their people are getting very tired of it,” Trump told Axios in an interview.

What happens next?

The US midterm elections are being viewed as the inflexion point for Trump’s decision on what path he takes next.

The president has suggested several times that he could attack Iran following the vote and told the Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN) on Sunday that the conflict would end “very soon one way or the other”, adding that Tehran would either “make a deal, or we’ll just end it”.

Observers say the US will likely renew strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities if they do resume.

In particular, this could include Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain, a highly fortified site that contains two tunnel complexes buried deep underground, and which Trump told US outlet Newsmax last month could be a target. He said the US “may have to go there. We’ll take a shot at that one. We’ll knock it out fast.”

FIFA Council members may view documents related to Gianni Infantino’s doomed plan, but only in person in Zurich

FIFA will release details of President Gianni Infantino’s aborted plan to sell off stakes in future World Cups to private investors, but they will not be shared with the public.

Reports in the British media said members of the FIFA Council, the main decision-making body of football’s world governing body, will be given access to “key documents” related to the proposal, named FIFA Forward Enterprise.

However, they can only view them under “strict protocols to preserve confidentiality”, the reports said. Those include the 37 members of the council having to register for an in-person appointment to view selected paperwork in Zurich, Switzerland, in the next two weeks.

The news came out late on Monday, the deadline European football’s governing body, UEFA, had set for FIFA to release details about the $4.2bn scheme and answer questions about how the proposal came about and who approved it before the plans were dropped in July amid a worldwide backlash.

UEFA set the deadline after a tense council meeting at which Infantino apologised for the proposal but provided no details about how the plan was formed. He asked council members to submit their questions in writing.

UEFA is leading attempts to remove Infantino before or at the FIFA presidential election on March 18 in Rabat, Morocco. Infantino, who was elected in 2016, is seeking a fourth term through 2031.

On November 3, as Americans vote in the midterm elections, the United States faces a defining test of presidential power, constitutional accountability and democratic resilience. The election will determine control of Congress, but its stakes extend far beyond partisan fortunes. At issue is whether constitutional checks and balances can constrain President Donald Trump, whether election officials can withstand political pressure, and whether the government will respect the voters’ verdict when the outcome threatens its interests.

The battle for control of elections

The administration’s efforts to reshape election procedures have encountered substantial judicial resistance. According to an October 20 review by the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 34 federal district court decisions had temporarily or permanently blocked administration initiatives involving election procedures and demands for voter registration records. The rulings included decisions by judges appointed by presidents of both parties, including Trump himself.

These decisions demonstrate that judicial oversight remains an important constitutional safeguard. Yet repeated litigation exposes a vulnerability: courts often intervene only after disputed measures have been introduced, leaving states to challenge policies that can generate uncertainty close to Election Day.

The controversy intensified on October 26, when a federal appeals court declined to order California to set aside ballots from approximately 20,000 registered voters whom the Justice Department alleges may be noncitizens. The court ruled that the lower court had not been given adequate opportunity to consider the government’s request. The underlying dispute remained unresolved.

The administration maintains that its actions protect electoral integrity. But investigating credible allegations of wrongdoing is fundamentally different from restricting eligible voters on the basis of unverified suspicions. Election security requires accurate voter rolls, but it equally requires protecting citizens from erroneous challenges.

Repeated allegations of fraud can undermine confidence even when evidence fails to establish that an election has been compromised. The danger is that routine election administration becomes suspect in the public mind, regardless of the facts.

Congress as a constitutional check

Republicans hold narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress, placing control of the House and potentially the Senate within reach of Democrats.

A Democratic House majority would strengthen the opposition’s ability to investigate administration policies, subpoena officials and scrutinise executive decisions. Immigration enforcement, election procedures, federal spending and the implementation of executive orders could face intensified oversight.

Such scrutiny could expose misconduct where evidence supports it and compel officials to explain decisions otherwise shielded from meaningful examination. Yet investigations do not automatically produce accountability. Subpoenas can trigger prolonged legal battles, and congressional hearings alone cannot force policy changes.

Control of the Senate would give Democrats greater influence over presidential nominations and judicial appointments. Nevertheless, Trump would retain his veto power and substantial executive authority. Even unified Democratic control of Congress would not automatically reverse his agenda.

The deeper question is whether Congress will exercise its constitutional responsibilities independently or allow partisan loyalty to take precedence over institutional accountability. Checks and balances cannot function effectively if one branch declines to challenge another when circumstances demand it.

The test after election day

Perhaps the most consequential confrontation will come after the ballots are cast.

Trump’s response to his 2020 presidential defeat remains a critical precedent. He challenged the result, made unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, and pressured Georgia officials to find enough votes to reverse his loss. On January 6, 2021, a mob attacked the Capitol as Congress met to certify the presidential election.

That history does not establish that similar events will recur in 2026. It does, however, make scrutiny of potential election disputes essential.

The danger may lie not in a single intervention capable of changing the result, but in successive confrontations: challenges to ballot counting, pressure on state officials, demands for investigations and attempts to portray ordinary procedures as evidence of fraud. Even unsuccessful efforts can delay resolution and weaken public confidence.

Candidates have every right to pursue legitimate legal challenges. Courts must consider credible evidence, and election officials must correct documented irregularities. But allegations are not proof, and no president can simply declare an unfavourable result invalid.

An election can also be damaged without a single vote being changed. Intimidation of election workers, unfounded accusations and efforts to discredit established procedures can erode public acceptance of legitimate outcomes.

The distinction between lawful scrutiny and political interference is therefore fundamental. Electoral integrity depends on evidence, consistent procedures and respect for the law – not on whether the outcome favours the governing party.

