US midterms 2026: Democrats eye Congress takeover as anti-Israel progressives seek power

Midterm elections are nationwide congressional elections held halfway through a president’s term. Voters choose members of the House and Senate, along with governors and many state and local officials. The president remains in office, but Congress may change hands.

The key mechanism is party control of each chamber. The party with more seats controls the chamber’s agenda and committees. It can advance legislation, influence budgets, investigate the administration, and affect presidential appointments. In this election, all 435 House seats and 35 Senate seats are contested.

That makes the vote a direct test of Trump’s second-term power. Republicans currently control both chambers, but forecasts gave Democrats a 92% chance of winning the House and a 71% chance of winning the Senate. Even if Democrats win both, Trump would remain president. He would instead face a potentially hostile Congress during the second half of his term.

The elections cover every seat in the House and 35 of the Senate’s 100 seats. Two of those Senate contests are special elections. Voters are also choosing governors in 36 states and thousands of state and local representatives.

Republicans start with control of both congressional chambers. Their House majority is narrow, while their Senate advantage is 53-47. That Senate count includes two independents who caucus with Democrats, so the Democratic caucus has 47 seats in total. The size of each chamber matters because it determines which party controls votes, committees, and the legislative agenda.

The starting advantage does not guarantee victory. Harry Enten’s final forecast projected 237 House seats for Democrats and 198 for Republicans. It also projected a 52-48 Democratic Senate majority. The forecast stressed probability, not certainty, because Republicans had previously outperformed polls in several states.

To control the House, Democrats must win enough seats to move from the Republican majority to a majority of the 435 seats. The article describes that advantage as narrow, but it does not give the exact number of Republican House seats that must change hands. The required gain therefore depends on the final starting balance.

The Senate target is clearer. Republicans hold 53 seats, while Democrats and two allied independents hold 47. Democrats need a net gain of four seats to reach a 51-seat majority. That would give them control of the chamber, assuming the reported party alignment remains unchanged.

Forecasts suggested Democrats could achieve both goals. Harry Enten gave Democrats a 92% chance of winning the House and a 71% chance of winning the Senate. His projection was 237 Democratic House seats and a 52-48 Democratic Senate majority. He warned that these were probabilities, not promises.

Congress controls whether many presidential proposals become law. If Democrats controlled one or both chambers, they could refuse to advance Trump’s bills, demand changes, or block them through votes. They could also make budget approvals more difficult, creating another obstacle for his administration.

The article gives several concrete consequences. A hostile Congress could block legislative initiatives and launch investigations into Trump’s administration. Democratic control of the Senate would add a separate power: lawmakers could delay or prevent confirmation of senior appointments sought by the president.

Trump would not be removed from office by a Democratic victory. He would remain president, but the second half of his term could become more confrontational. The practical result would depend on whether Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, or both. Control of both chambers would give Democrats broader leverage over laws, funding, investigations, and appointments.

The House and Senate have different electoral dynamics. Every House seat is contested, so control can shift through many competitive districts. The Senate has only 35 seats on the ballot, and Democrats need a net gain of four. A small group of races can therefore determine the entire chamber.

The Cook Political Report rated seven Senate contests as toss-ups: Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas. Neither party held a clear advantage in those races. If several went to Democrats, they could reach the four-seat gain needed for control. If Republicans held enough of them, Democrats could fall short.

The House forecast showed a substantial chance of a change in control, with Democrats projected to win 237 seats. Senate control remained more concentrated in a handful of close contests. That is why the Senate battle depends heavily on individual state outcomes, even while the House is contested nationwide.

The dispute centers on Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the future of US military support. Abdul El-Sayed accuses Israel of committing genocide, supports restrictions on US military assistance, and criticizes Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Other Democrats, including Haley Stevens, are described as staunch supporters of Israel and reject what they view as antisemitic messaging.

Michigan turned those disagreements into a public party rupture. Stevens lost the Democratic primary to El-Sayed, then chose to appear with Republican Mike Rogers instead of attending a unity event. She objected to an independent group’s advertisement linking US living costs to aid for Israel. El-Sayed said his campaign did not produce it and disagreed with its messages.

The race matters beyond one Senate seat. It became a contest over the Democratic Party’s identity, including how it discusses Israel, antisemitism, Gaza, and military aid. The article presents this conflict as a major example of tensions facing Democratic candidates and voters.

Checks and balances divide federal power between the presidency and Congress. The president proposes policies and leads the executive branch, but Congress must pass laws and approve funding. This forces the administration to negotiate with lawmakers, especially when the opposing party controls a chamber.

The article identifies four key mechanisms. Congress can block legislative initiatives, complicate budget approvals, and launch investigations into the administration. The Senate can also delay or prevent confirmation of senior presidential appointments. These powers let lawmakers influence both policy and the people who carry it out.

A Democratic victory would therefore limit Trump without ending his presidency. He would remain in the White House, but a hostile Congress could obstruct his agenda and scrutinize his administration. Control of one chamber would create barriers; control of both would give Democrats wider influence over legislation, funding, investigations, and appointments.