The Midterm Results: The political and institutional consequences of the elections | This is America

This is America and this is a country that now faces a power struggle between Congress and the White House. Democrats are determined to keep President Donald Trump in check after taking over the House and Senate. But this is a president that isn't afraid to test the limits of his powers, even if Democrats insist they're going to investigate his administration. Will this lead to a gridlock in Washington or create bipartisan progress? First, let's go to Alex Marquardt. In our Washington DC studio. Thank you, Matthew. By seizing control of Congress, the Democrats have also taken control of the legislative agenda. President Donald Trump has already said he would be open and willing to work with Democrats in Congress unless they were being what he called destructive. He's also said that he would not hesitate to veto Democratic legislation that comes across his desk. So will the Democrats look for areas where they can compromise and work with Donald Trump, or will they use their investigative powers to try to hold the administration accountable? Here's what Hakeem Jeffries, who hopes to be the House Speaker, had to say on Thursday. We need to end the war of choice in Iran. We need to stop the Trump tariffs. We need to reverse the Medicaid cuts. We need to reverse the SNAP cuts. We need to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. Taxpayer dollars should be spent to make life more affordable for everyday Americans, not to drop bombs overseas. In an endless war... That Donald Trump and Republicans promised they would not get the country into. And we've got to make sure that we are delivering the type of accountability that the American people are demanding take place beginning in the new Congress. And our Alex Baird digs into what can and cannot be done. Right, so you've got Capitol Hill up there, but today I'm going to take you into the offices for the House of Representatives, because you're about to have a lot of new faces walking up these steps. And that could cause a lot of headaches for President Donald Trump. Let's have a look at why. All right, well, we're in. So now the Democrats are going to hold the power to pretty easily pass legislation through Congress. Trump will be able to veto some of that, but the Senate and the House could push back if they get a two-thirds majority and override that veto. I mean that would still be a challenge, the Dems would have to convince some Republicans to cross the aisle, but they're a lot closer to that now. So major legislation is going to take some wheeling and dealing if anything is going to get done. And that's going to matter because of one massive thing, money. Congress holds the purse strings and decides how much money the President and Government gets. The Democrats are also going to get control of confirming the president's nominees for cabinet members, senior officials, and federal judges. They'll chair all the committees, meaning they can launch investigations and issue subpoenas. And then there's the one that Donald Trump is all too familiar with, and that is impeachments. Now, down the corridor here, you've got offices for members of the House of Representatives. Now, they, they would only need a simple majority to impeach the president, something they'll now have. But actual removal from office, the conviction, that needs two-thirds of present senators. And if Democrats could wrangle that, get Republicans to cross the aisle, well, your guess is as good as mine, but things would probably get extremely messy. All right. Let's discuss this next Congress and where it could go with our guests. We have Doug Heise, a Republican strategist and former Republican National Committee communications director, and Roger Fisk, who is a Democratic strategist. Roger, Doug, thank you both for being with me. I just want to start with the latest news, and that is that the Democratic leader is not a guarantee. It's not. Definitely going to be Chuck Schumer. We just learned last night that Chris Van Hollen from Maryland is going to challenge him. Roger, is there a chance that Schumer could be toppled? And what would that mean for Democrats? First off, thank you so much for having me. And I extend my greetings to your viewers around the world. What I'm trying to decide is whether or not Schumer realizes that there needs to be the optics of some kind of. challenge and whether or not this is being somewhat kind of blessed by him. Schumer says he has the votes and I'm assuming he wouldn't say that publicly if he didn't. So the question is is like is Van Hollen doing this for the team writ large so that there can be the appearance of at least a challenge to the Senate Majority Leader and that's what we'll see play out. I would find it very, very difficult to believe that Schumer is out publicly saying he has the votes when in fact he doesn't. Do you think it's healthy for Democrats to have a bit of a back and forth here? Schumer's called it a discussion. I don't know how nasty it's going to get. Or do you think it actually takes some of the energy away from Democrats who've just had this big win? I think either party and frankly, Congress, the Senate or the White House, when they go through what we all saw play out last Tuesday. Have to go through, both in people's perceptions and in reality, have to go through some soul searching. And if that requires considering a change in