Why a Democrat-Held Congress in Washington Could Be Bad News for Modi’s India

The midterm elections changed Washington by producing a Democrat-controlled Congress, while Donald Trump remained president. Many Indian observers initially welcomed the result because they expected Congress to place stronger checks on his policymaking. India’s foreign ministry was reportedly cautiously optimistic about gaining more manoeuvring space on immigration, trade, and energy.

Indian immigrants had a direct reason to welcome the shift. Trump’s suspension of PERM applications at major technology companies froze employment-based green card pathways for H-1B holders. Democrats have traditionally supported legal immigration. Six Indian American legislators also appeared likely to convert electoral success into greater influence over India-U.S. policy.

The optimism had limits. Democrats, including Indian American lawmakers, have criticised democratic erosion in India. Congress can investigate and legislate, but Trump can veto bills. The article therefore presents the election as both possible relief for immigrants and a potential source of friction with Narendra Modi’s government.

Checks and balances are safeguards that divide government authority among institutions. In the United States, the president leads the executive branch, while Congress makes laws and represents the House and Senate. The purpose is to prevent unilateral rule and force major decisions through competing institutions.

Congress can oversee the president through hearings, investigations, reporting requirements, and scrutiny of executive actions. It can also pass bills, control funding, and place legal limits on administration policy. A president may veto a bill, but Congress can override that veto with a two-thirds vote in both chambers. Oversight can expose decisions even when it cannot immediately reverse them.

The article describes the Democratic victory as a possible return to checks and balances. Yet it also shows the limit: Trump warned he would become “Mr. Veto.” Democrats were unlikely to reach the supermajority needed for most overrides, so congressional oversight would not automatically produce policy change.

The article gives the exact thresholds for overriding a presidential veto: 290 votes in the House and 67 in the Senate, assuming all members vote. These are two-thirds majorities in both chambers. Passing a bill is therefore easier than forcing it into law after a president rejects it.

The mechanism matters because Trump retained veto power after Democrats gained control of Congress. He publicly warned that he would become “Mr. Veto” and later posted an image of a red cap marked “VETO.” Democrats could pass legislation seeking to repeal tariffs or challenge administration policy, but a presidential veto could stop it.

The numbers make many Democratic proposals difficult to enact. The article says Democrats were unlikely to reach either supermajority on their own. However, bipartisan support could matter in particular cases, especially legislation addressing Moscow and supporting Kyiv, where some Republicans had previously backed Ukraine.

India benefits from buying discounted Russian oil, according to the article’s discussion of possible congressional action. If Congress increases pressure on Moscow, new sanctions or restrictions could make the trade harder to complete. The financial effect would be especially important because discounted prices reduce India’s purchase costs.

The key mechanism is congressional pressure on Russia combined with bipartisan support for Ukraine. The article says Congress might muster the supermajority needed to override a presidential veto on legislation against Moscow and in support of Kyiv. Such action could raise the cost and complexity of Indian purchases. India might also face pressure to criticise Moscow’s actions in Ukraine.

This would create a difficult position for New Delhi. India is a Quad partner, yet it buys discounted Russian oil. If Congress successfully constrains Trump’s Russia policy, India could lose some of the commercial benefit of those purchases while facing greater diplomatic pressure over its relationship with Moscow.

Democratic control could help Indian immigrants because the party is traditionally more supportive of legal immigration. That matters to Indian technology workers, many of whom depend on H-1B employment and employment-based green card pathways. The Indian American community is the second-largest Asian-origin population in the United States.

The article gives a concrete example: Trump suspended PERM applications for major technology and IT firms, including Microsoft, Infosys, TCS, Wipro, and HCL. That froze green card pathways for H-1B holders. A more pro-legal-immigration Congress could seek policies that ease such pressure, although the president still controls veto power.

The same lawmakers could challenge India’s government. Pramila Jayapal criticised the Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls and raised concerns about purging 130 million people. Six Democratic lawmakers also asked Marco Rubio to discuss democratic freedoms with Indian officials. Immigration cooperation could therefore coexist with political friction.

Indian American lawmakers can give India-U.S. relations a stronger voice inside Congress. Their influence comes through legislation, hearings, oversight, letters to administration officials, and coalition-building. The article notes that six such legislators held office after the elections, raising hopes that electoral success could become meaningful policy influence.

Pramila Jayapal illustrates the mechanism. She criticised India’s Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls and joined five other Democratic lawmakers in urging Secretary of State Marco Rubio to raise democratic freedoms with Indian officials. Such actions can put issues on the congressional and diplomatic agenda, even without changing policy immediately.

Their influence remains constrained. The president retains major control over foreign policy and can veto congressional bills. Democrats also lacked the votes to override most vetoes. Lawmakers can shape debate, oversight, and pressure, but outcomes depend on party coalitions, presidential choices, and whether legislation attracts enough bipartisan support.

U.S. power is divided rather than concentrated in one office. Congress writes laws, controls public funding, and oversees executive agencies. The president administers those laws, conducts foreign policy, and commands the military. This division creates cooperation and conflict across trade, sanctions, immigration, and military action.

The article shows the split through several examples. Congress could pass bills seeking to repeal tariffs, but Trump could veto them. Congress could scrutinise Russia sanctions and the diesel deal, while the president had used executive authority on those matters. Democrats could support immigration changes, yet the administration had suspended PERM applications. In foreign policy, executive authority was described as substantially stronger.

The result is uneven leverage. Congress can investigate, legislate, fund, and apply political pressure. The president can veto bills and act more independently abroad, including toward Iran. A veto override requires 290 House and 67 Senate votes, making congressional limits difficult without broad bipartisan support.