Courts cannot defend democracy alone

Judicial intervention demonstrates that constitutional safeguards remain operational. Courts can invalidate unlawful executive actions, but they cannot independently administer elections across thousands of jurisdictions or guarantee that political leaders will respect every ruling.

Nor can judicial decisions alone restore public confidence after sustained efforts to discredit electoral institutions. Democracy depends on Congress exercising oversight, election officials counting ballots accurately, courts acting impartially and political leaders respecting lawful outcomes.

The willingness of judges appointed by presidents of both parties to rule against administration initiatives reinforces a fundamental principle: constitutional protections cannot depend on partisan alignment. Their effectiveness rests on whether institutions apply the same rules regardless of who benefits.

The broader danger is institutional erosion. Repeated confrontations can weaken public confidence, discourage election workers and normalise the idea that constitutional constraints are obstacles to political power rather than obligations governing its exercise.

A verdict beyond the ballots

The November 3 midterms will not resolve the struggle over presidential power. If Republicans retain Congress, Trump will continue to benefit from congressional majorities, although judicial and state-level checks will remain. If Democrats gain one or both chambers, the administration will face greater scrutiny, but substantial executive authority will persist.

Neither outcome guarantees effective constitutional government. The decisive issue is whether institutions exercise their lawful responsibilities and whether political leaders accept that presidential power is neither unlimited nor permanent.

American democracy has survived profound crises, but resilience should not be confused with invulnerability. Checks and balances work only when institutions enforce them and political leaders respect their limits.

The midterms are therefore about more than congressional arithmetic. They will test whether votes are counted according to law, disputes are resolved through established procedures and electoral outcomes are respected regardless of partisan consequences.

The ballots will determine who controls Congress. What follows will reveal whether American institutions can still uphold a principle fundamental to democratic government: no president stands above the law, no party owns the electoral process, and no exercise of political power is beyond accountability.

On November 3, Americans will vote to determine the composition of Congress. The aftermath will test something more enduring: whether the constitutional restraints that have sustained American democracy remain binding when their enforcement carries the highest political stakes.

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

Oakland, California – Protesters dressed as cardboard robots chanted and danced to a drumbeat as they protested against new data centres outside Oakland City Hall last month.

Their concerns largely focused on how the centres — which process large amounts of digital information — might strain the energy grid.

The result, they argued, would not only be environmental harm but also sky-high electricity bills for local households.

“Power prices have gone up so much in Oakland that some people are thinking of shutting off their power,” said Carlos Gutierrez, an activist for Communities for a Better Environment, an environmental justice group.

“And the city is planning to provide power to a data centre instead.”

Opposition to data centres is growing across the United States, as residents express concern about their rapid expansion.

More than 3,000 data centres already operate in the country, with more than 1,500 others in development, according to the Pew Research Center.

But the backlash is perhaps most striking in California’s San Francisco Bay Area, a region considered to be the heart of the artificial intelligence (AI) boom.

Major AI companies such as Anthropic, OpenAI and Meta are based in the Bay Area, and the industry’s growth has been credited with fuelling a local economic renaissance.

Data centres house the advanced computer chips and servers needed to run AI-powered services such as Anthropic’s Claude and OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

But they also require 24-hour power and a large supply of water to cool their processors.

Even with such cooling technology, data centres are notorious for emitting heat, leading to an increase in land surface temperatures as high as 9 degrees Celsius (16 degrees Fahrenheit).

A midterm election issue

Concerns about the cost of rapid data centre growth, both environmentally and financially, have catapulted the issue into the discourse around Tuesday’s midterm elections.

In the final two months before the vote, at least seven Bay Area cities, including San Francisco and Richmond, have passed temporary moratoriums on data centre construction.

They include Oakland, which passed a data centre moratorium on October 6, after days of protest.

Local politicians competing in Tuesday’s midterms have also used the topic as a wedge issue, to rally support among certain pockets of voters.

One of the most closely watched races in the Bay Area is for the seat left vacant by longtime Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. After 39 years in the House of Representatives, Pelosi is retiring at the end of the year.

Two Democrats are competing in Tuesday’s election to fill her position in Congress: San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan and state Senator Scott Wiener.

Each one has staked out a different position on AI data centres. Wiener, for instance, opposes any ban on data centres.

“A blanket data centre moratorium could undermine AI regulation,” he told the publication Mission Local.

Chan, meanwhile, has pledged to seek a nationwide moratorium on data centres, at least until responsible AI regulation is put in place.

“Let’s start with a moratorium on data centres. Allow us to have that moment to regulate artificial intelligence,” she said at a debate in October.

Chan played a leading role in passing San Francisco’s moratorium in early October.

A poll from the University of Southern California showed Wiener leading Chan 47 percent to 41, as of mid-October.

Navigating public backlash

“Right now, data centre opposition is an issue that unifies the US public like no other,” said Shum Preston, a political analyst based in San Francisco.

So far, there has been relatively little opposition to the data centre moratoriums in local hearings. But he speculates that there may be several reasons for the lack of pushback to the bans.

Among them are the surveys indicating widespread public backlash to data centre creation.

An October CNBC poll found that 63 percent of registered US voters oppose building data centres within 16 kilometres, or 10 miles, of their homes.

“Data centres poll very poorly, and developers probably don’t want to put their supervisor friends in trouble ahead of elections. So they probably let this pass,” Preston said.

He also signalled that the short-term nature of the moratoriums may be a factor.

Certain Bay Area cities like San Francisco, Brisbane and Oakland paused construction on data centres for 45 days, with the option to extend the ban later.

Opponents of the moratoriums “will be more vocal when” the 45 days end, Preston said. By that time, the heat of the midterm election season will also have settled, he added.

