Midterm Gridlock
- Hanna Bella Cartret
- 3 hours ago
- 13 min read
How 2026 Elections Could Paralyze US Ukraine Policy
In strategic discourse, war is frequently measured by kilometers gained during conflict, the amount of tanks deployed or the success rate of secretive operations. Such metrics dominate portrayal in policy assessments and public reporting. However, its consequences for civilian populations manifest differently. They are revealed by prolonged family separation, large-scale destruction of residential and energy infrastructure, and forced migration. Its effects are cumulative, restructuring societies long after headlines fade.
Over four years after the beginning of the occupation at the hands of Russia, this is the reality of the Ukrainian population. Continued strikes on urban centers, periodical demolition to critical infrastructure, and ongoing mobilization have become customary in the ravaged country. Millions of Ukrainian refugees remain dispersed across Europe seeking asylum amid displacement, housing insecurity, and uncertainty, while those remaining in the nation confront perpetual economic instability and recovery initiatives. What originated as a rapid territorial offensive has developed into a prolonged conflict that tests not only the endurance of Ukraine’s defense capabilities, but also the strength of its political institutions and alliances.
In this phase of the war, international assistance has become crucial to Ukraine’s capacity to sustain resistance. NATO member states have provided substantial aid to Ukraine, with the United States being the leading contributor. According to the World Population Review, U.S. aid totals approximately $128 billion since 2022, with Congress indicating that appropriations could reach as high as $187 billion when including military training and replenishment of U.S. defense stocks.
However, the U.S.’s interventionist stance does not benefit from widespread domestic support. Since the beginning of the conflict in 2022, tensions have risen within the U.S. government about the degree of support being sent abroad. The conversation nationwide reflects the complicated relationship Americans have regarding Ukraine policy. The current congressional Republican majority in Washington advocates for a rapid end to the war through peace talks, but cannot come to a consensus on Trump’s approach to foreign policy matters. In recent years, Republican support for continued aid provision to Ukraine has declined. This is largely due to the influence of President Trump’s ‘America First’ policy, which has culminated in the controversial 28 Point Peace Plan, introduced in late 2025. This plan, while still being negotiated, affirms Ukraine’s sovereignty, grants Russia Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk, creates a demilitarized buffer zone in parts of Donetsk, limits Ukraine’s military to 600,000 troops, holds the United States and allies to the promise of security guarantees if Russia were relaunch strikes, and requires that Ukraine be banned from NATO membership. While some Republicans criticize this plan as being pro-Russia, other longstanding Trump supporters view it as a successful push for resolution in the midst of a stalemate. This profound division within the Republican base, concerning the more appropriate tools for peacemaking, rather than its necessity, deeply contrasts the unified opposition.
The Democrats have consistently supported assisting Ukraine in reestablishing its sovereignty over the separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk through the provision of increased military and economic aid. Thus, condemnation of the 28 Point Peace Plan is widespread among Democrats which is considered an inappropriate method rewarding Russian hostility and spoiling U.S. interests. They endorse the “peace through strength” doctrine by sending more assistance to strengthen Ukraine, with hopes of ultimately weakening Russia’s resolve both through armed conflict and through sanctions. Concerning Ukraine, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has stated that “[Democrats] reject any deal that weakens its defenses or invites future invasions…” advocating for a crackdown on Russian sanctions.
Additionally, domestic affairs need to be urgently addressed. With a national debt of about $40 trillion, border control controversies and ICE protests, high costs of living, and China’s rise in the global arena demanding the attention of lawmakers, the majority has significantly scaled back its funding since the start of the conflict. But with new elections approaching, a central question arises: how long will the Republicans remain in power, and what are the consequences of a possible partisan change for future U.S. policy?
Every two years, the United States holds their midterm elections, typically in November, where all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and most Senate seats are contested. The majority of states also elect their governors during this time. As a potential turnover approaches at the end of this year, U.S. foreign policy could undergo a drastic shift from its current trajectory, making Ukraine’s future hang on a sensitive equilibrium.
Checking the Chief: Congress as a Constitutional Counterweight
Congress plays a central role in shaping foreign policy, acting as both a deliberative body and a financial gatekeeper. The relationship of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches has long defined how the United States engages abroad. The President can articulate foreign policy goals and deploy diplomatic and military resources, but funding for those aims must pass through appropriations bills approved by both chambers of Congress and signed by the President. This dynamic often leads to a tug-of-war among competing priorities: often in this context national security, economic stability, humanitarian obligations, and domestic programs vie for limited resources.
