The world watches and waits.

After nearly two turbulent years, Americans send a clear message.

It’s time for a check on President Trump’s power.

But will that actually happen?

And what does a democratic control of Congress mean for Trump’s foreign policy?

That’s tonight, on "Compass Points."

♪ Announcer: Support for "Compass Points" has been provided by... the Judy and Peter Blum Kovler Foundation, Camilla and George Smith, the Dorney Koppel Foundation, the Gruber Family Foundation, and Cap and Margaret Anne Eschenroeder.

The Judy and Peter Blum Kovler Foundation.

Upholding freedom by strengthening democracies at home and abroad.

Additional support is provided by Friends of the News Hour.

♪ Announcer: This program was made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

Once again, from the David M. Rubenstein Studio at WETA in Washington, moderator Nick Schifrin.

Hello and welcome to "Compass Points."

It was a decisive rebuke not seen in decades: Democrats this week to control of the Senate and House of Representatives, Giving them the ability to control the purse strings, reject President Trump’s nominees and investigate his administration.

But the president’s authority to wage war and pursue peace, impose or lift tariffs and represent the U.S.

on the global stage remains largely unrestrained.

So will divided government restrict or expand the president’s foreign policy pursuits?

And how is the world responding?

For that we turn to 4 journalists from outlets around the world who cover, Washington.

Gustau Alegret is a journalist who’s worked for the Colombian News Channel NTN and now does political analysis for CNN Espanol and others.

Nadia Bilbassy Charters is the Washington Bureau Chief for the Saudi News Channel Al Arabiya and the author of the upcoming book from "Gaza To The White House."

Misha Komadovsky is a Ukrainian-American journalist and a US correspondent for Deutsche Welle.

And Willy Lowry, U.S.

correspondent for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and co-host of the podcast two blocks from the White House.

Thanks very much everyone.

[Speaking at the same time] Ukrainian President Zelenskyy said something this week that acknowledged just how much Ukraine and the rest of the world was focused on the U.S.

midterm elections.

Today, November 3rd, the world will be watching one country.

America.

Elections are taking place there today, and they will shape the future.

The future of the United States Congress, the future of American policy and the future of those who are used to the United States always being somewhere nearby.

Being somewhere nearby.

Misha.

Why do Ukraine, why does the whole world hang on an American midterm elections?

I think president Zelenskyy assessment here is broadly correct, but it’s too early to say what exactly these results will mean for Ukraine, and I have to say that Ukrainians remain optimistic, skeptical, almost cynical, you can take it away from us, because we didn’t see any celebrations in Kiev or in Odessa on the streets, because, if you remember, just two years ago.

Ukrainians were very much hopeful for President Trump and for the Republicans.

He promised to finish the war, to stop the war within 24 hours of getting back to office.

It never happened.

Still.

We’re two years into his term, or more than two years into his term.

The war is still raging raging in the very heart of Europe, and Ukrainians understand that the person who calls the shots here is at the White House, not on the hill.

Schifrin: I mean, Willy, the sentiment in Canada certainly is that the president’s been calling the shots, but for a midterm election, I mean, Canadians have been watching Americans on border states, have been watching this election knowing that foreign policy, tariffs, has been a huge part of even a midterm election.

That’s unusual.

Yeah, absolutely.

Listen, Canadians always pay attention to US politics, because even before the relationship fractured if you will, it’s been important, right?

America is Canada’s biggest trading partner far and away it’s not even close, and so the policies that come from this country matter to Canada, and certainly now more than ever.

I think Canadians have been fascinated particularly of course, as you mentioned, states like Maine, Michigan, where all [Indistinct].

The U.S.-Canada relationship actually factored in to the results, right?

These were not just kind of parts of why people voted, but really driving forces and that is something that I think Canadians are unfamiliar with.

Let’s talk about some of the global response to the elections and, Gustau, You said something to my colleague that was quite interesting.

You said that countries would be more optimistic about their future relations with the U.S., but not necessarily because they expected something different from President Trump.