“That’s when the hearings will get more contentious,” he said.

Not long enough?

Another hurdle facing the moratoriums is the lack of transparency surrounding data centre construction.

Supervisor Shamann Walton, who sponsored San Francisco’s moratorium ordinance, has argued that the city’s definition of “data centres” is outdated.

Created in 2001 — long before the AI boom — the city planning code defines data centres as “internet service exchanges”, a definition that may not accurately characterise the technology today.

Walton said the outdated language has made it hard for authorities to count how many data centres exist in the city.

Not being able to identify data centres can also prevent city officials from monitoring their power and water usage.

“We cannot use 2001 rules to regulate 2026 technology,” he said in a September 14 statement.

Another issue is the time it takes to carry out the necessary environmental assessments. The moratoriums may not offer enough time for a comprehensive review.

“Forty-five days is hardly enough time to document and study the impacts and then frame regulations,” said Roger Lin, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, a US environmental nonprofit.

He added that legal barriers limit access to such information from the data centres themselves.

“Data centres often have nondisclosure agreements, so even local air quality boards may not know the impact of data centres on air quality,” said Lin.

Supporters tout economic benefits

Still, AI industry supporters have touted the growth of the data centres as evidence of a flourishing industry, with positive downstream effects for US communities.

Anthropic, for instance, is preparing an initial public offering (IPO) that is likely to raise billions of dollars.

But critics warn that the company’s growth may not translate into an economic boom for the San Francisco Bay Area overall.

Instead, residents fear unequal economic growth that primarily benefits the wealthy. Already, San Francisco faces some of the highest and fastest-growing home rental prices in the country.

At a hearing at San Francisco City Hall, a resident vented their frustrations about the data centres to the supervisors.

“This city is less for humans and more for robots and billionaires,” the resident said.

Houston, Texas – The gospel music from Mount Hebron Missionary Baptist Church spills into the streets of Sunnyside, a predominantly Black neighbourhood in southern Houston.

It is a familiar scene on any given Sunday: hands in the air, immaculate bow ties on starched shirts, fabric flowers adorning perfectly pastel hats. But with the US midterm elections just two days away, the service held a special significance on the front line of a US redistricting battle.

Mt Hebron had long been located in the ninth congressional district, its politically engaged Black voters for two decades helping to elect Democrat Al Green, a flamboyant presence in Congress known for his cane-waving opposition to US President Donald Trump.

But following an appeal from Trump, the Republican state legislature last year conducted rare mid-decade redistricting, redrawing the church and its Black community into the Black-majority 18th district.

Critics call the process “cracking and packing”, diminishing the representation in Congress of minority groups, particularly heavily Democratic Black communities, by consolidating their voting power into fewer districts.

“It’s kind of one and the same when we talk about the voting and the civil rights,” said Pastor Max Miller, who has served at the church for 18 years.

“They are trying to manipulate and monopolise the vote and minimise the people who are in those districts,” said Miller. “We see so much rolling backwards that it looks like they’re trying to take a script from an old song and turn back the hands of time.”

As a result of the redistricting, Green was forced to run in a primary against 18th district incumbent Christian Menefee, another Black Democrat. He lost, and Houston lost one of its Black representatives in Congress.

The ninth district, meanwhile, was redrawn to favour Republicans, one of at least five US congressional seats the party hopes to pick up in the midterm vote.

The machinations have resonated with worshippers at Mt Hebron.

“I don’t like the redistricting at all because Al Green was moved out,” said 97-year-old Alice Jefferson, who had followed the congressman throughout his political career. “He always had good advice for the people.”

Janice Ray, a 61-year-old home health aide and entrepreneur, said state lawmakers were “trying to move people out of the district that they’re familiar with”.

“To me, it was all a bunch of BS,” she said. “There was no reason for it.”

“But we’ll stand firm, regardless of what they try to do,” Ray added. “Because just like it was changed, it can always be changed back.”

‘Voices have been weakened’

The redistricting process has undergone a generational transformation this election season, one that, experts say, has degraded longstanding guardrails protecting minority voting power.

“In political science, we have what we call descriptive representation,” Michael Adams, a professor at Texas Southern University in Houston, told Al Jazeera. “In terms of descriptive representation, minorities and others feel that if they can elect someone who reflects their values, for example, and who may look like them, their voting can be defined as one voice.”

“And certainly with not having an additional Black member of Congress representing Houston, a significant segment of Black voters may feel that their voices have been weakened,” he said.

Texas was only the beginning.

This year Republican and Democratic state legislatures across the country joined the spree: Republicans successfully redistricted in Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida and Ohio; Democrats did so in California, while a court-ordered map in Utah handed Democrats a favourable seat. A Democratic push in Virginia was subsequently invalidated.

Redrawing maps mid-decade, and not waiting for the latest demographic numbers from the US census, was already atypical. But many of the maps drawn this year would have been deemed illegal in previous cycles.

Section 2 of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, initially passed to counter blatantly racist voting practices in the US, had long prohibited redrawing congressional maps to dilute the electoral power of minority voters.

In April, the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court ruled that anyone challenging such a map must prove “racist intent”. Critics have said the ruling effectively allows for racial gerrymandering, with proving such an intent an unreasonably high bar.

But critics of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act have said drawing maps to protect minority voting power is in itself discriminatory.

Defenders in Texas, meanwhile, have said the redistricting was based on the shifting political makeup of the state, and not racial gerrymandering.

“This plan includes political considerations, public testimony, recognition of population growth and recent changes in voter trends,” State Representative Todd Hunter, a Republican, said shortly after the new map’s passage last year.

