2026 Midterm Policy Preview

Policy Reality, Market Perception and Cross-Sector Implications

Peter Boockvar, Chief Investment Officer | David Mandelbaum, Portfolio Manager

I. Framing the policy implications

The midterms will determine control of Congress for the final two years of President Trump’s term. The administration will continue to exercise substantial authority over tariffs, export controls, immigration enforcement, procurement, permitting, and agency rulemaking and implementation. The election nevertheless matters because it may change the policy levers available to each party. House control will shape appropriations, oversight and investigations; Senate control will shape confirmations—including Article III judges with lifetime tenure—and which legislation can advance. Both chambers must pass legislation, including reconciliation bills, before it reaches the president. The results may also offer an early signal of the country’s political direction heading into the 2028 presidential cycle, although midterm electorates do not translate cleanly into presidential-year outcomes.

A change in House control could alter the political environment faster than the policy baseline. A Democratic House would control committee leadership and the subpoena and investigative agenda, creating the potential for extensive investigations and another impeachment effort. Whether impeachment consumes the House would be a political choice, not an inevitable consequence of Democratic control. Party leaders would have to balance demands for investigations or impeachment against an economic and legislative agenda. Even if the House impeached, conviction and removal would require a two-thirds vote of senators present. The more plausible market effects would be persistent headline risk, administrative distraction, subpoena litigation and reduced legislative bandwidth.

Cross-party agreement persists in selected areas but is increasingly issue-specific. Defense, supply-chain resilience, critical minerals, and federal support for biomedical and scientific research remain areas of cross-party interest, even as disputes over funding levels and executive implementation create uncertainty. Artificial intelligence has become more contested. Many lawmakers still view advanced computing as strategically important, but support for a rapid AI and data-center buildout is fracturing over power and water costs, local control, employment disruption, market concentration, copyright, cybersecurity and frontier-model safety. AI is therefore better understood as a cross-cutting policy conflict whose coalitions may not map neatly onto party lines, rather than as an area of stable bipartisan consensus.

II. State of the race and timing

Republicans currently control both chambers, but by different margins and under different electoral conditions. As of late September, Republicans hold 218 House seats, Democrats 214 and an independent one, with two vacancies. Republicans control the Senate 53–47, including the two independents who caucus with Democrats. Democrats need only a small net gain to win the House but a net four seats to control the Senate. A 50–50 Senate would remain under Republican organizational control because the vice president breaks tie votes.

Current market and polling indicators diverge between the two chambers. Across leading prediction markets, odds favor the Democrats winning back House control at around 90%. Senate odds are much closer, favoring the Democrats by 55-60%. Note, the prediction markets can be volatile and can move quickly with polling, candidate developments and broader events.

The fundamental environment may also favor the Democrats given President Trump’s weak approval ratings and the generic congressional ballot that gives the Democrats an 8-point advantage per RealClear Politics. Further, the president’s party has lost House seats in 18 of the 20 midterms since 1946, and the present House margin leaves little room for even a modest shift.

Those advantages are partly offset by a highly polarized electorate and gerrymandered House maps, which can dampen an ordinary midterm shift. But they are not absolute barriers. If a true wave develops, it can reach districts drawn to be favorable rather than invulnerable and cause multiple marginal races to move together. Gerrymandering may therefore raise the threshold for a large seat gain without eliminating the possibility.

The Senate presents a more demanding and candidate-dependent path. RealClear’s current map identifies nine toss-up states and shows an average Democratic pickup of three seats, one short of the four required for control. Democrats must also defend competitive seats in Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire, as well as Georgia, while seeking at least four Republican-held seats. Holding every vulnerable Democratic seat would still require winning North Carolina and at least three additional Republican-held seats; any Democratic loss would require another offsetting pickup. In practical terms, that is close to running the table across the most competitive races.

The full result may not be clear on election night. Late-counted ballots, recounts and litigation could delay the final House count. Georgia permits a December 1 general-election runoff, and Louisiana’s runoff is scheduled for December 12. If control depends on one or two unresolved contests, the effective majority may remain uncertain until late December or, in an unusually disputed outcome, close to the seating of the new Congress on January 3. In a closely divided Senate, caucus affiliation and vacancies could also affect effective control after the votes are counted.

