AhlulBayt News Agency: The election of Muslim lawmakers and the growing influence of politicians critical of Israel in the US Congress have raised an important question: Can these lawmakers use their legislative powers to restrict Washington's support for Tel Aviv and bring about changes in US policy towards Iran?
The outcome of the November 3, 2026, US midterm elections has brought renewed attention to the growing role of Democrats, Muslim lawmakers, Arab-American representatives and progressive political figures in Congress. The Democratic Party has secured control of both chambers, creating new opportunities to challenge some of President Donald Trump's policies. However, the extent to which this political shift can influence US foreign policy remains uncertain.
The significance of this development extends beyond changes in the number of congressional seats. It also reflects the growing presence of political groups calling for a reassessment of Washington's relationship with Tel Aviv, restrictions on military assistance to Israel and an end to the use of American public resources for foreign wars.
Nevertheless, electoral victories do not automatically grant lawmakers unlimited political authority.
Under the US political system, the powers of Congress and the White House are separate. The president remains commander-in-chief of the armed forces and exercises considerable authority over foreign policy and military operations. Therefore, even if government opponents secure a congressional majority, they cannot independently block every presidential decision.
Congress, however, possesses several important mechanisms to influence government policies. Effective use of these powers could increase pressure on the administration over military decisions, defence spending and financial assistance to other countries.
US Military Aid to Israel: The First Major Challenge
One of the most important areas that could be affected by the changing political composition of Congress is American military assistance to Israel.
Under a military assistance agreement between Washington and Tel Aviv, the United States committed to providing Israel with $38 billion in military assistance over the 2019–2028 period, averaging $3.8 billion annually. A substantial portion of this funding is allocated to foreign military financing and strengthening Israel's missile defence systems.
However, the agreement does not mean that the funds are automatically released without congressional oversight. Military assistance remains subject to congressional appropriations and budgetary decisions.
Lawmakers critical of Israeli policies could introduce proposals to reduce this assistance, oppose additional funding or seek to attach specific conditions related to human rights and the use of American weapons.
They could also use their oversight powers to investigate the Israeli military's use of US-supplied weapons and demand greater accountability from American officials regarding arms exports and their consequences.
However, such initiatives would not automatically bring an end to military assistance to Israel. Passing binding legislation generally requires support from both chambers of Congress and, in many cases, presidential approval.
Nevertheless, an increase in the number of lawmakers questioning Israeli policies could change the political environment and raise the political cost of providing unconditional support to Tel Aviv.
War with Iran: How Far Can Congress Limit Trump's Powers?
Another major issue concerns the extent of the US government's authority to continue military operations against Iran. This could become a significant source of disagreement between the White House and the new congressional majority.
Under the US Constitution, Congress has important powers relating to the declaration of war, authorisation of military force and approval of military spending. At the same time, the president enjoys broad authority to direct military operations as commander-in-chief.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 also establishes a framework for congressional oversight of presidential military actions. Under this legislation, the president must generally report the introduction of US forces into hostilities to Congress within 48 hours. Military operations must normally be terminated within 60 days unless Congress authorises or extends them, subject to the law's provisions.
Democratic lawmakers now have an opportunity to reintroduce proposals aimed at restricting military operations against Iran, impose conditions on war-related funding and demand explanations from the administration regarding the objectives, costs and legal basis of military operations.
Congressional oversight could also become an important instrument. The new majority could summon officials from the Department of Defense, the State Department and intelligence agencies to congressional hearings and demand answers about military expenditure, operational plans and the consequences of prolonging the conflict.
However, congressional opposition does not automatically guarantee an end to military operations. The president can veto legislation seeking to restrict executive authority. Overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress, a threshold that can be difficult to achieve.
Democratic Victory Does Not Mean a Complete Change in US Policy
Despite the shift in Congress's political composition, it would be inaccurate to assume that all Democrats share the same position on Israel, Iran and American military policy.
The Democratic Party includes a range of political viewpoints. Some progressive lawmakers advocate ending or substantially reducing military assistance to Israel. Others favour making such assistance conditional on compliance with human rights standards, while another section of the party continues to support the military alliance between Washington and Tel Aviv.
These differences demonstrate that even if Democrats secure a congressional majority, lawmakers seeking changes to US policy towards Israel will need support from other factions within their own party to turn their demands into binding legislation.
In reality, the growing number of lawmakers critical of Israeli policies does not necessarily mean an immediate change in the official position of the US government. However, it could provide these voices with a broader political platform, increase pressure on the administration and create opportunities to restrict certain forms of military assistance.
Military Spending and the Economic Needs of American Citizens
The success of political groups critical of the administration's policies is not limited to foreign affairs. Their demands are also closely connected to the economic and social challenges facing American citizens.
One of the key proposals supported by progressive political groups is expanding access to government-funded healthcare for all citizens. The objective is to reduce medical expenses, improve access to essential healthcare services and ease the burden of medical debt on families.
Other demands include reforms to prescription drug pricing, increased government assistance for healthcare and housing, and efforts to prevent cuts to certain social welfare programmes.
Critics of American foreign policy argue that the substantial amounts spent on military assistance to Israel and maintaining a US military presence in the region could instead be directed towards healthcare, education, housing and public welfare.
However, implementing these proposals would also require legislative approval, sufficient financial resources and the necessary support in Congress. Electoral victories alone cannot guarantee their immediate implementation.
New Congressional Balance: Greater Pressure on the White House, but No Easy End to Existing Policies
Overall, the results of the US midterm elections could restrict the political and legislative freedom of the Trump administration in several areas. Budgetary control, government oversight, reviews of arms agreements and opposition to White House policy proposals are among the powers that government critics may now be able to exercise more effectively.
Nevertheless, changing US foreign policy, particularly towards Iran and Israel, will not be straightforward simply because control of Congress has changed. The president continues to hold substantial executive powers, while divisions within the Democratic Party could also complicate efforts to take decisive action.
In this context, one of the most significant consequences of the recent elections could be the strengthening of the legislative and oversight capacity of lawmakers opposing Washington's military policies. This could expose American military assistance to Israel to greater scrutiny and make the continuation of military operations against Iran more politically and financially difficult for the US administration.
However, it would be premature to conclude that these policies will be completely reversed.
Editorial fact-check note: The 2026 midterm results confirm that Democrats won control of both chambers of Congress. At least seven Muslim lawmakers won congressional seats, including Abdul El-Sayed, who became the first Muslim elected to the US Senate. However, Muslim identity should not automatically be equated with opposition to Israel; individual lawmakers have different political positions.
Your Comment