Grigory Yavlinsky on the results of the US midterm elections

Grigory Yavlinsky’s website, 6.11.2026

The results of the US midterm elections have been a serious political defeat for Donald Trump. The Democratic Party has won a convincing victory and gained full control of both houses of the US Congress. What is more, the Democrats have achieved historic successes in gubernatorial and Senate races in many key states. According to Reuters, almost 90% of voters named the cost of living as the main reason for their vote. Around two-thirds of those polled directly blamed Trump and his tariff policy for the deterioration in their financial situation. This points to deep dissatisfaction among a large part of American society with the socio-economic situation in the country and, consequently, with the policies of the current president.

What conclusion follows from this? How will US policy change? And what will happen in world politics in general?

THE UNLEARNT LESSON

Back in November 2020, after Joe Biden’s victory, I wrote about (“Trump Wins Even in Defeat”).

My point then was that Trumpism was not a chance phenomenon linked to the personality of one politician, but a manifestation of a deep crisis of the modern political system: the collapse of public trust and the rise of nationalism, populism and radicalism. Six years ago, Trump’s defeat was merely an intermediate stage on the way to power for even more radical political forces. Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 only confirmed this.

To regard the Democrats’ current victory as a victory for substantive and forward-looking politics is a dangerous illusion. After 2020, a similar illusion became the prologue to Trump’s triumphant return. Opportunities were missed then, and it seems the same may happen now.

In these elections, American voters expressed their dissatisfaction with economic hardship, the rising cost of living, and Trump’s contradictory and fruitless decisions, including, for example, the strange affair with Venezuela, the uncertain prospects with Iran, the domestic confrontation over migrants, and much more. All this led to the Republicans’ current defeat. Trump promised Americans prosperity, security and an end to wars. None of this has happened, and that is what has caused the discontent.

In essence, this result is based on a protest vote driven by socio-economic motives. However, these motives do not touch on the deep-seated problems of today’s domestic and foreign policy.

NEW CONGRESS, OLD PROBLEMS

Today’s political prospects, and the problems of achieving them, actually go much deeper than economic troubles or even the peculiarities of the president’s public behaviour.

At the same time, today’s American Democrats have neither a leader, nor a substantive position on major policy, nor a programme. There are particular, tactical considerations, but there is no vision of the prospects of American society and its future, or of US policy as one of the world’s leading powers. What serious policy changes will there be, if any? That is absolutely unclear. In the foreground are “special” Democratic figures, such as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani or newly elected Michigan Senator Abdul El-Sayed. Their political success reflects a growing demand for radical change, disillusionment with traditional political institutions and distrust of the establishment. However, the emergence of such figures in politics means that left-wing populism is becoming the answer to right-wing populism, and instead of overcoming the divisions in society, America faces their further deepening.

Replacing strategy with tactics is one of the key problems not only of American politics, but also of today’s European politics.

There are probably fundamental differences between the far right and the radical left. However, political danger arises in both cases when abstract ideological intransigence replaces substantive politics, compromise is seen as betrayal, and the most complex problems of modern society are supposed to be solved with simple slogans and radical methods.

The “blue wave”, the share of the vote won by the Democrats, is certainly impressive. But a victory for opponents of the current administration in the midterm elections is a common occurrence in American politics.

Can we claim that the Republicans’ defeat in the latest elections will weaken Trumpism within the Republican Party? No.

Can we already say how the winners will use their success to develop a new policy? What is their position on the nuclear threat and artificial intelligence? Here, too, the answer is no.

Trump’s defeat does not mean the defeat of Trumpism. The Democrats’ victory does not mean the victory of moderate and responsible politics.

And as long as both sides move further and further away from a substantive discussion of real problems, the danger of new, even more radical political leaders emerging will only grow.

A DANGEROUS PROSPECT

As a result, the American political system risks finding itself in a situation where each successive election only increases polarisation in society. Even today, it is completely unclear who may come to power in the 2028 presidential election.

It could be a new, even more radical and unpredictable Trump-like figure. For example, a representative of the new American technocrats (such as Peter Thiel and Elon Musk), US Vice President JD Vance, who is already distancing himself from the current administration’s policies, saying that the reason for the Republicans’ defeat was the war in Iran and relations with Israel, and that those who supported all this “lost” Congress to the Democrats. But it could also be an equally unpredictable representative of the Democrats’ radical left wing: a Mamdani-like figure.