leadership, then I think it's a healthy thing. What about on the Republican side, Doug? Because we have John Thune, who is going to remain as leader of the Republicans, now going into the minority. There wasn't much of a discussion there. But is there a big difference for Republicans working with Democrats, whether it is Schumer or Van Hollen? I don't think so. And both parties have somewhat of an identity crisis. And, you know, look, this was a trouncing for Republicans. It wasn't a massive endorsement for Democrats. When Republicans won 63 seats in 2010 when I was at the RNC, it wasn't about us. It was about Obamacare and Nancy Pelosi and so forth. So, you know, as they go through these machinations, it's not just about what happens over the coming weeks. It's really the next two years. And how do Democrats emerge I think it's important for us to You know, in the wilderness now in Congress, have to figure that out both here in Washington, but also more broadly in the states where they were absolutely decimated in state houses and state senates. Our farm team was lost. And so Republicans need to figure that out as well. You just mentioned identity crisis. And I think when you look at Schumer and Van Hollen, you do have. Fairly different approaches and wings, if you will, of the Democratic Party, where Van Hollen's been much more progressive. He's been much more aggressive on Israel, for example, than Chuck Schumer. So as Democrats lay out their priorities and start these legislative initiatives, would there be quite a difference, Roger, depending on which man is in charge? I think the difference would probably come in the how rather than the what, which is to say that I believe Van Hollen, people are being lumped into two different buckets, either the fight Democrats, which could go all the way over to moderates, including Alyssa Slotkin, or the flight Democrats, which is the implication that some Democrats have been too soft in their opposition to the Trump administration. So in that sense, Van Hollen is going to obviously then try to take on the fight mantra or the fight label within that, which by implication means that Senator Schumer has been too accommodating. There's another school of thought that says, don't blow this. You've got a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to actually run a competent. I don't think he's going to be the majority to actually try to get a couple things done. And you should go with the tested hand that just won far more Senate races than anyone expected he could. And that was the statement from Angus King of Maine who said why would you change the manager when he just won the world series. Democrats have a big new obstacle in Stephen Miller, the new chief of staff of the White House. I want to play a little bit more from Hakeem Jeffries who had this to say about Miller. Take a listen. Stephen Miller is the architect of Donald Trump's violent mass deportation machine and has unleashed billions of taxpayer dollars to brutalize and kill American citizens. It was an irresponsible decision in my view. There's not going to be any opportunity certainly to work with Stephen Miller and what he represents. And we're committed to forcefully pushing back against the extremism that they may try to continue to unleash on the American people. And we've got a firewall in the House and a firewall in the Senate, thanks to the American people. As we all know, Miller is strident. He's an ideologue. Doug, to what extent do you think Republicans are going to be faced with instruction from Miller? And what does it mean for Democrats who are trying to push forward legislation? Well, it's a very different reality when you go from the majority to the minority. What instructions are there really that would need to be followed? I mean, don't compromise, like stick to your guns. This is the stuff that we... Minorities stick together pretty well because they don't have to do anything, especially in the House. Right? Your job is to vote no. Your job is to be opposition. That's a really easy thing to do. But I think there are two looming crises coming up, and how Democrats handle them, and what Republicans do, and certainly President Trump, will be very important. That starts with, if we have a CR in the next couple weeks or two, how does the government — Continuing resolution to keep the government open. Yeah. So that would probably go through February. Mm-hmm. What do we do then? And how do Democrats work with President Trump, or do they, to keep the government open? After that, we're going to see a debt ceiling limit come up. And that has been the party that is out of the White House is always hesitant to do that. Are they going to be able to do that this time? And again, how do they or do they work with the president on that? These are two things that never come up on the campaign trail, but it can be very important to tell us about the next two years. I mean, so much of this comes down to money, right, guys? It's about where the budgets are, where the appropriation is going. And that is probably the biggest thing that Democrats will now have. They keep talking about the power of the purse. And so... Roger, many Democrats that we've heard from, that we've spoken with on this show, want to see the funding turned off for Iran, that that is the biggest lever that Democrats have to try to pressure Donald Trump to end this war in Iran. But what do you think are the biggest priorities where Democrats want