Why the chambers matter differently

House control changes the oversight, investigative and appropriations environment most immediately, while Senate control has the more durable effect on personnel and the judiciary. A Republican Senate could continue confirming the administration’s executive nominees and Article III judges, including a nominee arising from any Supreme Court vacancy. A Democratic Senate could slow, block or force moderation of that pipeline. In every scenario, the White House would retain substantial unilateral authority, while courts, states and local governments would remain central where Congress does not enact legislation.

The fiscal constraint across all outcomes

The next Congress will inherit a fiscal problem that neither party has resolved. Large deficits, rising interest expense and mandatory-spending growth will constrain room for new initiatives and increase pressure for offsets. Because core Social Security and Medicare benefits, and, increasingly, defense priorities, remain politically difficult to reduce, fiscal adjustment is more likely to come through narrower changes to taxes and tax expenditures, discretionary programs, subsidies, user fees and less-protected entitlement spending. The result may be less a comprehensive deficit agreement than recurring battles over appropriations, the debt ceiling and which households and industries ultimately bear the burden of incremental savings or revenue measures.

Tax policy will remain relevant even after the 2025 legislation. Potential issues include a second reconciliation package, technical business tax changes, energy credits, state and local tax provisions, housing incentives and tariff funded rebates.

Looking at the bigger picture, the real cure to ever-growing debt and deficits is a combination of faster economic growth and slower spending growth. Across a variety of tax regimes, federal receipts have averaged roughly 17% of GDP, close to their projected 2026 level. Federal outlays have averaged roughly 20% of GDP over the past 50 years, versus nearly 24% today. Spending spiked during COVID and has remained elevated. The difficulty is that much of the budget is non-discretionary and therefore politically difficult to reduce.

On the other side of the fiscal equation, a roughly $2 trillion budget deficit supports economic activity by sustaining aggregate demand, but it can also add to inflationary pressure. Balancing those near-term effects against the longer-term fiscal challenge will only become more difficult.

III. Artificial intelligence infrastructure and surveillance

The issues most likely to matter

Frontier model safety: Recent proposals for independent oversight and emergency shutdown controls have moved catastrophic-risk concerns into the mainstream policy debate. Comprehensive federal regulation remains difficult because the White House is skeptical of new mandates, Congress has not settled federal preemption and the technology is changing faster than committee consensus. Targeted rules are more plausible: incident reporting, independent testing, liability for high-risk deployments and conditions on federal procurement. Washington can continue supporting domestic computing capacity while applying tighter safeguards when autonomous systems touch defense, critical infrastructure, finance, health care or government.

Data center social license: The near-term constraint on AI investment may be cost allocation and local acceptance rather than a federal model-safety statute. The House's 417 to 3 passage of the Ratepayer Protection Act demonstrates near-consensus around shielding household ratepayers, but the subsequent Senate impasse shows that agreement on the objective does not yet extend to enforcement or legislative design. Permitting and energy-mix disputes retain familiar partisan elements, but opposition to tax subsidies, higher power bills, water use and land conversion is spreading across party lines. The economically important distinction is increasingly between projects that internalize power and infrastructure costs and those that depend on ratepayer or taxpayer support.

Other issues: Advanced-chip controls toward China are likely to persist under every congressional outcome. Copyright and digital-likeness rights will remain active in courts and targeted bills, while antitrust and job displacement are more likely to drive hearings than sweeping statutes. These questions still matter, but safety, electricity costs and surveillance rules are more likely to dominate in the near term.

Investment implications

AI regulation is more likely to shift economics than to stop the buildout. Compliance-heavy safety rules can raise fixed costs and advantage scaled model developers even as they create demand for evaluation, cybersecurity, identity, audit and governance tools. Data-center policy favors projects with contracted generation, clear cost allocation and local support. Surveillance limits create direct risk for platforms whose network value depends on long retention and frictionless cross-jurisdiction sharing, while favoring vendors that can offer narrow-use controls, strong auditing and privacy-preserving architectures. A less-consensus implication is that tighter AI rules could strengthen incumbents and the infrastructure stack rather than uniformly weaken the sector.

