A Democratic Congress will not bring conventional gridlock. It will set the stage for a volatile struggle over presidential power.

To understand the coming collision between President Donald Trump and a Democratic Congress, one must first discard the textbook formulas of US governance. The United States is about to witness a political experiment for which there is no modern precedent: a purely transactional populist, entirely unmoored from traditional ideological orthodoxy, forced to share power with a legislative branch unified in partisan hostility.

The conventional wisdom predicts immediate, paralysing gridlock. That is a misreading of the terrain. Trump does not view politics through the lens of conservative dogma or constitutional restraint; he views it through the lens of the deal. Consequently, his governance will not be characterised by passive stagnation, but by an aggressive, volatile mix of transactional bipartisanship and raw executive unilateralism.

Domestically, the ideological lines will blur. For decades, the Republican Party was defined by its commitment to limited government and free markets. Trump has spent a decade dismantling that consensus. Confronted with a Democratic House of Representatives and a Democratic Senate, he will feel no tribal loyalty to standard conservative policy. Instead, expect him to seek out areas of populist overlap.

When it comes to massive infrastructure spending, protectionist trade policy and aggressive state intervention to protect domestic manufacturing, Trump is often closer to the Democratic centre-left than to the ghost of former President Ronald Reagan. He will dare the opposition majorities to vote against legislation that pours millions of dollars into their districts or levies tariffs that protect their blue-collar constituents. It will be an unholy, ad hoc alliance — issue-by-issue, fleeting, and transactional — designed to deliver the optics of victory for both a populist president and a vulnerable congressional majority.

Where such transactions fail, however, the venue will shift from the legislative chamber to the administrative state controlled by the executive. Trump will not accept the traditional boundaries of a divided government. If necessary, he will govern by decree. Executive orders, emergency declarations and expansive interpretations of federal statutes will be deployed to bypass a stubborn Capitol Hill. The administration will dare the Democratic leadership to tie up the government in the federal courts, turning the slow wheels of the judiciary into a political weapon.

Yet, the true test of this fragile constitutional architecture will not occur on the domestic stage. It will happen abroad, specifically in the volatile expanses of the Middle East, where the executive branch enjoys its greatest constitutional latitude.

The immediate flashpoint is Iran. The Trump doctrine rests on a foundation of maximum economic pressure backed by highly unpredictable, asymmetric tactical deterrence. It is a posture designed to keep adversaries off balance. But a Democratic Congress, historically wedded to the framework of multilateral diplomacy and deeply wary of congressionally unauthorised foreign entanglements, will view this unpredictability not as a strategic asset but as an existential danger.

The US is likely headed for a historic constitutional showdown over the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Democratic majorities will also aggressively use the power of the purse to place statutory fences around the commander-in-chief, attempting to defund military manoeuvres or explicitly prohibit unilateral escalations against Tehran. Trump will treat these attempts at legislative constraints with open contempt. Asserting an absolute, almost unrestrained reading of the Constitution’s Article II executive authority, the president will argue that modern geopolitical threats require executive agility, not governance by congressional committee. When the rockets fly, the president will act unilaterally, leaving Congress to meaningless academic debates.

Hanging over this entire drama is the ultimate constitutional weapon: the threat of impeachment by Congress. In a Washington where both the House and the Senate are controlled by the president’s opponents, oversight will cease to be an instrument of governance and become an engine of partisan political destruction.

Democratic congressional committee chairs will launch a relentless, multifront campaign of subpoenas and investigations. Every member of Trump’s cabinet will live in a permanent state of interrogation; every foreign policy decision will be audited for high crimes and misdemeanours. The House will almost certainly draft articles of impeachment, not as an extraordinary remedy for rare misconduct, but as a routine penalty for political nonconformity.

Yet, this strategy carries severe risks for the opposition. Trump does not fear institutional warfare; he thrives on it. He will transform the spectacle of congressional investigations into the theatre of public grievance. To his base, a hostile Congress will be framed not as a coequal branch of government performing its constitutional duty, but as an illegitimate, obstructionist cabal subverting the will of the forgotten American voter.

Because the structural math of the Senate requires a two-thirds majority for removal of the president, actual eviction from the Oval Office remains a statistical fantasy. Impeachment will therefore achieve not displacement, but a permanent state of institutional friction.

What the US is about to enter is not two years of legislative inactivity, but a phase of perpetual brinkmanship. It will be an era in which governance occurs only in the narrow, volatile intervals between constitutional crises. The US system was built to withstand institutional tension, but it also requires a basic reverence for institutional boundaries to function. With a transactional populist president in the White House and an adversarial army on Capitol Hill, those boundaries will be tested as never before. The architecture will hold, but the foundation will shake.

