"Pressure From Republicans On Trump Will Increase"

• 4.11.2026, 15:36

A Ukrainian diplomat summarized the results of the U.S. congressional elections.

In the U.S. midterm elections, the Democrats scored a decisive victory and regained control of both chambers of Congress. The new balance of power in Washington could significantly limit the freedom of action of President Donald Trump, including in foreign policy.

How will the Democrats’ victory change the U.S. political course? The website Charter97.org discussed this with the director of the Center for National Resilience Studies in Kyiv and former advisor to the Ukrainian Embassy in Canada and Kenya, Oleg Belokolos:

— I’d probably start by talking about the mood that prevailed two years ago. Many experts—primarily foreign ones, including Europeans, as well as those here in Ukraine—were saying that the system of checks and balances was failing. A situation arose in which the Republicans—and, in fact, practically Trump alone—controlled almost everything in America. These elections have shown that it is still too early to write off the American political system. As we can see, the system continues to function despite numerous difficulties.

American democracy has proven its viability and readiness to continue functioning. As far as I can tell from media reports, Trump has acknowledged the election results and expressed a willingness to cooperate with Congress.

— To what extent will the Democrats’ victory limit Trump’s freedom of action?

— Here, first and foremost, we need to recall the so-called Trump diesel deal. It sparked a crushing wave of criticism in the United States from Democrats and many Republicans due to the agreements with Putin. They argued that such deals harm the U.S. and its image.

Even those Republicans who cannot be called supporters of Ukraine did not believe Trump’s statements that Ukraine was to blame for the rise in diesel fuel prices. They viewed this, to put it mildly, with skepticism. The President of the United States does not operate in a vacuum. He acts within the framework of the political system and cannot help but heed public sentiment. That is one point.

The second point is that foreign policy is guided first and foremost by the U.S. president. According to American tradition, a strong president can sometimes ignore Congress. But if Congress acts actively and assertively, it can also play a significant role in foreign policy. Take the Vietnam War, for example. In the early stages, all leadership came from the White House. But as the war began to drag on and material and human losses mounted, Congress exerted increasing pressure on the president, demanding an end to the war.

Therefore, it is still too early to make accurate predictions. We need to wait until the new Congress is formed, the members are sworn in, and all procedural matters are finalized. Then we’ll see the positions of the chairs of influential committees and understand how the new balance of power will affect Ukraine. As for Iran, Congress will unequivocally oppose the continuation of this—in my view—extremely ill-advised war. The first phase, when Israel and the United States struck alleged nuclear facilities, looked quite positive for the Trump administration and Tel Aviv.

Then a series of puzzling moves began: first negotiations, then a rejection of them, accusations against the Europeans—some justified, some not. At some point, as one well-known figure put it, there was a “dizziness from success.” Now no one knows what to do about this turn of events. I would say that this is no longer a development but rather a dead end, and Tehran understands this perfectly well.
As for Russia’s war against Ukraine, one should not expect any optimism in Moscow regarding the election results. The Kremlin understands that Trump will now be under pressure. Investigations will likely begin into the circumstances surrounding the diesel deal and other incidents in which the United States already sees signs of corruption. Many facts may come to light that we are unaware of today.
The Kremlin also understands that Trump’s position has been weakened in both domestic and foreign policy. Some experts believe that Trump will try to offset the pressure within the United States with some extremely drastic moves in foreign policy. I don’t entirely agree with them, but this point of view must also be taken into account. I would be cautious about making such predictions. The Republicans themselves, who are also under pressure from the media and the public, will act as a restraining factor. It seems to me that Trump will be forced to pay more attention to his relationship with Congress. He simply won’t be able to ignore it anymore.

— Will Washington’s policy toward Ukraine change? Will military aid and arms deliveries resume?

— The issue of Ukraine was discussed in the run-up to the election. Let’s recall the story about the forced slowdown of Starlink. I don’t think this issue will simply disappear from the media. A special investigation is planned to determine why this was done and what consequences it had.

On the other hand, we recently received political approval to supply a batch of air defense missiles. The problem is that the United States currently does not have the necessary number of such missiles in stock. They still need to be manufactured, which is why different timelines are being cited. I think the provision of intelligence will most likely continue. All decisions concerning Ukraine will come under close scrutiny by Congress. Ukraine is now a factor in both U.S. foreign and domestic policy.

The Starlink incident, it seems to me, has become the administration’s second serious mistake after the diesel deal—or “diesel diplomacy,” as it’s already being called even in America. If it turns out that Starlink’s performance was indeed slowed down and that the relevant signals came from the White House, the Trump administration will face difficult times.

— Will Trump be able to continue pursuing a policy of rapprochement with Putin? To what extent will the new Congress limit the White House’s options regarding Russia?

— I think the Trump administration will try to explain its contacts with the Kremlin as part of efforts to advance some kind of peace process. But we don’t yet know what that process will look like or what it will entail. It all comes down to the familiar issue of security guarantees, which we’ve discussed several times already. This issue keeps surfacing, only to fade into the background again. Without security guarantees, there’s no point in seriously discussing a peace process.

Today’s Russia, led by Putin, is unequivocally a toxic partner. That is precisely how both Democrats and Republicans view it today—even those who previously advocated for limiting or cutting aid to Ukraine. They understand that contacts with the Kremlin negatively impact U.S. interests and the country’s image around the world.
There is another factor. With each passing day, the approach of the next presidential election will be felt more and more strongly. Pressure from the Republican establishment on the Trump administration will also increase on all fronts. Therefore, it is unlikely that we should expect any new deals with the Kremlin. The Trump administration’s room for maneuver regarding Russia will be significantly limited.