Back in the day, when Americans got their news from the same sources and defended their differing opinions from the same set of facts, national landslide elections were common — 1984 for Ronald Reagan (when he won 49 of 50 states), 1972 for Nixon, 1964 for Johnson, Eisenhower’s and FDR’s wins. Democrats’ across the board victory in Tuesday’s midterms, given the economic conditions, President Trump’s open corruption, and his wildly erratic behavior, is exactly what would have happened in those pre-social media elections, yet something that no longer seemed possible. It’s heartening that objective facts can still break through our partisan and algorithmic divides.
One of those objective facts is that the Trump administration has been systematically dismantling the sources of American influence and power in the world. Some on both the left and right think this has merely speeded up our inevitable decline. I disagree. America’s economic and military capacity is as great relative to the rest of the world as it’s ever been, and our allies would not be so angry about how Trump has betrayed the values that underpin our power if they didn’t want some version of the old America back.
Serving in elected office also convinced me that foreign policy matters politically, even if it’s rarely the main issue in American elections. It obviously matters when bad foreign policy choices, like Trump’s tariffs and Iran war, make everything Americans buy more expensive. But from time to time, voters also care deeply about questions of morality, honor, and how our country is perceived in the world. Most Americans, for example, wanted Joe Biden to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, but when they saw the inevitable consequences of leaving our Afghan allies behind, they were repelled. They don’t want to waste money on stupid wars; most don’t want their taxes subsidizing the killing of civilians in Gaza; but almost all support military aid to Ukraine. Their concern about Trump’s corruption absolutely extends to his crooked deals abroad.
The voters’ foreign policy mandate to victorious Democrats is not a focus-only-on-the-home-front version of Trump’s “America First.” It is for leadership that is wiser, more responsible, and more consistent with their values and interests.
So what can Democrats in Congress do with that mandate with Trump still in the White House?
Let’s start with both sides’ structural strengths and weaknesses. The president commands the military. He controls day-to-day foreign policy. He can act instantly when he chooses, unlike a deliberative body of 535 members. He can veto any bill Congress passes.
But Trump’s massive political defeat Tuesday weakens his authority in less tangible ways. Consider, for example, his reported plan to hold a summit meeting with Russian President Putin and Chinese President Xi to discuss Ukraine. If any previous president had suggested aligning America with the world’s two authoritarian superpowers to decide the fate of a friendly democracy, it would have been a seismic shift in world affairs. If Trump does it now, he will be criticized but not taken as seriously — because it’s clear he doesn’t have the backing of Americans or the ability to follow through on most of his crazy ideas.
Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress will have advantages in the majority that they lacked in the minority. They will write the first drafts of bills that must pass and that Trump will eventually (even if Democrats must negotiate with him) have to sign — like the annual Defense Authorization bill and government funding bills — and can attach provisions to those bills that Trump might have vetoed if passed on their own. They will control what bills and amendments House and Senate members vote on, and can craft provisions Republicans will have a hard time opposing. Their huge margin of their victory also will put them close to the 60 vote margin needed to overcome Senate filibuster, and prevents any small faction within the party from holding their leaders hostage.
Let’s look at what this could mean on some key issues.
Iran: Early in January, Democrats will pass resolutions under the War Powers Act to end the war. Trump will veto them. The real fight will be over funding for the Pentagon.
The administration is currently asking the lame duck GOP Congress to pass a huge military budget increase under budget reconciliation rules (which bypass the filibuster). This will likely fail, because enough Republicans, particularly retiring and defeated moderates, are pissed off with Trump, including over the war and his dealings with Russia. If so, passing a military funding bill will fall to Democrats next year. They’ll still need to get a few Republican votes in the Senate, and then to send Trump something he’ll find politically hard to veto. One possibility would be to accept a much higher military budget than progressives want -- which will be needed, like it or not, to replenish the munitions the administration recklessly wasted in the war -- in exchange for funding restrictions for all but defense of US troops and allies (i.e. no offensive strikes on Iran) and of shipping in the Gulf.
