US midterms: the global impact?

The election result is a dream come true for Iran, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung observes:

“Trump's loss of authority is plain for all to see. ... His endorsement of Pete Hegseth, who he said was doing 'a very good job' at the Pentagon, is unlikely to bring any calm to the Republican camp. Many are calling for the secretary of war's scalp. ... The Iranian regime could not have imagined a more splendid scenario: the vice-president just wants to 'get out', the war secretary is on his last legs, and the new Congress is unlikely to grant Trump the additional funds he demands for the war in Iran. Tehran's hand is getting stronger and stronger while Trump's options deteriorate.”

Avvenire comments:

“One factor of paramount interest to the entire international community following the rejection of Trump's policies at the ballot box is the indisputable shunning of this US administration's (external) military adventures and (internal) security policy. Seen in this light, Trump's defeat is a defeat for war. And not merely because of the economic consequences, however serious they may be for both the United States and the globalised world. ... We have arrived at the point where war has shamelessly and absurdly been included in the electoral programmes in Washington and Tel Aviv alike, as if it were simply one policy among others.”

Olena Tregub, head of the Independent Anti-Corruption Commission (Nako), warns in Ukrainska Pravda that efforts to challenge controversial US decisions could make Ukraine the subject of domestic political conflicts:

“Already during the first impeachment proceedings against Trump, Ukraine found itself at the centre of the conflict between the president and his political opponents. At the time, one of the issues at stake was the delay in the delivery of US military aid. ... Should future investigations become nothing more than a tool in the Democrats' battle against the Republicans, Ukraine once again risks becoming a toxic issue in American politics. We must not allow such a scenario to be repeated. Ukraine should be a cause that unites, not divides.”

Commentator Lluís Bassets is delighted:

“Democracy is local, but its effects are also global. The United States has voted overwhelmingly against Trump mainly for domestic reasons. ... Only issues that affect people's lives, their pockets and their well-being very directly can explain the scale of this electoral tsunami. ... The beginning of the end of Trumpism signalled by voters also demonstrates the strength of American democracy. This is perhaps the most powerful global repercussion, in line with the impact of the transfer of power following elections in Hungary, Brazil, Serbia and Israel. ... This is not a happy day for rampant global far-right ethno-nationalism.”

Europe now has every reason to seek to capitalise on the changes in Washington, Protagon emphasises:

“Support for Ukraine, security in the eastern Mediterranean and the protection of energy links offer concrete areas for cooperation with the new Congress. The latter's influence will depend on how far it is prepared to go and on its ability to forge stable cooperative relations with both parties. In short, the US elections have opened a political window of opportunity. European leaders are now called upon to seize this chance through joint decisions, funding and commitments that endure beyond the next election cycle.”

Europe must remain on guard in the wake of Trump's defeat, security expert Marco Vicenzino warns in Expresso:

“The Democratic majority opens up opportunities for Europe to cooperate more closely with Congress. However, it does not dispel the uncertainty over how Trump will balance his commitments to allies, trade policy requirements and his preference for bilateral negotiations. ... Tuesday's elections mark the start of a final phase in Trump's presidency in which he is subject to greater constraints. But to declare him to be finished politically would be to underestimate the power he still wields.”

La Stampa sees implications for Big Tech:

“There is a theory that began to circulate immediately after the midterm election results were announced. Namely, that the US election was also a vote on artificial intelligence, on data centres, and on the power of the tech giants to shape US industrial policy. The debacle for the Republicans – who once again had received hundreds of millions of dollars in backing from the tech giants – opens up new scenarios for the future of this technology. Fewer mega-structures, more regulations, more controls.”

In IQ, economist Vytenis Šimkus looks at potential changes in various policy areas:

“The technology sector may face tighter regulation. Until now, AI has been developed largely without restrictions. A Democrat-controlled Congress, however, is likely to seek binding rules. These could slow growth while at the same time favouring established market leaders and restricting competition. US presidents whose leeway in domestic affairs is limited by an unfavourable situation in Congress often turn their attention to the international arena and increasingly govern by executive order. As a result, US foreign policy could become even less predictable over the next two years.”

In a Telegram post republished by Echo, human rights activist Anastasia Burakova examines Trump's right of veto:

“The system of checks and balances in the US is ingeniously designed. Among other things, the president retains the right of veto. ... Even with a majority in both chambers, the Democrats will by no means always be able to push through their own legislation – to override a presidential veto they need the support of two-thirds of the members of Congress. Over the next two years, I suspect we will witness a serious standoff in which decisions on both sides are blocked, which will affect military aid to Ukraine, US domestic policy and defence spending.”