Overexposed: Last week's Democratic sweep
The headlines: International media celebrated the Democratic sweep on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, as a powerful mandate against Trump's agenda, with eighteen victories out of eighteen races in various states. From NPR to Reuters and The Guardian, there was already speculation about a blue wave in the 2026 midterms.
The facts: Democrats did indeed achieve a remarkable series of victories in eighteen races in states such as New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Georgia, and Pennsylvania - from gubernatorial elections to local initiatives and mayoral seats. In Virginia, Abigail Spanberger triumphed with 57% of the vote. New Jersey also elected a Democratic governor, and in New York, Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old socialist state representative, won the mayoral race with 50.4%. Mamdani's victory, supported by young voters and record turnout in Queens, stole the show, but nationwide turnout remained low (around 40%), and many races took place in regions known for being progressive.
Trump attributes the Republican defeat to the government shutdown and the fact that he himself was not on the ballot....
The weighting: This sweep sounds like a resounding comeback—a blue fireworks display that puts Trump's second term on shaky ground—but it is more of a local echo than a national thunderclap. Yes, eighteen out of eighteen is impressive, and Mamdani's emergence as a young, diverse figurehead gives progressives a shot of energy, but the necessary nuance fits this euphoria. These were off-year elections with low turnout and in states where Democrats already have a lead. Moreover, local factors also played an important role. For example, Mamdani's two main opponents had already been tarnished by numerous scandals.
Moreover, the Democrats remain deeply divided and give the impression that they have lost touch with mainstream America on various issues (including immigration and diversity). The party also still lacks a convincing figurehead for the midterms. Mamdani is too outspokenly left-wing, while Governor Newsom—often mentioned as a possible presidential candidate—is "too Californian" for many Americans.
Underexposed: The real outcome of the Dutch elections
The headlines: International media celebrated the Dutch elections on October 29 as a victory for the moderate center, with D66 as the big winner and Geert Wilders' PVV suffering a heavy defeat. The renowned Portuguese newspaper Publico, for example, wrote: "The victory of Rob Jetten's social-liberal party was balm for the soul of a Europe that is becoming all too accustomed to victories by the far right."
The facts: D66 shot up to 26 seats, a gain of 17, and shares the lead with the PVV, which lost 11 seats and ended up with 26.
But zoom in on the right-wing radical bloc: JA21 grew from 1 to 9 seats and Forum for Democracy (FvD) climbed to 7 seats.
Together, this bloc grew from 41 to 42 seats. In addition, the Dutch parliament is becoming increasingly unstable, partly because the largest parties now have fewer than 30 seats, whereas in the past they won 40 and sometimes even more than 50 seats: in 1986, the CDA won 54 seats and the PvdA 52.
At the same time, in the Czech Republic, billionaire Andrej Babiš's populist ANO party won the parliamentary elections on October 4. ANO is now forming a coalition with two radical right-wing parties, despite corruption scandals. The new government will pursue an anti-immigration policy, be very skeptical of European climate policy, and be more reluctant to provide aid to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Viktor Orbán is tightening his grip on the national media five months before the Hungarian parliamentary elections. The media group Indamedia, which is affiliated with his ruling party Fidesz, is taking over the tabloid Blikk, the country's most widely read newspaper.
Looking just beyond the EU's borders, we see populist Nigel Farage proudly leading the British polls with his Reform Party.
The weighting: This deserves more attention because these are not isolated incidents, but a pattern of resilient populism that undermines European stability; an undercurrent that is slowly reshaping the continent. The international press focused on the "triumph of the center" in the Netherlands, but misses how the radical right-wing bloc is maintaining or strengthening its positions, complicating the formation of a government and pulling policy to the right. In the Czech Republic and Hungary, this fuels Euroscepticism and media manipulation, with risks for EU cohesion and investment in Central Europe. This is therefore a latent danger for the markets that could frustrate European decision-making and affect the investment climate.
Spot-on: The rates case at the Supreme Court
Headlines: It has been a year since Donald Trump secured his second term as US president. For the financial markets, his trade war is the most striking policy fact to date. The November 5 hearing at the Supreme Court revolved around one key question: can the president unilaterally impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)? The judges sounded remarkably skeptical, warning about the legal scope of Trump's economic emergency powers.
Facts: Lower courts, including the federal court of appeals, have already ruled that Trump's interpretation of the IEEPA is too broad and violates the law, because the word "tariff" does not even appear in the law. Trump has been using IEEPA since the spring of 2025 to impose a 10% base tariff on imports, with (much) higher tariffs on countries with trade surpluses. This is the first time in the 50-year history of IEEPA that a president has used it for tariffs. Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the government, arguing that the law allows import regulation and that the president's power in this area is virtually unlimited, but lawyers such as Neal Katyal countered that tariffs are taxes that belong to Congress, not the president. Most SCOTUS justices—including those known to be conservative—expressed (serious) doubts about unlimited emergency powers, citing historical context such as Nixon's use of tariffs under a predecessor to the IEEPA. So far, the tariffs have generated about $90 billion, but they also cost American businesses and households billions more, with estimates of several thousand dollars per household per year.
Weighting: The most likely ruling is a rejection of Trump's broad interpretation of the IEEPA (6-3 or 7-2), but taking a middle ground to avoid chaos. In practice, this means a ruling that invalidates tariffs, with refunds for companies, but with a transition period of months for implementation, while the Trump administration seeks alternatives such as Section 232 (national security) or 301 (unfair trade). This creates short-term uncertainty, with potentially higher long-term interest rates if markets conclude that an important source of government revenue may be partially lost, making it even more difficult to finance the sky-high budget deficits. On the one hand, companies may breathe a sigh of relief if they get back the duties they have paid, but on the other hand, Trump is likely to look for other ways to reintroduce the duties, creating further uncertainty.
Take a look at my latest Global Political Analysis: Shutdown, SCOTUS battle & Trade war (31st October 2025)
