That’s all for now!

Thanks everyone for participating in our live conversation ahead of the 3 November US midterm elections. We’ll be back with more conversations throughout the month of October, providing context on a range of important topics as you head to the polls.

To keep up with our coverage of the midterms sign up to the Stakes newsletter here and bookmark our US midterm elections page.

Will Trump be held to account on claims of corruption?

Mikeyboy user asked: Do you think that Trump will ever be held to account for his rampant corruption. Can he ever be prosecuted for his blatant abuse of the constitution in regards to “personal gain while in office”.

Lastly, I have heard it muted that he may well advance his daughter in law as a presidential candidate. Could this be illegal, given Trump’s disregard for the law would the GOP be held culpable should it happen. Thanks.

Robert: I have written on the possible political and electoral consequences of Trump’s corruption today. You can read it here.

The question of Trump’s presidential prosecution for malfeasance may have been rendered moot by the 2024 Supreme Court ruling giving him broad immunity for acts committed while in office. Trump has also attempted to take further steps to protect himself in future in the future of a Department of Justice-driven settlement that would have barred the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from investigating his tax affairs, or those of his family. The settlement was later struck down by a judge. So that may provide an avenue for future probes.

Related: ‘Using the presidency to line his pockets’: could claims of corruption fuel backlash against Trump?

Would Republican losses in the midterms actually limit Trump’s power?

idlehanz asks: Given Trump’s proclivity for riding roughshod over almost anything, is it a certainty that losses in the midterms would actually limit his ability to cause more chaos?

Lauren: Predicting what Trump might do is never easy! But I would expect he will continue to push the limits of his executive authority if he can’t get his legislative priorities through the Congress. That would set up even more legal clashes between the branches. We could also see him veto Democratic-led legislation or possibly hold up or refuse to sign must-pass bills as a way to extract from Congressional Democrats. He could, as many presidents do later in their term, look abroad and try to further push his foreign policy agenda.

Updated

What is the future of the Republican party without Trump?

TeeDubyaBee asks: Once Trump has shuffled off this mortal coil, is the fate of the Republicans likely to be that of the Tory party’s slide into irrelevance over here in the UK or are political identities more nailed-on in the U.S., regardless of the leader?

Robert: The Republican party is unlikely to disappear from the American political scene. A more probable outcome is that it will evolve and shape-shift after the Trump era, to adapt itself to whatever the prevalent future mood is. In the US, the two-party system is a fixed reality in a sense that is not the case for any European democracy, including Britain, even though it - like the US - uses a first-past-the-post electoral system. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have known many guises down the generations; evidenced by the historical reality that the Republicans were the party of Abraham Lincoln and forged in an existential struggle against slavery, an institution defended by the Democrats of the day. Later generations of southern Democrats staunchly upheld segregation, until the civil rights legislation of the 1960s triggered a party realignment that has more or less survived to the present day. In summary, America’s two-party system seems fixed in stone, but it is mutable. The character of parties evolve for the sake of electoral survival and this is likely to be the future fate of the Republicans.

Will there be accountability for the Minab school bombing?

Ponteland_Paul asks: At what point will those responsible for the Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school attack killing 175 people be held accountable? If at all?

Robert: This is an excellent and heart-rending question to which there may be no satisfactory answer. The attack on the school in the southern Iranian city of Minab took place in the very first day of the war and went far beyond any standard war narrative explanations of “collateral damage.” Most of those killed were school girls. To this day, the US had not taken responsibility for the strike, although multiple independent investigations - including by the United Nations and Amnesty International - have concluded that it was caused by an American strike. All the indications are that it was a genuine blunder, perhaps caused by flawed or out-of-date intelligence. None of this will appease Iran, where memories are still vivid of the 1988 shooting down of a civilian passenger plane flying over the Gulf by an American war ship, the USS Vincennes. On that occasion, all 290 people on board were killed, including 66 children. The US later expressed regret for the incident, citing misidentification of the plane, and paid compensation to the victims’ families. However, the captain of the Vincennes, Captain William C. Rogers, was not subject to any disciplinary procedures and later received a Legion of Merit award. The seems to bode ill for any kind of accountability process being enacted over the school strike. Coincidentally, the Trump administration is aggressively targeting the International Criminal Court, imposing sanctions and financial restrictions on its officials and judges, after it issued arrest warrants against Israeli leaders over their actions in Gaza. It is possible to interpret that action as a warning shot to any international body contemplating trying to get accountability and justice in Minab.