to shift money and get the tap turned back on? Right off the top, I would imagine for replacing the ACA subsidies that weren't extended last year. But I think there's a small window to do a couple of things. Like, for example, if they were to resurrect the bipartisan housing bill of last summer and bring that back up, I think there would be a logical way where the White House could look upon that favorably. I think if they were to come together on a relatively comprehensive ethics reform around insider trading and some of these predictive market gambling sites that elements of the government have access to, there are things that they could come out in the first 60 or 90 days and actually do. The question is, to loop back to your subject of two questions ago about Stephen Miller, Is whether or not The president can say there's an appetite to work with Democrats, but whether or not there's truly an operational day-to-day open line of communication between the White House in any real senior capacity and the Democratic leadership in Congress. I mean, I'm thinking of other priorities like climate, education, NIH. You mentioned health care and the subsidies there. These are things that the White House has chipped away over the past two years. So if Democrats try to reverse that, Doug. Does that have to, does that all have to be signed off on by Donald Trump? On some level, yes. And while that's happening, you'll have now in the House and Senate, right, we all knew the House was going to flip, but you're going to have in the House and the Senate something called committee chairs. And they're all going to be Democrats. And they're all going to have subpoena power. And so part of the, I think part of the complication on all of this in Washington is As you have committees investigating, whether it's the Trump family or businesses that are operating with Don Jr. or Eric or whomever, that's going to cause real friction and real pressure points with the administration. And how do they deal with that? How do you deal with investigations into your own family when you're also trying to work on legislation to keep the lights on? And, you know, obviously they might be less inclined to work with Democrats if there are those friction points. You know, you could say if there are Democrats trying to put forward legislation that could You know, Republicans could approve of, but at the same time, the Trump family feels they're being antagonistic. It might not go anywhere. Look, Robert Garcia, the Democrat from California, is taking over government reform and oversight. I don't see a lot of legislation signed into law by him. Donald Trump isn't going to touch any of that because he's already said, lawyer up. He's going to be extremely aggressive. Yeah, it is all part of that discussion about the balance that Democrats have to strike. I want to go to our Matthew Torres now, who takes a look at whether politicians from across the aisle are actually prepared to work with one another. Democrats and Republicans agree the so-called blue tsunami sent a clear message. Voters want change and lower prices. As new lawmakers settle in Washington, both parties say they hope to find common ground when Democrats take control of Congress. We're going to have to work with Donald Trump in the White House, right? And yeah, working across the aisle. Look, I want America to get back to a place where partisanship is not the first thing we think about. My party is now in a significant minority, and so we're going to have to work very, very hard to meet the new legislators representing the Democratic Party. But bipartisan cooperation is far from guaranteed. Some Republicans are already promising a fight. We will bring that fight in committee, on the floor, and on the stump every single day. A Democratic majority does not mean Democrats can get everything passed. Trump still has the power to veto, and Democrats won't have the votes to override him. If we didn't want to veto everything, I'll be vetoing, vetoing, then they'll come along and we'll probably make some deals along the way. Democrats can also use their new majority to launch investigations and pursue impeachment, raising the prospect of a confrontation with the White House. A top White House lawyer already warned Democrats how their actions could be criminal. Absolutely. Do we need to prioritize impeachment? We need to prioritize investigation and we're going to figure out who are the leaders to do that. Democrats will also have more leverage over blocking Trump's appointees and military funding. Meanwhile, Republicans are already looking to rebuild support ahead of 2028. But we must and we will go on offense day one. We're going to hold Democrats accountable. We're going to challenge their policies. One of the first tests is whether Congress will reverse the Medicaid cuts in Trump's big, beautiful Bill Act, which is supposed to take effect in January. After all, protecting health care was a major campaign issue for Democrats. It is yet to be seen whether we'll see more cooperation or resistance. But at the end of the day, voters are demanding results. Matthew Torres, Al Jazeera, Washington. So, Matthew mentioned some of those, some of the effect of the Big Beautiful Bill that's going into effect in early January on Jan. 1. And that comes in the wake of this $1 trillion of federal spending that was cut from the health care industry. Roger, that's going to be a big priority for Democrats, but they only come