The Democratic Earthquake: A vote of No Confidence in Trump, But Will America’s Policies Really Change?

By Frank Ofili

If anyone has noticed, I have, for some time now, reduced my political commentary on Nigeria. What I see in the national political landscape hardly provides much encouragement. There is simply too much politics and too little governance; too much propaganda, deception, subterfuge, arm-twisting and blackmail. The economy, too, continues to struggle under the weight of persistent difficulties.

Perhaps that explains why my attention has increasingly shifted to developments elsewhere, particularly in the United States and the Middle East, where events have significant implications for global politics, security and the economy.

The United States holds a special interest for me for obvious reasons. There are striking similarities between the propaganda machinery of President Donald Trump and that of some political actors in Nigeria. Their approaches to political communication, governance and the management of public perception sometimes appear remarkably familiar. I do not know whether Chicago has anything to do with this coincidence, but the similarities are difficult to ignore.

Against this background, the outcome of the November 3, 2026, American midterm elections deserves attention, not least because it offers an interesting perspective on how electorates can respond to the performance of incumbent governments.

Another reason for my interest is the remarkable performance of Nigerian-Americans in the elections. Fourteen compatriots of Nigerian descent have reportedly won elective positions across various American states and local government jurisdictions. They include Segun Adeyina, Solomon Adesanya, Will Jawando, Esther Agbaje, Ukeme Awakessien-Jeter, Junior Ezeonu, Olaleye Onikuyide, Gabe Okoye, Phil Olaleye, Justin Onwenu, Janelle Anyanonu, Carol Kazeem, Odus Evbagharha and Oye Owolewa.

Congratulations to these worthy ambassadors of the Motherland. May you represent the blood, body and soul of the Green-White-Green with distinction, notwithstanding the shortcomings of the country of your ancestry.

Now to the main course.

The outcome of the American mid-term elections is nothing short of a political earthquake. The Democratic Party has wrested control of both chambers of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, from the Republicans. It is a major electoral setback for President Donald Trump and his Republican Party.

Although midterm elections do not determine who occupies the White House, they traditionally serve as a referendum on the performance of the sitting president. Voters frequently use them to express dissatisfaction with an administration halfway through its four-year tenure.

I expect Democrats to pursue a more measured approach, with greater emphasis on due process, humane treatment and distinguishing serious criminal offenders from other undocumented migrants. But a wholesale abandonment of immigration enforcement is unlikely.

This particular outcome, however, goes beyond the usual mid-term correction. Democrats made substantial gains, including in constituencies previously considered Republican strong-holds. The results suggest widespread dissatisfaction with Trump’s leadership, particularly his economic policies, the cost of living, immigration enforcement and the increasingly contentious war with Iran. Concerns about governance and the direction of American democracy also contributed to the political atmosphere.

It is difficult to interpret such a comprehensive electoral reversal as anything other than a serious rejection of Trump’s governing approach. But does it necessarily mean that America is about to change direction fundamentally? That is where the story becomes more complicated.

The first distinction we must make is between the political fortunes of an administration and the enduring strategic interests of the American state. Presidents come and go, political parties exchange power, but America’s determination to preserve its global influence and strategic position remains remarkably consistent.

Republican and Democratic administrations may disagree over diplomatic methods, military interventions, international alliances and the use of economic power. Nevertheless, both parties have historically pursued American strategic interests, although sometimes through considerably different approaches.

Consequently, Democrats controlling Congress should not be mistaken for America abandoning its established foreign policy orientation. What is more likely is a change in emphasis, greater scrutiny of presidential decisions and adjustments in the methods through which American interests are pursued.

Immigration provides a particularly interesting illustration of this policy continuity.

Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement, deportation programme and border restrictions have attracted considerable criticism. Yet it would be premature to assume that Democrats will dismantle the entire enforcement framework.

Consider the controversial Title 42 policy introduced by the Trump administration in March 2020. Using public health powers during the COVID-19 pandemic, the administration facilitated the rapid expulsion of migrants arriving at America’s borders, including asylum seekers, thereby restricting access to normal asylum procedures.

When Joe Biden succeeded Trump in January 2021, his Democratic administration did not immediately abolish the policy. It retained and continued enforcing Title 42 for more than two years before finally terminating it on May 11, 2023, following the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

Back home in Nigeria, then Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) chieftain, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, mobilized a broad coalition of opposition forces to oppose Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) President Goodluck Jonathan’s attempt to remove petroleum subsidy. They succeeded, but on inauguration day as elected President in 2023, the same Tinubu famously declared that “subsidy is gone”.

The lesson is instructive: political parties may criticise policies while in opposition, but the realities of governance sometimes compel them to retain aspects of those same policies when they assume power.

Immigration enforcement in the US is not exclusively a Republican concern. Border security, national security, employment and pressure on public infrastructure are issues that resonate across party lines. Furthermore, the American economy depends considerably on immigrant labour in agriculture, construction, hospitality and healthcare.