But remember — Iran gets a vote, too, and may seek to restart the war for its own advantage. This is the mess Trump created, which will challenge even the finest successor in 2029.
Ukraine/Russia: I would not be surprised to see some of those departing ornery Republicans work with Democrats to limit Trump’s ability to lift sanctions on Russia, and to speed up provision of air defenses to Ukraine, during the remaining lame duck session. They could do so by adding language to a Defense Department Authorization bill that is expected to pass (as distinct from the military funding bill). Next year, Democrats could restore some aid to Ukraine through the government funding process, and force votes prohibiting whatever corrupt schemes Trump’s self-dealing “peace negotiators” cook up, whether U.S. investments in Russian oil assets, or sanctions “waivers” that benefit business partners of Trump’s relatives. Such votes could possibly get veto-proof margins.
Congressional investigations of Trump’s corruption should also deter further efforts to trade Ukrainian freedom for Russian money — threatening letters from Democrats alone have already scared off ships bearing Russian diesel from docking in the U.S. And if Trump dumps Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense, the Senate would likely block any successor who does not commit to continued intelligence sharing with Ukraine and access to the military Starlink (or “Starshield”) drone guidance system, even if it makes Elon Musk sad.
In short, Trump might still want to sell out Ukraine and kiss up to Putin. But he’ll have fewer cards to play.
Israel: Trump said on election day that he wanted to zero out military aid to Israel immediately (citing Israeli PM Netanyahu’s desire to do so gradually). Who knows if he means it. But this suggests a possible agreement with Democrats to drop such aid from next year’s State Department funding bill, as most Americans would now support. U.S. aid to the military dictatorship in Egypt would — and should — be at risk in this scenario, too. The money would likely not come home to America (despite campaign rhetoric to that effect), but be used to rebuild the global foreign aid programs Musk and Trump shattered. Democrats will also likely pass a bill imposing sanctions on those responsible for Israeli settler terrorism.
But much will depend on what kind of government emerges in Israel, and on what it does. I don’t see how Democrats in Congress could continue aid or even arms sales if Netanyahu or his policies remain. If Israel’s opposition forms a government with the backing of Arab parties, reigns in settlers, and signals a real openness to Palestinian self-governance, the Congressional reaction could shift significantly. The burden of preserving the U.S.-Israel relationship will, for once, fall more on Jerusalem than on Washington.
Trade: The powers the Supreme Court is still letting Trump use to impose inflation-raising tariffs on foreign imports are those granted to him by Congress. A majority of members even in the current Republican controlled Congress would support limiting those powers further. A Democratic Congress will seize every chance, using every must-pass bill possible, to put the remaining Republicans on the spot, and make it harder for Trump to raise costs in this way.
I have some more on my wish list. Banning arms sales to the United Arab Emirates till it stops funding genocide in Sudan (kudos here to Senator Chris Van Hollen and Representative Sarah Jacobs, two critics of aid to Israel who have been consistent in holding the UAE accountable, too). Defunding deportation of asylum seekers to the dictatorships Trump pays to take them. Stopping high tech exports to China as part of broad regulation of artificial intelligence.
Congressional Democrats may also need to take on more responsibility for day to day American diplomacy. This is unprecedented, and uncomfortable territory. We can only have one commander in chief at a time. But when the current one is so disdained, when his pronouncements are so disjointed and erratic that foreign countries increasingly ignore them, someone has to fill the vacuum. During Trump’s first term, House Democrats negotiated directly with Mexico to save a trade agreement Trump was seeking. Could they spend the next two years mapping out the contours of agreements the next president could sign with U.S. allies in Europe and Asia on the future of trade, on tech regulation, on climate policy, and on security arrangements to deter Russia and China? I hope so.
We may get just one more chance to restore America’s moral reputation and capacity to lead in the world, in a way that respects the message voters sent on Tuesday. Congressional Democrats will be in charge of the trial run. So, no pressure!
Tom Malinowski is a former member of Congress from New Jersey who was an assistant secretary of state in the Obama administration.