into power days after that's supposed to go into effect. So, how quickly could they reverse something like that? Uh, probably. Probably take at least 60 or 90 days. Possibly, possibly. Les, the way this is going to manifest, and I've been saying this since the big, beautiful bill came out, is that rural hospitals, and I know that this sounds like one of the least sexiest subjects we could possibly be talking about, but rural hospitals are where this is going to manifest and the pain and the suffering that's going to result from these cuts. Especially coming hot on the heels of the results that we saw last Tuesday are going to create tremendous pressures on Republicans in rural areas because Healthcare issues, like a lot of things, they can be very atmospheric, but as soon as they become something as simple as the hospital down the street that's been there for three generations of your family is closing, that becomes very, very real, and the chain of custody for the issue or the funding cut that set that all in motion. It dates back decades in a lot of ways, but the nail in the coffin will have been the big, beautiful bill, and that will come home to roost in short order. Yeah, and that's going to be an extremely contentious battle. I think one name that our audience should be aware of is Russell Vought, who's the budget chief at the White House, head of OMB. Doug, Democrats want to investigate him because he has been an architect of so many of these cuts. They will, however, also have to try to find a way to to work with him, wouldn't they? How do you see that relationship? Yeah, look, that's where it becomes very difficult. And by the way, just because you have subpoena power doesn't mean those people are going to show up. Right? I worked on a contempt of Congress citation on Eric Holder when he defied subpoenas and documents that we asked for. This is going to happen. And I think it's, I think even Democrats will realize that just because you're subpoena You know, there's a team of people very, very close to the president. Doesn't mean they're going to show up. And I would wager the Department of Justice isn't going to enforce any contempt from Congress that comes from Democrats. So it's going to be a very complicated, intense relationship. My guess is we're going to see a whole lot of friction spill out publicly. And we'll be seeing that in real time. And we'll be seeing it often. Where do you think, Roger, especially if these are the last two years of Trump, Democrats could actually try to peel some Republicans off for support? That's important. Going a step farther than that, there are going to be some issues that they would try to get through that they would want to get enough Republicans to have a veto-proof majority, which is if they get this 56th seat, they're going to need 11 Republicans. Where do you think the issues are that Republicans might come to the Democrat side on? Sure. I think that we've gotten so locked into this kind of did you hear what he said today dynamic with the current occupant of the White House that there's vast. territory of a policy agenda that we're not even speaking about and we really should be. For example, it would be very refreshing to have a president that would say to the country, I'm going to work with our community colleges and our vocational schools to make sure by 2030 that every kid in this country knows how to code and knows the basics of robotics or something like that, preparing the next generation of the American worker for the economy of the 21st century. All of that is absolutely unaddressed. We don't even speak in those terms anymore because we don't have a president that thinks about the long-term health of this country. It's all like winning today, winning tomorrow, winning next week, et cetera. So I think if we were to go about it like that, And you could throw AI into that. There's a number of health care kind of subcategories. Home health care, for example, makes so much sense financially for the federal government to get people to have a $45 visit in their house instead of a $1,000 visit to the emergency room. I think there's vast territory there where Democrats could work with Republicans. But to Doug's point, the whole question is whether or not you can get it up to that resolute test and get a signature on it. Doug, when you listen to that tough talk in Matthew's piece from Republicans, I mean, I understand that they've got to say that and they have to appear that despite the fact that we're in the minority, we are going to stand up for the things that we believe in. At the same time, there's got to be a recognition of what just happened in the midterms that swept Democrats to power and that if those Republicans who are still there after watching many of their colleagues lose, that they have to address those issues that made those Republicans lose, That brought those Democrats in. Well, they feel that they have and that they will, but part of the problem is with the party conference being so much smaller, a lot of those who lost are those who would be most likely to work with Democrats, Mike Lawler in New York being a great example. So we've sort of intensified as a conference in the House, and it tells me, you hear the word fight? We're going to hear a lot more of that from Republican leadership, and it means they're not going to work together with Democrats. There may be some issues. Farm bill is always a perennial bipartisan issue, but by and