“Each of these newly drawn districts now trend Republican in political performance. While there’s no guarantee of electoral success, Republicans will now have an opportunity to potentially win these districts,” he said.

A political test

There are no guarantees that a party’s redistricting plans will actually work.

Following the tit-for-tat map redrawings, Republicans hoped to net at least 13 seats nationally. Polling has suggested their gains may be much more muted.

All told, about 35 million US voters will be casting ballots in newly redistricted seats this election.

“Redistricting can change the political boundaries, but it can’t guarantee how voters will behave,” Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor at the University of Houston, told Al Jazeera.

In Texas, the Republican map was drawn largely based on recent Latino voting trends. The demographic swung heavily for Trump in the state in 2024, despite once being considered a reliable Democratic voting bloc.

Beyond the ninth congressional district in Houston, Republicans hoped to pick up four other districts, most based in South Texas, with an eye on shifting Latino sentiment.

But the political tides have again turned. Trump’s popularity has tanked among Latino voters, fuelled in part by unrest over the economy and the administration’s aggressive deportation campaign.

It remains to be seen how that will reflect at the ballot box when Texas voters pick a senator, governor, members of Congress and a slate of state and local officials.

“These districts are a test of whether political dissatisfaction can overcome an aggressively partisan map,” Rottinghaus said.

‘Trying to mobilise’

With new boundaries come new opportunities.

The ninth district is now considered Republican-favoured, but its large population of low-propensity Latino voters creates a pathway for a Democratic victory, according to Dayana Iza, Texas state director of Mi Familia Vota, a Latino voting organisation that has focused resources on the congressional race.

The state legislature “kept a big portion of Latino voters there, but the reality is that the Latino percentage in that district that votes is very, very low,” Iza told Al Jazeera. “So that then became a district that we are trying to mobilise in terms of turnout.”

On the Saturday ahead of the November 3 vote, Democratic candidate Leticia Gutierrez and State Senator Molly Cook zigzagged through a neighbourhood of single-family homes in eastern Houston.

Any path to victory, Gutierrez assessed, would be based on face time and a chance to connect with disillusioned voters.

“This community here has an average annual income of $63,000 a year. I make a little over that, and it’s difficult,” Gutierrez told Al Jazeera. “At this point, it’s not a left or a right thing anymore. This is an affordability crisis.”

“You’ve heard some of the voters out here say this is the first time someone actually came to my door,” she added. “That means a lot, and so we want to continue to do that.”

Among the residents was Christian Garcia, a 53-year-old who works at a local chemical plant and has not voted since moving to Texas from Puerto Rico in 2014. He said he is focused on his family, saving enough for retirement and eventually leaving some money behind for his adult children.

In the past, Garcia said, he felt voting was “wasting my time”.

“You know, it’s a lot of corruption and things,” said Garcia. “I just don’t believe in anybody anymore.”

Down the block, Esmeralda Gil, a 39-year-old teacher, said she hoped for a Democratic surge.

Gil questioned why taxes, particularly on housing, seemed so high, while so many struggled to access healthcare.

“We need affordable healthcare and affordable housing,” she said.

This comes as leading opposition leader, Maria Corina Machado, returns to Venezuela and hints at criticism of Trump administration.

The United States has urged Venezuela to continue on a phased plan of economic recovery and political reconciliation before embarking on democratic elections.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio discussed the gradual plan during a meeting on the country’s political future with Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs Oliver Blanco on Monday. The meeting comes nearly a year after US forces abducted former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from Caracas and brought him to the US to face drug trafficking and other charges.

Neither Rubio nor Blanco spoke to the media after the meeting, but in a readout. The State Department said in a readout that Washington had reaffirmed President Donald Trump’s “three-phase plan for Venezuela: stabilization, economic recovery and political reconciliation, and democratic transition”.

Last week, Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado returned to her country, thanking the US president and Rubio for their support. Machado, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who gifted her medal to Trump in 2025, said she had come to organise a movement in preparation for Venezuelan elections.

Rubio “has set out a sequence of events aimed at moving toward a democratic transition that makes clear the holding of presidential elections in 2027”, she said.

Machado is balancing an election campaign with a Trump administration that has sought to extract oil from Venezuela by striking deals with the government of interim President Delcy Rodriguez, who served as Maduro’s vice president and took over after his abduction.

In September, the Trump administration said it had struck a deal with Venezuela that would give Washington a stake in about one-fifth of the country’s oil resources.

The US said it was creating a joint venture with North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), owned by Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt, which is the second-largest private oil operator in Venezuela, behind Chevron.

Under the deal, Caracas is giving the company 100-year rights over 17 oilfields with proven reserves of 65 billion barrels. The Pentagon will have a 35 percent stake in NABEP, and the US will be guaranteed the right to buy 20 percent of its oil output at cost, the Trump administration has said.

Shortly before Machado’s statements on Thursday, Rodriguez assured the nation that elections would be held in Venezuela “with the world as witness”, but did not specify a date.

When asked about a possible meeting with Rodriguez, Machado said she had not received any message from the interim president or from Washington.

In remarks after returning Venezuela, Machado seemed sceptical of the oil agreement with the US.

“This agreement does not reflect the levels of transparency that Venezuelan society wants,” Machado said.

Only 32 percent of voters approve of Trump’s job performance in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Ahead of the United States midterm elections, President Donald Trump’s job approval rating continues to sit near a record low, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Some 32 percent of respondents approved of Trump’s handling of the presidency, 1 percentage point above his rating two weeks ago.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party continues to be unpopular among those polled: When asked whether they would vote for a generic Democrat or Republican candidate, 46 percent of respondents preferred Democrats compared with 38 percent preferring Republicans.

