---

As the saying goes, Americans have indeed spoken in the 2026 midterms. The Democratic Party’s victory in both houses of Congress means not only the end of President Donald Trump’s absolute dominance, but also dramatic changes for Washington and potentially for the world. President Trump will now face a divided government until the end of his term. Nevertheless, the results of this year’s midterms have much broader implications for America than just division of power in Congress.

Democrats’ sweeping victory in traditionally Republican states of Texas, Ohio, Kansas, North Carolina, and others demonstrates the depth of disappointment of Americans with Trump’s administration. James Talarico’s victory in Texas and Sherrod Brown’s in Ohio are especially significant in this regard. However, reducing this event to an ideological swing towards the Democrats would mean failing to understand the real message Americans sent.

American voters made their decision mostly based on their personal economic situation. Inflation, rising gas prices, expensive groceries, and worries about their financial situation dominate Americans’ view of the administration’s political agenda. According to exit polling, about 39 percent of voters consider the economy the most important topic in this election, while almost one-third believes in the current state of democracy. Economic frustrations and worries about the state of institutions reinforced each other.

This is a very important lesson for any government. Governments can boast about their investment programmes, employment numbers, and growth of the stock market, but voters assess economic success through their purchasing power and economic safety. If people feel they cannot maintain their living standards, no impressive macroeconomic narrative matters.

Foreign policy entered this election directly through the average voter’s budget. US military involvement in the war with Iran and Trump’s tariff policies became a source of worry about prices, inflation, and economic uncertainty. Polls demonstrated that there is strong disapproval among Americans of the American military involvement in Iran. For many people, the link between military operations abroad and hard times at home becomes clear.

The administration’s political appeal has been partly based on promises made by Trump to avoid long, expensive military actions abroad, and put American interests first. Military involvement in Iran becomes a serious complication for this approach. However, this does not mean the midterm election should be seen as a call for Americans to embrace isolationism. Voters can oppose specific military actions but still reject internationalism entirely.

The election’s consequences for America’s internal situation could be dramatic too. A Democratic Congress opens the door to investigation, closer scrutiny of executive decisions, and budget oversight. The Trump administration’s plans for future work will be challenged, and budget negotiations may become highly contentious.

However, a divided government does not necessarily mean a dysfunctional government. The American political system is built on confrontation among institutions and limits on power. Scrutiny by Congress can strengthen democratic accountability, but only if it does not turn into permanent confrontation. Democrats should also show they can govern, not just obstruct the administration.

However, the international implications of this event should be considered as well. For Europe, this result could mean increased congressional support for transatlantic relations and Ukraine, but disagreements over defense spending and strategic priorities will continue. In the Middle East, Congress could require more transparency about American military operations, their financial costs, and the possibilities of diplomatic resolution. However, Congress cannot fully revise American foreign policy because the president has broad authority over diplomacy and national security.

The issue of China is another example of complications in relations. Despite differences in rhetoric and strategic actions, competition with China has quite broad bipartisan support in Washington. This means the midterm result is unlikely to change the overall strategy towards Beijing. Instead, disagreements will likely arise about tariffs, technological restrictions, alliance-building, and the balance between confrontation and cooperation with China.

For the international community, the bigger question is that of predictability. America’s decisions on trade, security, and international institutions have an impact far beyond its borders. Political confrontation in Washington could raise uncertainty about budgets, development assistance, and international obligations. However, closer scrutiny of Congress could contribute to more consultations and continuity in some areas of foreign policy.

Bangladesh should consider these events without taking a partisan position in American politics. Relations with Washington should be based not on the political preferences of any administration or political party, but on permanent national interests. There are many opportunities for cooperation on trade, investment, labour standards, maritime cooperation, technology, and regional security. Besides, Bangladesh should understand that the bipartisan concerns about institutions, human rights, and economic governance will continue to shape American foreign policy. It is important to build institutional relations, diversify partnerships, and expand cooperation across the political spectrum to pursue sustainable diplomacy.

For the Democrats, there is a test. Election victories achieved largely because of dissatisfaction with the incumbent administration do not automatically build public trust in the Democrats’ alternative programme. Now they should offer a credible alternative on affordability, migration, health care, and international relations. Otherwise, today’s successes could be temporary.

Trump faces an important limit on his presidential power, but not the end of his political influence. His executive power remains strong, and the Republican Party has a big constituency. Therefore, the next two years could be characterised by either increased institutional confrontation or bipartisan agreement.

In general, this US midterm election has demonstrated a democratic truth: the political mandate is never unconditional or eternal. Economic concerns, controversial foreign interventions, and worries about accountability can change electorates even in highly polarised societies. American voters have changed Congress. The future success of this change depends on Washington’s actions.

Zillur Rahman is a political analyst, President of the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS) and Founding Board Chair of CGS USA. He hosts Tritiyo Matra on Channel i and writes on geopolitics, strategic affairs and governance. Follow him on X: @zillur.

This News was publish on the Daily Star.
Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.