As the financial steward of the government, Congress determines how the budget is allocated to different areas of spending. According to Article I of the United States Constitution, a fundamental document in establishing the domestic system of check and balances , Congress wields the “power of the purse”, giving it ultimate control over federal funding. This faculty is often described as a constitutional coalesce: even proactive foreign policy requires legislative authorization for funds to be distributed. This includes foreign aid packages, Department of Defense appropriations, and engagement in military operations. While the President directs diplomacy and can deploy instruments of force, Congress ultimately decides whether those policies are financially feasible.
Whenever Congress is controlled by the executive’s opposition, clashes become frequent, and the institution uses its Article 1 powers to restrain the presidential scope of action. After the 2022 midterm elections, when Republicans gained control of the House during the Biden administration, they immediately leveraged their new-found position over the President. In October of 2023, the executive sent a request to Congress for a package of approximately $106 billion that included aid to Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel. The total contained $60 billion solely for Ukraine, in the form of military support, subsidies, and replenishment for American troops. In efforts to push the President toward major reforms for border policy, House Republicans refused to authorize the package unless revised. Months of successive appropriations debates followed, culminating in a bipartisan Senate deal in 2024 that coupled aid to Ukraine with a crackdown on border control and harsher asylum standards. Ultimately, the proposal was rejected by House Republicans, losing their chance at gaining immigration reform.
This debate stalled Ukraine funding for months, preventing billions of U.S. dollars from reaching the front lines. In the spring of 2024, Republicans eventually conceded, passing separate foreign aid bills instead of authorizing an entire package to be approved. Biden was able to send approximately $60 billion to Ukraine, with Democrats offering their widespread support. Although the Republicans did not ultimately secure their policy objectives, they successfully caused lengthy debates that stalled funding and harmed the credibility of U.S. commitments.
Article 1 also grants Congress the power to shape the scope and scale of military action. The legislative branch has the authority to declare war, raise and support armed forces, and regulate military operations. In practice, this capacity translated into the so-called “authorizations for use of military force” (AUMF). AUMFs are laws passed by Congress that allow the President to use armed intervention, without the need for a formal declaration of war. This further demonstrates the delicate balance of powers prescribed by the Constitution as for foreign policy. While Presidents may initiate military action, formal authorization, when required, must come from Congress. Having this structure ensures that executive actions are subject to legislative oversight, a dynamic that can slow momentum during periods that require quick resolutions.
The Midterm Curse
As the authority that approves executive actions, Congress’ midterm elections directly shape the direction of U.S. commitments in foreign policy. Consequently, shifts in Congressional control during these elections have a significant impact on the trajectory of external agreements. Traditionally the ruling party loses the House to the opposition, a phenomenon known as the “midterm curse.” Since Franklin Deleno Roosevelt’s election in 1946, 17 out of 20 midterms have shown a House loss for the president’s party. The Senate shows similar but less significant findings, as fewer seats are available during the two year cycle. The combination of a narrow House majority and polling that places Democrats fourteen points ahead aligns with the established midterm pattern of losses for the president’s party.
Such a shift could introduce internal divisions over the direction of American Ukraine policy. President Trump’s ‘America First’ doctrine advocating for rapid peace deals and increased isolation contrast with Democratic fundamental priorities that emphasize enhanced oversight and ongoing assistance. Under a divided government, these competing strategic frameworks would coexist, increasing the likelihood that foreign policy undergoes prolonged bargaining and extensive delays.
In an already polarized political climate, such dissension could manifest in a legislative gridlock rather than productive collaboration. The result would not necessarily be an instantaneous policy reversal, but an unpredictable period characterized by heightened oversight, conditional appropriations, and impediments to satisfying commitments.
What will shape the midterm vote?
Various factors determine the outcome of midterms; the first and foremost being the economy. Currently, the outlook of the American economy presents mixed signals that will definitely affect voter behavior. The beginning of 2025 experienced solid growth, but then a sharp slow of momentum. GDP expanded about 1.4% in the fourth quarter, numbers that were a deceleration partly due to temporary fiscal disruption during the government shutdown, coupled with broader macroeconomic moderation and lingering inflation. Despite unemployment being at a low and the stock market showing significant gains, Americans still feel the weight of high costs of living and inflation on everyday goods. All of these factors have hurt consumer confidence, which traditionally leads to the blame of the party in power. Though major macroeconomic figures are not grim, voter dissatisfaction with affordability could lead to increased support in favor of the opposition in November.
Another determinant is presidential approval, as midterms often function as referendums for the current executive. Since the Congressional elections happen 2 years after its presidential counterpart, voters frequently use this opportunity to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the administration. Formally, this dynamic is called retrospective voting, in which voters reward or punish the ruling party based on the condition of the economy, policy implementation, and overall administration performance. In this way presidential approval ratings often predict the amount of congressional seat losses for his party.
President Trump’s approval rates are marked by a deep partisan divide. According to a recent poll taken in December 2025, approximately 89% of Republicans still support the sitting President, while approval among Democrats remains overwhelmingly minimal at 3%. Such polarization shifts the electoral focus from cross-party persuasion towards inter-party mobilization. In November, the outcome will be determined by which party has higher turnout on the ballot.
