Donald Trump’s power is on the wane. What next for Russia, Israel – and the rest of us? | Simon Tisdall

The midterm elections showed that Trump’s political standing had sharply declined. Although he was not formally on the ballot, he asked voters to treat the contest as a judgment on him. They did so, according to the article, and delivered sweeping Democratic successes. The result weakened his domestic authority and damaged his international reputation.

The key mechanism was personal association. Trump had made himself the central figure in the election, so Democratic victories became a direct repudiation of his leadership. For foreign allies, the result destroyed the aura of invincibility that had surrounded him since 2024. The article describes his power as shattered and his malignant spell as broken.

The immediate consequence is a weaker presidency, not an ended one. Democrats taking control of both congressional chambers will bring intense scrutiny. Yet Trump still controls much of foreign and defence policy. His reduced status could encourage compromise, or provoke angry attempts to restore his influence.

A lame-duck president is an elected leader whose remaining time in office is limited and whose political influence has weakened. The term does not mean the president has lost legal authority. It means allies, lawmakers and foreign governments may doubt whether the president can deliver lasting decisions. That uncertainty matters in negotiations and crises.

Congressional control can weaken a president through spending decisions, investigations and public scrutiny. In the article, Democrats are expected to examine executive actions, budgets, alleged corruption and abuses of power. They may also challenge senior officials. These pressures consume political attention and can make officials more cautious.

Trump would still direct much of US defence and foreign policy. However, losing support reduces his room to manoeuvre politically. An impeachment effort, for example, could further distract him from international goals. His frustration at no longer being central could also make him lash out rather than compromise, creating fresh risks.

A president retains substantial independent control over defence and foreign policy, especially as commander-in-chief and chief diplomatic actor. The article directly states that Trump has “huge latitude” in these areas without Congress. This means opposing lawmakers cannot automatically reverse every overseas decision or diplomatic move before his term ends.

Congress can nevertheless apply powerful restraints. It controls funding, conducts oversight and can investigate executive actions and alleged corruption. After Democrats take both chambers, they are expected to scrutinise budgets, abuses of power and the conduct of senior officials. Those actions can delay policies, expose wrongdoing and raise the political cost of continued operations.

The balance therefore produces influence rather than total control. Trump may continue shaping Iran policy, Ukraine support and relations with Russia or Europe. But congressional scrutiny could limit resources, force disclosures and threaten officials. The article also raises possible impeachment, which would intensify pressure without automatically removing his authority.

Trump’s weakened position creates uncertainty across Iran, Israel and the wider Middle East. Some Iranians hoped his electoral humiliation would end his “murderous war of choice” against Tehran’s regime. Yet the article warns that a frustrated president may seek dramatic action to restore his authority, making weakness potentially dangerous rather than peaceful.

Netanyahu is identified as a major influence. As long as he remains in power, he could urge Trump toward further confrontation with Iran. Trump might also retaliate for the Tehran-engineered Middle East oil shock, which the article says alienated voters. At the same time, many Israelis who voted for change may welcome the weakening of Netanyahu’s foremost supporter.

The likely direction is therefore unsettled. A new Israeli government would probably continue denying basic Palestinian rights, with Washington broadly supportive. Trump could choose restraint, but the article says he rarely compromises when thwarted. His anger and desire for a historical legacy could instead produce escalation.

Trump’s proposed Russia deal could end fighting faster, but the article says his motive is not mainly Ukraine’s welfare. He wants a legacy achievement, improved ties with Moscow, energy and trade opportunities, and perhaps a “reverse Nixon” strategy against China. Putin, facing battlefield failures and economic problems, may also see a deal during Trump’s presidency as his best exit.

The danger lies in the terms. Trump’s negotiators might demand territorial concessions and other compromises from Kyiv while disregarding Ukraine’s sovereign rights and Europe’s security. Trump could reinforce that pressure by withholding weapons and intelligence support. He might also refuse credible security guarantees, leaving Ukraine exposed after any ceasefire.

A ceasefire could therefore stop immediate violence while creating a dangerous settlement. It might reward Russia’s invasion and weaken future deterrence. The article presents this as a grave risk for Ukraine and its allies. Trump’s weakness may hasten negotiations, but speed could come at the cost of a durable and fair outcome.

US elections matter far beyond American borders because the president influences defence commitments, alliances and overseas support. The article connects Trump’s political fate to NATO, Europe’s common defence, Ukraine’s weapons and intelligence, and relations with Canada. A change in congressional control also affects how these policies are funded and investigated.

The mechanism is presidential choice combined with congressional power. Trump could de-escalate tariff wars and make relations with Europe and Canada better. He could instead revive threats to abandon NATO and Europe’s common defence. His administration could also pressure Ukraine into concessions or withhold military support, directly affecting European security.

Allies therefore face uncertainty even when policies do not immediately change. The article says most US policies may remain broadly stable through 2028, but presidential decisions can still alter confidence and risk. European governments may need to prepare for either renewed cooperation or a more transactional America. Ukraine’s fate is especially tied to US weapons, intelligence and guarantees.

Separation of powers divides foreign-policy authority rather than assigning it to one branch. The president commands the armed forces, directs day-to-day diplomacy and can make many executive decisions. Congress controls federal spending, conducts oversight and can declare war. This arrangement lets presidents act quickly while giving lawmakers tools to challenge prolonged or controversial policies.

The article illustrates this division. Trump retains broad latitude over defence and foreign policy, but Democrats can investigate executive actions, budgets, corruption and abuses of power. Congress can also use funding decisions to support, limit or condition military operations. The Senate’s role in approving treaties adds another check on international commitments.

Some details here come from established US constitutional practice rather than the article’s brief explanation. Presidents may also use executive agreements, while Congress can pass laws affecting foreign policy. In practice, the branches often compete. Trump could act abroad, but congressional scrutiny, spending limits and political pressure could constrain what follows.