What do you mean?

Well, I think that this election clearly was a rebuke of the Donald Trump policies.

OK?

No doubt about it, but in the Western hemisphere, in within the traditional U.S.

allies in the world.

They used to look at Washington to see a reliable partner, and the type of presidency that Donald Trump decided to run create profound doubts about this leadership and commitment with those principles, and what happened in these midterm elections was relevant because it sent a message that this democracy, that some people in these countries were saying America is a dictatorship.

There is an autocratic government.

We cannot rely on this democracy anymore.

The message that was sent by voters in America was, "No.

"This system is working.

"We had an authoritarian president "with authoritarian ticks, "but we, the people with votes, control "what we want for our country," and this is a powerful message in tough times, as Willy said.

And this is critical for the situation of many countries in Europe, for instance, France is facing elections.

Spain is facing elections, Germany, they had elections, and they’re gonna have elections.

Poland had a kind of coup d’etat situation very confusing.

Nobody knows exactly what happened there.

America is back.

That was the message of Joe Biden in the 2020 Munich Security conference.

Schifrin: Yeah.

- And now I think we can just say America is back again.

Let’s look at the Middle East, Nadia, and let’s just take one example, and that’s Iran, something that all of us have been focusing on here.

We saw Iranians literally cheering in the streets, celebrating the Democrats’ win.

U.S.

and regional officials tell both of us.

I know Iran’s been publicly privately gloating about the results.

Mediators are saying that they were making progress before the election couldn’t get it done.

How do the elections change that dynamic?

How do they give perhaps Iran more leverage?

Bilbassy: Well, thank you for having me, just before we jump on the Middle East.

- Can I just comment on Canada?

Schifrin: Please, yeah.

Well, let’s see the shift in terms of the relationship between the U.S.

and Canada.

Traditionally as you know, the president used to go to Canada or Mexico as the first foreign trip.

He has twice, he has decided not to do that to change that and go to Saudi Arabia.

So you can see where the alliances or the strategic importance for this administration.

Second, he threatened to make Canada the 51 state, and then third, in Michigan, which I was during the election, a very important issue was the economy and the tariffs, and the tariffs was affected directly with Canada, so you can see all of these points are joining together, all.

So coming back to the Middle East, the Middle East has been watching this election very carefully, because it has an implication, as you said, on Iran and on Israel.

We can talk about it later.

On Iran I think there were different reactions.

Peoples were happy that they can see a defeat of President Trump because they saw what happened is a referendum on his policies, and for the first time ever, I’ve been covering election for 20 years, domestic and foreign are interacting.

So Iran is no longer far away country that the president decide to have a military attack, or military operations, but actually it is domestically reflecting on the pocket of the average American in terms of the price of oil and diesel, and shipping, etc.

So the Iranians saw it as like this is a welcome results as Ghalibaf said, Schifrin: Ghalibaf, the chief negotiator.

- Exactly.

He said that basically this is the American voters have rejected the administration policy, but most of what Khamenei said, we have to be realistic this is fundamentally is not going to alter or shift the position of the Congress towards Iran, because still the president can call the shot.

We saw something extraordinary out of the vice president, when it comes to the election, connecting this to Iran.

This is what he wrote this week.

[Reading] Well shortly thereafter, the president Trump argued exactly that.

It’s largely true because it drove the gasoline up a little bit short term, and probably that’s... Probably it’s true.

But at the same time, if I had it to do again, I’d have to do it again, because long-term it’s the only answer.

You can’t let Iran have a nuclear war.

Reporter: Do you feel like it was worth it?

I do, yeah.

Americans don’t seem to want the war to resume, the region certainly does not want the war to resume.

Could Congress bring the war end, Nadia?

Bilbassy: They could, but there is limitation.

I mean, when once all these new committees are sworn in, it depends on the chairperson.

They can ask actually for a more transparent decision making we have not seen it, especially in the beginning of the war.

Schifrin: Call for hearings.

- We can call for hearing, especially for Pete Hegseth.