Related: Minab school bombing: how the worst mass casualty event of the Iran war unfolded – a visual guide

Should Democrats pursue Article 25?

KafkasDog asks: As it’s increasingly clear that Trump is not mentally fit, and that allowing him to continue in his role further may (likely?) decimate the economy, if the Dems can secure, say, 60+ seats in the Senate, should they pursue Article 25?

Lauren: A 60-plus majority! Sure things are looking good for Democrats, but not that good. But as I’m based in Los Angeles, a city Trump just last night joked he might “let them take out” - I will indulge the question. There are many Democrats who have long believed (since Trump 1.0) that he was not fit to serve. But then like now the process for actually involuntarily invoking the 25th Amendment originates with the vice president and the cabinet, not Congress. That alone should tell you how likely it is. Even then, if it were to reach Congress, which it would only if there was a dispute between the president and his vice president and cabinet over his capacity to serve, Congress would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to install the vice president over the president.

I think the question Democrats are more likely to confront is whether they should again pursue impeachment against the president. And on that question, the party is really divided. While many believe he has committed impeachable offenses, they also recognize that their standing remains low and voters want action on the issues they care most about - the economy. Given that there is almost no likelihood of a Senate majority great enough to convict the president, I think Democrats feel this avenue is likely less fruitful than using their political capital to push through legislation that they hope will repair their standing, give them some credibility ahead of 2028, and ideally for them, knee-cap Trump’s movement that way.

Related: Could Trump be forced out of office? – podcast

Why doesn’t Congress stop the Iran war?

Richard Ulmer in Tampa, Florida asks in a reader callout: Why doesn’t Congress stop a war that they didn’t approve of?

Robert: Simple question, to which there is no simple answer. Congress does have the power to impede or limit a war for which it has not voted. But the particular trajectory of the Iran conflict combined with Trump’s powerful grip on a Republican-controlled legislature has given him added flexibility. The 1973 War Powers Resolution - originally passed in the wake of the Vietnam war and intended to rein in a so-called “imperial president” - lays down that the administration must inform congress within 48 of committing forces to military action and must withdraw the forces within 60 to 90 days unless Congress votes to authorize the war or extend the time frame. Trump has been able to circumvent these restrictions through legal sleight of hand. For example, the original conflict was suspended in early April - before the 60-day period had been reached - by a de facto ceasefire that was later formalized through the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Iran and US. When that agreement subsequently collapsed, the White House argued that the 60-day threshold started again from scratch. More generally, Trump has invoked his constitutional powers under Article II, Section 2 of the constitution, which asserts that the president is empowered to order targeted strikes, defend US forces abroad, or respond to threats abroad without congressional authorization. Trump has also been able to reframe his actions as “defensive” by switching the primary goal of the war to re-opening the strait of Hormuz, the strategic waterway that is a conduit for one-fifth of the world’s oil. Iran’s closure of it in response to being attacked has presented a major challenge to the US and global economy. In short, the Congress did not approve the war, and while its constitutional and legislative powers give it the ability to challenge and hamper Trump’s actions, the power inherent in the presidency does not invest it with the powers to stop it per se.

How are midwestern states impacted by the war?

Elizabeth Knudson, a student journalist at American University, also asks: Mike Rogers [GOP candidate for US Senate in Michigan] and Ashley Hinson [GOP Iowa Congresswoman] have been rather vocal about their dissent toward Trump due to the war. Why them specifically? Are their states’ constituencies most impacted by the war? Are there any other senate candidates who may also feel hostility toward Trump for the war, due to the war impacting their state worse than others?

Lauren: Both are in incredibly tight races. The war is unpopular and they don’t want to be seen as cheerleaders for a war that the voters they hope to represent are opposed to. Particularly in Iowa, where Hinson is running for Senate, the war is driving up the costs of essential operating inputs like diesel and fertilizer. This comes atop Trump’s trade war, which had already squeezed US farmers.

