Even if Trump is told "No," the world cannot be reassured — The U.S. Midterm Elections and Lost Trust

Feeling relieved after seeing the election results. But by the next morning, reconsidering.

Is it really safe to conduct business now? Can I proceed with plans for studying abroad or emigrating? What if everything changes again in the next election?

The article by AP News published in WTOP depicted such complex emotions spreading across the world after the U.S. midterm elections.

According to the article, the Democratic Party regained the majority in both houses in the 2026 midterm elections. This reflects strong voter dissatisfaction with President Trump's administration. However, this does not mean that distrust towards the U.S. from other countries has been resolved.

This discrepancy is not simply about liking or disliking the U.S. People are questioning more practical matters.

Can they build their future based on U.S. promises?

The world fears not just the content of policies

In a democracy, policies change through elections. This is not abnormal; it's an important mechanism for voters to correct politics.

However, for foreign companies, governments, and individuals, the scope and speed of change become issues.

Building a factory takes years. Studying abroad or emigrating requires not just funds but also preparation for family life and professional arrangements. Security cooperation is also supported by trust and years of coordination between those in charge.

Such plans can suddenly become unfeasible due to the U.S. political situation. Moreover, even if corrected this time, there's no guarantee the correction will continue.

An entrepreneur in London featured in the AP report expressed concern that the world has learned that the U.S. can suddenly change direction and alter its attitude towards other countries.

What is being lost here is not just agreement with specific policies, but the reassurance of being able to foresee the future.

Whether the current policy is favorable and whether it can be trusted in a few years are separate questions.

Winning in Congress is different from a change in administration

When viewing U.S. politics from Japan, it's important to pay attention to the meaning of the midterm elections.

Even if the majority in both houses changes, it doesn't mean the president is replaced. The power dynamics over oversight, legislation, and budget by Congress change, but that alone doesn't mean all administration policies are withdrawn.

In the AP article, German Prime Minister Friedrich Merz also pointed out that Trump has governed largely without relying on Congress, indicating that election results alone do not necessarily change administration operations.

From an overseas perspective, at least two possibilities remain.

One is that increased congressional oversight could restrain the administration's actions. The other is that deepening conflicts with Congress might lead the president to seek opportunities in foreign affairs, resulting in unpredictable actions.

Which it will be is not determined by the election outcome alone.

The election results are the starting point of the political process that begins now, not a completion notice of policy changes.

For companies paying tariffs, something more important than a celebratory mood

The issue of trust is most concretely demonstrated by tariffs.

What overseas companies want to know is not just which side gained momentum in the U.S., but how the burden on their products will change.

The AP article features business owners in southern China who depend on orders for the U.S. market. Some hope for the election results, but others do not expect a significant change in the direction of U.S.-China policy.

Here lies the difference between how political news is perceived and the time frame of business management.

Even if tariff revisions are discussed, until they are implemented, prices and contracts must be carefully considered. Even after revisions, if the possibility of another increase is considered, investment decisions won't easily revert.

For example, if a company changes its sales destination to avoid tariff burdens and establishes new trade relationships, it doesn't necessarily mean they will revert to previous partners and logistics even if U.S. policy improves later.

This is not a confirmed story of specific company actions, but a management issue caused by policy instability. Each time rules change, companies bear adjustment costs. The more such experiences accumulate, the more cautious they become about future promises.

Restoring trust is not as simple as "tariffs go down, everything returns to normal."

For those considering emigration, trust becomes a life issue

While uncertainty for companies is a matter of profit or investment, for individuals, it becomes an issue of life planning itself.

An Indian woman working in IT in the U.S., featured by AP, desires to settle in the U.S. but expresses concerns about policies regarding visas and permanent residency.

What matters to her is not the evaluation of election results, but the outlook on the conditions under which she can work and live in the future.

Even if she is valued at work and has built a living foundation, changes in the system might force her to reconsider her plans. It could affect decisions about bringing family over, housing, and children's education.

Those considering studying or working in the U.S. from Japan can understand this structure of anxiety.

Even if the social atmosphere seems to change after the election, that alone doesn't change individual procedures or conditions. What matters to those living there is how the actually applied system will be and how stable its operation will be.

A country's appeal cannot be measured solely by opportunities for success. It's also necessary for those striving for those opportunities to be able to invest their time with peace of mind.

On SNS and online reactions, "expectation" and "still can't trust" coexist

When reading reactions after the election, caution is necessary. Just collecting prominent posts doesn't reveal the global public opinion.

Here, we introduce a commentary published on the distribution platform Substack, which has SNS functions, where the sender and content were confirmed. These are the opinions of the commentators and not the results of public opinion polls.

On November 5, the Canadian media "The Line" published a discussion between editors Jen Gerson and Matt Gurney on whether the U.S. can be trusted again.