Others who have been involved, maybe even Jared Kushner, with the negotiation.

He has dealing with two files, with Ukraine and with Iran.

And also with the funds, the president might not get the funds that he wants, so it might affect him in that way.

Alegret: Yeah, but we cannot forget this week in the U.S.

started the political campaign for the 2028.

So JD Vance is launching his campaign song in some ways.

He’s starting to test the waters to see how far he can go from President Trump, being his vice president.

looked at the second person who is in the pools.

A potential candidate is Marco Rubio.

Marco Rubio didn’t go into the campaign.

Just once, I think.

In Texas, that’s it.

Bilbassy: Yeah.

- We have not seen him doing political rallies.

Bilbassy: Yeah.

- And Now JD Vance is starting to see, "OK.

This is gonna be a problem.

"It was a review.

"So I need to mark some distance."

Komadovsky: [Indistinct] But, Nadia, you said that Iran suddenly happened to be much closer during this midterm cycle, but whenever it comes to Ukraine, it still seems kind of far away for the voters on the ground.

I just came back from Texas, where I spoke to dozens and dozens of people in El Paso, in Austin, and be it a Republican or a Democrat, People didn’t go to the ballot box with Ukraine at the top of their mind, and they were quite frank about that.

Alegret: Even Iran.

- Yes.

Alegret: Not even Iran.

Komadovsky: But unfortunately not Ukraine.

Lowry: Yeah, Iran had the the direct impact on the price of gas and diesel, which really was a driving.

Bilbassy: Yeah.

But you know what’s interesting, a few questions into those interviews, people would actually admit to the fact that they believe in strong alliances with Europe, with NATO, and big beautiful blue ocean is not really an obstacle for Russia, for instance.

I wonder, Misha, if the Ukrainian officials I talked to tell me they doubt that the election will make a difference, because they say it’ll be up to President Trump to decide how much pressure to put on Zelenskyy.

It’ll be up to Trump and Kushner and Witkoff decide how much to reach out to Putin.

Is that how you say?

Yeah, I think we talked to the same officials here, because Ukrainians are skeptical here again, and very much cynical, and we know who calls the shots here, but you know, we need to see who will lead those key committees on the hill who will be on those committees, and we have to hear from the Democrats themselves, because again, they were not running on the Ukraine agenda.

If you want to win here in the United States, you have to talk gas prices, you have to talk affordability, but we haven’t heard anything about Ukraine, and that’s where it gets shaky.

Schifrin: Well, we have heard other than, it seems like to me outside of Maine, actually most of the senators, especially who are going to take either the empty speech seats or defeated incumbents are more pro Ukraine and their predecessors.

Does that make any difference?

Well, but we will certainly see changes in the Congressional Ukraine Caucus, we will see new faces on the hill who are yet to talk and Reiterate their position on Ukraine.

We haven’t heard the specifics here.

We haven’t heard their stance on weapons, on Patriots, on interceptors, on sanctions.

Schifrin: Yeah, and how much to push back, on the president, especially when it comes to Russia.

Bilbassy: Yeah, and also it will be interesting to see if the president is gonna invite president Putin for the G20 in Miami.

Schifrin: Well, they definitely are inviting him, The question is whether he shows up.

Bilbassy: And whether he’s coming or not, and whether it’s gonna extend it to President Zelenskyy.

Komadovsky: And I asked the president Zelenskyy in Canada actually whether he would come and join the world leaders in Miami, and he said "Yes," and "It doesn’t matter whether I hate Putin or I love Putin.

"We have to sit down and talk."

I’m not sure if President Trump will actually extend that invitation.

We’ve been talking here about the president’s ability.

Right?

To wage war or peace, pressure Zelenskyy or Putin, part of the authorities that the president has that are unchecked largely are also tariffs, because Congress has given him that authority.

So, Willy, this week, the president said we have the concept of a very good deal with Canada.

Lowry: I’ve heard that before.

- Exactly.

Prime Minister Carney, he said, "I acknowledge progress," but he’d said something very important.