Trump himself is not on the ballot, but he has repeatedly told his supporters to vote as if they are voting for him. If the Republican Party loses control of the US Congress, Trump has warned, Democrats may seek to impeach him for a third time.

Trump’s approval rating has dropped steadily, polls suggest, especially since the launch of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28. The conflict has driven up petrol and diesel prices and has had secondary effects for US consumers worried about inflation and the economy.

The president embarked on a nearly monthlong campaign blitz ahead of the November 3 midterms in an effort to shore up support for Republican candidates, who are trying to retain control of the US House of Representatives and Senate.

Trump wrapped up his campaigning on Monday afternoon with a rally in Washington, DC, at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. The president has devoted significant attention to the site as part of his attempt to renovate the capital. The job ran months late and cost more than 10 times its original estimate, with a special liner for the pool that Trump touted peeling away soon after it was installed.

“It was a work of art that never worked, but now it will work,” Trump said at the rally. He spent much of his speech on his renovation plans for the city, including a “Triumphal Arch”, which is facing legal challenges.

Trump seemed to acknowledge on Monday that his campaigning might not deliver the results he wants for his party, but said this was the political norm for midterm elections.

“For some reason, the sitting president doesn’t win the midterms,” Trump said. “But we gave this a very strong shot.”

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – Across the Asia-Pacific region, governments and businesses reeling from the energy shock of the United States and Israel’s war on Iran are watching Tuesday’s US midterm elections closely.

Many want to see “enormous changes” during the rest of President Donald Trump’s term, analysts say, from the war on Iran to his policies on trade and tariffs. But few expect that to happen, even with the Democrats poised to take the House of Representatives, and potentially the Senate, from Trump’s Republican Party.

“Of course, everybody is watching,” said Steven Okun, a trade specialist and the chief executive of APAC Advisors, a Singapore-based consulting firm. “It’s great political theatre.”

Outside the Middle East, no region has been hit harder by the war on Iran than the Asia-Pacific. Before the start of the conflict in January, the region took in most of the Gulf oil and gas that passed through the Strait of Hormuz.

When Iran closed the chokepoint in response to the US and Israel’s strikes, much of the region was left facing shortages.

The Philippines, which relies on the Gulf for more than 90 percent of its crude oil imports, has been under a national energy emergency since March. Soaring fuel costs have drained the foreign exchange reserves of the region’s poorest economies – Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and East Timor, according to the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS)-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore. Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam have also spent heavily on fuel subsidies to shield consumers, it said.

Public opinion in the Asia-Pacific region remains firmly opposed to the war, but Okun said a Democratic-controlled US Congress was unlikely to force Trump to end the eight-month conflict.

“With Iran, I don’t see [a Democrat-controlled Congress] having much change at all, other than the fact that the war will be investigated and there will be oversight hearings,” Okun told Al Jazeera. “We might even see an impeachment of the secretary of defence, but it doesn’t change the overall impact of the war.”

Under the US Constitution, Congress holds the power to formally declare war, but Trump has claimed the attacks on Iran were in self-defence and has so far ignored congressional resolutions directing him to withdraw US forces from hostilities. If a Democrat-controlled Congress passes legislation restricting military operations or cutting funding for them, Trump can veto it. Overriding a veto requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers, which Democrats are almost certain to fall short of.

‘Tariffs don’t change’

On trade and tariffs, too, analysts see little room for Congress to rein in Trump.

The US president rattled global markets last year when he imposed “reciprocal” tariffs of 10 percent to 50 percent on some 90 countries, with the aim of shrinking the US trade deficit. Asia was again hit harder than most. Cambodia faced a 49 percent tariff and Laos 48 percent. Vietnam was slapped with 46 percent and Myanmar 45 percent.

After the Supreme Court struck down those tariffs in February, the Trump administration turned to other tools. In July, it imposed tariffs of 10 percent and 12.5 percent on goods from 60 trading partners, accusing them of failing to stop imports made with forced labour. In Asia, the list includes China, Japan, South Korea and seven Southeast Asian nations – Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

“In some ways, the new Congress is not going to matter to the Asia Pacific because it’s not going to affect trade policy,” Okun said. “Congress cannot change that … Tariffs don’t change. The war doesn’t change.”

Still, some analysts see a narrow opening.

Stephen Olson, a visiting fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, argued in a recent essay that a “strong rebuke of ‘Trumpism’” at the polls could embolden a pro-free-trade wing of the Republican Party that has been “intimidated into standing down during the Trump presidency”.

That, Olson wrote, offers “a glimmer of hope” for Southeast Asian countries that depend on the US market. A Democratic-controlled Congress, he said, could also push for carve-outs and exceptions that would give the region’s exporters “a modicum of relief”. But any deeper shift in US trade policy, he added, will have to wait for the 2028 presidential election.

Joshua Kurlantzick, a senior fellow for Southeast Asia and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the region’s wish list goes beyond trade to security.

“I think nearly all of Asia would like to see enormous changes, across many domains, during the rest of Trump’s term,” he told Al Jazeera. “But I think much of the region believes this will not happen.”

Besides “more stability” in trade and tariff policy, Asia-Pacific countries “would like to feel more stable in security guarantees from the US,” he said. They would also like a “more clear, obvious US presence” in the South China Sea, where China’s claims overlap with those of five Southeast Asian nations, and in the Taiwan Strait, which separates China from Taiwan, the self-governed island Beijing claims as its territory.

Businesses will also be watching whether a major Republican loss leads to “greater GOP willingness in Congress to stand up to Trump, along with Democrats, on issues important to companies in Asia,” Kurlantzick said, including tariffs, trade policy, arms sales and “overall economic unpredictability”.

US-China ties

One area where analysts do expect some change is US policy on Chinese technology.

