A Tsunami in 2026 and a Surge toward 2028.

By José R. Cabañas Rodríguez on November 4, 2026 from Havana

The preliminary results of the so-called 2026 midterm elections in the United States paint the worst-case scenario that Donald Trump and his remaining followers within the Republican hordes (it hasn’t been a party for some time) could of imagined. A large Democratic majority in the House was a prediction even a political novice could have made, but a 54-44 majority in the Senate was not anticipated even by the most enthusiastic of their rivals—until early votes began to be tallied in the days leading up to Election Day.

As is well known, there is a historical trend indicating that the party holding the executive branch almost always suffers setbacks in both chambers to a greater or lesser extent. However, to better understand the magnitude of what happened this time, it should be recalled that in 2018, when Trump faced a similar election during his first term, the Democrats gained 40 seats in the House of Representatives, but the Republicans gained two more seats in the Senate and retained their majority there.

On that occasion, the midterm election saw the highest voter turnout (49.4%) since 1914. It was the first time since 1970 that a party (the Republicans) had gained seats in the Senate while losing them in the House, and also the first time since 1984 that the Democrats controlled the House while their opponents retained control of the Senate.

But in this midterm election during Trump’s second term, there have been no half-measures, and the ship has listed heavily to one side. This time, voter turnout is estimated to have been the second-highest since 1914, with 124 million people casting their ballots.

While these figures alone might be enough to conclude that there has been a massive rejection of the policies and actions of Donald Trump and his supporters, other qualitative considerations must be added to achieve greater precision in the analysis.

There are specific results that can explain the Republican debacle even better. Perhaps the most symbolic is the election of a 42-year-old candidate of Egyptian descent and Muslim faith, Abdul El-Sayed, as the new senator for the state of Michigan. There, he defeated Mike Rogers, who not only had Trump’s unconditional support but had also received multimillion-dollar backing from the Zionist lobby in the United States.

Democratic candidates—who endured all the visceral attacks from the president and received far less financial backing from so-called Political Action Committees—emerged victorious in Texas (James Talarico) and Georgia (Jon Ossoff).

Another result that may help explain what happened on November 3 is that at least 50 candidates registered as “Democratic Socialists” (DSA members) were elected to the offices they sought, including at least five to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Upon learning of the aforementioned results, the DSA organization as a whole issued a statement saying that “workers deserve better, and a reality in which we all live with dignity and hope is closer than we think.” In addition to that statement, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani commented that the main reason for the landslide Democratic victory was that, on this occasion, the aspirations of workers had been heard and taken into account.

These results are significant after so much media and digital disinformation against socialism, communism, and all the evils that are supposedly imported from abroad—none of which are generated internally.

Trump, who was elected in 2016 on the back of a campaign that was, among other things, racist against former President Barack Hussein Obama, now had to attribute his defeat to the latter’s actions, as in the days leading up to the election, the former Illinois senator waged an intense campaign in support of his party’s underdog candidates.

In the first few hours following the debacle, Donald Trump claimed that the results were due to his name not appearing on the ballots and to the poor quality of the candidates running for his party in each case. He has shown no signs of attempting to challenge the results, which were overwhelming, evident, and would not withstand a coherent public challenge. He would have to act on several fronts at once to achieve an unlikely scenario that could not be interpreted as a victory.

While Americans will now begin to pin their hopes on the new Democratic majorities—which are also substantial among governors—to reverse Trumpist initiatives that have had a devastating effect within their society, the rest of the world wonders what these results will mean for foreign policy—whether it be aggression against Iran, unconditional support for Israel or for Zelensky (rather than for Ukraine), or the total blockade of Cuba.

The end of the midterm elections means that the starting gun has already been fired for the 2028 presidential race. If there were already signs of division within the MAGA movement, these symptoms are now likely to intensify.

Following their victory, the Democrats face several challenges, ranging from electing a leadership that can demonstrate it offers a real alternative to the Trumpist disaster, to articulating a platform—or several—in which changes are translated into specific actions and policies.

It is still too early to conclude whether the party’s historical figures—who always operate behind the scenes—and the major donors will be willing to accept those labeled “socialists” as their equals, or whether they will adopt attitudes that could lead the latter to split from the traditional party.

There is a possibility that could cause Trump to feel even more cornered now and take even more desperate actions. The majority the Democrats secured this time in the Senate brings them much closer to the minimum number of votes required to successfully impeach the president—a scenario we already witnessed in 2019.

The Democrats’ initial statements following the victory have been aimed more at taking preliminary action against specific members of his cabinet—such as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth—than at the occupant of the White House himself.

If we recall what happened in the second half of Trump’s 45th term, there were significant changes in his mis-governance team, and these changes are now likely to accelerate among those with future aspirations who feel they are crew members on a sinking ship. Many have no lifeline for future careers as bureaucrats or in elected office.

One of the former Trump loyalists who will be under the most scrutiny is the Secretary-Advisor-Archivist, who presents himself as a brilliant negotiator, but whose influence has been diminished as he has watched ten of Trump’s “special envoys” curtail his supposed mandate as the government’s sole spokesperson to the outside world—a role for which he has, in recent days, begun to pay a public price for his gangster-like actions regarding the electoral processes in several Latin American countries, especially Brazil.

Marco Rubio, who led a visceral anti-Trump campaign in 2016, was Donald’s most unbridled ally during his “monarchical” tenure, and from now on, he will find no advantage in remaining in Trump’s shadow as he pursues his aspirations for 2028. One small problem he’ll have to face is how to reconcile with what was once his “electoral base” in Florida—whether it be Cubans facing the threat of deportation or Venezuelans who have now voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats.

Incidentally, in his home state, the excesses of the Trump camp—of which he has been an enthusiastic member—have caused a state that seemed completely secured by Republican majorities for the foreseeable future to once again become a swing state. A Democratic governor has been elected, and the other three Cuban-Americans (Carlos, Maria Elvira, and Mario), who had seen their seats in the House unopposed, can no longer claim a comfortable victory on election night itself. They also faced opposition from an African-American Senate candidate, who was not victorious due to mistakes in a campaign speech aimed at appeasing die-hard racists who would never vote for her. With better advice and more funding, Ms. Nixon would be on the verge of reaching Washington, D.C.

What does this result mean for Cuba? The answer will take shape day by day, through our country’s resilience and the creative exploitation of opportunities at all levels—from the government and science to the productive sectors and the entire population. The answer will take shape as evidence emerges that the plans to strangle Cuba have not succeeded within the anticipated time frames, as the international community rejects attempts to isolate Cuba, and through the actions of the majority of the U.S. population, which has always favored a constructive relationship with Havana.

José R. Cabañas Rodríguez is Director of the International Policy Research Center (CIPI) in Havana, Cuba and former Cuban Ambassador to the US.

Source: Resumen Latinoamericano – English