US President Donald Trump faced a major setback just two years after returning to the White House. Democrats have taken control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, while Republicans have suffered defeats in traditional strongholds like Texas. Some sections of the Indian media have tried to explain the results through affordability and rising gas prices, or attributed it to the war with Iran and its impact on fuel prices, but the results require deeper examination. While their assessment is not wrong and economic challenges were an important factor, it would be incomplete to boil the results down to voters punishing the government for rising prices. The midterms, while being a rejection of Trump, have also shown the growing influence of progressive political movements, including a challenge within the Democratic Party itself. Rejection of Trump’s politicsThe scale of the Republican defeat is significant. Democrats won in places where Republicans have been traditionally difficult to defeat. While the economy had an impact, Americans also voted against Trump’s policies and politics, and the personal nature of his presidency. They were put off by aggressive immigration enforcement, confrontations with universities, controversial use of executive power, personal attacks on political opponents, and a foreign policy that has dragged America into a costly war against Iran as well as the erosion in relationships due to the tariff war by his administration. Trump’s promise was not only about making America prosperous. He also pushed an aggressive form of nationalism and fewer constraints on presidential power. The midterms showed resistance to that project. While the economy remained a major factor, the state of American democracy was a major concern too. Someone worried about rising prices can also be worried about how immigrants are treated and a government taking the country into war without congressional authorisation. The assumption that people live their lives in separate boxes of economy, democracy, immigration, and foreign policy is just not true and describing the results as a reaction to petrol prices mistakes an important issue for the full verdict. Changes inside the Democratic PartyThe conventional wisdom within much of the Democratic establishment was that winning elections required moving towards the political centre. Democrats typically did this before elections for electability, or immediately after winning to win bipartisan support. Progressive candidates were seen as unelectable, especially when they challenged corporate interests, demanded greater economic equality – often misrepresented as redistribution, or questioned American policy. During the midterm elections, at least five DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) candidates made their way into the House of Representatives. They campaigned on progressive issues such as universal healthcare, workers’ rights, economic inequalities, immigration enforcement by ICE, and opposition to America’s support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. While they won in Democratic strongholds, they were able to take on established candidates of their own party and win. Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York in 2025 was a harbinger of this change. He focused on day-to-day problems that people faced – housing, transport, affordability – without diluting his progressive politics. He demonstrated that a candidate can turn progressive values into concrete policy and action. The 2026 midterm candidates continued down that path, broadening the discussion to who benefited from the status quo and the role of government in managing the crisis. However, moderate Democrats also won important victories and while the results should not be interpreted as a wholesale endorsement of the DSA, it showed that progressive candidates could win without moving to the political centre. From protesting genocide to contesting electionsIsrael’s genocide in Gaza was a political flashpoint for younger Americans. For some, it was their initiation into politics. They organised protests and campaigned against American military assistance to Israel, going as far as demanding boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. They challenged both Republicans and leaders in the Democratic Party who continued defending Israel despite the enormous civilian casualties and the destruction of Gaza. Also read: Socialism is as American as Apple PieThey questioned the influence of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and pro-Israel lobbies on foreign and domestic policy, demanding that human rights policies apply to America’s allies too. However, their impact didn’t end with protests. Darializa Avila Chevalier was involved in the Columbia University protests, entered electoral politics, defeating an established Democratic congressman in the primaries and winning a seat in the House. An anti-Israel position – which was adopted by several other candidates – was no longer a disqualification. In fact, opposition to AIPAC funding could become an explicit campaign position in future elections. While it may be wrong to suggest that Gaza determined the election results – many pro-Israel-backed candidates also won – it showed that such movements could bring unlikely new people into politics and force parties to address issues they would normally avoid. This challenge to politicians inside their own party is a significant development. What does this mean for India?There are some practical lessons for India.First, economic and democratic issues are not separate conversations. Daily issues such as unemployment and inflation matter as much as democratic accountability, institutional independence, civil liberties and social justice. Political parties just need to connect these in a way that relates to people. Second, protests and movements resulting from them have a place in electoral politics. In the last decade, India has experienced movements about citizenship (CAA/NRC), farmers’ rights, student protests (NEET), and voting rights. They have brought hundreds of thousands of people into the streets and created new leaders. The question is how do these movements turn into a continuous influence on political parties and produce progressive candidates who can contest and win elections. The US midterms show that activists don’t have to abandon their causes and become part of political parties by diluting their positions. Like the DSA, they can join and challenge parties from within. Third, opposition politics needs to move to showing a new vision, not just a criticism of the old. In the US, the Democrats included moderates, progressives, and democratic socialists who did not agree on everything, but the disagreements brought new ideas and people into the system. Indian opposition parties should make space for new, younger leaders who challenge their own assumptions. While Indian and American politics, their institutions and political ground realities are different, this is a unique time for younger Indians to shape political futures for themselves and the parties they join, to stop being a demographic that is relevant during elections, and ignored after. That is possible only if opposition parties and younger Indians recognise what they can do for each other. The midterms do not prove a new progressive era in America. We don’t know if these changes will last – considering Trump is still president for the next two years and the Democratic Party is still divided. However, Trump’s politics have been temporarily rejected and progressive candidates have shown what is possible. These lessons move beyond resistance to today’s politics into the realm of building tomorrow’s politics. The US midterms, impacted by the immediate pain caused by petrol prices, are only part of the story. To only look at this explanation would be to ignore the undercurrent of what these new movements are forcing political parties to confront and how it could change the politics of tomorrow. That’s the story India should be examining. Venkat Iyer is a wildlife photographer based in the Netherlands.