US Midterms: Democrats Win Big, But Can They Change Trump's Immigration Agenda?

The win should not be seen simply as a mandate for a more liberal immigration policy, writes Pulkit Buttan.

The Democrats' victories give the party a powerful platform to challenge the Trump administration's policies during his final two years of presidency.

(Photo: The Quint)

The US midterm elections have delivered a major setback to President Donald Trump, with Democrats winning control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The victories give the party a powerful platform to challenge the administration's policies during the final two years of Trump's presidency.

Democrats have flipped seven Senate seats, including Republican strongholds Kansas, South Carolina, and Texas.

Just a few hours after the results came out, Robert Garcia, who is currently expected to head the House Oversight Committee, said, “Lawyer up”. He had already made clear that the functioning of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and their abuses, will rank high among the committee's priorities. Thus, immigration, where the administration has leaned most heavily on executive power, is likely to be the first area to draw scrutiny.

However, the bigger question is how much Democrats can actually change Trump's immigration policies, given that he will remain in office until January 2029.

What Democrats Can Do and What They Cannot

Now that the US is set to witness a Democratic-controlled House, it will have significant oversight powers, including the ability to convene hearings, issue subpoenas, and use appropriations negotiations to scrutinise the activities of ICE and the Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

The Judiciary Committees of the House and the Senate, as well as the Senate Homeland Security Committee, also have jurisdiction over immigration operations—and the incoming chairs are planning joint oversight of DHS. The rules of the House also allow the committee to delegate authority to its chairs, so some Democratic chairs could demand testimony or documents without Republican support.

Democrats have also signalled that they will use the funding as leverage. Earlier this year, they withheld support for the DHS funding bill, citing the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by immigration agents, which also resulted in a partial shutdown of the department in February 2026.

In practice, though, it will have limited capacity to halt enforcement altogether. We should note that substantial immigration-related funding has already been appropriated for 2025 and 2026, thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the Secure America Act, and annual appropriations.

Separate funds totalling more than $70 billion were allocated by Congress in June this year as part of increased border enforcement. They were specifically distributed across ICE, CBP, and DHS.

Essentially, any bill that aims to restrict enforcement would also face a presidential veto. Overriding it requires two-thirds of both chambers.

The courts, too, have emerged as another institutional check on Trump’s executive authority.

In June, the US Supreme Court ruled against the birthright citizenship order (Trump v. Barbara)—and held that the 14th Amendment guarantees automatic citizenship to those born on the US soil.

In October, a federal court imposed restrictions on DHS, blocking it from conducting aggressive, election-related field operations against suspected noncitizen voters. In the latter, the court noted that the operation relied on flawed proxy databases.

The H-1B dispute also shows the limits of electoral change as border relief still depends on legislation. After the US District Court for Massachusetts vacated the $100,000 H-1B fee, the First Circuit denied the government's emergency request for a stay. Currently, the fee remains unenforceable while the appeal continues.

The Issue That Has Receded Into the Background

It's vital to note that, in the midterm elections, immigration receded into the background.

Gallup, in a survey released in May 2026, noted a reduction in the proportion of people who identify immigration as a problem (from 28 percent in February 2024 to just 8 percent by May 2026) as the cost of living, the economy, and healthcare took its place.

One reason was that border crossings have also remained at historic lows. Take, for example, the US-Mexico border, where apprehensions have dropped by 95 percecnt in 2026, according to preliminary DHS and CBP fiscal data, compared with the previous administration.

Moreover, midterms tend to attract an older, more politically engaged electorate, which influences campaign strategies. That is why candidates foregrounded issues such as crime, inflation, and the cost of living rather than the consequences of immigration policy.

But one shouldn't mistake low salience for low stakes. The Democratic win should not be seen simply as a mandate for a more liberal immigration policy. It may reflect unease about the expansion of executive power, which remains a different issue and doesn't translate neatly into legislation.

Border Control in the Abstract vs Enforcement in Practice

The US appears to favour a secure and orderly border but remains uncomfortable with aggressive enforcement practices within the country.

The enforcement of immigration is more politically acceptable as an abstract goal rather than when it materialises in workplace raids, prolonged detention, deportations, or federal agents operating in local communities.

A Carnegie survey, conducted between late November 2025 and early January 2026, shows this gap. Among Indian Americans, opposition was higher when the respondents were asked about specific policies such as workplace raids, third-country deportations, and a proposed $100,000 H-1B fee.

They also pointed to widespread experiences of hate, racial discrimination, and harassment. So, even before the campaign, support for control did not translate easily into an acceptance of the domestic consequences of the enforcement.

The stakes are real for India. A Democratic-controlled Congress could bring attention to the Green Card backlog, which disproportionately impacts Indians, estimated at 6,27,000, according to Brookings in May 2026.

The reduction in waiting periods may still remain unaffected, as it's subject to legislative changes. 

Even with a Democratic majority in the Senate, most bills need 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster, and even if a bill passes, it would still face a presidential veto. So, for thousands of Indian professionals, this may create pressure for reform but no assurance of relief.

What to Watch Next

Comprehensive immigration reform seems difficult even with the Democrats' more than decent performance. But the new Congress can surely make enforcement excessive ‘visible’ and costly to defend.

The oversight hearings, the appropriations fight, and the pending First Circuit ruling on H-1B fees will show how far that pressure goes. Scrutiny can now begin in earnest, but reforms may have to wait.

For immigrants, this matters because until reforms happen, they will continue to experience queues for a Green Card, uncertainty about asylum, the possibility of detention, and the precarity of divided families.

(Pulkit Buttan is a PhD Scholar at TISS Mumbai. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)