Peter Cook was a genius.

Will the midterm elections change U.S. foreign policy? 1. RealClearPolitics now projects a Democratic House majority at 236 against 199 Republicans. The Senate could go either way. At a minimum, the President’s party will likely lose at least one of the chambers. 2. The President remains in the driver’s seat on foreign policy, with an array of institutional and political advantages over Congress. The legislature can and sometimes does play a role, but it has been particularly supine in recent years. 3. Key policy issues are likely to see more continuity than change. Democrats could, for instance, use the War Powers Resolution to force the Iran conflict to an end. They could vote to eliminate Trump’s tariffs on Canada. They could rescind the diesel oil deal with Russia. 4. But who holds the majority is only a part of the story. The key number is 34, the number of Senate votes needed to sustain a presidential veto. If legislation passes both Houses and Trump vetoes it, he will almost certainly have the Rs necessary to avoid an override. 5. Congress does control the purse strings, and without appropriations any effort – like the war with Iran – would grind to a halt. So Congress could simply defund the conflict. 6. But it won’t. The perceived political price of withholding funding to the troops is very high. Even 20 years ago, while measures to force a withdrawal from Iraq won majorities on the Senate floor, Congress never defunded the war. And it’s not clear even to war skeptics that simply walking away improves the U.S. position. 7. We may see some measures get through, potentially attached to (seemingly) must-pass legislation. Provisions to block deals with Russia, possibly. Maybe conditions on aid or arms sales to Israel. Possibly export controls on technology sales to China. 8. But overall, the midterms’ effect on policy will be limited. Their implications for politics, on the other hand, will be much greater. 9. When Presidents lose Congressional majorities, they tend to give up on ambitious domestic initiatives – no more Big Beautiful Bills – and instead turn to foreign policy, where they have greater control. That often spurs them to take big swings and grand moves. Pursuing Israeli-Palestinian peace is the classic example. 10. Democrats will hold oversight hearings and aggressively investigate the administration, which tends to consume significant executive branch time and attention. That could, ironically, encourage POTUS to spend more time on the road pursuing big foreign policy wins (as he would define them). 11. In the meantime, more Republicans will break with Trump on key national security issues. This is already happening more now than before – witness opposition to the Russian diesel deal or the idea of livestreaming executions. Such dissent raises the political price for the administration’s approach and could, here and there, impel it to alter course. 12. After the midterms, the 2028 presidential campaign begins. The President is a lame duck and political leaders will begin jockeying for position. Foreign governments will look beyond the current White House, preparing for the future. 13. In recent months, observers who disagree with current policy often say, “Maybe it’ll change after the midterms.” Maybe it will, but more is likely to stay the same. In the meantime, even as policymakers tussle over the way things are, more and more they’ll be looking to the future.

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE FOREIGN MINISTERS OF CANADA, DENMARK, GERMANY, FRANCE, ITALY, JAPAN, THE NETHERLANDS, UNITED KINGDOM "As committed supporters of the ICC we regret and strongly disagree with the announcement of sanctions to be imposed upon the Court by the United States."

Hegseth on Nidal Hasan: "He's gonna get a firing squad of soldiers. As it should be. We'll make sure that people are able to watch it. That it's public. Because people need to understand that there's serious consequences for these types of things."

It's early. People are pissed. That will pass. But if Conservatives put forward a stable alternative, Eby just might be remembered for a generational miscalculation. Underestimating your opponent is usually death in politics. eg. Chretien. Harper. Trudeau. Now Doerkson?

Basically, what Canadians have heard from President Trump (and his Cabinet) since January 2025 is the following: “you are the equivalent of a piece of s**t. We don’t need you; you are nothing without us. We will use economic pressure to force you into submission. It doesn’t matter that we have a free trade agreement between us, setting out the rules. It doesn’t matter that that agreement was my idea. It doesn’t matter that I praised the agreement as being “the best one ever.” No matter what those rules say, I’ll do whatever I want to you whenever I feel the urge to do so. It kind of gives me pleasure to hurt you economically; I especially enjoy humiliating you. You should sit back and welcome that. You absolutely shouldn’t complain about it. If you dare hit back, I’ll strike you even harder. We can retaliate; you cannot! And don’t even think about looking for any new relationships. If you try that, I’ll scorch the earth under you – and I’ll make any country entering into agreements with you regret doing so.” This meets the classic definition of an abusive relationship. It still shocks us that the U.S. now behaves this way. Canadian businesses and individuals treasure the connections we have to Americans. These bonds have been formed over centuries and have greatly benefitted both Americans and Canadians. We wish more Americans were acting to stop their Administration from destroying what we’ve built together. Sadly, the only predictability – for the time being – is more of the same from the Trump Administration. All threats, all the time. Our government understands that Canadians, overwhelmingly, see no plus sides in succumbing to this grotesque harassment. We can’t have confidence that this menacing behavior will stop anytime soon; we know, based on common understandings of how bullies behave, that ignoring or tolerating such abuse simply invites more of it. In recent times, albeit in different ways, Russia & China have been the most consistent big power “aggressors” in international relations. Under President Trump, the U.S. has chosen to join that group. Canadians are coming to understand the costs we’re likely to bear from preserving our self-respect and our sovereign rights as a country to pursue our collective interest. It’s all very unfortunate (to put it mildly). Weaning ourselves from disproportionate dependence on buying from and selling to Americans will be hard. But our leaders have been left with few options. Mercifully, there are still many jurisdictions in this world that behave ‘normally’. That aren’t predators. That are interested in partnership, not dominance. We need to deepen our relations with as many of those as we possibly can. Who knows what “Associate Membership” in the EU will mean, if it ever comes to pass. Canada isn’t interested in being governed by Brussels any more than we’re interested in being governed by Washington. So, this may lead only to deepened trade relationships, maybe only in certain sectors. If so, that’s still better than being so heavily exposed to the whims of an ever-more-hostile U.S. Administration.