By Adolfo Franco Republican political strategist – Aljazeera

L’article Analysis. America is heading for two years of constitutional brinkmanship est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Le Parti démocrate a repris le contrôle du Congrès américain aux élections de mi-mandat, infligeant un sérieux revers au président américain qui pourrait voir ses pouvoirs restreints pour la fin de son second mandat. Selon des résultats encore provisoires, les démocrates raflent au moins 225 des 435 sièges à la Chambre de représentants. Ils devraient même atteindre les 260 sièges à la fin des décomptes.

Les démocrates ont également repris le contrôle du Sénat, où 35 sièges étaient à pourvoir sur les 100 que comporte la chambre haute. Ils ont notamment repris les sièges républicains dans sept Etats: Caroline du Sud et du Nord, Texas, Iowa, Ohio, Kansas et Maine, portant leur total provisoire à 54.

Sur un ton conciliant, Donald Trump a jugé que les démocrates avaient « fait du bon boulot ». Le président américain a assuré qu’il allait reconnaître les résultats des élections, sans toutefois endosser la responsabilité de la déroute de son parti.

Ce scrutin crucial intervient deux ans après la présidentielle remportée par Donald Trump. Les citoyens étaient appelés à renouveler la totalité des 435 sièges de la Chambre des représentants et un tiers du Sénat, tous deux actuellement dominés par le camp républicain.

Entre enthousiasme et prudence le monde réagit à la victoire démocrate

Les réactions internationales se sont succédé mercredi, après la large victoire des démocrates aux élections de mi-mandat aux Etats-Unis. De l’Europe à l’Asie, en passant par l’Afrique du Sud l’Iran, ou encore la Russie, ces déclarations oscillent entre félicitations franches et constats plus réservés.

« Une excellente nouvelle pour la démocratie américaine », estime la diplomatie française

La large victoire des démocrates aux élections de mi-mandat aux États-Unis, marquée par un « record absolu » de participation, et la reconnaissance de la défaite des républicains par Donald Trump, est « une excellente nouvelle pour la démocratie américaine », a estimé mercredi le chef de la diplomatie française Jean-Noël Barrot.

« Les résultats ne sont ni contestables, ni contestés. Le président des États-Unis lui-même a admis et reconnu la surperformance des candidats démocrates. C’est donc une très bonne nouvelle pour la démocratie américaine », a déclaré Jean-Noël Barrot lors de la séance de questions hebdomadaire à l’Assemblée nationale.

World Opinion + Agences

L’article Le raz-de-marée démocrate aux élections de mi-mandat est « très clairement un rejet du président Trump ».. Vidéo est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

The Democratic Party has high expectations as it heads into these pivotal US midterm elections.

A historically unpopular Republican president, an American public unhappy with the rising costs of food and bills, and months of favourable polls point to a good night for them on Tuesday.

Democratic candidates lead in well over the 218 seats needed to flip control of the lower chamber of Congress, the House of Representatives, the polls suggest. And they are tied or narrowly ahead in the key Senate races.

A recent New York Times poll had the Senate race in South Carolina, a state Donald Trump won by 18 percentage points in 2024, as a tie. Recent CNN surveys put the Democrats ahead in Texas, Kansas and Maine.

But are the polls accurate?

Recent US political history is littered with examples where public opinion polls, even ones just days before an election, were off the mark. Trump outperformed predictions on his way to White House victories in 2016 and 2024. His narrow defeat in 2020 came after most surveys indicated a more comfortable win for Democrat Joe Biden.

Earlier this year, polls suggested Democrat Abdul El-Sayed was poised for a double-digit win in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary. Instead it was 1%. In Wisconsin’s Democratic primary for governor, the candidate that had a polling lead that approached 20 points lost by a fraction of a percent.

According to Clifford Young, president of Ipsos Public Affairs, which conducts political and market research surveys, polling has become difficult in recent years because it’s harder to reach Americans as they abandon their land lines and screen their calls. And many of those who pollsters do contact have become less willing to participate.

« Conservatives, especially those on the far right, are much more anti-establishment by nature, » Young says. « And they don’t participate in anything. They hate the system. That’s the challenge. »

If Republican voters are being undercounted in a systematic way, and polling companies don’t take that into consideration when constructing their voting models, it could skew their data towards the Democrats.