He said, he told Politico, he would be willing to wait Trump out until there’s a new president.

Is Carney, are all countries in a better position now to wait Trump out after the midterms?

Yes, certainly listen, I think there’s no question that Carney and Canada are in a better more comfortable position than they were 3 days ago, two days ago, if only because a lot of the wind has been taken out of Donald Trump’s sales.

That’s not to say that the policies or that a deal will be achieved in the next few days or weeks, right?

At the end of the day, it’s still as you said, it’s Trump’s prerogative, but listen, Americans voted, and they voted overwhelmingly against President Trump’s agenda, which of course terrorists were a pretty significant element there.

So I think Canadians are feeling, first of all, relieved, and I think that there is a sense that, a hope I would say, that you know, this is a the beginning of a return to the kind of America that they have long been close with, but I think there’s like also cautious realization that the relationship will never be what it once was... - With Canada.

Which is not to say that it won’t be, you know, return to a positive place, but there was a rupture as to steal a word from the prime minister.

and if Canada thinks it can outlast Trump, Nadia, perhaps Iran thinks...?

Bilbassy: Oh, for sure, Iran is counting on that.

I mean I said that on my own TV station that no deal is gonna happen before the midterms, because the Iranians were not gonna give him the victory he’s looking for.

Alegret: When you say Iran, you mention the government of the people?

Bilbassy: Oh, no, the government.

No, we’re talking about the government all the time.

We’re talking about the regime.

Alegret: Do you think that... - Sorry, but... Schifrin: No, please.

Alegret: But do you think that the people in Iran are happy with the result?

Seeing President Trump weaker than it was...?

Bilbassy: Well, it depends.

It depends who you talk to.

There is so many opinions inside Iran.

If you talk to the the pro [Indistinct], for example, they prefer President Trump and the Republicans, but also them change their mind because they realize that the president is looking for a deal.

He’s not looking for a regime change, and most people in Iran are tired of this regime has been controlling them for 47 years.

So they turn against us.

So I don’t know.

I mean there is mistrust with the Democrats, it depends, and the same for the Gulf States as you know, they prefer to work with the Republican administration.

But with President Trump is a different story, because difficult to predict... Exactly, and many of the Gulf States were actually quite happy with the president foreign policy, and then the Iran war to challenge that.

I want to ask also about Latin America.

Because it seems like it’s a little different here, right?

So then then the regions we’ve been talking about.

there are a lot of allies of the president across the region, many of whom were recently elected, many of whom President Trump tried to put his thumb on the scale.

When they see the results of the election, when they see this rebuke, does the president lose any influence across the region?

Alegret: I think, first of all, Latin America is not uniform.

I mean, many people speak the same language, besides Brazil and Guyana... Schifrin: The president’s intervention failed.

[Indistinct] But governments need to deliver.

They need to deliver to their own people, and what they are looking for with the relation with the U.S.

: economy and security, but they don’t want to compromise security with sovereignty or independence, and they don’t want to, when we talk about economy, compromise their relation with China, which today is the main partner in the economic relations, so if this relation with the U.S.

can keep these two main security areas, economy and security, benefiting their own governments their own countries and allowing them to deliver to their own people, the relation is going to be good.

If not, if the level of interference from Washington into those countries, even though they are right-wing governments or allies to Washington in principle, these relations are gonna be... And one other aspect we haven’t focused too much on is investigations that the Democrats are promising.

It seems to me Venezuela, especially is going to be a place where the Democrats are promising investigations.

Not so much into Maduro possibly, but definitely the economic deals that the Trump administration have made since the Maduro... Yeah, because there is no transparency.

Bilbassy: And also corruption.

Corruption in terms of President Trump’s former lawyer.

Alina Habba, and the money that’s been used between Venezuela and the U.S.

trying to have access to the president.

Alegret: Marco Rubio has a critical point.

I mean Marco Rubio has bet a lot on Venezuela, and we’ll see what happened in Cuba.

