Democrats swept both chambers in the 2025 midterms, campaigning on affordability, ending the Iran war, and Trump accountability. The victory was decisive, but the governing math is brutal. Most legislation requires 60 Senate votes to clear a filibuster, and Trump has already promised to veto everything that reaches his desk. The party's real power lies elsewhere. The cost-of-living crisis — energy, housing, healthcare, groceries — was the campaign's centerpiece. Economist Dean Baker argues the single most effective lever is ending the Iran conflict, which has driven energy prices up since Iran restricted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz in February. Democrats could also push to restore expired Affordable Care Act subsidies and reverse Medicaid cuts by embedding them in must-pass spending bills, making them politically toxic for Trump to veto. Baker's logic: Republicans in a post-Trump world don't want to own healthcare price hikes. Tariffs are harder. Reversing Trump's tariff regime would require enough Republican votes to override a veto — a steep ask. And even if tariffs fall, as analyst Alex Jacquez of Groundwork Collaborative notes, "Prices are like rockets and feathers. They shoot up like rockets; they come down like feathers." The relief timeline is measured in quarters, not weeks. One alternative that doesn't require Trump's signature: wielding committee gavels to haul CEOs before Congress and investigate corporate price-gouging. It won't mechanically lower prices, but it changes the political calculus for companies that have been raising them unchallenged. Investigations are where the real action will be. Georgetown's Laura Blessing expects this to dominate Democratic energy "by a mile." Trump's personal wealth has risen roughly $2.2bn since taking office; his family's business empire now spans crypto, drones, AI, and prediction markets — all industries his administration has favored. Democrats have already sent preservation letters to companies and government departments. Targets include whether White House ballroom donors received favorable treatment and whether the Justice Department targeted political opponents. Subpoena compliance will be contested — Trump's inner circle will fight in court — but government employees and peripheral figures are more accessible. Impeachment is on the table but structurally limited. Articles have been introduced against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the Iran war's authorization. Republican Representative Thomas Massie plans to force a House vote during the lame-duck session. But removal requires two-thirds of the Senate, a threshold no president has ever met. Trump himself dismissed the threat, saying it would "destroy the Democratic Party." The Iran war is the sharpest test of Democratic will. The Constitution assigns Congress the sole authority to declare war, and the War Powers Act provides a path to end unauthorized conflicts. But Trump can veto a binding resolution. The real chokepoint is money: Democrats control spending, and the administration needs new funding to sustain military operations. As Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute warns, the lame-duck period before January is dangerous — Trump has "shown a pattern in which, in the face of humiliation and defeat, he becomes more reckless." Democrats historically flinch at withholding military funding for fear of being accused of undermining troops. The fundamental tension is structural. Democrats have the gavels but not the veto-proof margins. Their most potent tools — investigations, spending riders, funding restrictions — are indirect. They impose political costs rather than dictate outcomes. Parsi frames the stakes bluntly: if Democrats fail to use their new power on Iran, "It will no longer be just Trump's war. They will also co-own it." The next two years will test whether oversight power translates into governance outcomes, or whether it becomes theater that satisfies the base without changing material conditions.