In both states, the Democratic candidates are pounding them on affordability and cost-of-living and being publicly supportive of the war can dilute the Republicans’ ability to respond.

Related: ‘It’s not sustainable’: US farmers reeling as Iran war pushes fertilizer costs up

Will the Iran war split the Republican party irreparably?

Elizabeth Knudson, Washington DC, student journalist at American University asks in a callout question: For a class project my group and I are covering the impacts of the Iran war on the Republican party. We want to know how the war is dividing the party on the inside and also swaying support for Trump on the outside.

Is the war likely to split the Republican party irreparably? If yes, what might that mean for future elections?

Lauren: That’s great! What an interesting topic. I think the midterms will be the first test, but like your question hints at, the impact could be long-lasting.

It’s too hard to say if it has split the party irreparably, but it has certainly fractured Trump’s MAGA movement. Trump promised no new “forever wars,” and from our reporting in 2024 and since, we know that many supporters believed him. It’s a powerful promise, and for many voters, he clearly broke it. At the same time, there are still neo-conservatives and foreign policy hawks in the Republican party who support the war, in theory, even if there are signs many Republicans are losing faith in the administration’s ability to wage it successfully. As for what it means for future elections, I think the war and its legacy will follow Trump administration officials who may be considering higher office in 2028 – think JD Vance or Marco Rubio. It could also be another reason for voters already extremely disillusioned with American politics and the two-party system to disengage. We know Trump won a lot of voters who were angry with the status-quo and wanted something different. And for them, if he couldn’t deliver on a core promise - and many voters did see keeping the US out of foreign wars as a key part of his platform - then they may feel like there’s no point in voting.

If Republicans lose control of both houses, do Democrats have a plan for what's next?

paxmansbeard asks: Should the Republicans lose control of both houses, do the Democrats have a plan for what happens next? It could work against them in the long run if they don’t have anything apart from not being fascist..

Lauren: This is, to me, the million dollar question. (Is million too small these days, billion-dollar?) My colleagues and I have documented the bubbling anger – not just at Trump but at the entire political system and establishment of both parties. This cycle we’ve really seen this flare on the left, where insurgent candidates toppled several long-serving incumbents on a message of ideological and generational change.

But to your question, Democrats have been struggling to define themselves and rally around an agenda that isn’t “anti-Trump” since his first term. What they decide to prioritize - even if they don’t have a filibuster - or veto - proof majorities will set the stage for the 2028 presidential campaign and beyond. If we take them at their word, I’d guess their priority will be on legislation focused on reducing costs, think housing, groceries, childcare, and eldercare. I also expect they would want to renew the now-expired ACA tax credits and push to restore or address cuts made to Medicaid.

Related: ‘People are pissed off’: anger at the elite and the establishment is fueling this year’s midterms

Has the war created a gap between Trump’s promises on affordability vs. the reality?

Eddie from Minnesota, USA, asks in a callout question: Has the war in Iran finally created a gap between this administration’s false promises and the reality of how unaffordable living in the U.S. has become?

Joseph Gedeon: Right, I don’t think the war created the gap so much as it made it impossible to ignore. Affordability has been the issue in American politics for about a decade…think about Bernie running in 2016 and 2020 with healthcare, student debt and wages. In the last election, Trump was running squarely on prices and inflation. Mamdani won in New York last year on rent freezes, affordability, free buses, etc, months before any of this. People knew that life was expensive pre-war.

Trump spent the 2024 campaign saying he’d bring prices down, including a pledge to slash energy costs, and he’s spent a lot of his time back in office insisting things are going great and that worrying about pesky affordability is overblown (anyone else remember when he was coming at the Biden administration from the other side???). One obvious wrinkle is January of this year, when the EIA was forecasting gas prices to fall this year, then he kicks off his surprise war alongside Israel, and inflation has instead gone from 2.4% that month to 3.4% by July. Vance himself said keeping oil and gas cheap was “goal number one”. As you know, the war is the opposite of cheap: it has cost $45.1 billion so far, and that’s not the full bill. It doesn’t include repairs to damaged bases and buildings — and the CBO estimates it could keep costing another $2-3 billion a month. The CBO also says the war will keep inflation about half a point higher than it otherwise would have been into early 2027.