The new Congress, whichever party controls it, will pass tougher restrictions on China, said Okun at APAC Advisors.

These include the Remote Access Security Act, which would extend export controls to remote access of US goods, software or technology and the Chip Security Act, which would require companies to verify that advanced artificial intelligence (AI) chips remain in authorised locations, to prevent diversion to foreign adversaries. It also includes the Multilateral Alignment of Technology Controls on Hardware Act, known as the MATCH Act, which would press allies to bring their controls on chipmaking equipment in line with Washington’s, to keep advanced chipmaking technology out of China’s hands.

“The next Congress is going to pass them regardless of midterms because both parties agree on them,” Okun said. “The person who is least restrictive now on China is the US president,” he added, referring to Trump’s courting of China’s President Xi Jinping.

The two men have met twice this year as ties have warmed after a bitter and costly trade war last year. To preserve the fragile trade truce, Trump has also held off approving a $14bn package of arms sales to Taiwan, which would be the largest ever for Taipei.

Some analysts meanwhile worry that a lame-duck Trump, hemmed in at home by a Democratic Congress, could turn more forcefully to foreign policy.

“We should not be surprised by continued erratic foreign policy,” said James Guild, an assistant professor at the Indonesian International Islamic University.

“The Democrats have a poor record of effectively opposing and holding Trump accountable using conventional tools of congressional oversight,” Guild said. “We will have to wait and see if they rise to the moment this time.”

In June, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani stood before a packed house of voters, rallying support for a new wave of candidates hoping to build on his progressive momentum by winning seats in Congress.

Inside Brooklyn’s historic Kings Theatre, the crowd answered chants of “Abolish ICE”, “Tax the rich” and “Free Palestine” with roaring applause, leaving little if any room for doubt about what the audience wanted from its politicians.

Within days, all three congressional hopefuls endorsed by Mamdani – Claire Valdez, Brad Lander and Darializa Avila Chevalier – had won their Democratic primaries, becoming the party’s candidates in the midterm election.

Lander, the former New York City comptroller, defeated Congressman Dan Goldman in a race in which Israel was the defining issue.

Avila Chevalier, a community organiser, unseated longtime Congressman Adriano Espaillat. Valdez, a lawmaker in the New York State Assembly and member of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), won the contest to succeed retiring Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez.

Both Valdez and Avila Chevalier had the backing of New York City’s DSA chapter.

The candidates’ heavily Democratic districts mean they are likely to win congressional seats in Tuesday’s midterm elections. The June Democratic Party primaries effectively served as the main event for voters.

In the final hours before Tuesday’s midterm election, New York City – a place colloquially dubbed the city that never sleeps – is more politically sleepy, with canvassers a bit harder to find than they were in the final stretch before the primaries.

For the three progressive candidates, the past few months have been a test of how to turn bold campaign promises into policy they can actually deliver. The often slow minutiae of daily governance stand in stark contrast to buzzword-laden campaign slogans on the posters and signs galvanising their base of voters.

Unique paths to politics

The three congressional candidates’ platforms overlap on issues like abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), ending US military aid to Israel and establishing a public healthcare system dubbed Medicare for All. But their paths into progressive politics differ.

Lander spent years in the New York City government, most recently as comptroller overseeing the city’s finances. After losing to Mamdani in the 2025 Democratic mayoral primary, he backed Mamdani in the election.

But Lander’s congressional campaign against incumbent Goldman brought him national attention, with Israel and Palestine emerging as the defining issue in the race to lead a district with one of the largest Jewish populations in the United States.

Lander has described Israel’s military campaign in Gaza as genocide and its occupation of Palestinian territory as apartheid. He also identifies as a Zionist who embraces pro-Palestinian activism, arguing that the positions are not mutually exclusive. Lander has long supported a two-state solution.

“It’s straightforward that some approach to more shared safety for Israelis and Palestinians and for Jews and Muslims and everybody else here makes more sense,” Lander said. “I also want to be able to listen across those divides and have thoughtful policy debates.”

Two weeks before Tuesday’s election, Israeli forces detained Lander in the occupied West Bank while he was volunteering to help with the olive harvest. Israeli authorities have since revoked his travel documents for a planned return visit.

“The main story I come home with is not the story of my detention or the revocation of my travel authorisation,” Lander said. “The main story that I come with is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank, which I just saw with my own eyes.”

Lander has also long called for ICE to be abolished, including during President Donald Trump’s first term in office.

Pro-Palestinian activism 

Avila Chevalier’s political rise was similarly shaped by immigration and Palestinian rights, though she has taken a more uncompromising approach.

After interning at a youth organisation in Nablus in the occupied West Bank in 2014, she returned to the US and became an advocate for Palestinian communities.

Her “Babies Not Bombs” platform calls for redirecting military spending, including aid to Israel, towards domestic priorities such as childcare and healthcare.

“It’s important for us to see our budgets as moral documents,” Avila Chevalier told Al Jazeera. “Our resources should be going towards the things that make our lives dignified and make our communities thrive – not towards war, not towards ICE or things that are harming our communities.”

Valdez, meanwhile, came to progressive politics through the labour movement. A former union-organiser-turned-state-assemblymember, she supports stronger labour protections, including federal legislation such as the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act to make union organising easier.

Valdez also backs national rent control and a government-run healthcare system to provide wider healthcare access than the country’s private-sector insurance model.

“Public programmes and entitlements have been under attack by the right,” Valdez told Al Jazeera as she exited a polling location in her district on the first day of early voting. “I think not just clawing those back but really advancing a vision for what those things should be will be top priorities.”

