As mentioned, in the 2026 midterm elections, President Donald Trump became a lame duck: the Democrats in fact managed to wrest control of both the House and the Senate from the Republicans, thus obtaining a majority in Congress. A situation which therefore limits Trump's range of action and makes his last two years in the White House more complicated.
The origin of this term is explained by a report published on the website of the US Congress and part of the Library of Parliament itself: the text states that the expression "lame duck", "lame duck", has roots that date back to the 18th century. In the eighteenth century in the British Empire, this was how an entrepreneur who went bankrupt was defined, and who was considered "lame" like a bird wounded by a shot from a hunting rifle.
The term is then attested in political jargon starting from the 1830s, when it began to be used continuously to describe those who occupied an office with a fixed term, the end date of which had already been established. Finally, the expression "lame duck", through this evolution just mentioned, has also entered the language of United States politics.
The term in the USA was originally used to indicate a President in office whose successor has already been elected: according to the Constitution, in fact, approximately two and a half months pass from the day of the vote to the actual inauguration of a President, a period of coexistence which in some way clips the wings of the outgoing tenant of the White House. And then more extensively to indicate a President who cannot run for re-election and who lost control of Congress in the midterm elections.
The expression can be used not only for the President, but also for members of Congress: in fact, parliamentarians who are not seeking re-election, as well as those who are certain of not being able to obtain another mandate, are also considered "lame ducks". And even after the vote, in the period between the election and the installation of the new Congress, the entire House and the entire Senate are "lame ducks" (especially if the majority in the Chambers is destined to change).
The history of US politics, and in particular that of recent years, has been marked by several episodes in which a president has been a "lame duck". For example, George W. Bush suffered a heavy defeat in 2006, when Democrats gained control of both houses for the first time in twelve years. Above all, dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq and the political difficulties of the administration weighed heavily. And a similar fate also befell Obama: in 2014, in fact, halfway through his second term, the Republicans won the Senate and with it control of the entire Congress. And in 2022 Joe Biden also suffered a defeat, losing control of the House.
In any case, a President who becomes a lame duck certainly does not become powerless. In fact, until the end of his mandate the occupant of the White House retains important prerogatives in matters of foreign policy, immigration and management of the federal administration. He can continue to issue executive orders, within the limits established by law, and use his veto power over laws passed by Congress. In short, the President retains the tools to carry out his policies, but is forced to negotiate more with the opposition. The definition of “lame duck” therefore indicates a political weakening, not the end of presidential powers.
And a similar argument also applies to an outgoing Congress: a House and a Senate that are about to end their mandate still retain all constitutional prerogatives. It is in fact frequent that, if the elections have sanctioned a change in the parliamentary majority, the outgoing Congress accelerates the approval of a series of laws or appointments before the date of establishment of the next Parliament. Even in this case, therefore, the "lame duck" situation does not mark the end of the institution's power.
