10
Loading video...
By Faisal Kutty
Lawyer and Law Professor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Democrats have won back Congress. Whether the party's established leadership understands what brought them there is another matter.
The November 3 midterms dealt President Donald Trump a sweeping rebuke. Democrats captured both chambers, won Senate races in traditionally Republican states and regained much of the support lost in 2024. Yet barely a week later, attention has shifted to Senate Leader Chuck Schumer and House Leader Hakeem Jeffries, amid growing calls for new leadership and an incoming congressional class willing to challenge the party's assumptions about economic inequality, health care, corporate influence and American foreign policy.
The results deserve careful interpretation. According to the Associated Press Voter Poll, about seven in 10 voters under 30 supported Democratic House candidates, compared with a roughly even split between Trump and Kamala Harris in 2024. Hispanic voters, Black men, moderates and lower-income Americans also moved toward Democrats. This was a broad rejection of Republican governance, not an exclusive endorsement of the progressive left. But it would be equally mistaken to assume voters wanted a return to the Democratic politics of the past.
Read More on Opinion
...
Young voters were particularly concerned about the cost of living and the war with Iran. Many voted out of frustration with economic insecurity and military intervention rather than party loyalty. Their support cannot be taken for granted, especially after a generation that moved toward Trump in 2024 shifted decisively away from him two years later.
The newly elected Democrats reflect these changing expectations. Abdul El-Sayed, a physician and former public health official, became the first Muslim elected to the United States Senate after defeating Republican Mike Rogers in Michigan. James Talarico won in Texas, challenging Christian nationalism while emphasizing economic inequality. Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota and Troy Jackson in Maine are among the other incoming senators bringing different constituencies and priorities to Washington.
Their arrival coincides with the departure of longtime Democratic figures including Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Jerry Nadler and Jan Schakowsky, while other incumbents have lost primaries to younger challengers. But age is hardly the central issue. Bernie Sanders remains one of the oldest figures in American politics and one of the most influential among younger progressives. The dispute concerns political direction, not birth dates.
That dispute has reached the party's leadership. A petition opposing Jeffries as the next House speaker has attracted more than a million signatures, although he retains substantial support within the caucus, including from prominent progressives. Schumer faces a more direct challenge. Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen is considering a leadership bid, and El-Sayed has said he would support him. Schumer nevertheless retains considerable backing, and his role in helping Democrats regain the Senate cannot be dismissed.
The disagreement is not over confronting Trump. Jeffries has already signaled aggressive congressional oversight. The larger question is whether Democrats will reconsider policies that have divided the party for years.
Economic policy is one test. El-Sayed campaigned on Medicare for All, affordability and curbing corporate influence. He has long warned against embracing the rhetoric of universal health care while abandoning single-payer reform, highlighting the tension between ambitious promises and incremental compromise.
With millions struggling to afford health care, housing and everyday necessities, moderates emphasize fiscal discipline, broad coalitions and practical compromises. Progressives argue that excessive caution has left structural problems unresolved. The election settled neither dispute. Democrats must now show they can deliver results.
Foreign policy may prove even more contentious.
In an NPR interview after his victory, El-Sayed welcomed Trump's announced intention to end American military assistance to Israel and called for an end to sales of weapons used in Gaza, where leading experts have concluded that genocide has occurred. He also questioned American military support for countries including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan, arguing that public resources should instead support health care, schools and infrastructure at home. He called for equal rights and self-determination for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis and greater consistency in applying international law.
His willingness to agree with Trump on a specific policy while rejecting his broader agenda challenges a political culture in which positions are too often judged by who advances them rather than their merits.
It also exposes a longstanding Democratic divide. Much of the party's leadership has treated support for Israel as a settled foreign policy commitment, even as younger voters, progressives and some elected officials increasingly question unconditional military assistance. The destruction and killings in Gaza deepened that divide, while the war with Iran has raised further questions about military intervention, congressional authority and the costs of American foreign policy.
These questions cannot be avoided, nor should disagreement over Israel be reduced to accusations about religion or political loyalty. El-Sayed's victory, despite repeated attacks on his Muslim faith and views on Israel, challenges the assumption that Muslim candidates must mute their convictions to win statewide office. Not every voter necessarily agreed with him, but his election demonstrates that such positions need not be politically disqualifying.
Congress has constitutional authority over spending, war and executive oversight. Democratic control of both chambers beginning in January offers an opportunity to investigate abuses, scrutinize military operations and demand accountability grounded in evidence and constitutional principle rather than political retaliation.
The Democrats' new coalition includes progressives, moderates, younger and working-class voters, and Americans motivated primarily by opposition to Trump. Their differences are real, and a party seeking to govern must accommodate disagreement without treating dissent as disloyalty.
Established leaders bring experience, institutional knowledge and the ability to assemble legislative majorities. But those strengths become liabilities when experience hardens into resistance to change. Replacing Schumer or Jeffries would not resolve the party's divisions, just as retaining them need not prevent reform. What matters is whether Democrats can move beyond opposing Trump to address the economic and foreign policy disagreements within their own coalition.
Voters have changed the composition of Congress. Whether they can change the Democratic Party remains to be seen.
Faisal Kutty is a professor of law at Southwestern Law School, affiliate faculty at the Rutgers Center for Security, Race and Rights, a regular contributor to the Toronto Star and a contributing editor for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines