In American politics, a “wave” refers to an election in which one party receives such overwhelming support from voters that it achieves a landslide victory, taking numerous seats from its opponents and seizing control of the legislative branches. A “tsunami,” on the other hand, is an extreme version of such a “wave,” when the winning party’s success is so massive and unexpected that it wins even in regions of the country that are traditionally “hopeless” for it. It appears that this is exactly what happened recently in the United States with the Democratic Party.
The U.S. midterm congressional elections, held on November 3, 2026, have not yet concluded with a final vote count, but the main result is already clear: The Democratic Party is securing a decisive victory and taking control of both chambers—the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Republicans, led by President Donald Trump, suffered a crushing defeat that, by and large, everyone expected—except, it seems, Trump himself. The U.S. president has already publicly acknowledged that the results were “worse than he had hoped,” and has even threatened to block all Democratic legislative initiatives using his veto power.
This defeat is not just another shift in the balance of power in Washington. It will have profound consequences for both U.S. domestic and foreign policy, including the war in Ukraine. What exactly happened, why was it inevitable, and how will the new balance of power in Congress affect Kyiv? UA.News political analyst Mykyta Trachuk, together with experts, examined the issue.
A Democratic “tsunami” swept both chambers
The results, which leading U.S. media outlets continue to report, paint a picture of a total defeat for the Republicans. In the Senate, as of this writing, Democrats have already secured at least 54 seats compared to the Republicans’ 44, while 51 votes are enough to control the upper chamber. Thus, the Democratic Party has taken at least seven seats from its rival—a result that seemed almost impossible just six months ago.
The situation in the House of Representatives is no less dramatic. According to preliminary counts, the Democrats are comfortably surpassing the 218-seat threshold needed for a majority and are projected to win between 220 and over 230 seats, compared to 120–133 for the Republicans. The final figures will be revised several times, as the vote count in some states could take weeks. But the very fact that control of both chambers has passed into the hands of the Democratic opposition is no longer in doubt.
Yet even more telling than the overall numbers are the specific states where the Democrats secured victories. For example, in traditionally “red” Texas (a key Republican stronghold for decades), Democrat James Talarico defeated Trump-backed Republican Ken Paxton — marking the first Democratic victory in a Texas Senate election since 1988 (!). In Kansas, another traditionally “red” state, Democrat Adam Hamilton defeated incumbent Republican Senator Roger Marshall — and this is the first-ever Democratic victory in a Kansas Senate race since 1932, that is, in 94 (!!) years! In South Carolina, Democrat Annie Andrews defeated Republican Darlene Graham—the sister of the late Lindsey Graham—marking the Democrats’ first victory in that state since 1998. Victories were also secured in Maine, Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, Mississippi, and elsewhere.
Trump responded by conceding defeat—a move that is, in fact, quite unprecedented for him.
“I’m a little surprised. I thought they (the Republicans—ed.) would do better,” he said.
At the same time, the U.S. president made it clear that he has no intention of simply giving up. On social media, he posted a photo of a bright red cap with the word “VETO” on it and made it clear that he would block all Democratic bills until the Democratic Party is willing to “work properly” with Trump.
Why This Was Inevitable: Historical Traditions and Trump Fatigue
The Republicans’ defeat seems sensational, but only at first glance. In reality, it fits into a long-standing and nearly unbreakable tradition of American politics: the president’s party almost always loses seats in Congress during midterm elections. Between 1946 and 2022, there were 20 midterm elections, and in 18 of them, the incumbent president’s party lost. The only exceptions were 1934, when the Democrats, led by Franklin Roosevelt, won on the strength of the New Deal, and 2002, when George W. Bush’s Republicans capitalized on the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
The reason for this pattern is simple: two years after a presidential election, Americans typically grow weary of the incumbent administration and restore balance to the political system by voting for the opposition. It’s a kind of institutional “safety valve” that prevents any single party from controlling all the levers of power for too long.
But Trump, as always, is a special case. His policies have proven so atypical, bizarre, ill-conceived, and radical that the fatigue with him has surpassed all historical parallels. The war with Iran, which did not lead to regime change in Tehran but caused a sharp rise in oil prices and, consequently, in gasoline prices in the U.S. itself, dealt a blow to the Republicans’ approval ratings. And attempts by the “hawks” in the Republican Party—such as the late Lindsey Graham—to drag Washington into one new conflict after another only deepened voters’ disappointment.
The result was so devastating that the Republicans lost even those states that had been considered their strongholds for decades. A Democratic victory in Texas—a key state for Republicans—or, even more so, in Kansas or Mississippi, is such a notion in the U.S. that it’s difficult to explain the situation in a way that would make everything clear to a Ukrainian reader. The closest analogy: imagine that in the Ukrainian elections, the “OPZZh” party, led personally by Viktor Medvedchuk, won a landslide victory in Lviv. Or if the Donbas and Crimea suddenly voted for a hypothetical “Right Sector.” In other words, we’re talking about something so unthinkable that it simply cannot happen—precisely because it cannot happen.
But let’s give Trump credit: he did manage to secure exactly this kind of “record-breaking” result for his party. Except this record comes with the prefix “anti.”
What Does This Mean for Ukraine
For Kyiv, the midterm election results have dual significance, and not everything here is unequivocally positive. The Democrats, who now control Congress, are traditionally associated with a hardline stance toward Russia and a willingness to continue an endless confrontation—at the expense of Ukraine and the war in Ukraine. They also promise to investigate the Trump administration’s decisions and push for legislation in support of Ukraine. Theoretically, they could even try to pass a new aid package for Kyiv, overriding the president’s veto with a two-thirds majority. However, the outcome of such attempts is by no means guaranteed.
There is another side to this. First, among those who lost or are at risk of losing their seats are quite a few of Kyiv’s consistent partners within the Republican Party. Congressmen such as Brian Fitzpatrick and Mike Lawler, Senator Susan Collins, Rob Bresnahan, Mike Curry, Senator Darlene Graham, and others have already lost their seats. This comes on top of those staunchly pro-Ukrainian lawmakers who are ending their careers in Congress in January. And although not all Republicans are opposed to Ukraine—just as by no means all Democrats automatically support it—the loss of experienced partners and lobbyists for Kyiv’s interests complicates the overall situation.
Second, despite their rhetoric, Democrats may not prove as effective in supporting Kyiv as the Ukrainian government would like. After all, they are first and foremost American—not Ukrainian—politicians who will focus on domestic American issues. And we shouldn’t forget about Trump’s veto power.
Third, and most importantly: Democrats are associated with a desire to continue the confrontation with Russia—and thus, with the continuation of the war. For Ukraine, this is a negative signal, since it is long past time to end the war—a point constantly emphasized by the Ukrainian government, led by President Zelenskyy. A Democratic victory could mean that pressure on Kyiv will ease, and the Ukrainian side’s demands will once again become more maximalist. This, in turn, will further complicate the search for a compromise (which, incidentally, cannot be found anyway) and will increase the already enormous risks of the war dragging on (a war that has already dragged on for nearly five long years and shows no particular signs of ending).
At the same time, the election results convincingly demonstrate that the U.S. political system, despite all its problems, remains more or less healthy. It is capable of maintaining its own balance, and this election served as yet another proof of that. Americans voted against what they considered an excessive concentration of power and an undesirable course of government, and they have every right to do so.
Expert
Opinions
Political scientist and director of the Penta Center for Applied Political Studies, Volodymyr Fesenko, notes: Many are rejoicing over the Democrats’ victory because there are numerous complaints and criticisms directed at Trump and his administration. But it’s important to understand that a Democratic victory in both houses of Congress does not mean that support for Ukraine, arms deliveries, and so on will resume. The situation is not that straightforward.
“We need to understand one simple thing: we must maintain bipartisan support in both chambers no matter what! We cannot rely solely on the Democrats! In addition, we need to renew the membership of the caucuses—that is, the support groups—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. We need new faces, because, as we can see, congressmen like Fitzpatrick are losing their seats. We need to work on this. And to do that, we finally need to appoint a new Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S.—that’s the number one priority! One of the ambassador’s tasks is precisely to work with members of Congress. A new ambassador is expected to be in place by January, and this is very, very important. We also can’t pit Trump against Congress—that’s a huge mistake. We need to work with everyone.
There is also a significant risk that the next two years will see continued confrontation between Congress and the president. And we’ll have to navigate this situation while maintaining good relations with everyone. Trump remains the president of the United States; America is a presidential republic. Foreign policy remains under Trump’s control. Let’s not forget that. We must not take sides,” warns Volodymyr Fesenko.
Political analyst and director of the “Ukrainian Barometer” polling service, Viktor Nebozhenko, says: in reality, both the Republican and Democratic parties are gradually falling apart. After all, this has happened before, in exactly the same way, when the Democrats suffered a crushing defeat a few years ago.
“America has reached the point of a major restructuring, just like the USSR. The top can’t, and the bottom won’t—it’s a classic scenario. That’s the situation the U.S. finds itself in right now. Therefore, regardless of who wins or loses, a split is taking place. The Republican Party is splitting into classic Republicans and the MAGA movement. Similarly, old-school Democrats like the Clintons or the Obamas are a thing of the past. Radical leftists are vying for power within the Democratic Party. It’s a completely different party now.
So despite this Democratic victory, in reality, no one has clear strategies—neither regarding Ukraine, nor regarding Europe, nor regarding the U.S.’s domestic problems. That’s why I personally wouldn’t draw any broad conclusions. I don’t see any specific agenda from any of the political forces. As for Ukraine, it will be just like with Hungary: they thought that once Orbán was gone and Mádár came in, everything would be fine now. But nothing has fundamentally changed… No, there will be no substantial aid for Ukraine from the Democrats. Ukraine’s only friend in the U.S. is the Pentagon: the military department that continues to systematically counter Russia. But these aren’t politicians—they’re colonels and generals,” Viktor Nebozhenko is convinced.
In
summary, the 2026 midterm elections were a historic event not only for the U.S. but, in a sense, for the entire world. The Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress, dealing Trump’s Republicans a defeat whose magnitude is hard to overstate. They won in states that had been Republican strongholds for many decades, and they did so against a backdrop of deep voter fatigue with the incumbent president’s policies. For Trump, who is accustomed to winning, this is a painful blow that significantly limits his options during the final two years of his term. He retains the right to veto, but legislative initiative now shifts to the opposition.
For Ukraine, the consequences of this victory are neither entirely positive nor entirely negative. On the one hand, the Democrats promise to strengthen their support for Kyiv. On the other hand, among those who have lost or may lose their seats are many of Ukraine’s loyal partners, and the Democrats’ own course toward continuing the confrontation with Russia could complicate the already fragile process of reaching a peace agreement.
The main lesson for Kyiv is that U.S. domestic politics remain complex and volatile, so relying exclusively on a single party or leader would be a strategic mistake. The wisest course of action is to maintain working relationships with both sides, refrain from interfering in Washington’s internal affairs, and at the same time take advantage of any opportunities to advance Ukraine’s own interests.