Abolishing ICE and ending military aid to Israel are lofty, ambitious goals, and neither is likely to be achieved without navigating competing interests in Congress and the White House. With the balance of congressional power potentially shifting towards Democrats in the midterms, the newcomers will have to decide which priorities to pursue first.

That means looking for more immediate wins comparable to Mamdani’s move to fill 200,000 potholes when he took office as mayor, according to progressive political strategist Nomiki Konst.

“[Get] on the same page about an issue that we all agree on and leverage that in the Democratic Congress because there’s no better time than the beginning,” Konst told Al Jazeera.

For Lander, one such measure is banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks.

“Maybe that restores a little bit of trust,” Lander said. “People say that’s gross that members of Congress trade stocks. At least this new Congress is doing something, you know, to show me they’re not just all in it for themselves.”

Lander also sees an opportunity to restore enhanced government subsidies that expired at the end of 2025, raising premiums for many people who buy their private-sector insurance plans individually.

“We can say we’re not going to pass a budget that doesn’t do that and force Republicans to vote one way or the other and see what Trump does,” Lander said.

For Avila Chevalier, an early priority would be her “Babies Not Bombs” agenda, redirecting funding towards domestic needs. Valdez wants to pass the PRO Act.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sets a precedent

The three would not be the first progressive New Yorkers to enter Congress promising major change.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her legislative seat in 2018 by defeating longtime incumbent Joe Crowley. Since then, she has occasionally worked with Republicans on shared priorities.

In 2025, Ocasio-Cortez introduced legislation with Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna of Florida to cap credit card interest rates at 10 percent, echoing a proposal from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri.

The question, Konst says, is whether Mamdani’s endorsed candidates can turn ideological commitments into legislative results. Doing so will require compromise, including setting aside some priorities to advance others.

Avila Chevalier is under the microscope after calling for New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch to resign over a man being shot in his car by ICE while his child was in the backseat. Avila Chevalier said she was later shoved to the ground by New York City police officers during protests following the shooting.

Mamdani reportedly appointed Tisch on the recommendation of Governor Kathy Hochul, whose support was important to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. An Atlantic magazine report suggested that her endorsement of Mamdani, whose more progressive platform included universal childcare and government-operated grocery stores, hinged on Tisch’s appointment.

“Everybody wants to have their agenda passed, right? I think being really thoughtful about when to hold fire, when to fire, when to be bold, when to hold back, and when to say what you feel so you’ll get the most support,” Konst said.

But Avila Chevalier said she is willing to work with anyone to advance her priorities.

“There is always something that two people can agree on. And that’s where I plan on starting because I think organising is about meeting people where they’re at,” Avila Chevalier said.

“There are so many folks who really want to see healthcare transformed in this country, who really want to see a moratorium on data [centres]. That is a bipartisan issue for so many.”

California says the move to block ballots from suspected noncitizens could disenfranchise eligible voters.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to stop California from counting mail-in ballots from more than 20,000 voters it claims are not US citizens.

The emergency request, filed on Monday, just one day before the midterm elections, is the latest development in a legal battle between the administration and California, a Democratic stronghold and the most populous US state.

California says the move could disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters.

The Department of Justice wants California to set aside ballots from voters on a list compiled by the Department of Homeland Security until after their citizenship status is confirmed.

But California says the list is unreliable and could include thousands of US citizens.

Voting has been under way since early October, and state officials say it would be nearly impossible to separate the ballots in question.

Last week, a federal judge rejected the administration’s request, raising concerns about the reliability of the data on the list.

“If the executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger,” Judge David Carter wrote.

The administration has turned to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court also rejected the request on Friday.

The dispute comes as Republicans fight to retain control of Congress in Tuesday’s elections.

Trump has repeatedly made false claims about widespread voter fraud, but studies and state audits have shown that ineligible voting, including by noncitizens, is rare.

United States oil companies have earned more than $130bn in profits during the war on Iran, even as consumers pay much higher prices for key commodities, amid fears that US President Donald Trump may renew fighting after midterm elections.

The estimate, released by The New York Times, is a conservative evaluation based on the performance of 51 large US oil and gas companies in the six months from April through September. By contrast, in the same period in 2025 – when the prices of oil were lower prior to the launch of the US-Israel war on Iran – they collectively earned less than $47bn.

But the gains come as burgeoning living costs are crushing consumers. Americans have spent an extra $150bn on petrol and diesel since the war on Iran began on February 28, according to an analysis by Brown University’s Climate Solutions Lab, which amounts to more than $1,150 per household.

The disparity has fuelled a political debate over who gains and who pays the price for the war. Responding to Trump, Democratic Representative Jim McGovern wrote on X: “We’re not making a ‘freaking fortune,’ we’re PAYING a ‘freaking fortune’.”

US Big Oil in position to profit where others lose

Naser al-Tamimi, a fellow at the Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI) in Milan, Italy, said US energy companies have benefitted from the war in different ways. “Crude producers gain from higher oil prices, while refiners capture exceptional margins as diesel and other fuel supplies tighten,” he said.

Additionally, “damage to Middle Eastern and Russian refineries, disrupted Strait of Hormuz shipments, and sanctions-related trade frictions have intensified shortages”, while “relatively secure US facilities and access to discounted crude strengthen these gains”.

ExxonMobil and Chevron, the biggest US oil companies, on Friday reported profits of between $10bn and $15bn. While the gains are considerable, The New York Times found they generally remained below 2022 levels, when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused oil prices to soar to roughly $100 a barrel and raised natural gas prices, compared with the current average of $90 from April through September.

