The American midterm elections have produced a decisive victory for the Democrats. They have taken control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, seriously restricting Donald Trump's ability to pursue his legislative agenda.
The headlines have been dramatic. A blue wave. A repudiation of Trump. A president whose second term is already in trouble.
There is no disguising the result. Losing both houses of Congress is a substantial political setback.
But before accepting the prevailing interpretation, two questions deserve attention.
How unusual is this result historically? And why does the discussion of Trump's failures so often overshadow any examination of what his administration has actually achieved?
First, put the result into perspective
American presidents have a long history of suffering setbacks in midterm elections. The president's party has lost House seats in 18 of the previous 20 midterms.
Consider the record:
The Senate tells a more serious story. Democrats have flipped at least seven Republican-held seats and taken control of the chamber. That is a significant shift, particularly given the states in which they won.
Losing both houses matters. It changes the balance of power in Washington and gives Democrats the ability to block legislation and pursue investigations.
But historical perspective matters too.
A midterm defeat does not automatically mean that a presidency has failed, any more than a midterm victory guarantees future success.
What about Trump's achievements?
Much of the post-election discussion has focused on Trump's personality, his controversial statements, the Iran war and the cost of living.
Those are legitimate subjects.
But a serious assessment of his administration should also consider its record.
Border security. The reduction in illegal crossings at the southern border has been dramatic. Government figures show a substantial decline in apprehensions. Whatever one's views about immigration enforcement, the reduction is a significant policy outcome.
Crime. FBI figures show that violent crime fell sharply in 2025, including a substantial decline in murder. The downward trend began before Trump's return to office, so he cannot claim all the credit. Nevertheless, the continuing improvement is an important development that deserves attention.
Government efficiency. The administration has challenged federal spending, cancelled contracts and pursued alleged waste and fraud. Its Department of Government Efficiency has claimed substantial savings.
China, Iran and Venezuela. Trump has pursued a confrontational approach toward governments he regards as strategic adversaries. His supporters point to increased pressure and efforts to constrain their influence.
These are not insignificant areas of government policy.
Yet they have often struggled to compete for attention with Trump's latest controversy.
The economy: Trump inherited the prices, not just the inflation
Perhaps the most misunderstood issue in this election has been the cost of living.
Victor Davis Hanson has pointed to a striking comparison. Inflation reached 9.1% during Biden's presidency, compared with 3.7% in September 2026. Gasoline prices were also exceptionally high in 2022.
But there is a distinction that seems to be missing from much of the political discussion.
Reducing inflation does not reduce prices. It merely slows the rate at which they increase.
Suppose groceries cost $100 before the inflationary surge. After a 20% increase, they cost $120. Reduce inflation to 3%, and the following year they cost $123.60.
The inflation rate has fallen dramatically. Yet the family is still paying nearly 24% more than before.
Those accumulated price increases do not disappear when a new president takes office.
And this is where Trump's economic record needs to be considered more carefully.
The high inflation of the Biden years left American households with a substantially higher cost base. Even if inflation subsequently moderates, wages must grow faster than prices over a sustained period before purchasing power fully recovers.
Recent figures show that this recovery remains incomplete. Nominal wages have increased, but inflation has absorbed much of those gains.
Trump also bears responsibility for developments during his own presidency. Tariffs and the Iran war have contributed to renewed price pressures, particularly for fuel.
Nevertheless, blaming today's entire cost-of-living problem on the current administration ignores the cumulative effect of earlier inflation.
Voters remember what things used to cost. Economists measure how quickly prices are changing. They are not asking quite the same question.
The political problem is that voters do not experience inflation as an annual percentage. They experience it at the supermarket checkout and petrol pump.
A president may be able to slow inflation relatively quickly. Restoring the purchasing power lost over several years is a much longer undertaking.
And there is little electoral reward for explaining that distinction to someone who is still struggling to pay the bills.
Trump is often his own worst enemy
There is another explanation for why achievements may receive less attention than Trump expects.
Trump has an extraordinary ability to dominate the news. Unfortunately for him, he does not always dominate it in ways that help his own cause.
His confrontational style, personal attacks, extravagant claims and repeated threats generate enormous coverage.
Critics regard this as evidence of poor judgement. Supporters often see it as a willingness to challenge established political conventions.
Either way, it has consequences.
Consider Iran.
The administration's military campaign and diplomatic pressure deserve assessment against their strategic objectives. But Trump's repeated public threats have also created expectations that are difficult to satisfy.
When a president announces dramatic consequences and those consequences do not immediately follow, the discussion shifts from what has been achieved to whether the president has lost credibility.
The announcement becomes the story, rather than the outcome.
Would Trump have been better served by saying less, allowing his administration's actions to speak for themselves and announcing results only when they were achieved?
We cannot know whether that would have changed the election.
But it is reasonable to wonder whether a more disciplined public presentation would have made it easier for voters to judge his record.
Is Trump judged by a different standard?
Trump has been a polarising figure since entering national politics.
Some of that hostility reflects genuine disagreements over policy, democratic institutions and presidential conduct. Some reflects his own deliberate provocations.
But there is also a broader question about the way political narratives develop.
Once a politician becomes defined primarily by controversy, even significant policy achievements can struggle to receive sustained attention.
Conversely, every mistake becomes further evidence supporting an established interpretation.
Trump's relationship with much of the American media has been openly adversarial for years. The coverage frequently applies standards that are not applied equally to other politicians.
There is also a generational dimension. Younger voters encounter politics through universities, social media and cultural institutions, where attitudes toward Trump can be particularly negative.
It raises the question whether voters are receiving a sufficiently complete account of what governments do, rather than a continuous negative account of what politicians say.
Trump's administration should be judged on its actual results—including failures—not simply on its president's latest remarks.
A defeat, not a final verdict
The Republicans have suffered a real defeat. Losing both houses of Congress is consequential, and the Democrats have every reason to regard the result as a significant electoral success.
The electorate has also sent a message about affordability, economic confidence and the direction of the administration.
But midterm elections are not final judgments on presidencies.
History shows that presidents can suffer substantial congressional losses without those losses defining their entire record.
Trump has delivered measurable changes in some areas, made contested claims in others, and created political difficulties through his own conduct.
Perhaps the most interesting lesson is that a president can dominate the political conversation so completely that his personality overshadows his policies—even when those policies have had measurable success.
That may be Trump's greatest political strength.
And, as these midterms suggest, one of his greatest weaknesses.