That’s one of the reasons why it has become trickier for pollsters to predict what the electorate will look like.

One explanation for why Trump overperformed in previous presidential elections is that his supporters – many of whom were not regular voters – flocked to the polls in higher-than-expected numbers.

That unpredictability is one of the main contributing factors to those notable recent polling misses, even if the margins in most reputable polls were only off by a few percentage points.

In a close race, those few points can make the difference between victory and defeat for a candidate. And this year, many of the key Senate races are within those narrow margins.

In recent years, midterm general election polls have proven to be more accurate, in part because Trump – and his unique ability to draw disaffected Americans to the polls – was not on the ballot.

In 2022, they suggested Democrats would defy conventional expectations and avoid an electoral wipe-out despite Biden’s low approval numbers.

While the party lost control of the House of Representatives, the margins were slim and Democrats maintained control of the US Senate.

While this year’s primary results did provide bigger surprises, Young says that nominating contests have historically been volatile, with voters more likely to make up their minds at the last minute. It shouldn’t be seen as an indication that the current crop of general election polls are off the mark.

World Opinion + BBC News

L’article Democrats have high hopes for midterms – but are the polls right? est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says right-wing parties have won a “decisive majority” among the Zionist public and called for the formation of a “national right-wing government”.

Exit polls, however, show no outright winner and suggest Netanyahu’s coalition is only slightly ahead of the main opposition alliance, though neither side can secure a majority.

Arab parties are projected to win 18-19 seats, collectively, improving on their performance four years ago, though neither main bloc says they’ll invite them to form a government.

Voter turnout stood at 77.7 percent, the highest in nearly 30 years, according to the Central Elections Committee.

Israel’s Palestinian citizens voted for ‘freedom, justice, and equality’

Here is more from the leader of Israel’s Arab political party Balad, Sami Abu Shehadeh.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Abu Shehadeh said Palestinian citizens of Israel voted in such large numbers in yesterday’s election because they want “to promote a different political alternative, which is based on the values of freedom, justice, and equality for both people who are living between the river and the sea”.

Turnout among Palestinian citizens of Israel, who account for one-fifth of the total population, reached about 80 percent, according to estimates.

“We are very proud of the Arab-Palestinian minority in Israel that went in this very high percentage of voting in this election,” said Abu Shahedeh, adding that the Arab-led political groups have fulfilled “the first thing that we promised them [voters] – that we are going to prevent this gang of criminals from coming back and being able to form the next government, Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir”.

Opposition can’t get over ‘ethno-nationalist Zionist ideology’ to remove Netanyahu

Daniel Levy, the president of the US Middle East Project, says Israel finds itself in a post-election political conundrum because both leading blocs are refusing to work with the Arab-led lists.

“It seems that for the Zionist opposition who kept telling Israelis … that Netanyahu had to go or Israel was in existential danger, [that] he was a threat to the fabric of Israel … most of them seem to be choosing the course that rejects alliance with the Palestinian Arab parties – and that therefore de facto keeps Netanyahu in power,” Levy told Al Jazeera.

That is why, according to Levy, the Zionist opposition to Netanyahu “will stick to their ethno-nationalist Zionist ideology and reject those Palestinians”.

Impossible to defeat Netanayhu-led bloc ‘without Arab citizens’

Ayman Odeh, who leads the Joint List party Hadash-Ta’al alongside Ahmad Tibi, says the Netanyahu-led bloc would have secured an outright majority in the election if it were not for Israel’s Palestinian citizens.

“Without the Arab citizens, Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, and Smotrich would already be celebrating today,” Odeh said in an X post.

“But the truth is simple”, he added, “even the Arab citizens alone cannot bring about the change, and even without us, it’s impossible to defeat them.”

Odeh said: “Without a genuine and equal Jewish-Arab partnership, it’s impossible to build a better future here for all of us. And we all deserve such a future.”

World Opinion + Agencies

L’article Israel election results: Netanyahu and Eisenkot blocs in tight race.. Video est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Lula da Silva wins a fourth term as Brazil’s president after defeating Flavio Bolsonaro 51.7% to 48.2% in a closely fought runoff election.

Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has won a fourth term in office in a dramatic comeback over his right-wing challenger Flávio Bolsonaro.

Left-wing leader Lula took 51.79% of votes, becoming the first president since the return of democracy in 1988 to win an election after losing the first round of voting.

Lula told celebratory crowds this election is a « loss for negativity, lies », later adding « long live democracy ».

Bolsonaro, who is the son of convicted former president Jair Bolsonaro, has so far refused to recognise the result and called for it to be annulled, which experts say is unlikely.

