America rejected Trump, yet he governs on: what happens now?

For months leading up to the U.S. 2026 midterm election, pundits speculated about the possibility of a “Blue Wave” of support for Democrats crashing down upon the Trump Administration and his lapdog Republican Party.

But what happened last week in the United States proved to be exponentially more dramatic, a shift to the left in places that haven’t elected Democrats in generations.

And yet unlike in the Australian system, where the re-election of the Albanese government in 2025 was similarly unexpected in the strength of Australians’ support across the country for Labor, the United States bizarrely finds itself now in a situation where the nation has emphatically rejected President Donald Trump and his policies, yet he remains in office for another two years.

Having spent the last two years defying the rule of law at home and abroad, Trump seems likely to try to continue.

His sudden decision to replace his chief of staff with deputy and personal gargoyle Stephen Miller, largely believed to be the architect of many of the administration’s most horrific actions against immigrants, seems to suggest the same.

A wave affects everything in its path. But then it passes. As the United States wakes up to a new week, Congress’ first week back since September, the big questions are all about what effect the election — and by extension the Democrats — will actually have.

The Democrats won’t take control of Congress until January, and even then, they will have considerably more power to investigate and obstruct Trump than to implement their own agenda.

Here’s three things to watch.

Foreign affairs

Most Americans, including those who voted for Trump, have spent the last two years stunned at his foreign policy moves.

Outside of his weirdly slavish adoration for Vladimir Putin, his campaign gave no signal he would do things like randomly overthrow the government of Venezuela, threaten Greenland, or attack Iran. And even if he had, I’m not sure anyone understood that our system of government could allow him to do these things without Congressional approval.

The Democrats will do their best to rein Trump’s activity in, starting with trying to impeach Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth—over the weekend the likely new Speaker of the House Hakeem Jeffries said he was a “hard yes” on the move.

Republicans subsequently blocked the immediate effort, although Democrats could revive it in January. Even then, removing Hegseth would require a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

But as president, Trump will continue to have a lot of latitude to act — and at a time when his domestic policy may be largely stymied, the attention-hungry president may turn to foreign policy even more.

An interesting question: Given the fact that Trump will no longer have a congressional majority, will the leaders of other countries feel the need to continue to suck up to him? Or will more follow the example of the Canadian prime minister Mark Carney and openly defy and/or denounce the president?

Also, might military leaders within the United States, who have been repeatedly shamed and abused by Hegseth and had their troops shockingly mistreated as well, do the same?

Domestic Policy

Some years ago an Australian friend told me about a serious health situation he had been through, and how an experimental drug saved his life. Then he said to me, “If I lived in the States, I’d be dead.”

The U.S. healthcare situation, which has been terrible pretty much our entire lives, has cratered in the last year, after Trump allowed enhanced federal health insurance subsidies to expire at the end of 2025, that enabled the many Americans, whose jobs do not provide health care, to survive.

Marketplace insurers increased premiums by a median of 20 percent in 2026 and proposed a further median increase of 15 percent for 2027.

Millions have lost coverage in the individual insurance market. The number of Americans going without healthcare has now reached a point where some insurers are pulling out of the system that Barack Obama’s administration put into place.

The fact that the Democrats will control both houses of Congress in theory gives them the ability to create legislation that could impact this situation and others, such as immigration. But in practice, they may have more luck working through a combination of appropriations measures and hearings that rein in the various departments and perhaps remove leaders.

They can also investigate the administration and block legislation, although they cannot reverse Trump’s executive decisions.

To pass a piece of legislation, they’d need either Trump to accept it, or they’d need enough Republican support to override his veto, which requires a two-thirds majority in both houses. Most legislation would also need 60 votes to overcome a Senate filibuster.

It’s certainly possible in some situations the president will allow legislation to go forward, particularly if he thinks if it makes him look good.

I would argue that it would be wise for Republicans to defy him at this point, but we’ve been saying that for two years, and instead they decided to go down with their ship.

The Electoral College

Is there anything dumber than the Electoral College? And yet, raised on our incomprehensible notion that somehow it’s more democratic to ignore the popular vote because it diminishes the influence of the most populous states, many Americans can’t even see the inherent problem in our system.

In recent times, 19 states have passed legislation requiring the electors who attend the Electoral College to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote in the nation. Together, they account for 222 electoral votes, 48 short of the 270 needed for the agreement to take effect.

Five more states which thus far have not supported the measure — Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada — are now going to be run by Democrats.

Should those five states pass the popular vote legislation, their combined elector numbers with those of the existing participants will surpass the 270 needed to win in the electoral college, and the next president of the United States will could, subject to legal challenges, be the person who wins the popular vote. You know, like in a democracy?

The other big question of the moment is leadership. While there’s widespread dissatisfaction across the country with the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate, both Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer seem likely to retain their jobs.

Both face growing pressure to step aside, however, with Schumer facing particular opposition from within the party. Jeffries will be the first Black Speaker of the House, which is a big deal.

Schumer’s path could be more tenuous — a number of new Senators have already said they will not vote for him. But most think he has the votes. (Come 2028, however, when he is up for his own re-election, most believe if Schumer chooses to run again, he will face the fight of his life from other Democrats in New York State.)

But in a sense the Congressional leadership question is a proxy for the real leadership question of our times, one that plagues the parties of Australia as well: Is there anyone out there who can speak to the present moment with humanity, integrity, and vision? It’s one thing to denounce. Who has the courage to step into the fray and lead?

Right now, there is one American that fits the bill. Unfortunately — or perhaps very fortunately — he’s currently the pope.

This column first appeared in Eureka Street and is republished by Global Catholic with permission.