In brief
With Democrats poised to control Congress, they could push war‑powers resolutions, roll back tariffs, and increase aid to Ukraine, but the president’s veto power and the absence of a supermajority could blunt those efforts. European leaders remain cautiously hopeful of stronger ties, while political polarization continues to heighten uncertainty about future U.S. foreign policy. The piece outlines what is known and what remains unresolved about the potential shifts.
When the November 5, 2026 midterm elections concluded, the Democratic Party secured a sweeping victory that could give it substantial leverage over President Donald Trump’s foreign policy. The new Congress is expected to scrutinize the administration’s actions on Iran and Ukraine and seek to roll back some of its tariff measures. However, Trump’s veto authority and the lack of a supermajority in the House and Senate are likely to limit the pace and scope of these changes.
One of the most debated issues is the United States’ military engagement with Iran. According to Xinhua, Republican losses in the elections have intensified questions about the war that President Trump began shortly after taking office. White House officials and Republican allies have said the conflict contributed to the party’s defeats, a view echoed in the Washington Post’s reporting. Trump himself said he did not regret launching the war but acknowledged that “the war was partly responsible for the party’s losses.” Democrats may use war‑powers resolutions, the “power of the purse,” or appropriations to place pressure on the administration to end the conflict.
"The American people don't know what the heck we're fighting for in Iran," said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. He later added that controlling federal spending is “one of the ways of deterring a president who does war without the consent of the American people."
California’s Representative Jason Crow, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, noted that lawmakers had already voted on seven war‑related resolutions, with two passing. He urged the new majority to continue holding such votes, seeing them as a key tool for congressional oversight. Still, the passage of these measures does not automatically terminate military operations, because their effectiveness depends on both congressional support for war‑powers provisions and the president’s willingness to negotiate.
Beyond the Middle East, Democrats may also seek to roll back tariffs that President Trump imposed on several countries. The elected majority could use the appropriations process to influence trade policy and push for a return to more traditional agreements. The GOP’s defeat in the midterms suggests that many voters may be wary of the tariff strategy, providing a political opening for Democratic trade officials to frame such measures as protectionist and costly.
Support for Ukraine is another area where the new Congress could make a difference. Democrats have promised stronger aid to the country amid Russia’s invasion. A Democratic-controlled House and Senate could increase funding, push for tighter oversight of the aid, and use congressional diplomacy to reinforce NATO commitments. European leaders view a stronger U.S. stance positively but remain cautious about sudden policy shifts that could undermine stability in the region.
Despite these possibilities, the scope of congressional influence is constrained by several factors. Trump’s veto power remains intact, allowing the president to block laws that move too far from his priorities. Additionally, the absence of a supermajority in favor of any single agenda means that successful legislation requires bipartisan compromise, a difficult task in a polarized Washington.
While Democrats are poised to use the power of the purse, war‑powers resolutions, and appropriations hearings to shape foreign policy, it is still unclear whether any of these tools will lead to substantive changes in the administration’s approach. The fact that major policy domains—Iran, trade, Ukraine—are under intense debate, and that the president’s veto thresholds remain high, means that the actual outcomes will depend on negotiations that have yet to take place. European leaders, for example, can remain hopeful but are awaiting the results of congressional deliberations. The ambiguity surrounding the interaction between the new Congress and the executive branch constitutes the primary uncertainty at this stage.