Much will depend on the position taken by the leaders in the creation and spread of high technology and artificial intelligence from Silicon Valley, with whom Trump has done a great deal to forge an alliance. By the time of the next election, incidentally, artificial intelligence and social media may well become the decisive factor. And what will happen then? None of these scenarios gives grounds for hope that life will return to normal or that a positive future will be secured.

At the same time, the Republicans’ defeat in these elections may further intensify political confrontation. Over the next two years, Trump will not be a “lame duck” but a loose cannon. Even with an opposition-controlled House and Senate (where the Democrats still lack the two-thirds majority needed to override the president), Trump has enough powers to pursue his line, and in two years he could do a great deal of damage, given his very peculiar ideas about life and politics. The stand-off between the White House and Congress could lead to the paralysis of government, further radicalisation of the political struggle and a deepening of the divisions in American society.

For Europe and the whole world, such a prospect is extremely dangerous. The United States remains the key power in the international system. But a country that lacks a stable political consensus on fundamental issues of domestic and foreign policy cannot ensure the necessary consistency and predictability in international relations.

This could have particularly serious consequences for the hostilities between Russia and Ukraine. The weakening of Trump’s position and the strengthening of the Democrats could change the American approach to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, but this in itself does nothing to bring its resolution closer. Increasing military aid to Ukraine without a clear political perspective is not a strategy for ending the war. At the same time, attempts to reach a quick agreement without an understanding of the future of Russia, Ukraine and the entire European security system cannot ensure a lasting peace either. It is a dangerous illusion to think that it is now possible to “wait out” the two years until the change of administration in the White House.

For the fifth year now, I have been stating, both privately and publicly, that a comprehensive ceasefire agreement is urgently needed, together with the simultaneous start of substantive negotiations on a long-term political perspective for Russia, Ukraine and Europe as a whole. This is not simply about stopping the fighting, but about creating conditions that rule out a repetition of the current tragedy and open up a real prospect for the future. However, the growing radicalisation of American politics may make this task even more difficult.

THE MAIN THREAT

When assessing the results of the American elections, we must understand that we are living through an extremely dangerous period. The ongoing war in Europe, the destruction of international institutions, the growing confrontation between nuclear powers and the rapid development of new technologies, against the background of the end of the 80-year post-war political era, create threats that cannot be removed simply by a change in the parliamentary majority or the president.

The main lesson of the latest US elections is that democratic institutions still retain the ability to limit power, but limiting power does not mean overcoming the crisis that has led to its current state.

The destruction of the world political order created after the Second World War, the descent of international relations into chaos and, above all, the complete absence of any substantive idea of the desired future – all these phenomena, extremely destructive for politics, – persist. But the world will never be the same again: nothing will go back to how it was. It is important to understand this.

Everything that is happening, including in the United States, is the result of a combination of two key factors: the end of the previous political era, and the absence of politicians with vision and an understanding of the future at the level where fundamental decisions are made. However, politicians who live not only outside the future but often outside today’s reality as well keep trying to recreate something resembling the old order. But the old order will never return.

If policy is shaped by the goals of the past, for example by trying to build a bipolar “China–US” system, without understanding what future we need to strive for, the result will be a painful and dangerous anti-perspective: a version of  “as before” politics, an “again policy”, signs of which we are already seeing today.

Moreover, the countries of the so-called Third World are becoming increasingly important today thanks to demographic changes and their growing sense of purpose and motivation. These players will seek to influence the global agenda, and that will be a very difficult story.

The way out of this special historical situation, the end of the previous era, requires not just another victory of one old political force over a nominally different one, but a fundamentally different kind of politics, one that fits the middle of the 21st century. In other words, it must be based on the main principles: the preservation of human life, freedom and creativity. This is a politics of respect for the individual, responsibility and modern professionalism. And above all, it is a politics with a clear idea of the future.

Clearly, this applies not only to the United States. It is also a question of the future of Russia, Ukraine, Europe and the whole world.

So, the results of the 2026 US midterm elections improve neither the American nor the global situation, and do not open up any positive prospects. Trump’s victorious defeat goes on.

Source