Turn Off Fox and Everything Will Be Alright.A Republican case for perspective after the midterms

Commentary | November 4, 2026By Francis J. Bell

Republican voters waking up to the midterm results have reason to be disappointed. They do not have reason to assume that Donald Trump’s presidency has ended two years early.

A congressional majority is powerful. It is not possession of the White House, command of federal agencies or permission to rewrite the Constitution.

The immediate result is divided government, not an opposition takeover of the executive branch. Democrats can make governing harder for Trump. They cannot simply take his place. Their gains in state government may ultimately matter more for their ability to implement policy than the most dramatic congressional threats.

Turn off the television for a moment. Look at what changed—and what powers actually come with it.

A setback with plenty of historical company

The president’s party usually loses House seats in midterm elections. Across the 23 midterms from 1934 through 2022, it gained seats only three times: 1934, 1998 and 2002. Reagan’s Republicans lost 26 House seats in 1982. Clinton’s Democrats lost 54 in 1994. Obama’s Democrats lost 63 in 2010.[1]

Those examples do not make every defeat ordinary. Losing both chambers is consequential, and individual Senate losses deserve examination. But midterm punishment is a recurring feature of American politics, not proof that an entire political movement has disappeared.

Nor can an election-night adjective tell us what will happen in 2028. A responsible comparison needs completed results, a stated pre-election benchmark and attention to the seats contested. Calling this an insignificant Democratic victory would be premature. Treating it as unlimited Democratic power would be equally mistaken.

Billions bought a campaign, not unlimited authority

Democrats and aligned organizations mounted an expensive effort. AdImpact’s November 2 snapshot attributed approximately $5.02 billion in tracked advertising spending to the Democratic side, compared with $5.45 billion to the Republican side.[2]

A separate OpenSecrets analysis projected roughly $11.9 billion in total federal election spending. It expected Democratic congressional candidates to spend more than $2.2 billion from their campaign accounts, versus approximately $1.4 billion for Republicans. Its October 30 outside-spending tally favored conservative groups, however: approximately $2.03 billion against $1.67 billion for liberal groups.[3]

These measurements have different scopes and must not be added together.

The evidence supports describing a multibillion-dollar Democratic campaign. It does not support pretending Republicans lacked resources. Nor does it justify assigning an invented combined price tag to “socialists,” “Islamists” or other actors without identifying organizations, expenditures and documentary evidence. A donor’s religion is not evidence of an Islamist political program.

The reassuring point is constitutional: however much a campaign costs, winning Congress confers specified powers—not every policy its supporters desire.

January brings divided government

The incoming members’ terms begin at noon on January 3, 2027. Until then, the existing Congress remains in office. Congress may change its meeting date by law; that does not change the constitutional start of members’ terms.[4]

After the new Congress organizes, Trump remains president. His administration retains executive responsibilities, subject to statutes, appropriations and court orders.

Here are six things it can still do:

1. Continue lawful immigration enforcement. Existing immigration statutes do not expire because committee chairmanships change. Arrests, detention and removals can continue within the law and available funding.

2. Investigate and prosecute actual corruption. The Justice Department can pursue evidence-based cases, while inspectors general and agency investigators continue their authorized work. Congressional opposition does not itself cancel a lawful investigation. Political disagreement, however, is not evidence of criminality.

3. Implement existing laws and funded programs. Agencies can administer enacted tax provisions, grants, contracts and other programs within their legal authority. A press conference does not repeal a statute.

4. Pursue lawful energy and regulatory decisions. Agencies retain discretion Congress has delegated over permitting, enforcement priorities and rulemaking. They must follow required procedures; executive action cannot substitute for legislation where legislation is necessary.

5. Conduct diplomacy and direct military operations within legal limits. The president remains commander in chief. Congress retains its own war and funding powers, so neither branch has unlimited authority over the Iran conflict.

6. Veto legislation and negotiate. Congress can send bills to the White House; Trump can reject them. Overriding a veto requires two-thirds of those voting in each chamber, with a quorum present.[5]

These are substantial governing powers. They are also bounded powers, as they were before the election.[6]

What Democrats can threaten—and what they cannot accomplish alone

“We will impeach him.” A House majority can approve articles of impeachment. Removal requires conviction by two-thirds of senators present—67 if all 100 attend. Impeachment itself does not suspend presidential authority. A majority sufficient to choose congressional leaders is not automatically sufficient to remove a president.[7]

“We will stop deportations or defund ICE.” Congress can investigate enforcement and seek binding restrictions. But existing funding does not disappear when control changes. The June 2026 law alone provided approximately $31.1 billion for ICE immigration-enforcement activities, available through September 30, 2029. Canceling that authority or imposing new statutory restrictions requires enacted legislation.[8]

“We will reopen the border.” Congress does not assume operational control of the border. It can propose changes to immigration and asylum law and use funding negotiations to seek concessions. Those are meaningful tools, but a congressional majority cannot simply issue replacement instructions to the executive branch.

