In what has been described as a “blue tsunami” Democrats have stormed back into Congress taking control of the country’s finances, after the electorate reportedly chose to “Punish Trump” with the unpopular Iran War a major factor.     So where will this leave the administration’s policies across a range of areas related to maritime including the war in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, energy markets, and policies related to sanctions and decarbonisation.     Donald Trump has admitted it is “largely true” that the war in Iran was behind the Republican mid-term losses while Vice President JD Vance has stated it was “the reason we lost.” Prior to the midterms a build of US military assets in the Middle East had pointed to further attacks on Iran but analysts believe the price of such a move has now increased.     Rystad Energy’s Chief Economist, Claudio Galimberti, explained that: “A Democratic sweep changes the political cost of continuing the Iran war. The White House keeps its discretionary powers over strikes, blockades and sanctions licenses. What changes, however, is the price of using them. With both chambers now capable of passing resolutions, holding back war funding and delaying confirmations, the administration faces a shorter political runway and greater institutional pressure to find a Hormuz deal. That is relevant for oil markets because a restoration of flows through the strait is what is ultimately needed for crude supply and product inventories to normalize.”     Rystad highlights that President Trump, as Commander in Chief, can still direct military actions, with absolute Congressional over-rides highly unlikely, but with House and Senate able to apply pressure in different ways.     They explain: “What a unified Democratic Congress can do is make escalation considerably more costly: both chambers can pass resolutions, attach conditions to war spending and hold back confirmations of key officials. With war funding and appointees now subject to a hostile majority, the administration faces greater institutional pressure to pursue a Hormuz deal rather than a further round of strikes.”      Rystad adds that: “A restoration of flows through the Strait of Hormuz is the prerequisite for Middle East crude supply and refined product inventories to normalize.”     Other shipping analysts tried to assess the impact on policy making by the administration in the coming two years.     Analyst Darron Wadey asked: “As the Administration essentially sets executive branch policy, it can still pursue its desired paths, with that in mind, a lot will depend upon how the current administration reacts: will it continue as it has for the last two years, or compromise?”     The Dynamar analyst pointed out that Barack Obama was in a similar situation, with an all-Republican Congress, following the midterm elections in his second presidency, and was still able to follow his policy agenda using executive orders, agency rulemaking and other discretionary powers.     “The challenge comes when major legislation or appropriations (finance) are needed to pursue policy. These are wholly dependent upon Congress” said Wadey.     Trump’s recently agreed deal to buy Russian diesel in an attempt to ease cost of living tensions, is under immediate threat here, according to Wadey, who pointed out that the acquisition of Russian diesel had already come under fire, even with a friendly Congress.     “Figures within the executive and legislative branches are at odds over the legality of such a move,” said Wadey, “One advises that such imports are legal, the others point to the Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act of 2022, says otherwise.”     Meanwhile, Lookout Maritime founder Martin Crawford-Brunt called the importation of Russian diesel “A PR stunt” with “miniscule volumes”, of about 45,000 tonnes, which, “The smart money says will end up in South America”.     Speaking to Seatrade Maritime News having just landed in the UK, having travelled from the US overnight, Crawford-Brunt, pointed out that most of the companies involved in the logistics of delivering this fuel are listed companies, “They would have to be brave or stupid,” to bring them to the US.     Crawford-Brunt pointed out that US legislation has sanctioned Russian oil products and that would leave any company importing it to the US open to criminal charges.      “You can’t dip in and out of sanctions,” said Crawford-Brunt, who added, “Who would take the reputational risk for one cargo? You’d be nuts to take it”.     Turning to the US’ stance on the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Net Zero Framework Crawford-Brunt suggested that Trump may be unwilling to return to last year’s tactics of threatening nations, but he said, “Anything that increases costs will be difficult to pass, it’s just not palatable right now.”     Environmental voices from within the US do not share that view. Jamie Yates, climate and renewable energy manager at Pacific Environment, said: “US voters are rejecting backward energy policies that drove up household costs and undoubtedly accelerated the effects of climate disasters.”     Pacific Environment believe the Trump administration has attempted to frustrate the IMO’s ambition at every turn.    

Yates urged IMO member states, “To reject delay tactics and formally adopt the Net-Zero Framework. The world has already lost a year in climate action from shipping; it cannot afford another.”