American refining companies also reaped greater profits as global fuel supplies tightened and inventories depleted due to heavy damage to infrastructure in the Middle East and Russia. Valero Energy’s third-quarter profit increased more than sixfold, reaching $6.83bn. Phillips 66 announced its highest quarterly profit on record, with net income jumping to $5.62bn from $133m a year earlier.

Geoffrey Miller, geopolitical analyst and editor of the Gulf States Insights newsletter, said the US-Israel war with Iran “created the largest supply-side shock to global oil and refined products markets in years”.

Miller added that the war “created a risk premium that US-based operators are structurally well placed to monetise”. By contrast, Gulf producers were “hit hard by both higher costs and risks, along with physical damage, which makes their ability to benefit from the higher prices much more difficult”.

Tehran retaliated against the US-Israeli attack by launching missiles and drones at the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), a US-registered independent conflict monitor, found Iran and Iran-backed groups in the region have carried out at least 172 attacks on nonmilitary infrastructure across the six GCC member states. Despite claims by Iranian officials that they were targeting US military facilities, they also hit energy infrastructure.

Iran also effectively blocked passage of most vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. In retaliation, the US imposed a naval blockade on Iranian oil and gas – the tit-for-tat steps raising the risks of transporting energy out of the crucial passageway.

Continued pressure over cost of living

Analysts warned of continued volatility until a durable political settlement between the US and Iran is reached. Oil prices dropped briefly in the summer after a memorandum of understanding was signed in June, but prices quickly soared again when talks broke down.

A more recent escalation in fighting between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis has further compounded the crisis: the Bab al-Mandeb strait that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, which Saudi Arabia uses to export oil, is now also a theatre of war.

“In the short term, windfall profits will only strengthen oil company balance sheets and shareholder returns,” Miller said. “However, the big profits come with a major caveat. That’s because over the longer term, high oil prices risk harming economic growth prospects and could even contribute towards the outbreak of a recession, which would in turn be likely to lead to reduced demand for oil” and accelerate the transition to renewable energy.

Florence Schmit, senior energy strategist at Rabobank’s global economics and markets team in London, said it was likely that the prices of key energy products would remain high given the uncertainty about the duration of the war in Iran.

“Prices in all markets that have an exposure to this global supply shock – which includes the US – will face high prices also next year, and consumers will continue to feel this price pressure unless governments step in,” Schmit told Al Jazeera.

The US-led war on Iran has raised costs for oil, transport fuels, gas, electricity and food. According to the World Bank Group’s latest Commodity Markets Outlook, commodity prices are set to rise 23 percent this year, as disrupted grain shipments and the El Nino weather phenomenon also threaten harvests and food affordability.

The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization said on October 2 that world food commodity prices rose a further 1.5 percent in September, after reaching their highest level since late 2022 in August, amid adverse weather and trade disruptions in the Black Sea and Strait of Hormuz.

Trump has sought to blame high global fuel prices on Ukraine and pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to halt strikes on Russian refineries, even as Moscow continued to wage attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. The US president has argued that a deal with Russia reversing years of sanctions would help lower diesel prices.

In the Gulf, analysts said higher oil prices will benefit exporters that can maintain shipments, but prolonged insecurity will continue to threaten supply reliability and investment.

“Gulf producers face years of reconstruction and pressure to diversify export routes,” ISPI’s al-Tamimi said. “A diplomatic settlement could ease prices, whereas renewed US-Israeli attacks on Iran risk triggering another regional war, further disrupting Hormuz and prolonging shortages.”

MLB pitchers charged with conspiracy to influence sporting contests by bribery go on trial in New York.

Former Cleveland Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz go on trial on Monday on charges of accepting bribes after colluding with gamblers who made hundreds of thousands of dollars by betting correctly on individual pitches in Major League Baseball (MLB) in the United States.

Their careers and possibly their freedom are at stake in the jury trial expected to unfold over the next month in New York’s Brooklyn federal court. Several professional baseball players, including catchers and baseball executives, are among witnesses expected to testify.

Clase, the Guardians’ former closer, and Ortiz, a starter, have pleaded not guilty to conspiracy charges and are on non-disciplinary leave from the club without pay while their fate is determined.

According to an indictment, the pitchers accepted thousands of dollars in payoffs to help two gamblers from their native Dominican Republic win at least $460,000 on in-game prop bets on the speed and outcome of certain pitches.

Prosecutors allege that Clase began providing the betters with information about his pitches in 2023 and recruited Ortiz into the scheme in 2025. Ortiz’s lawyers unsuccessfully sought to have him tried separately from Clase.

Judge Kiyo A Matsumoto said at a conference last Friday that she hopes to complete jury selection quickly enough that lawyers can deliver relatively short opening statements in the afternoon.

Clase, 28, is a three-time All-Star and two-time American League Reliever of the Year who had completed his fourth season of a $20m, five-year contract when charges against the pitchers were revealed in November 2025.

Ortiz, 27, had earned $782,600 as a starting pitcher for the Guardians during the 2025 season.

The pitchers have been charged with wire fraud conspiracy, honest services wire fraud conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to influence sporting contests by bribery.

Defence lawyers are expected to argue that the pitchers did not collude with gamblers and instead were varying the placement of pitches strategically to fool batters.

On Friday, the judge ruled that prosecutors cannot show the jury proof that Clase owed $500,000 in US taxes because they had only provided the evidence to defence lawyers several days earlier and long after a deadline had passed to turn over evidence to their adversaries.

A prosecutor had argued that the government wanted to put the evidence in the trial to offset any claim by Clase’s lawyers that he had no incentive to collude with gamblers because he had several million dollars in financial accounts in the Dominican Republic.

MLB and the Guardians have said they have fully cooperated with authorities. MLB said it contacted federal law enforcement when it began investigating unusual betting activity.