large, partisanship is going to stay. The question is, how much does Donald Trump weigh in on certain things, health care being a great example, and bring some Republicans along with him? Do you think Republicans are lying in wait to some extent because Democrats are going to launch many of these investigations and say that it's about corruption and say that it's about getting money back for the American people and sort of frame it like that and Republicans could respond saying this is Democrats being vindictive. They're just out for vengeance. Well, that's going to be part of the talking points anyways. It always is. But we have to see how far Democrats go. The challenge with how I think Washington and certainly Congress has changed over the Several terms is that ultimately you're rewarded for going as far as you can until you go overboard. I've seen Republicans do it. I've seen Democrats do it. And that's going to be a real test for this Democratic Congress. And I say that because it used to be that the A committees were appropriations and ways and means and armed forces and things like that. Now it's government reform and oversight. That's how you get noticed. That's how you get on TV. And it's a real temptation for Republicans and Democrats when they go in those positions. A major role for the Senate, of course, is confirmations, whether it's cabinet members, members of the military, judges, ambassadors. Roger, we all remember Merrick Garland. He was President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court. And Republicans blocked that, led by Mitch McConnell, for almost a year. How do you think Democrats are going to approach confirmations? Largely the same. Thank you. I don't know that they would stiff arm a president for a year over a Supreme Court justice nominee. They might go ahead and allow them to at least go have a hearing and then vote against them. But I do think after looking at the behavior of the Hegseths and the Bessons of the world that the Democrats look at someone like a Joni Ernst who signed off on Secretary Hegseth or a Senator Cassidy from Louisiana who was skeptical of RFK Jr. and then actually signed on. As those being significant political vulnerabilities, and I think the president most likely will actually sidestep the confirmation process for the last two years, because if you look at the first Trump administration, he largely went with acting secretaries for the last 18 months to two years, because I think he... Has a fundamental kind of disregard for the legislative branch and looks upon it as an inconvenience. So he'll probably just go ahead and keep doing recess appointments and things like that. Doug, we only have a few moments left. But if Democrats are now in charge of the money and we always talk about Donald Trump testing the limits of presidential power. But is that going to go into overdrive now? Is that going to go to new heights as Trump tries to skirt the Democratic Congress? Oh, absolutely. And remember, Donald Trump is reactive. So everything Democrats do that's against him is going to cause him to react in a negative way. And so we're going to see a lot more executive orders, for instance, regardless of what they say. And whatever he can do to expand presidential power, he's going to do. What about what kind of access does he have to funds that are outside the control of the Democrats? Look, there are limitations there. But he is a norm buster, and he's going to test how far he can do that on every single issue. Will we have a working appropriations process? Probably not. We haven't for really a long time. Why would we expect that to change now that Donald Trump's backed into a corner? And even with Republicans in charge in the past two years, we've obviously seen a lot of court challenges, and I imagine that those would continue as well. Roger, last question to you. You say that, this is your quote, whether he becomes a lame duck, this is Trump, will depend on how effectively Democrats use their new congressional majority. How could Democrats swiftly make Donald Trump a lame duck? By just coming to a screeching halt on virtually everything that they can through the committees and things like that, and just not moving and slow rolling, throwing sand in the gear of every single parliamentarian step. I'm calling for more and more hearings, having members out of town so you can't reach a quorum. There's a whole bunch of ways that they can basically just slow down the machinery of government, right? And I would imagine that we'll start to see that. I would hope that, and maybe I'm just old-fashioned, that each side would at least be willing to give each other 60 to 90 days to see where they might be able to cobble together a couple A couple wins on behalf of the American people, if they can set aside some of the Tensions around the midterms and actually revisit the fundamentals of their job, but we shall see. Yeah, it's going to be it's going to be very interesting. I mean, certainly on the heels of this historic tide, turning of the tide. We'll see whether there's any sense of the two sides wanting to do anything together. Doug High, Roger Fisk, thank you both very much. And that's all from the team here in Washington. I'm going to hand it back to Matthew Torres and Al Jazeera's global headquarters in Doha. That's it for this edition of This Is America. We'll have a brand new episode on Monday. That's at 18.30 GMT or 1.30 p.m. Eastern here in the U.S. We'll see you then.