IV. Power, utilities and energy

The central issue has shifted from energy transition to energy availability and affordability. Data centers, reshoring and electrification are driving load growth into a grid constrained by generation, transmission and interconnection delays. Nuclear, natural gas, renewables with storage, transmission, grid equipment and efficiency can all benefit from an 'energy addition' framework, even though the preferred policy mix differs by party.

Key policy fault lines

• Who bears the cost of data-center interconnection, generation and transmission: developers, utilities, taxpayers or residential ratepayers.
• Permitting reform for transmission, pipelines, generation and critical-mineral projects.
• Federal financing for nuclear, grid reliability and domestic energy supply chains.
• The durability of 2025 restrictions on wind and solar tax credits, and congressional attempts to preserve or further narrow them.
• EPA rules, the greenhouse-gas endangerment finding, efficiency standards and litigation risk.

V. Industrials, defense and transportation

National security remains the strongest bipartisan spending theme. Defense, munitions, drones, space, cybersecurity, secure cloud, shipbuilding and domestic supply chains should retain support under all election outcomes. The election changes the mix of oversight, procurement speed and fiscal friction more than the strategic direction.

Key policy fault lines

• Defense toplines and procurement reform, including multiyear contracting, stockpiles and supply-chain resilience.
• U.S.-China geopolitical and trade relations, including continued U.S. reliance on China for rare-earth processing and permanent magnets essential to defense systems, and efforts to expand domestic and allied supply chains.
• Surface transportation funding, FAA modernization and the risk that appropriations disputes interrupt federal contractors.
• Federal standards and preemption for autonomous vehicles, drones and emerging transportation technologies.

VI. Financials, digital assets and private capital

The congressional election matters less for near-term bank regulation than control of the agencies - but it can determine how durable that regime becomes. The Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, SEC and CFPB remain the principal actors on capital, stress testing, M&A, market structure and consumer finance. Congress shapes oversight, confirmations and the possibility of statutory clarity for digital assets.

Key policy fault lines

• Bank capital and stress-test reform, merger approvals and the regulatory treatment of regional banks.
• Digital-asset market structure, stablecoins, tokenization and the division of authority between the SEC and CFTC. The Clarity Act's September failure showed that a nominal Senate majority is insufficient without a bipartisan coalition.
• Consumer-finance policy, including credit-card pricing, overdraft, BNPL, data privacy and AI-driven underwriting.
• Private equity and private credit scrutiny, particularly in housing, healthcare and consumer-facing industries.

VII. Consumer, labor and immigration-sensitive industries

For consumer-facing businesses, the biggest policy variables remain partly outside Congress. Tariffs and immigration enforcement can affect prices, labor availability and demand through executive action. Congress matters through appropriations, oversight, labor law, consumer protection and the treatment of gig work, franchising and workplace AI.

Key policy fault lines

• Business-cost inflation from raw materials and freight, compounded by the current tariff regime, and the degree to which companies can pass those higher costs through to consumers.
• Labor supply in hospitality, agriculture, food processing, construction and care services under tighter immigration policy.
• Union rules, joint-employer standards, independent-contractor classification, minimum wage and workplace use of AI.
• Consumer fees, data privacy, subscription practices and antitrust enforcement.

VIII. Housing and real estate

Housing affordability is politically salient, but many levers are local, regulatory or rate-driven rather than legislative. The federal debate is likely to center on mortgage finance and the GSEs, housing supply incentives, tax treatment, disaster insurance, tenant protection and institutional ownership.

IX. Healthcare

The midterms are unlikely to reset the healthcare policy baseline. Medicaid changes, drug pricing, Medicare Advantage rates, PBM reforms and pharmaceutical tariffs already rest largely on existing law or executive action. With narrow majorities and President Trump's veto power, Congress is more likely to matter through appropriations, oversight and must-pass vehicles than through sweeping legislation.