In an unprecedented move, polls were also extended for two hours on Sunday evening after both candidates made requests for different reasons.

Lula’s team had argued that voters in São Paulo and Bahia could not get to the polling stations because of a lack of buses, while Senator Bolsonaro’s campaign cited heavy rain in some areas in the south of the country and in São Paulo as the reason for their request.

The decision – issued by the Supreme Court just as polling stations were due to close – meant that some had already shut and were not able to re-open.

Supreme Court President Kassio Nunes Marques – appointed by the older Bolsonaro – confirmed Lula’s victory and said that the voting extension did not cause issues for the count or the electoral process.

Lula secured 51.79% of the vote against Bolsonaro’s 48.21% – a difference of 4.4 million votes between the two candidates.

But Lula’s camp gained momentum ahead of election day, focusing on boosting voter turnout after 33 million people did not vote in round one.

Sunday saw the largest drop in abstention between the first and second rounds of a presidential election since 1989.

As disconsolate Bolsonaro supporters left the house in Brasília where their candidate had been watching the result, Lula took to the streets in São Paulo to celebrate and address his supporters.

« This, my fourth term, will be the best of any president in the history of this country », the former metal worker said. « It will be the one in which I listen most to the Brazilian people. »

Vice-President Geraldo Alckmin told him: « You, for the second time, have saved Brazilian democracy. »

Bolsonaro, who had been poised to give a victory speech, said the result should be annulled, calling it « inexplicable » and « impossible ».

But electoral law experts have told BBC Brasil that the chances of the results being annulled are remote.

Fernando Neisser from the Institute of Lawyers of São Paulo (Iasp) said it would be « difficult from a legal standpoint » given that the margin of victory was relatively large, and would depend on the « narrative » his lawyers put forward.

Expert Alberto Rollo said that dates for presidential elections in Brazil are fixed and determined by the constitution, which would add another complication to getting it annulled.

Brazil faces political challenges after the runoff

Political analyst Thomas Traumann warned that a Lula victory could face pressure from a hostile Congress and threats of impeachment, while a victory for the far right could lead to political retaliation directed at the Supreme Court.

Flavio Bolsonaro has said he would seek to free his father and pursue the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who led the case against the former president.

Rain across Brazil on Sunday threatened to affect turnout following record abstention in the first round earlier in the month. 

World Opinion + Agencies

L’article Brazil’s Lula wins fourth term after defeating Flavio Bolsonaro.. Video est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has announced a ban on online gambling, just days before an election in which he is seeking a fourth term as the country’s leader.

The left-wing leader, who is running against the son of the incarcerated former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, signed a provisional order on Friday that « prohibits all sports betting and online casinos ».

The online gambling industry in Brazil was legalised in 2018 and has since been blamed for widespread household income losses due to addiction.

Flávio Bolsonaro accused his rival of playing politics, while Brazilian football teams said the ban could lose them income due to betting firms pulling their sponsorships.

Lula described the industry as a « cancer » in his announcement, adding that « either we remove the tumour, or it kills us ».

The move comes just over a week before the first round of Brazil’s presidential election. Recent polls have the 80-year-old leader almost neck-and-neck with the younger Bolsonaro.

Lula also separately signed a bill to establish criminal offences related to fixed-odds betting – the most common type of online sports betting.

Punters and bookies will have until 5 October to withdraw any existing funds from online betting accounts, while new deposits have been barred.

The new measures must receive congressional approval within 120 days to remain in force.

Lula acknowledged online betting was allowed under the former President Michel Temer’s administration but said that it had grown « without regulation under Bolsonaro’s management ».

He said in a statement on X that there were « no restrictions » particularly for preventing children and teenagers from accessing online betting.

« We won’t allow betting companies to profit at the expense of Brazilian families’ income and lives, » the president added.

Lula described how he had heard from families who had sold everything in their houses because of their gambling addictions.

Earlier this week at the UN General Assembly, Lula accused the industry of « transforming addiction into profit ».

But Flávio Bolsonaro called the gambling crackdown « populist, hypocritical and politically motivated » during a campaign rally in Rio de Janeiro on Friday, according to Reuters.

Grêmio, one of the so-called « big twelve » Brazilian football teams, noted ahead of Lula’s announcement that sports betting firms had become « one of the main sources of revenue for sports » since they were made legal.

It said a change in the law « will not only be an open door for illegal betting, but a fatal blow to Brazilian football, leading many clubs to insolvency ».