I therefore expect Democrats to pursue a more measured approach, with greater emphasis on due process, humane treatment and distinguishing serious criminal offenders from other undocumented migrants. But a wholesale abandonment of immigration enforcement is unlikely. In other words, the method may change without necessarily changing the principle.

Trump’s economic policies, particularly his extensive reliance on tariffs, are another area likely to attract considerable congressional resistance. Tariffs can protect selected domestic industries, but they can also increase import costs, affect consumers and create uncertainty for businesses.

With Democrats controlling both chambers from January 2027, Trump’s trade and economic policies will face much greater scrutiny. Healthcare costs, household purchasing power, inflation and affordability will also feature prominently in the opposition’s legislative agenda.

However, Democrats should not mistake congressional control for control of the economy. Trump remains president, retains considerable executive authority over trade and has the constitutional power to veto legislation. The likely outcome is therefore prolonged political confrontation, legislative bargaining and selective policy adjustments rather than an immediate reversal of his economic philosophy.

Perhaps the most consequential foreign policy challenge will be the war with Iran.

The conflict began on February 28, 2026, when the United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran. It subsequently developed into a wider regional confrontation, with serious consequences for international security, energy markets and global commerce. Although ceasefire and diplomatic initiatives have occurred, efforts to secure a lasting settlement have remained unsuccessful.

The conflict has also become a domestic political liability for Trump, particularly because of its financial implications and the pressure it has placed on energy prices.

Democrats have questioned the legal basis and strategic objectives of the military engagement, including the extent of presidential authority to sustain hostilities without specific congressional authorisation.

Their control of both chambers will give them greater leverage to investigate the administration’s conduct, demand explanations for military expenditure and scrutinise the president’s objectives and exit strategy.

Congress cannot simply terminate a military conflict by political declaration. However, its constitutional powers over military appropriations, authorisation of force and legislative oversight provide significant instruments for challenging the continuation of military operations.

I expect pressure for a diplomatic resolution to intensify. Whether Trump will accept that pressure remains another matter entirely.

America’s relationship with Israel is also likely to attract increased scrutiny. For decades, Israel has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Washington, founded on shared strategic interests, intelligence cooperation, military collaboration and historical ties.

However, support for Israel has become increasingly contentious within the Democratic Party, particularly following the military operations in Gaza and the confrontation with Iran.

Some Democratic lawmakers have questioned unconditional military assistance and demanded greater accountability regarding the use of American-supplied weapons.

Democrats’  control of Congress and Senate will not change America’s foreign policy. Israel will always be an ally and Iran will always be an enemy.

A Democratic-controlled Congress could therefore push for greater scrutiny of arms sales, military assistance and the conditions attached to American support.

Nevertheless, predicting an American abandonment of Israel would be unrealistic. Israel remains an important strategic partner in the Middle East, particularly in intelligence cooperation, missile defence and regional security. The relationship is supported by long-standing strategic and institutional arrangements that transcend individual administrations.

The more plausible outcome is therefore a relationship characterised by greater congressional scrutiny and occasional disagreements, rather than a fundamental rupture.

Ultimately, the biggest consequence of the Democratic victory is that Trump will no longer enjoy the relative freedom associated with having his party control both chambers of Congress. From January 2027, Democrats will control important congressional committees, chairmanships and legislative proceedings. They will have greater powers to investigate the administration, scrutinise expenditure and challenge presidential nominees.

Trump, however, remains president until January 2029. He retains his veto power and considerable executive authority. Democrats will need substantial Republican support to override a presidential veto, which requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

The next two years could therefore witness considerable institutional and political confrontation between the White House and Congress.

There is also a distinction between rejecting Trump and endorsing everything the Democratic Party represents. Democrats have won the opportunity to hold the president accountable, but they must now demonstrate that they can govern effectively and provide practical solutions to the problems that influenced voters.

In conclusion, the 2026 American mid-term elections have demonstrated that even a politically dominant president is not immune to the judgement of the electorate. Trump has suffered a serious political setback. His policies will face greater scrutiny, his legislative agenda will encounter resistance, and his authority within his own party may come under pressure.

But the Democratic victory should not be confused with a fundamental transformation of American national interests.

America’s pursuit of global influence will continue. Its relationship with Israel will survive, even if the terms of engagement become less accommodating. Immigration enforcement will probably be modified rather than dismantled. Trump’s economic policies will face considerable resistance, while the Iran conflict could become the most immediate battle-ground between the White House and the new Congress.

In the final analysis, Democrats have won control of Congress, but they have not captured the presidency or dismantled the institutions and strategic interests that shape American power.

The elephant may have stumbled, but the American state is still standing.

And that, perhaps, is the most important distinction to understand about the outcome of the 2026 mid-term elections.