Key policy fault lines

• Coverage and Medicaid. Restoring enhanced ACA subsidies remains possible, but the 2025 Medicaid eligibility and financing changes are already law.
• Drug pricing and trade. IRA negotiation, MFN agreements, CMMI models, and pharmaceutical tariffs and reshoring will proceed largely through existing authority; the election is more likely to alter oversight than near-term implementation.
• Managed care and providers. Medicare Advantage, PBM and provider policy will be driven mainly by implementation and litigation—including RADV and Stars, 340B and the No Surprises Act—rather than sweeping legislation.
• FDA and biomedical research. FDA user-fee reauthorization and NIH and FDA appropriations remain the principal congressional issues for biotechnology, life-science tools and CROs.

XI. Conclusion

A change in congressional control would matter, but partisan scorecards will miss several of the most important divides. National security, defense, power availability, grid investment, reshoring, critical minerals, and funding for scientific and medical research continue to attract support across party lines. Other issues are increasingly cross-cutting. AI combines strategic support for domestic capacity with widening concerns over frontier-model safety, household power costs, surveillance and concentration. Other sectors and policy areas follow similar patterns.

The central distinction across the four outcomes is therefore less wholesale policy reversal than the channels through which policy pressure is applied. Republican control would provide the greatest alignment with the White House on energy, industrial policy, deregulation and healthcare implementation, although populist pressure on data-center costs, drug prices and surveillance would complicate a simple deregulatory agenda. A Democratic House would intensify oversight, investigations and appropriations leverage without necessarily reversing investment already committed to AI, power, defense or domestic manufacturing. A Democratic Senate would have greater influence over confirmations, the judiciary and the longer-term regulatory path. In every scenario, states and localities would remain important because they control many of the permits, utility decisions, surveillance contracts, insurance rules and healthcare programs through which federal policy ultimately reaches corporate earnings. The Senate’s distinct authority over executive and judicial nominations reinforces why chamber control should be analyzed separately.

For investors, the common thread may be continuity accompanied by greater dispersion. That argues against treating the election as a broad sector-rotation signal. More durable opportunities are likely to lie in businesses with strong fundamentals whose demand persists across political outcomes, while the economic cycle and geopolitics will remain more important than the election for many sectors. The clearest risks fall on businesses whose economics depend on uniform national rules, subsidized or shifted costs, uninterrupted federal funding, or insulation from pricing and public scrutiny.

The election may ultimately matter beyond the immediate policy consequences. The midterms will provide the first nationwide test of the country’s political direction during President Trump’s second term and of which populist, institutionalist and traditional partisan coalitions are gaining strength. The results should not be treated as a direct forecast of 2028 because midterm turnout and electorates differ from presidential-year elections. They may nevertheless offer an early indication of the issues, political styles and candidate coalitions that will shape the more consequential presidential cycle in two years.

Selected Sources

• ML Strategies, 2026 energy policy outlook
• State Street Global Advisors, U.S. midterms policy outlook (2026)
• ML Strategies, 2026 transportation policy outlook
• Morgan Stanley, 2026 midterm election preview
• Reuters, Senate action on the Clarity Act (September 15, 2026)
• Reuters, House passage of data center ratepayer legislation (September 16, 2026)
• Science and Nature, congressional action on NIH appropriations (2025 and 2026)
• U.S. Courts, Current and Future Judicial Vacancies (September 20, 2026)
• Financial Times, prospective Democratic House investigations (September 18, 2026)
• Georgia election calendar and Federal Election Commission Louisiana runoff notice (2026)
• U.S. House, Ratepayer Protection Act materials (September 2026)
• Governor of California, executive order on frontier AI oversight and emergency controls (September 20, 2026)
• Reuters, federal AI adviser announcement and AI safety debate (September 19, 2026)
• San Antonio Express-News, Texas restrictions on Flock and other automated license plate readers (September 19, 2026)
• Connecticut House Bill 5449, automated license plate reader safeguards (2026)
• RealClearPolitics, 2026 generic congressional ballot and Senate map (September 20, 2026)
• Associated Press, mid-cycle congressional redistricting report (September 2026)

About the Authors

DISCLAIMER

The information contained herein is provided for informational and discussion purposes only and is not, and may not be relied on, in any manner, as legal, tax, accounting or regulatory advice nor does this constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities and may not be used or relied upon in connection with any offer or sale of securities. The information, as set forth herein, should not be construed or interpreted as OnePoint BFG's guarantee of any particular investment outcome or a guarantee of future investment returns or results.

