As Americans vote in the midterm elections, Ukraine is watching whether the result matches polling and moves Congress toward the Democrats, who have backed the fight against Vladimir Putin’s aggression. During his second term, Donald Trump’s relationship with Volodymyr Zelensky has swung from a public White House argument to the president signing a tough Russia sanctions bill from the Resolute Desk. Experts told Newsweek that sanctions, military support and missile defence are at stake for Kyiv if Democrats take the House and the Senate, while Trump would still hold the leverage he said Zelensky lacked in that confrontation.
Matthew Arnold, a political expert at the London School of Economics think tank LSE Ideas, told Newsweek that Trump and his foreign policy team have the prerogative to set US policy toward Ukraine. Zelensky welcomed US approval, announced by the State Department on 30 October, of a possible sale of 500 PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement missiles and related equipment, but is worried it could be years before the kit arrives. As Ukraine faces what the article calls the toughest winter of the war, Russia is increasing attacks on energy infrastructure in an effort to freeze civilians and offset a front-line stalemate.
Yuriy Boyechko, chief executive of Hope for Ukraine, which helps communities on the front line, said a change in congressional leadership would put fresh Ukraine aid back on the agenda but would not resolve the short-term shortage of Patriot air-defence supplies. New appropriations would secure money for later arms transfers, while physical delivery of interceptors is limited by production and lead times of years. He said a political shift is a positive sign for long-term funding but is not enough on its own to raise Patriot availability on the battlefield immediately.
The global stock of PAC-3 interceptors is constrained, demand has risen sharply because of the war in Iran, and expanding production takes years. Aurélien Colson, academic co-director of the ESSEC Business School Institute for Geopolitics & Business, said a new Congress could press the Pentagon to prioritise Ukraine, speed production and approve transfers from allied stocks, but could not end the shortage overnight. He said Congress cannot manufacture weapons.
Arnold, director of LSE IDEAS’ Democratic Resilience in a New Age of War Program, said Trump wants Europe to pay for Ukraine’s weapons and treats Ukrainian concessions to Russia as essential to any peace deal. He said he does not think Trump will change that after the elections, and he does not see the administration returning to the Biden approach or softening its own line whatever happens in US politics.
Trump’s handling of Ukraine in his second term has shown that legislation is not always carried out as lawmakers intended. Soon after signing a sanctions bill pushed by the late Senator Lindsey Graham, he lifted restrictions on Russian diesel imports into the United States to ease pressure on gas prices. Arnold said Russia’s renewed participation in the G20, which Washington pushed for, and those diesel imports were widely disliked in both parties, but Trump still took the steps. Congress had authorised $400 million in military aid, yet the Pentagon delayed its release until the end of April after months of bureaucratic hurdles.
Boyechko said administrations of both parties use statutory waivers or ease secondary sanctions when enforcement clashes with wider economic or foreign-policy goals. A new legislature can write tougher penalties, he said, but they bite only if the White House drops executive discretion and enforces them aggressively. A Democratic House majority would make it easier to restore Ukraine assistance to the agenda if the speaker is current Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
Brian Taylor, author of The Code of Putinism, said Democratic control of the House or Senate would give the party three levers: the agenda and schedule, appropriations, and committee hearings. He told Newsweek that strong Democratic support, plus notable Republican support, makes it possible that new Ukraine packages would pass both chambers and go to Trump. Because Trump is entering his last two years as a lame duck, Republicans who back Ukraine may feel less constrained. Arnold said Congress could attach aid to must-pass bills such as the National Defense Authorization Act or appropriations measures, making a veto harder. He said a Democratic Congress could restore Ukraine as a priority for direct US assistance and widen debate, but he finds it hard to imagine that succeeding given how forceful the administration has been toward Ukraine for the last two years.
A majority in one or both chambers would also give Democrats committee leadership and the prospect of subpoenaing executive officials. Taylor, a professor at Syracuse University, said Armed Services oversight could examine Elon Musk’s role in Starlink slowdowns that affected Ukraine’s defence, and business deals that special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner might be pursuing in talks with Russia, although there is no proof of wrongdoing. He noted that Musk has donated nearly half a billion dollars to Republican candidates and PACs, and said Democrats might ask why a private businessman tied to one party should affect national security policy so directly.
Arnold said hearings into the motives of Trump’s peace envoys may be prioritised, which could give Ukraine and its European backers more leverage. He warned that messier US politics could turn Ukraine into a partisan wedge between a Democratic Congress and an increasingly recalcitrant 80-year-old Republican president. Whatever happens on Tuesday, the Democrats’ 100-day post-victory plan focuses on the cost of living, inflation and fuel prices rather than Ukraine. Taylor said Democratic control of the House, the Senate or both would on balance probably be good news for Ukraine, while the president would still dominate foreign policy.