US Midterm Elections and the Rest of Us

Postscript by Waziri Adio US elections have had a global following for a while. But it is doubtful if any other American election, including presidential polls, has been more keenly watched across the globe than the midterm elections of November 3rd, 2026. The reason is simple. The US, in the second coming of President Donald Trump, has become a major source of global anxiety. On Tuesday, the American electorate handed Mr. Trump and his Republican Party a stinging rebuke, to the obvious relief of many across the world who expect this domestic chastening to mark a positive shift in America’s global engagement. They may be right, and they may not be. It must be emphasised that American voters, including some of the tribally partisan ones, decided to punish a president who was elected just two years ago on the promise of making life more affordable for Americans but who seemed bent on doing the opposite. It must also be noted that most American voters in the midterm elections were preoccupied with local issues, not global ones. But Trump managed to connect the global to the local in the place where Americans are most sensitive: their pockets and their dining tables. With the strong message from the voters and with the Democratic Party taking control of Congress in January, Trump is expected to dial back some of the actions fuelling high prices, and reinvigorated institutions of restraint are likely to provide much-needed checks. The most obvious point of relief for Americans and non-Americans alike is the likely end of the US-Israeli war on Iran and of Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The Trump-induced crisis in the Middle East constrained the global supply of oil and gas (and fertiliser), and created an energy crisis that put the world at risk and from which US consumers are not insulated. On account of the war and its aftermath, the average price of petrol in the US went from $2.91 per gallon to $4.40, while the average price of diesel jumped from $3.72 per gallon to $6— increases of 51% and 61% respectively within just nine months. Needless to say, this has had implications for the cost of energy and groceries, and Americans did not find it funny. Beyond America’s shores, Trump’s war of choice has increased the risk of another global recession, inflicted pain on consumers across the globe and put governments in different countries under intense pressure. “The reason we lost is the (Iran) war,” Vice President JD Vance posted on social media the day after American voters delivered their unmistakable verdict. “The president himself said so last night.” The energy markets reacted positively to the outcome of the polls and to Vance’s blunt assessment. The price of a barrel of Brent crude fell from $110.45 at the beginning of the week to $98.32 on Friday, an 11% drop within the week. The expectation of the markets, of Americans and of the rest of the world is that Trump will quickly focus on ending the war with Iran. If this happens, the prices of crude oil and refined products such as petrol, diesel and aviation fuel are expected to fall even further. The de-escalation will be needed primarily to appease Americans. But the benefits will not be confined to them, just as the consequences of the war have not been restricted to them. The impact of this avoidable energy crisis is being felt across the globe. In Nigeria, the prices of petrol and diesel rose by 40-90% within nine months, with direct effects on transport, food and energy costs for individuals and on operating costs for businesses. This is significant for a country where most citizens are yet to fully adjust to the shocks of petrol subsidy removal and the devaluation of the national currency. If crude prices fall back to $65-75 per barrel, they will still be above the $64.85 oil price benchmark used in Nigeria’s 2026 budget, and they should bring the price of petrol below N1,000 per litre in the country. This will be a big relief for businesses, households and even the Nigerian government, and it is likely to reduce the appeal of the fiscally reckless but populist promise by some presidential candidates to restore petrol subsidy. In that wise, the local decision made by American voters on November 3rd is likely to benefit Nigerians and consumers in different corners of the globe who are reeling from an avoidable global energy crisis. In addition to ending the war with Iran, Trump may also, in a bid to address high domestic prices, scale back his indiscriminate imposition of tariffs on imports into the US. Trump has operated under the mistaken belief that any country with a trade surplus with the US must be cheating America, and that tariffs would be borne by exporters. However, it is now and always obvious that tariffs are taxes on consumers. Even though exporters may suffer from reduced demand and income, the real losers are the end consumers. Trump’s tariff wars, clothed in nationalistic garb, have imposed a high cost on America and on other countries, some of which have had to impose retaliatory tariffs. The tariffs have been challenged in US courts, with the US Supreme Court ruling in February this year that Trump exceeded his executive authority in imposing sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The administration has since been exploring other statutes to advance Trump’s preferred trade tool. The feedback from the voters may rein in Trump’s appetite for tariffs. But the impact here may not be as consequential or as universal for the rest of the world as ending the war with Iran, since different countries are affected differently by Trump’s tariff wars. It is important not to read the outcome of the US midterms as a reprimand of America’s interventions in other countries or as a disapproval of Trump’s gruff treatment of American allies and international institutions. As noted earlier, the voters were preoccupied with local issues on November 3rd. Global affairs and foreign policy barely registered during the campaigns or as priorities for voters, perhaps understandably. Even though Americans say they are tired of forever wars, they did not disapprove of Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and are unlikely to bat an eyelid if he decides to invade Cuba next. The only reason they are bothered about the war in Iran is that it made gasoline, groceries and other necessities less affordable for them. Similarly, while a majority of Americans may not endorse Trump’s hostility towards the United Nations, the International Criminal Court (ICC), Europe and Canada, or his cosiness with Vladimir Putin and other strongmen, those were not the reasons they voted against him and his party on Tuesday. It would be wrong to expect Trump to change his attitude and ways in these areas, precisely because he has no incentive to do so and is unlikely to come under any pressure to. The Democrats in Congress will definitely hold him to account and keep him in check. But they are more likely to focus on domestic issues, and only on those global issues that have a direct domestic impact (like putting America first). Leading members of the Republican Party, including those in Trump’s cabinet, are likely to break ranks with him as they prepare for a post-Trump future. Some of them may occasionally join forces with the Democrats, but likely only on domestic issues with electoral consequences. One way Trump may respond to his humiliation at home may be to look for those to safely humiliate abroad, and that could include America’s traditional allies. At home, Trump has surely begun his lame-duck phase. But as America’s president for the next two years, he can still do a lot of damage abroad. Besides, those who see the outcome of November 3rd as a possible turning point in how America engages the world may be getting a bit too excited. There is no guarantee that the next American president, even if a Democrat, will depart from the path America has firmly embraced: growing insularity and the weaponisation of dependency. That is a space to watch. The need for a concert of middle powers to rethink and reinvent the global order has not been overtaken by events. The post-WW2 global order was built around undue dependence on America. It should be clear to all by now that this cannot endure forever. However, one lesson of the midterms that is not discussed enough is that the idea of America as a beacon of light is still very much alive. Within two years of Trump 2.0, America had started looking more like a country firmly under the thumb of one man and less like the greatest democratic experiment of the modern world. To be sure, it will take more than one election to know if some irreparable damage has not been done, but these elections have shown that reports of the death of democracy in America have been somewhat exaggerated. The voters have shown the way. The culture that underpins democracy has not given way. Some of the vital institutions have held firm. The outcome of the election, with many firsts, is a better reflection of the diversity of America. The mechanisms for restraint and accountability are likely to be re-energised. For the global community that needs the US to continue to be the shining city on a hill, a positive example of democratic ethos and practice, November 3rd is a cheery even if cautious affirmation.