Gerson, who takes a relatively optimistic stance, also states that not everything has been forgiven with this result. However, she appreciates the fact that U.S. voters were able to choose a different path.

On the other hand, Gurney is cautious, noting that voting based on domestic dissatisfaction does not directly translate to consideration for allies or the restoration of international responsibility.

The difference between the two lies in how much they can believe in the possibility of change. However, they agree that trust will not be restored with just one election.

British commentator Martin McSweeney also welcomed the opportunity for change created by voters in the "Truth Matters" on the same day, while questioning whether politicians can connect it to actual reform. Although he clearly opposes Trump, he does not see the Democratic victory as an unconditional success.

What emerges from these posts is not that there is no expectation.

There is expectation. That's why there is a strict watch on whether actions will accompany it this time.

What Japan needs is to consider both "relations with the U.S." and "preparation"

For Japan, this issue cannot be dismissed as mere impressions of a distant country.

In the AP article, Yoshinobu Tsutsui, chairman of Keidanren, expressed the recognition that strengthening the Japan-U.S. alliance and economic relations is indispensable for Japan, even if the U.S. political situation changes.

That is a realistic starting point. At the same time, because the relationship is important, preparation for potential policy changes is also necessary.

What companies should consider are points like the following:

• Is the dependency on U.S. sales or a single procurement route becoming too large?
• If tariffs or logistics costs change, how much can prices and contracts be adjusted?
• Are both scenarios of U.S. policy improvement and continued tough conditions being considered?

This is not a proposal to uniformly move away from the U.S. The necessary preparations differ depending on the nature of the business. The important thing is not to base everything on just the expected scenario.

In intergovernmental relations, there is the idea of accumulating cooperation not only through summit meetings but also with Congress, state governments, companies, universities, and other wide-ranging partners. Having multiple points of contact creates room to continue relationships even if central politics change.

Trust and preparation can coexist. In fact, relationships that can adapt to change are easier to maintain over the long term.

Does "America First" disappear in one election?

Another point not to overlook is that the evaluation of Trump and support for policies prioritizing U.S. national interests are not entirely the same.

Someone who opposed a particular president might still want protective policies regarding trade and industry. Voting for the Democratic Party cannot be simply interpreted as a desire to eliminate all friction with foreign countries.

The AP article also introduces views from representatives of Swiss economic groups and Chinese businesspeople that the "America First" mindset and the basic stance on China policy remain even after the election.

What Japan should confirm is not the image of the political party but how individual policies are handled.

Even if cooperative words increase, specific conditions might become stricter. Conversely, even if political statements are tough, practical adjustments might progress.

In understanding diplomacy and economics, it's necessary to separate statements, proposals, decisions, and implementations.

Measuring trust recovery is not about the next victory speech

Whether the U.S. is regaining trust cannot be judged by post-election euphoria alone.

What should be observed are concrete actions.

Are the agreed conditions being upheld? Is there sufficient explanation and transition time for system changes? Are consultations with partner countries and stakeholders ongoing? Even when politically inconvenient, are promises not easily overturned?

And whether these actions continue not just once, but consistently.

A trading partner is trusted not because they always provide favorable answers, but because even when opinions differ, there is an understanding of how discussions are held and what decisions are based on.

What is required of the U.S. is not to accept all demands of the world. As a country with enormous influence, it needs to demonstrate enough consistency for other countries to plan for the future.

The recent midterm elections showed that U.S. politics can be corrected. That significance is not small.

However, there is still a distance between being able to correct and being able to entrust with peace of mind.

What the world is waiting for is not the repeated phrase "America is back," but the track record that can be looked back on in a few years to say that promises were indeed kept.

Sources and References

1. WTOP/AP News:Introducing the lingering distrust towards the U.S. after the midterm elections through interviews with citizens, business people, and economic groups from various countries.
   https://wtop.com/world/2026/11/after-the-us-midterm-rout-of-trumpism-the-world-struggles-to-trust-america-again/

2. AP News: Source page of the same article
   Confirmation of the publication information and the theme that continuous action is necessary for trust recovery even after the election.
   https://apnews.com/article/4b5932abf54c5f6dc70b1f8f2d1c5d07apnews.com

3. The Line: Discussion on trust in the U.S. from Canada
   Published on November 5, 2026. Editors Jen Gerson and Matt Gurney present differing views on whether the U.S. can be trusted again, while evaluating the election results.
   https://www.readtheline.ca/p/america-has-turned-blue-should-canadiansreadtheline.ca

4. Truth Matters: Substack post questioning the responsibility of politicians after the election
   Published on November 5, 2026. Martin McSweeney discusses the need to connect voter intentions to actual reforms and concerns about Democratic leadership.
   https://read.truthmatters.org.uk/p/the-american-people-have-done-their