The main clubs were paid 1.1bn Brazilian reais ($212m; £160m) by sports betting firms in 2025, while the industry took in 62.5bn reais at the same time, broadcaster Globo reports.

Most types of gambling, such as casinos and slot machines, are illegal in Brazil, but ever since online betting was legalised in 2018, it has exploded in popularity.

About 59.9% of Brazilian adults support banning internet betting, a survey by Atlas and Bloomberg published this week has found.

The Brazilian Institute for Responsible Gaming (IBJR), a trade body representing around 75% of the domestic betting sector, said a total ban on fixed-odds betting jeopardised the industry as a whole – and potentially 58-73bn real in revenue.

« The ban also doesn’t eliminate existing demand, » it said in a statement, adding that anyone turning to illicit betting would no longer have « access to protection mechanisms provided in the regulated environment ».

It urged the federal government to strengthen betting regulations rather than outlaw online and fixed-odds betting entirely.

World Opinion + Agencies

L’article Brazil’s Lula bans online gambling ahead of presidential election est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Les trois partis formant la coalition gouvernementale sortante au Maroc ont dominé les législatives de mercredi. Ce scrutin a été marqué par un taux de participation de 38%, au plus bas depuis près de vingt ans, et une remontée des islamistes.

L’abstention, surtout chez les jeunes, était l’un des principaux enjeux de ces élections qui se sont tenues moins de deux mois après la crise migratoire de Ceuta.

L’afflux massif de migrants, en majorité des Marocains, vers l’enclave espagnole a exposé au grand jour le manque de perspectives d’une partie de la jeunesse, alors même que le royaume affiche une croissance soutenue et multiplie les grands chantiers en vue du Mondial-2030, qu’il co-organise avec l’Espagne et le Portugal.

Le Parti authenticité et modernité (PAM) remporte 97 des 395 sièges de la Chambre des représentants, selon les résultats annoncés à l’aube jeudi. Sans majorité absolue, il devra former une nouvelle alliance avec les autres partis, mais le futur chef du gouvernement sera issu de ses rangs.

Foot et politique

C’est le roi Mohammed VI qui choisira la personne chargée de former un exécutif de coalition pour cinq ans, même si les grandes orientations des secteurs stratégiques demeurent l’apanage du monarque.

Parmi les noms qui circulent avec insistance, figure celui de l’actuel ministre chargé du Budget Fouzi Lekjaa, président de la Fédération royale marocaine de football. L’autre visage du PAM est Fatima Ezzahra Mansouri, ministre de l’Aménagement du territoire et maire de Marrakech, pressentie par la presse locale pour devenir la première femme à la tête d’un gouvernement dans l’histoire du pays.

Pendant la campagne, le parti a promis une croissance moyenne de 5% par an (elle est attendue à 4,4% en 2026), de maintenir l’inflation à 2% et de créer au moins un million d’emplois durant son mandat.

Le PAM a été fondé en 2008 par l’actuel conseiller du roi, Fouad Ali El Himma, pour constituer un contrepoids aux islamistes. Ce proche de Mohammed VI s’en est toutefois retiré dans le contexte du Printemps arabe, alors qu’il était accusé par ses détracteurs de chercher à asseoir l’hégémonie du parti sur la vie politique marocaine.

Le Rassemblement national des indépendants (RNI), dont est issu l’actuel chef du gouvernement, Aziz Akhannouch, arrive lui deuxième avec 66 députés, perdant une trentaine de sièges par rapport aux dernières législatives de 2021. Le Parti de l’Istiqlal, également présent dans l’actuelle coalition, est troisième avec 65 sièges.

Poussée islamiste

Fait marquant, le Parti de la justice et du développement (PJD, opposition islamiste), qui a notamment fait campagne sur la lutte contre la corruption, quadruple le nombre de ses sièges en en remportant 54, contre 13 précédemment.

Dans la nuit, son chef, l’ancien chef de gouvernement Abdelilah Benkirane, a dénoncé des irrégularités présumées dans des bureaux. Les autorités n’ont pas encore réagi à ces déclarations.

Le PJD a mis en avant dans son programme le pouvoir d’achat, l’emploi des jeunes et l’amélioration des services publics comme la santé. Autant de sujets qui ont sous-tendu les événements de Ceuta mais aussi, à l’automne 2025, le mouvement GenZ 212 (voir encadré).