The information provided herein, including, but not limited to, historical performance and descriptive strategy information, was obtained from third party managers and/or custodians independent of and not affiliated with OnePoint BFG and has not been independently audited or verified by OnePoint BFG. The information was gathered from sources deemed to be reliable; however, no assurance is made as to the accuracy or completeness of the data or information.

Peter Boockvar is the Chief Investment Officer and an investment advisor representative of OnePoint BFG Wealth Partners. David Mandelbaum is the Portfolio Manager of the OnePoint BFG Benestar Strategy, a member of the Investment Committee and an investment advisor representative at OnePoint BFG Wealth Partners.

The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. The market and economic data is historical and is no guarantee of future results. All indices are unmanaged and may not be invested into directly. The information in this report has been prepared from data believed to be reliable, but not representation is being made as to its accuracy and completeness.

Nothing in this material should be construed as investment advice offered by OnePoint BFG Wealth Partners, Peter Boockvar or David Mandelbaum. This market commentary is for informational purposes only and is not meant to constitute a recommendation of any particular investment, security, portfolio of securities, transaction or investment strategy. No chart, graph, or other figure provided should be used to determine which securities to buy, sell, or hold. No representation is made concerning the appropriateness of any particular investment, security, portfolio of securities, transaction or investment strategy. You should speak with your own financial professional before making any investment decisions.

Past performance is not indicative of future results. Neither OnePoint BFG Wealth Partners, Peter Boockvar, or David Mandelbaum guarantees any specific outcome or profit. These disclosures cannot and do not list every conceivable factor that may affect the results of any investment or investment strategy. Risks will arise, and an investor must be willing and able to accept those risks, including the loss of principal.

Certain statements contained herein are statements of future expectations and other forward-looking statements that are based on opinions and assumptions that involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that would cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements.

The OnePoint BFG Benestar Investment Strategy (“Benestar Strategy”) is developed by OnePoint BFG and managed by OnePoint BFG’s portfolio managers. The portfolio managers have the sole authority to control the management of each strategy and are key to the implementation, oversight and ongoing management of OnePoint BFG’s proprietary investment strategies. As a result, the loss of a strategy’s portfolio manager would have a material adverse effect on the strategy, including, but not limited to, the cessation of the strategy. Additionally, because each strategy’s performance is based on a composite aggregation of related portfolios managed by OnePoint BFG, the securities in the portfolio are directly owned by the separate account’s owner(s) and the separate account’s owner(s) have the right to terminate the investment advisory agreement with OnePoint BFG at any time. Investors in each strategy will have slightly different weightings in holdings, asset classes and performance results, primarily due to the timing of an investment (cash) into and out of the respective strategy. Separate accounts are unregistered investment vehicles and do not have the legal or regulatory requirements as registered securities. Before investing, investors should carefully read OnePoint BFG’s disclosure brochure and fully understand the specific risks of and investments used in the Benestar Strategy.

The specific securities listed and discussed in this report (if applicable) represent all of the securities purchased and sold within this particular strategy during the prior calendar quarter and some of the securities held within this particular strategy. A complete list of securities held within this particular strategy is available upon request. The securities identified and described (if applicable) do not represent all of the securities purchased, sold or recommended for OnePoint BFG client accounts. No assumption should be made, nor is implied, that an investment in the securities identified were or will be profitable.

Investment advisory and financial planning services offered through Bleakley Financial Group, LLC, an SEC registered investment adviser, doing business as OnePoint BFG Wealth Partners.

The investment performance and the success of any investment strategy or particular investment can never be predicted or guaranteed, and the value of a client’s investments will fluctuate due to market conditions and other factors. Investments may lose value and past performance is never a guarantee of future results. (OP 26-0978)