Who actually matters in American politics?

By: Maryam Munshi

From mandated ICE raids to foreign invasions, it increasingly appears that effective political power in the USA is concentrated within the White House. Trump’s dominance over federal legislatures across both domestic and foreign policy has led many observers to question whether the world’s leading liberal democracy is sliding toward autocracy, and what such a shift means for the country’s political future. As his presidency reaches its midpoint and the midterm elections approach, the prospect of political change feels both urgent and uncertain. Yet the most visible sources of institutional opposition are not found at the federal level, but instead within state governments, where ambitious state leaders attempt to reassert political priorities, yielding a contentious dynamic between the empowered presidential administration and proactive state-level authority. Against this backdrop, 2026 is shaping up to be a pivotal year in American politics as the consolidation of presidential power is paralleled by growing state resistance and civilian mobilisation – a dynamic likely to redefine federal systems by the year’s end.  

The 2026 midterm general election is scheduled for November 3^rd, with the primary elections taking place across all 50 states between May and August. The midterm general election determines the composition of congress, which consists of the House of Representatives, whose members are elected in proportion to district population, and the Senate, where each state is represented by 2 senators All 435 seats in the House, alongside one third of the Senate’s 100 seats, are up for election, with candidates selected through the primary elections, in which each political party nominates its congressional representatives. The midterm elections essentially function as a referendum on the sitting president - congressional wins for the president’s party signal public approval whilst losses indicate political vulnerability. Because Congress is responsible for passing legislation, party majority enables the president to govern more freely in line with their ideological interest, while a divided government constrains their control. Under the typical legislative process, legislation must pass through committee review, debate, amendment, and approval in both chambers of Congress before reaching the president for signature. However, this process can be circumvented through the use of executive orders, legally binding directives issued by the president to manage federal government operations and agencies without congressional approval. Executive orders allows presidents to implement, reverse, or redirect policies almost instantly, bypassing the legislative process. However, excessive reliance on unilateral action, as witnessed by Trump’s presidency, risks producing unstable governance. 

Currently, the Republican Party retains narrow control of the House of Representatives, holding 218 seats to the Democrats’ 213, as well as a Senate majority of 53 seats to 47, presumably affording Trump a smoother legislative path. Despite the current majority, Trump has consistently favoured the immediacy of executive orders, signing 220 during his first term alone, surpassing the 162 issued by Biden across his full four years in office. Much of this early activity was dismissed as a revision of Biden-era regulations to redirect national priorities, like his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. However, this move, alongside the other policy enacted through executive orders, is driven by Trump’s infamous ‘America First’ agenda. Its most notable impact recently has emerged in his response to the ‘culture wars,’ referencing social topics like diversity and immigration. Trump’s ‘Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity’ order effectively dismantles federal affirmative action and non-discrimination frameworks by eliminating DEI-related offices and personnel. The order not only curtails educational and professional opportunities for minorities going forward but also jeopardises those currently employed under such programmes. In a similar fashion, Trump has moved aggressively to restrict humanitarian immigration and refugee resettlement, terminating ‘Catch and Release’ policies and reinstating the ‘Securing Our Borders’ and ‘Remain in Mexico’ orders to mandate the expansion of detention facilities and the renewed construction of the US-Mexico border wall. The consequences of this approach extend far beyond the border. The ‘Protecting the American People Against Invasion’ order has called for a dramatic escalation in ICE operations producing widespread fear, family separation, and, in some cases, fatality involving both undocumented migrants and American citizens. These cases demonstrate how Trump weaponises executive power to entrench a dangerously exclusionary agenda in order to cement his personal authority over the federal democratic body. 

Although federal legislatures have attempted to limit the impact of Trump’s executive action, its effect has been limited. His DEI-focused orders were met with federal lawsuits and formal condemnation from 19 state attorneys general, who were able to block only part of it, underscoring the scale of presidential authority relative to federal checks. The most consequential resistance to presidential authority has shifted away from Congress and toward state governments. In California, Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom has prominently positioned his administration in opposition to the White House, most notably through legal challenges brought under the Posse Comitatus Act that blocked Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops during anti-immigration protests in Los Angeles. While the ruling’s national impact was limited, it demonstrated the capacity of state leadership to impose constraints when executive action threatens the state population. Similarly, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has emerged as a prominent national critic of Trumpism, using his platform to coordinate interstate opposition, particularly on issues of immigration that have recently afflicted his state. This shift extends beyond governors to a new generation of municipal leaders, exemplified by New York’s new Mayor Zohran Mamdani. His socialist campaign and grassroots mobilisation have transformed his local office into a vessel for national ideological resistance. Beyond his rhetorical appeal, his advocacy carries tangible impact through direct intervention in individual immigration cases within his jurisdiction. Such figures illustrate how state and city leaders are no longer subordinate implementers of federal policy, but increasingly influential in constructing alternative political agendas capable of directly contesting presidential authority. 

With midterm elections imminent, there is a tentative possibility that growing state-level resistance might translate into significant change within the federal legislature. However, given the strength of both the Republican and Democratic parties currently, any shift in congressional majorities are likely to remain limited, restricting Congress’s ability to curb executive dominance on its own. As a result, Trump’s exploitation of executive power is bound to persist, even following midterms. Instead, the most consequential opposition is set to remain rooted within state governments where leaders possess both the legitimacy and proximity necessary to articulate public concerns and mobilise effective resistance. Thus, within the evolving landscape of American politics, it is at the state level that democratic accountability is most actively pursued and where the most credible constraints on presidential authority are forged. 

Image: Eric Haynes