World Opinion + Agences

L’article Au Maroc.. la coalition gouvernementale conserve la majorité aux élections.. Vidéos est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Du 18 au 20 septembre, les Russes élisent les 450 membres de la Douma, chambre basse du Parlement, lors des premières législatives organisées depuis le début de l’invasion russe en Ukraine. Dans un système politique très encadré, le scrutin doit aussi donner des indications sur l’état de l’opinion après presque cinq ans de guerre.

À quelques jours du vote, difficile de parler d’effervescence électorale. Dans une enquête menée à la fin de mai auprès de 1 608 personnes par le Centre Levada, institut de sondage russe indépendant, 66 % des personnes interrogées ignoraient quand avaient lieu les législatives, et, parmi ceux qui ne comptaient pas voter, 41 % estimaient que leur participation “ne changerait rien”. Selon un autre sondage, réalisé le 12 septembre auprès de 1 600 personnes par le VTsIOM, centre public russe d’étude de l’opinion, et cité par Gazeta.ru, près de 70 % des Russes n’ont lu aucun programme électoral. Le média indépendant Novaïa Gazeta fait savoir également que 317 des 434 députés encore en fonction, soit 73 %, se représentent lors de ce scrutin.

Comment élit-on les députés à la Douma ?

La Douma, qui vote les lois ainsi que le budget et confirme notamment la nomination du Premier ministre, compte 450 députés élus selon un système mixte. La moitié est élue dans des circonscriptions où un seul candidat l’emporte. Les 225 autres sièges sont répartis entre les listes des partis qui dépassent 5 % des voix. Chaque électeur dispose donc de deux bulletins, un pour un candidat local et un pour un parti. Au total, dix partis concourent sur les listes nationales. Le parti du président russe, Russie unie, détient la majorité depuis 2003. Les quatre autres formations déjà représentées dans la chambre sortante – le Parti communiste, le Parti libéral-démocrate de Russie, Russie juste et Nouvelles Personnes –, soutiennent globalement la guerre et votent souvent avec le parti au pouvoir sur les dossiers clés.

La liste nationale d’Iabloko, seul parti qui s’oppose ouvertement à la guerre en Ukraine, a été écartée par la Cour suprême, mais 103 de ses candidats ont pu rester en lice dans des circonscriptions, révèle le média indépendant russe en exil Novaïa Gazeta Europe. Les militaires participent eux aussi au scrutin : pour ceux déployés sur le front, un vote anticipé a été prévu du 30 août au 17 septembre. Quelque 186 participants ou vétérans du conflit ont été par ailleurs enregistrés comme candidats. Le vote est aussi organisé pour la première fois dans les territoires ukrainiens occupés et annexés par Moscou, ainsi que dans plusieurs régions frontalières. Novaïa Gazeta Europe souligne que ces zones représentent environ 16 % du corps électoral. Des experts cités par le média redoutent que cette procédure facilite les manipulations et permette de “dissiper” le mécontentement dans les régions éloignées de Moscou. En parallèle, des milliers de mandats locaux sont renouvelés dans les régions et municipalités russes, explique le quotidien économique Vedomosti.

Pourquoi ce rendez-vous électoral compte-t-il malgré une opposition limitée ?

D’abord parce que le calendrier électoral continue de s’appliquer. Élue pour cinq ans, la nouvelle Douma siégera encore lors de la prochaine présidentielle, prévue en 2030, lors de laquelle Vladimir Poutine pourrait briguer un sixième mandat. Même sans véritable suspense sur l’issue du scrutin, Novaïa Gazeta Europe décrit les élections comme l’une des “structures porteuses” du système de Poutine et comme un moyen de “tester le terrain”. La campagne permet au Kremlin et aux élites de mesurer leur popularité, la distance qui les sépare de la population et l’ampleur du mécontentement, dans un pays éprouvé par la guerre. Le média compare ainsi les élections à un “indicateur d’usure des pneus”, qui signale au pouvoir quand il devient nécessaire d’ajuster sa politique. Natalya Kovaleva, chercheuse au sein du groupe de réflexion britannique Chatham House, estime dans Azattyq Asia, branche centrasiatique de Radio Svoboda, qu’il permet au Kremlin de “légitimer formellement le régime et la guerre”.

Pourquoi l’après-élection concentre-t-elle toutes les inquiétudes ?

Le scrutin se déroule sur fond de guerre, de difficultés économiques, de pénuries de carburant et de frappes répétées des drones ukrainiens sur les raffineries russes. Ces dernières semaines, les préoccupations majeures des citoyens portaient avant tout une nouvelle vague de mobilisation générale, qui n’a toutefois pas été annoncée à ce stade. Des hommes politiques, fonctionnaires et conseillers politiques interrogés par le média indépendant russe Verstka redoutent cet automne un durcissement global incluant hausse des impôts, censure renforcée, saisie des épargnes bancaires ou encore instauration de la loi martiale.