What was that closing line from 1984 again?

Updated

Democrats might win in November - does that change anything?

NorthLondonIsRed asks: Since Congress’s war powers resolution against Trump’s Iran war was purely symbolic, how much real leverage would a Democratic-controlled Congress actually have to rein in the war after the midterms – or is this more about punishing Trump electorally than changing policy?

Robert Tait: A Democrat-controlled Congress could actually hold substantial powers to impede, hinder and scrutinize the White House’s conduct of the war. There is little doubt that the Iran leadership is aware of this and, consequently, have been prepared to keep fighting at least until a new Congress is sworn in. Congress’s most immediate impact could be its power of the purse. It is Congress that holds constitutional authority to appropriate funds for military operations. In practical terms, it could attach language to defense appropriations forbidding the use of congressionally-mandated funds for kinetic action against Iran without prior congressional authorization. It could withhold funds or refuse to grant supplemental war appropriations. Such moves could starve the operation of funds over time. It would not necessarily halt hostilities immediately. Trump has shown willingness to override Congress and break democratic norms, and he is likely, in the short term, to raid other budgetary areas to get the funds. But Congress’s actions would be more than symbolic. Besides budgetary considerations, it also has the power to stage hearings holding Pentagon and intelligence officials accountable under oath for their decisions, a spectacle that has the potential to put the war’s unpopularity at the forefront of public consciousness.

Updated

Will Democrats regaining control of congress be enough to end the war?

Roxanne Magnuson from Oregon, USA asks in a reader callout: Even if Democrats are successful in regaining the congressional balance, will that be enough influence to end this war? How can it be accomplished?

Lauren Gambino: Not necessarily. Trump has said he thinks Iran is waiting for the midterm elections to reach a deal, hoping that Republican losses will give Tehran an edge in negotiations. If he’s right, the post-election period could see efforts to reach a lasting deal even before a new Congress is sworn in in January. But if that doesn’t happen, and assuming Democrats win at least one chamber of Congress, they could use their new powers to launch public hearings, subpoena defense officials and generally demand more transparency regarding the war’s objectives and costs - both in terms of lives and taxpayer dollars. For example, my colleague Joseph has written extensively about Democrats’ demands for more information about the treatment of servicemembers wounded in the war, as well as the decision-making that led to a 28 February strike on a school in Minab, Iran, which killed more than 150 civilians, most of them children.

Democrats have promised to continue to introduce war powers resolutions as a symbol of the growing bipartisan discontent with the conflict, though Trump would retain the ultimate veto power.

Democrats could also leverage Congress’s “power of the purse” to try to reign Trump in through the budget process - ie “defunding” the war. The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan Congressional scorekeeper, estimates the war will cost a minimum of $2bn a month - so, in theory, the next time the White House asks for additional money to fund the war, Democrats could say no.

We're live and taking your questions!

Andrew Roth, Joseph Gedeon, Lauren Gambino, Will Craft and Robert Tait are answering your questions now.

Updated

Welcome to the conversation

Welcome to our latest US midterms live Q&A – just over a month away from election day on 3 November.

The war with Iran has had major implications for Americans’ wallets, government spending and US foreign policy. It’s has also been an important factor in reshaping the political landscape as the war enters its eighth month, with the 2026 US midterms quickly approaching.

Our team of reporters has helped readers understand the costs of the war and political consequences for Trump and candidates running in November. So, how could the war affect US voters at the polls?

Joining us on Tuesday at 12pm ET are senior political correspondent Lauren Gambino, political breaking news reporter Joseph Gedeon, global affairs correspondent Andrew Roth, data editor Will Craft and political correspondent Robert Tait.

Sign in or sign up to join the conversation.

The US politics team is hosting a series of reader Q&As leading up to the November US midterm elections. See our first two conversations, here:

Looking for more coverage ahead of the midterms? Sign up to The Stakes newsletter: your weekly guide to the US midterms

Related: The war on Iran cost the US $12.7bn by day six. Here’s how it’s been spent – in charts

Updated