US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Sunday that progress had been made regarding the “security architecture” for Ukraine and Europe after the war between Moscow and Kiev, expecting more progress in the negotiations scheduled in Abu Dhabi this week.
Rubio made his statements before leaving for Paris to attend a meeting of G7 foreign ministers that coincides with US-sponsored Russian-Ukrainian talks in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Speaking to reporters, Rubio stressed that “obtaining security guarantees is a recurring demand in the discussions aimed at ending the conflict,” and he considered that the main question is “What will the security structure of Ukraine look like after the war, and for the European continent on a broader scale?” He continued, "This is what President (Donald) Trump is likely talking about, that is, the form this structure will take after the end of the conflict."
On Thursday, US President Donald Trump expected to reach a “very important” agreement with Russia that is not limited to the war in Ukraine, but includes “the entire Europe,” in statements that fueled fears of Ukraine and its European allies that they would be excluded from any future deal.
Marco Rubio confirmed on Sunday that “a final formula has not been reached yet,” noting that “the Abu Dhabi talks may result in progress.” Trump's envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who is also his son-in-law, will represent the American side in the upcoming talks in Abu Dhabi.
On the other hand, the US Secretary of State said that Trump launched the war against Iran, even if it was not “necessarily popular,” in order to protect the world from this country’s nuclear ambitions.
He did not comment directly on the crushing defeat suffered by Republicans in last Tuesday's elections, which was a popular rebuke of Trump's policies. The unpopularity of the war on Iran and its impact on fuel prices and other aspects of the economy helped enable Democrats to control Congress.
Asked about Vice President J.D. Vance's social media post last week, in which he largely blamed the war for GOP losses, Rubio told reporters that Trump had "identified a very real threat" in Iran and worked to prevent it from pursuing a nuclear weapon.
The top US diplomat made a staunch defense of the more than eight-month-old war, even as voters blamed Trump's policies for damage to their budgets, including rising energy prices caused by disruptions to shipments in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which a fifth of the world's oil passed before the war.
US President Donald Trump asked the Department of Justice to investigate what he described as “threats” made by his Democratic opponents against officials in his administration, in what appeared to be an indication of early political battles with his opponents before they take control of both chambers of Congress next January.
This escalation came days after the harsh defeat suffered by Republicans in the midterm elections, and at a time when Democrats are preparing to launch a series of parliamentary investigations into White House policies. Which heralds an anticipated “war of investigations” between the two sides, turning the last two years of Trump’s term into an open confrontation between the executive and legislative branches. Trump's move coincided with a reorganization of leadership within the White House, by appointing his hard-line advisor Stephen Miller as chief of staff, succeeding Susie Wiles, in a move that reflected a trend towards tightening the political grip on the administration and a willingness to confront a Democratic majority that does not hide its intention to use the powers of Congress to monitor, subpoena, and investigate.
While the Democrats seek to invest their electoral victory in holding the Trump administration accountable on issues extending from the war with Iran to immigration policies and customs duties, the president seems determined to take the battle to the territory of his opponents, using the executive powers he possesses, and betting that the early confrontation will prevent the Democrats from imposing their political agenda on him.
The results of last Tuesday's elections constituted a political blow to Trump, after the Democrats seized control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, thus ending Republican control over the executive and legislative branches. The implications of the results were not limited to a change in the balance of power within Congress, but rather carried a message of dissatisfaction with the high costs of living, the repercussions of the war with Iran, and the economic policies adopted by the administration. Initially, Trump expressed a willingness to cooperate with the new Democratic leadership, but he quickly moved to a more escalatory speech, accusing his opponents of using the threat of investigations and impeachment to pressure members of his administration.
“A giant step backwards”
On Sunday, Trump said that the midterm elections took the United States “a giant step backwards in history.” He said in a post on his social platform, “Truth Social,”: “America has taken a giant step backward in history. Because of the results of the recent elections...but don’t worry, we will come back bigger and stronger than ever!”
On Saturday, President Trump ordered the Department of Justice to look into what he considered threats emanating from Democrats, in a move that raised questions about the lines between the president’s authority to direct executive policies and the independence of criminal prosecution decisions. This step reveals a remarkable political paradox, as the Ministry of Justice, which Trump wants to use to investigate the Democrats, will itself be at the forefront of the institutions that they intend to subject to strict parliamentary oversight once they assume the presidency of the relevant committees. This confrontation is likely to become an early test of the ability of both parties to use their constitutional powers without sliding into a long institutional crisis.
The Ministry of Justice is at the heart of the confrontation
Democratic movements indicate that the Ministry of Justice will be one of the most prominent arenas of the upcoming conflict. The Washington Post revealed, on Sunday, that the department is preparing for a wave of document requests, subpoenas, and hearings, after Democrats pledged to review decisions it made during the first two years of Trump’s second term, and accused the administration of politicizing law enforcement agencies and using them to pursue the president’s opponents. The files under investigation include prosecutions targeting figures opposed to Trump, including former FBI Director James Comey, in addition to tax settlements that the president and members of his family are suspected of benefiting from, presidential pardons issued by Trump, and the way the department dealt with the files of the late businessman Jeffrey Epstein.