World Opinion + Agences

L’article Législatives en Russie : est-ce encore utile de voter sous Poutine ? est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

US President Donald Trump has offered every adult American $5,000 (£3,700) if Republicans win November’s midterm elections, but it is unclear how such a plan would be funded and whether it is legal.

His remarks prompted raucous applause from supporters at a party convention on Wednesday night, although Democrats labelled it an « empty promise ».

Trump also told the Republican conference that the money would have to be spent in the US, but it is unclear how that would be monitored.

US Vice-President JD Vance suggested it might be paid for by tariff revenue and that such cheques would not go to wealthy Americans.

Is Trump’s offer legal?

Under US federal law, it is illegal to give payments that are intended to influence the way a person is voting.

However, some experts have said the offer made by Trump in Texas on Wednesday could be seen as a pledge to cut taxes, which is legal.

Dr Joan Mahoney, lecturer in law at the University of Southampton, told the BBC she thought the offer would be legal, though she said politicians « don’t usually do it quite this explicitly ».

« On the one hand it sounds a bit like a bribe, vote for the Republicans and you’ll get money, which would be decidedly illegal, » she said.

« But on the other hand it would go to everyone, regardless of how they voted so it isn’t in that sense a bribe.

« I think it would be legal. It’s the same kind of campaign pledge as saying ‘if my party wins we’ll reduce taxes’. Every party does that all the time… and that’s obviously perfectly legal. »

However, Laurel Rapp, director of the US and North America programme at Chatham House, told the BBC that Trump’s offer seemed to be « a very different, very transactional agreement » from the kind of promise usually made by candidates in an election period.

How much would it cost?

Aside from the question of legality, some have also asked whether Trump’s offer would be feasible financially in the context of increasing US debt, partially as a result of the war in Iran.

There are nearly 270 million American adults, meaning a $5,000 payout would cost the US government some $1.3 trillion.

Trump gave no details on how such cheques would be funded.

Congress authorises spending in the US, but the president did not say whether he planned to ask for legislative approval for any payments.

And legal experts said it was unlikely he could approve such a vast sum via a presidential executive order.

Erica York, a senior economist at the Washington DC-based Tax Foundation, told the BBC she would be « extremely surprised » if Congress approved any proposal.

« This would be one of the worst ways to use $1.3 trillion, » she said.

« We’re on a very unsustainable track, with deficits only projected to grow and grow, » York added.

Could tariff revenue fund it?

Speaking to Fox News after Trump’s speech, Vice-President Vance indicated that the payments could be funded by money raised by the president from tariffs.

However, such revenue to date falls far short of the money that would be needed to account for Trump’s $5,000 cheques offer.

According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the US has brought in around $475bn in tariff and excise tax revenue since the beginning of 2025.

But more than $100bn has been refunded after the Supreme Court struck down many tariffs earlier this year.

When asked how the payouts could work, the White House said in a statement to the BBC: « The doomers and naysayers have consistently doubted President Trump. »

« With the continued support of the American people, President Trump will keep delivering real results, » added spokesman Davis Ingle.

Why has Trump made the offer?

One former Republican strategist and pollster said Trump’s latest offer should be firmly seen in the context of an election that is now less than two months away.

« It is an extraordinary promise, and I’m not sure where that money is going to come from – but it is campaign season, » Robert Moran told the BBC.

Chatham House’s Rapp said Trump was thinking short term to try to keep hold of Congress as he enters the final two years of his term in office.

« Money is something that he is now resorting to because the polling is not looking good for Republicans and the polling is not looking good for him, » she continued.

Has anything similar happened before?

Trump has previously proposed $2,000 cheques to be funded by tariff revenues, but those payouts have not materialised.

Former President Joe Biden was accused of buying votes when he promised $2,000 Covid stimulus cheques for Americans if Democrats won Senate elections in Georgia in January 2021.

A similar controversy arose ahead of the 2024 presidential election, during which billionaire Trump supporter Elon Musk offered cash incentives to registered voters in seven swing states who signed a certain petition.

Additional reporting by Bernd Debusmann Jr, White House reporter – BBC News

L’article Debate. Can Trump really pay $5,000 to every American adult? est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Alors que le coût de la vie a fortement augmenté aux Etats-Unis, de nombreux Américains en font porter la responsabilité à Donald Trump. Son parti tente de remobiliser les électeurs avec le lancement mercredi de sa campagne pour les élections de mi-mandat à l’occasion d’une convention nationale exceptionnelle.