Indeed, voter turnout is a critical factor, as trends during off-year elections largely differ from presidential elections. Typically midterms see less turnout overall, with recent presidential contests having an approximately 60% turnout, but midterms experiencing a lower 45-50%. Evidently enthusiasm plays a key role: if one side feels strongly about the executive, turnout increases within that group. Accordingly, electoral results are shaped by which partisan coalition demonstrates greater motivation to engage in the election process.
The Human Cost of Inaction
Beyond strategic and economic calculations lies an ethical dilemma. On one side, support for Ukraine demonstrates a defense of national sovereignty, democracy, and the idea that borders cannot be redrawn by force. Isolating from this conflict could weaken these international norms that have characterized the post-World War II global order, and even embolden other authoritarian powers. At the same time, continuing to provide aid militarily and financially requires deployment of resources, creates the potential for escalation, and forces lawmakers to choose between prioritizing foreign conflicts over domestic concerns. During this urgent period, Congress must strike a balance between fulfilling their duties to Americans while also living up to the U.S. position as a beacon of liberal democracy. This conflict has raised the timeless question of how far a country should go to defend ethical principles abroad.
The significance of midterms is highlighted in asking this ideological question. Off-year elections determine who controls Congress, and therefore who shapes appropriations policy, oversight of the executive, and foreign policy as a whole. If it results in another unified Republican government, aid to Ukraine will gradually be withdrawn, as Republican support for sending aid continues to decline despite their fragmented internal front. However, if the opposition takes hold of Congress, divisions within the government will stifle Democratic pushes for aid, potentially delaying decisions and packages. The midterms not only affect millions of Americans, but also millions of Ukrainians as they hope for the end of the war.
The World Watching Washington
If the midterms favor the opposition, the United States could experience a period of weakened credibility. Highly polarized governments are often divided on how to achieve their goals. This manifests in increased congressional oversight, where the legislative utilizes hearings, investigations, subpoenas, and, in extreme cases, impeachments to ensure the executive complies with constitutional constraints. Though formally created to check executive power, oversight can also be used as a political tool. As elected officials with partisan affiliations, legislators often employ oversight to highlight presidential failures, generate media attention, and overall weaken the executive’s standing before elections. While powerful domestically, an increase in congressional scrutiny, especially when pertaining to foreign policy decisions, signals to allies and opponents that the U.S. has internal discord, damaging U.S. integrity. Any American commitment to provide aid or security becomes dubious.
A weakened standing in the global arena prompts an increase in diplomatic engagement to mitigate reputational costs and reinforcing deterrence. Under a Democratic congressional majority, the executive may increase coordination with the State Department to renew confidence in American commitments and reduce the risk of escalation. Public statements of solidarity, increased multilateral cooperation with allies, and sustained diplomatic mediation are all methods that can be employed to demonstrate continuity. In this context, diplomacy would function as a stabilizing instrument, compensating for signals of American political fragmentation.
However, reassurance alone may not fully offset the effects of obvious intergovernmental division, stirring nations abroad to reassess their commitments. Persistent signals of a legislative gridlock while diplomats struggle to reinforce perceptions of reliability to the international community could raise concerns about the authenticity and predictability of American actions. In response, NATO allies would have to pursue greater self-reliance in defense spending, and even expand partnerships with other countries to compensate for a shifting U.S. policy. Additionally, adversaries could see the reduction in deterrent cohesion as an opportunity to further aggression and test boundaries.
Toward Recovery and Resilience
From Ukraine’s perspective, international support remains a cornerstone to its sustainability in the conflict. Kyiv needs a credible signal from the U.S. that it will maintain its ongoing support, but if the American government cannot deliver, it will have to turn to other contributors. The European Union has proven to be a reliable ally, which could play a larger role in financing Ukraine in the future. Already there has been increases in European funding, demonstrating that it has the capacity to provide long-term aid. Financial aid packages, strategic sanctions, and budget support are all mechanisms that the EU can offer to aid in the reconstruction of Ukraine, restore energy systems, and restabilize the national economy. Moreover, higher European investment has the potential to deepen Ukrainian ties to the European market, creating stronger trade relationships and sustainable economic growth.
NATO has also contributed significantly to Ukrainian efforts, and it can further its aid by reinforcing the nation’s security as the conflict continues. Even without full NATO membership, the alliance can provide expanded military training programs, intelligence, and weapons. Increased defense spending by the European alliance members would also distribute the financial burden more evenly across NATO members, lessening what many consider overreliance on the U.S. military capacity.
