Merz sceptical Trump will change tack after US mid-term vote

The Democrats won a majority in both chambers of Congress during the US midterm elections. That means they gained control of the two legislative bodies that shape federal laws and oversee national policy. The result was described as historic because Republicans suffered a major defeat, called a “blue wave” in the article.

The victory also gives Democrats a stronger platform to challenge President Donald Trump. Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said the party would likely try to shift the political course of the United States. Control of both chambers lets Democrats set priorities, hold hearings, and press the administration on contested policies.

The immediate impact remains uncertain. Chancellor Friedrich Merz argued Trump could keep governing through executive orders, despite the election. Wadephul was more hopeful, pointing to possible new initiatives on Middle East and Ukraine conflicts, plus renewed debate over US aid to Ukraine.

US midterm elections are national elections held midway through a president’s term. Voters choose members of Congress, including representatives and senators, rather than choosing the president directly. The elections can change which party controls Congress while the sitting president remains in office.

That differs from a presidential election, which determines who leads the executive branch. In the situation described here, Donald Trump remained president after voters produced a Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress. The result therefore changed the legislature’s balance without replacing him as president.

This distinction explains the debate among German officials. Johann Wadephul saw the Democratic victory as a possible opening for new policies. Friedrich Merz was less optimistic because Trump had governed largely through executive orders during the previous two years. The election changed Congress, but not the presidency or Trump’s authority to act within executive powers.

Holding a majority in both chambers gives a party substantial influence over Congress. It can usually decide which bills receive attention, organize committees, conduct hearings, and investigate government actions. It also gains a stronger position when negotiating with the president over national policy.

In this case, Democratic control could create pressure on Trump over Ukraine, the Middle East, and tariffs. Wadephul said lawmakers from both parties might discuss restoring or expanding attention to US aid for Ukraine, which had been slashed under Trump. Democrats could also use hearings and legislation to challenge executive decisions.

A congressional majority is powerful but not unlimited. The president remains in office and can reject legislation through a veto. Congress may sometimes overcome that veto with a large enough majority, but ordinary control of both chambers does not automatically impose the majority’s preferred policies. That is why Merz doubted the election would transform Trump’s governing style.

Friedrich Merz’s argument rests on Trump’s established governing pattern. He said that, over the previous two years, Trump had largely bypassed Congress. Because the president had already relied on executive orders, Merz saw little reason to expect a Democratic victory to produce a sudden change.

The key mechanism is executive action. Executive orders direct parts of the federal government and can let a president pursue policies without first winning a new law in Congress. Merz said Trump had used them “most of the time” and would continue doing so. That approach can reduce the immediate effect of congressional opposition.

Merz’s view contrasts with Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul’s optimism. Wadephul believed Democrats might shift America’s political course and create room for fresh initiatives on Ukraine and Middle East conflicts. The disagreement reflects uncertainty: Congress changed hands, but Trump’s presidency and his preferred governing tool did not.

An executive order is a formal instruction from the president to executive-branch officials. It tells government agencies how to carry out policies within the president’s legal authority. Unlike legislation, it does not require both chambers of Congress to pass a bill before taking effect.

That helps explain Merz’s criticism. The German chancellor said Trump had governed by bypassing Congress and relied on executive orders “most of the time.” Such orders can move policy quickly when Congress opposes the president or refuses to act. Agencies then implement the directive, subject to legal and institutional limits.

Executive orders are not unlimited laws. They must rest on constitutional or statutory authority and can be challenged in court, restricted by Congress, or replaced by a later president. In this article’s context, they allow Trump to continue acting despite Democratic control of Congress. That is why Merz expects the election to have less effect on presidential policymaking than Wadephul hopes.

Democratic control of Congress could change the policy debate, especially on foreign conflicts and trade. Johann Wadephul hoped the clear Democratic victory would encourage new initiatives to end conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine. He also expected US aid for Ukraine to receive more discussion from lawmakers of both parties.

The mechanism is congressional influence over public debate, legislation, and funding decisions. Wadephul linked close US-European cooperation to a possible fresh conflict-resolution initiative. He also said Ukraine aid, which Trump had slashed, might become a stronger subject of congressional discussion. Lawmakers could therefore pressure the administration or seek different priorities.

Tariffs may also become politically important. Wadephul said Trump’s tariffs and the US war against Iran appeared to raise living costs and may have helped drive the election result. Still, the article does not say tariffs will definitely end or change. Merz’s warning suggests Trump could continue using executive orders despite congressional opposition.

Separation of powers divides US government authority between the president and Congress. The president leads the executive branch and carries out laws. Congress writes legislation, sets national priorities, and oversees the administration. Neither side normally has complete control over the other.

The article shows this tension clearly. Democrats won majorities in both chambers, giving them greater influence over legislation and congressional discussion. Yet Trump remained president and could continue using executive orders. Merz therefore argued that the election might not change how Trump governs, even though Wadephul expected Congress to seek a new political course.

The system encourages negotiation but can also produce conflict. Congress may challenge executive policies through legislation, oversight, or funding decisions. The president may reject legislation or act through lawful executive authority. In the article, this balance creates uncertainty over Ukraine aid, Middle East diplomacy, and tariffs. A Democratic Congress can alter pressure and debate, but it cannot simply replace presidential authority.