“We will provide free healthcare.” Restoring insurance subsidies, expanding Medicaid and establishing a universal public system are different proposals. None becomes law merely because Democrats win committee gavels. A major expansion needs legislation and financing, and Trump retains his veto. Subsidized care can reduce a patient’s direct bill; it still has a cost.

“We will immediately end the Iran conflict.” Congress can seek withdrawal legislation or funding restrictions. A binding joint resolution is subject to presidential approval or a veto override. The War Powers Resolution’s concurrent-resolution mechanism faces serious constitutional questions following the Supreme Court’s Chadha decision. Existing war-powers obligations also remain relevant; a new Congress does not restart their clock.[9]

The more durable contest may be in the states

Republicans should look beyond Washington’s televised confrontations. A party that controls a governorship and both chambers of a state legislature can often turn its priorities into state law without obtaining the president’s signature.

Depending on state constitutions and existing law, those officials can shape budgets, taxes, education, housing, healthcare programs and regulatory policy. State attorneys general can bring litigation against federal actions. State governments also have important roles in election administration and congressional districting, subject to federal law, state law and judicial review.

This creates a meaningful distinction: in Washington, Democrats must confront a Republican executive; in states where they achieve unified control, they may possess the executive and legislative machinery needed to enact their agenda.

That does not mean every Democratic governor controls a cooperative legislature, that state officials can nullify federal law, or that they command federal prosecutors. Authority must be assessed state by state.

It is reasonable to interpret state-level gains as a foundation for a longer political project: governing records, policy precedents and potential national candidates. Claiming that a coordinated strategy to prioritize the states has been proved would require more evidence.

The practical point is stronger than that speculation. Democrats do not gain operational control of the Justice Department, FBI or executive agencies by winning Congress. Committee chairs can subpoena officials, investigate decisions and seek funding restrictions. They cannot personally direct an FBI investigation, order a federal prosecution or take over the president’s chain of command.

State victories can therefore offer Democrats more immediate policy opportunities than congressional rhetoric suggests. Republicans concerned about the next two years should scrutinize the statehouse as carefully as the hearing room.[6][10]

Take the defeat seriously without surrendering to it

Democrats will have real tools: investigations, subpoenas, control over what legislation advances, spending leverage and the ability to block nominations requiring Senate consent. Republicans should expect conflict and constraints. Describing every threat as empty would leave voters poorly prepared.[10]

But an investigation is not a conviction. An impeachment vote is not removal. A proposed benefit is not an enacted entitlement. A congressional majority is not a presidential administration.

Republicans should examine candidate quality, turnout, campaign execution and policies that failed to persuade voters. Money spent and media language cannot replace that work. Voters deserve accountability from their own party as well as scrutiny of its opponents.

They also deserve perspective.

A Democratic Congress can obstruct, investigate and bargain. It is not an unrestricted wrecking ball. Its majority does not erase the separate executive branch or automatically deliver its campaign platform.

The Constitution did not disappear overnight. Lawful enforcement can continue. Existing laws remain in force until lawfully changed. The president can still govern, negotiate and veto.

Turn off Fox if the coverage leaves you convinced that every hearing is removal and every campaign promise is already law. Apply the same standard to every other channel.

Everything will not happen the way Republicans want. Everything has not been lost.

Endnotes

1. American Presidency Project, Seats in Congress Gained/Lost by the President’s Party in Mid-Term Elections. Historical comparison through 2022; 2026 totals were not finalized for this article.

2. AdImpact, Election Day Insights Center: 2026 Midterms, data as of November 2, 2026. Tracked advertising figures; not a total for every form of political spending.

3. OpenSecrets analysis reproduced by NCIJ Network, OpenSecrets predicts record $12 billion in midterm election spending, October 31, 2026. Projections and dated tallies, not final audited totals.

4. U.S. Code, 2 U.S.C. §7, including the Twentieth Amendment note; U.S. Senate, Frequently Asked Questions about a New Congress.

5. Congressional Research Service, Regular Vetoes and Pocket Vetoes: In Brief.

6. National Archives, Constitution of the United States: transcription, Articles I and II. The executive-power discussion summarizes general authority, not a legal judgment validating particular administration actions.

7. U.S. Senate, About Impeachment.

8. Public Law 119-98, section 202, June 10, 2026. The availability deadline is not a guarantee of the remaining unobligated balance or of funding sufficiency for every planned operation.

9. Congressional Research Service, The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice. Specific operations may raise additional statutory and constitutional issues.

10. U.S. Senate, About Nominations; Articles I and II of the Constitution.