But Trump chose to respond before the investigations began. In a post on his platform, “Truth Social,” he accused the Democrats of sending threatening messages to officials and people he described as innocent, and he saw that what they were doing represented “blackmail at the highest level,” calling for them to be held criminally accountable, without providing public evidence proving the commission of crimes.
The president singled out Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin for criticism, who called for accountability for officials involved in implementing illegal policies. Slotkin responded that anyone who violates the law or uses taxpayer money for personal gain should be held accountable, stressing that anyone who has not committed a violation has nothing to fear. This confrontation with Slotkin has previous backgrounds; She was investigated after participating with Democratic lawmakers in a video urging military and intelligence personnel to “reject illegal orders,” but a grand jury declined to indict them.
Miller leads the White House to a stage of militancy
The appointment of Stephen Miller as White House chief of staff adds a new dimension to the conflict. Miller, whose name has been associated with hard-line immigration policies and defense of expanding the president's powers, represents one of the most prominent voices calling for confrontation within Trump's inner circle. His selection as a successor to Susie Wiles appears to be a political message that goes beyond administrative change, stating that the president does not intend to deal with the election results as a mandate to amend his policies, but rather as a challenge that requires strengthening discipline within the administration and strengthening its decisions in the face of Congress.
Analysts say that this strategy may put the White House before a difficult test, especially since the Democrats will gain the presidency of the main parliamentary committees, which will give them the ability to summon senior officials, demand internal documents, and open investigations that may involve the most influential figures in the administration. However, the Democrats' control of Congress does not mean that they are able to impose all their demands. The president retains the right to veto legislation, while the administration can challenge parliamentary summons before the courts, and invoke executive privilege to withhold certain communications and documents. These disputes may turn into legal battles that last months, or even years.
The Iran war returns to Washington
The anticipated confrontation is not limited to investigations and internal files. The war with Iran, whose economic and political repercussions contributed to weakening Republicans electorally, is likely to become one of the most prominent arenas of clash between Trump and the new Congress. Democrats, who during their election campaigns capitalized on voter anger over rising fuel prices and the cost of living, will face pressure to translate their promises into concrete measures, whether by trying to restrict military operations, or tightening oversight of defense spending and war-related decisions.
Congress has influential tools in this field, most notably the authority to approve budgets, hold hearings, review military deals, and demand legal explanations for operations carried out by the administration outside American territory. But Democrats' ability to change the course of foreign policy will remain limited by complex constitutional balances; The president has broad powers as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and some decisions related to sanctions and military movements can be taken without new legislation.
Analysts fear that the clash over Iran may turn into a broader confrontation over the limits of presidential authority in making war and peace decisions, at a time when Washington's allies and opponents fear that the American internal division will lead to increased ambiguity about the United States' foreign commitments.
Democrats face a test of governance
However, the electoral victory is not without risks for Democrats. Although they have a relatively comfortable majority in the House of Representatives, and at least 54 seats in the Senate, they do not necessarily have enough votes to override filibustering legislation in the Senate or overturn a presidential veto. An overemphasis on investigations may also give Trump an opportunity to portray his opponents as preoccupied with political revenge rather than addressing the economic problems that drove voters to vote against Republicans. On the other hand, the president may find himself facing a similar dilemma if his strategy turns into a series of battles with Congress at the expense of addressing inflation, energy costs, and economic concerns.
The election results, which witnessed a number of traditionally Republican areas shifting toward Democrats, indicate that sectors of the electorate are no longer responsive to the same extent to political discourse based on polarization, especially when it comes to daily economic burdens.
An early battle over the 2028 elections
The repercussions of the current confrontation extend beyond the remaining two years of Trump's term, casting a shadow over the 2028 presidential elections. Democrats will attempt to use their control of Congress to demonstrate their ability to curb executive power, while Trump seeks to maintain the cohesion of his electoral base and prevent the legislative defeat from turning into a long-term decline in the influence of the Republican Party.
Parliamentary investigations would expose senior administration officials to repeated political and legal tests, but they could also give Trump new material to mobilize his supporters by accusing Democrats of trying to paralyze his government.
Between these two paths, Washington appears to be entering a phase of divided governance, in which the chances of major legislative settlements decline, and confrontations over powers, oversight, and public spending advance. The question that will be answered in the coming months is not only whether the Democrats will be able to besiege Trump, but whether the president will be able to turn their battle with them into a means of regaining the political initiative after the electoral defeat. If last Tuesday's elections ended Republican control of Congress, they did not end Trump's ability to impose a tone of confrontation in Washington. On the contrary; His first steps indicate that the president chose to enter the battle before his opponents reached legislative power, in a confrontation that may determine not only the future of his administration, but also the boundaries of the relationship between the White House and Congress during the second half of his term.