While not a perfect substitute for U.S. support, these two institutions have the potential to increase humanitarian support. Relationships with these institutions create stability that is less susceptible to fluctuations in U.S. domestic politics. By diversifying its coalition of support, Ukraine can derive greater strategic advantage both during the ongoing conflict and in subsequent reconstruction.
Conclusion
The 2026 midterm elections represent a consequential juncture for U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine. Though a legislative stalemate is not inevitable, historical trends, rising polarization, and fiscal constraints increase the likelihood of institutional strife. Under such conditions, U.S. foreign policy will see delays or even a strategic recalibration, with consequences for deterrence, alliance credibility, and humanitarian outcomes.
Should the Republican majority remain in power, foreign policy may reflect its preferences for reduction in aid to Ukraine. Under the Trump administration, funding for the conflict continues to decrease, and that trend will sustain if Congress allows him to further pursue his isolationist initiatives. In this case, American foreign policy decisions would be significantly more predictable, but all the more unhelpful for Ukraine.
Ultimately, the November elections will have direct implications on Ukraine’s capacity to sustain resistance and prepare for extended recovery. Whether a Democratic shift toward more supportive measures will occur, or Republican continuity in detaching from the conflict will return, Ukraine maintains access to alternative partnerships. Backed by Japan, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, Ukraine will not only outlast the war, but begin a path towards longlasting prosperity and peace.
Bibliography
A look to the 2026 Midterms, November 2025 [Data set] (2025, November 19). Marist Poll. https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/a-look-to-the-2026-midterms-november-2025/.
Americans Widely Pessimistic About Ukraine-Russia Peace Deal [Data set] (2025, August 28). Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/694496/americans-widely-pessimistic-ukraine-russia-peace-deal.aspx.
Balz & Clement. (2026, February 22). 60% disapprove of Trump ahead of State of the Union, Post-ABC-Ipsos poll finds [Data set]. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/22/trump-disapproval-post-poll/.
Brenan, M. (2025, March 18). Support for Greater U.S. Role in Ukraine Climbs to 46% High [Data set]. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/658193/support-greater-role-ukraine-climbs-high.aspx.
El Baz, Smeltz, & Kafura (2026, February 12). Americans Oppose Ceding the Dobas to Russia Amis Push for Peace Deal [Data set]. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/americans-oppose-ceding-donbas-russia-amid-push-peace-deal.
Galston,W. (2025, August 28). What history tells us about the 2026 midterm elections. Brookings.https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-history-tells-us-about-the-2026-midterm-elections/.
Gatten, K. III ( 2024, February 26). Congress and Crisis: Navigating the Complex Terrain of U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Ukraine. Penn State Law. https://sites.psu.edu/jlia/congress-and-crisis-navigating-the-complex-terrain-of-u-s-foreign-policy-toward-ukraine/.
Irwin, N. (2026, February 20). U.S. economy slows to 1.4% GDP in growth in Q4 [Data set]. Axios. https://www.axios.com/2026/02/20/gdp-q4-economy-trump.
Landay & Zengerle (2025, December 11). Contrasting views of Russia show deepening Republican split over foreign policy. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/contrasting-views-russia-show-deepening-republican-split-over-foreign-policy-2025-12-11/.
Lieven, A. (2025, November 20). Trump’s ‘28-point plan’ for Ukraine War provokes political earthquake. Responsible Statecraft. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-plan-ukraine-war/.
Navigating the Balance of Power in the U.S. House and Senate to Drive Policy Wins (2026, January 15). Bloomberg Government. https://about.bgov.com/insights/congress/balance-of-power-in-the-u-s-house-and-senate/#connect-with-key-committee-leadership.
Rugaber & Ott. (2026, February 20). US economic growth weaker than thought in fourth quarter with government shutdown, consumer pullback. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/gdp-economy-consumer-shutdown-immigration-0e5caca783b93eaf2231496e3e0f54f3.
Total Aid to Ukraine by Country 2026 (2026, February 15). World Population Review. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/total-aid-to-ukraine-by-country.
US Midterm Elections 2026 - what do they mean for Ukraine? (2025, November 30). Lviv Herald.https://www.lvivherald.com/post/us-midterm-elections-2026-what-do-they-mean-for-ukraine.
USA Facts Team. (2025, August 20). How does voter turnout in the US differ by state, age, and race? [Data set]. USA Facts. https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-americans-vote-and-how-do-voting-rates-vary-state/.
Vale, A. (2024, December 4). A brief visual history of how midterm elections changed Congressional control since FDR [Data set]. Santa Monica Daily Press. https://www.smdp.com/a-brief-visual-history-of-how-midterm-elections-changed-congressional-control-since-fdr/.
Zengerle, P. (2025, November 27). Trump’s Ukraine plan triggers outrage from Republican lawmakers. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-ukraine-plan-triggers-outrage-from-republican-lawmakers-2025-11-26/.
Comments