Now, Cuba has been there, and Ambassador Waltz in the United Nations deliver a strong message, not physical but really and diplomatic confrontation.

Last week.

Schifrin: It was a very physical confrontation, for the UN.

[Laughter] And I think that was the beginning of something, they were doing this theater, if I may, to prepare the floor for something that is coming.

And that is personal for Marco Rubio and the commitment of the U.S.

administration with Venezuela was 3 phases, the last is international observant elections, and we’re waiting for that.

I am waiting for that, as a democratic person.

Komadovsky: And you know, on the oversight and corruption, corruption was among top 3 issues that Texas actually highlighted for us, and Ukrainians actually used to be lectured by Americans about corruption.

President Trump said a couple of times that Ukrainian nation.

Ukrainian government is very much corrupt, but now I’m hearing questions coming from here, from Odessa.

People are keen to understand if the American system is actually corrupt.

We used to be a beacon for those Eastern European countries, and now the coin has flipped.

Schifrin: And, Nadia, you mentioned this earlier.

We only have a few minutes left, but I want you to briefly touch on Israel, right?

This will undoubtedly be the most anti Israel Congress in history.

President Trump has already said there’s no more grants, so that Israel will have to use its own money essentially to buy American weapons.

How much can Congress affect the U.S.

relationship with Israel?

I think it’s already changing, as you said.

I noticed that among the voters, among the progressive wing in the Democratic Party.

I was in El-Sayed’s victory night in Detroit.

I have seen Jewish Americans supporting him.

There’s almost 60% they’re saying that they were supporting him, And now that the Congress wanted to make it first of all this narrative that’s been dominant in Washington that if you speak against Israel and what they’re doing and the military that they get in without any supervision, and against the Leahy Laws.

Schifrin: Leahy Laws requires human rights checks on the military.

Bilbassy: If you give military aid to any country, it cannot use it against a civilian population.

The UN commission came out many times I said Israel has violated international law, international humanitarian law, and therefore they’ve been given a blank check.

Schifrin: And then we should know that this is not a partisan issue, right?

[Speaking at the same time] Komadovsky: Ukraine would only dream about that kind of support.

Lowry: But I would say while so many countries around the world breathe this sigh of relief from these midterm results.

Israel certainly did not.

And, Willy, I’ll give you the last word because we only have about a minute left, So we’ve been talking about the rebuke to the president here, whether the president has, whether he will accelerate or hold back a little bit, whether the Democrats in Congress can actually check, But have we seen an agenda from the Democrats on foreign policy?

Is it now not time to hear policies about tariffs, about Ukraine, about the war?

That’s kind of what we’re all who cover this space, but we’re all waiting for it.

Yeah, I mean listen, I think it’s early innings, but I think in the coming days and coming weeks that will begin to crystallize and certainly looking at it from a Canadian perspective.

You know, we have to remember.

Democrats can be protectionists, too.

Schifrin: Have been for you.

- Exactly.

So this is not from a [Indistinct] perspective, a panacea.

Democratic Center Representatives all the socialist.

Because those agendas are different.

So the Democratic Party has a challenge now to unify the voice and to send a clear message.

"This is our proposal for the American people."

Bilbassy: Yeah, because winning is different than governing.

Schifrin: Hmm.

Very good point.

Bilbassy: That we know.

Schifrin: Yeah.

Yeah, very good point.

Nadia, Willy, thank you so much.

Misha, Gustau, thank you so much.

And thank you at home.

That’s all the time we have.

I’m Nick Schifrin.

We’ll see you here again next week, on "Compass Points."

Announcer: Support for "Compass Points" has been provided by... the Judy and Peter Blum Kovler Foundation, Camilla and George Smith, the Dorney Koppel Foundation, the Gruber Family Foundation, and Cap and Margaret Anne Eschenroeder.

The Judy and Peter Blum Kovler Foundation.

Upholding freedom by strengthening democracies at home and abroad.

Additional support is provided by Friends of the News Hour.

♪ Announcer: This program was made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

♪ You’re watching PBS.