« On ne peut plus faire les courses, on ne peut plus mettre d’essence… Tout est devenu tellement cher! C’est simple, je sors du magasin avec un seul sac et j’en ai pour près de 60 dollars… C’est énorme! Et j’ai presque rien dedans…! Ça fait mal au cœur parce qu’on nous avait promis tellement et au final, on n’a rien », dénonce Amanda Jones à Dallas, après avoir fait des courses censées couvrir la moitié de la semaine.

Au Texas, les prix alimentaires ont augmenté de près de 4% et l’essence de près de 20% en un an. Une évolution à rebours des promesses de Donald Trump lors de la campagne présidentielle de 2024. « Pendant sa campagne contre Kamala Harris, il répétait que tout serait moins cher dès son arrivée au pouvoir. Mais rien n’a baissé. 

John Ellis, plombier, attribue lui aussi une partie de ces hausses aux choix de Donald Trump. « On s’est lancé dans une guerre qui a fait grimper le prix des transports, du diesel, et évidemment, ça se répercute sur l’alimentation », dit-il. Il confie perdre des clients à cause de la hausse des prix des matériaux qu’il répercute sur ses tarifs. « Les prix augmentent sans arrêt! »

Dans ses discours, Donald Trump relativise, voire balaie ces inquiétudes. Il assure que l’économie va bien et présente les critiques sur le coût de la vie comme un argument politique des démocrates.

« Plus Trump parle, plus les gens s’en détournent »

Mais cette communication inquiète jusque dans les rangs républicains, notamment chez les élus engagés dans les circonscriptions les plus disputées. Selon Politico, 45 élus et candidats républicains sur plus de 70 interrogés ont indiqué qu’ils ne se rendraient pas à la convention nationale républicaine exceptionnelle organisée par Donald Trump à Dallas les 9 et 10 septembre.

 Il faut remobiliser ces millions d’électeurs. Il a ce charisme particulier. Les gens adorent ses rassemblements et j’espère que ce sera contagieuxBill Maroney, électeur de Donald Trump

Jeremy Sutka, président des démocrates de Collin County, bastion conservateur historique au nord de Dallas qui pourrait basculer en novembre, est confiant. « Plus Trump parle, plus les gens s’en détournent, indique-t-il. Il n’a aucun contrôle, il ne pense qu’à lui. Ça ne nous dérange pas que les Républicains passent du temps là-bas plutôt que de faire du porte-à-porte pour comprendre les vrais problèmes du terrain. Ça nous aide d’une certaine façon, mais quoi qu’il arrive, on va rester mobilisés… »

« Les gens ont besoin de voir leur président »

Au Texas, la course au Sénat est devenue extrêmement serrée. Les démocrates espèrent ravir aux Républicains l’un des deux sièges de l’Etat, ce qui serait une première au Sénat depuis 1988. Les alliés de Trump investissent désormais des millions de dollars dans la campagne.

Bill Maroney, un électeur, insiste sur l’importance de la mobilisation du président: « Donald Trump doit intervenir! Les gens ont besoin de voir leur président, celui pour qui on a tous voté… Il faut remobiliser ces millions d’électeurs. Il a ce charisme particulier. Les gens adorent ses rassemblements et j’espère que ce sera contagieux, que ceux qui y vont transmettront cette énergie par effet multiplicateur. Il faut pousser les gens à se mobiliser une dernière fois pour ses deux dernières années. C’est donc capital qu’il s’implique. »

C’est précisément l’objectif de cette convention nationale, une première pour des élections de mi-mandat. Donald Trump veut mobiliser son électorat même si son nom ne figure pas sur les bulletins.

John Ellis y voit un aveu de faiblesse. « Je ne crois pas qu’un président ait déjà participé à une convention de mi-mandat de ce genre auparavant. L’argent dépensé et le nombre de personnes qui se déplacent ici, au Texas, montrent bien leur désespoir. Ils savent que s’ils perdent le Texas, ils seront en mauvaise posture. »

Transformer Donald Trump en moteur d’une élection à laquelle il ne participe pas, sans qu’il n’en devienne le boulet: le pari est risqué pour un président qui affiche l’un des plus faibles taux de popularité de sa carrière.

World Opinion + Agences

L’article Aux Etats-Unis, Donald Trump se met au centre de la bataille des élections de mi-mandat est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.