At 84, McConnell is also entering the final months of a political career that has lasted more than four decades. He no longer leads Senate Republicans and will leave office when his term ends in January 2027.

But if McConnell is viewed today simply as an elderly senator nearing the end of his career, it is easy to forget that he was once one of the most powerful figures in Washington. For 18 years, McConnell led Senate Republicans, using rules, procedures, voting schedules and behind-the-scenes negotiations to turn political power into concrete results.

Then Donald Trump arrived.

Trump had almost no political experience before running for president. He had never served as a governor, senator or elected official. While McConnell had spent decades learning how Washington worked, Trump entered the Republican Party from the outside and quickly gained something McConnell had never possessed: The direct support of an enormous number of voters.

The struggle between the two reveals a larger question about the nature of power: In politics, who has the greater advantage, the person who controls the machinery or the person who can rally the mass of voters?

Table of Contents

1. How Did Mitch McConnell Control the Senate?

2. What Does Institutional Power Really Mean?

3. Trump Entered Politics With a Different Kind of Power

4. When Trump and McConnell Needed Each Other

5. The Split After the 2020 Election

6. Who Could Really Put Pressure on Whom?

7. When Two Kinds of Power Collide

8. McConnell’s Final Chapter and the Lesson About Power

1. How Did Mitch McConnell Control the Senate?

McConnell entered the Senate in 1985 and became the Republican leader in 2007. When Republicans held the majority, he became Senate Majority Leader. The position gave him enormous influence over what came up for debate, when votes were held, the strategy of Republican senators and the confirmation process for a wide range of important positions.

This was not the kind of power that was easy to see on television. McConnell did not need rallies with tens of thousands of people. He did not need to be the most popular figure in the party. His power came from understanding the system and occupying the right position within it.

A U.S. president can win an election with tens of millions of votes and put forward an ambitious political agenda. But a president cannot pass most legislation alone. Nor can a president simply place a justice on the Supreme Court. Those things require Congress and, in many cases, the Senate. McConnell understood this bottleneck extremely well.

The most famous example came in 2016, when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died. President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace him, but McConnell and Senate Republicans did not move forward with the confirmation process before the presidential election.

The seat was ultimately left for the winner of the 2016 election. Donald Trump won, and Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court.

During Trump’s first term, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were also confirmed. Trump selected the nominees, but without a Senate led by McConnell, those three choices could not simply have become three Supreme Court justices.

It was an almost perfect example of institutional power: You do not necessarily need crowds chanting your name. You need control over the doors that every major decision must pass through.

2. What Does Institutional Power Really Mean?

Put simply, institutional power is the ability to use a position within the system to determine what can happen, what can be blocked and what has to wait. McConnell was not the president’s superior. He could not order Trump to run the White House in a certain way. But Trump could not fire McConnell or force the Senate to pass everything he wanted.

If the White House wanted a bill but did not have enough votes in the Senate, the bill could fail. If the president nominated a controversial figure and senators refused to support that person, the nominee might not be confirmed. That is why a Senate leader can be extremely powerful even if most ordinary voters pay little attention to his name.

McConnell spent decades building this kind of power. He knew the senators, understood the rules, had a fundraising network, had years of negotiating experience and knew when to attack and when to delay. If politics took place only inside Washington, very few people could compete with McConnell. But politics does not take place only in Washington.

3. Trump Entered Politics With a Different Kind of Power

When Trump ran for president in 2015, he was almost the complete opposite of McConnell. Trump did not have decades of experience in Congress. He did not understand the Senate as well as McConnell, and he did not control the Republican Party machinery.

But Trump quickly proved that he had a different asset: He could persuade a large share of Republican voters to follow him even when many longtime figures in the party opposed him. This is the most important difference between the two men.

McConnell could pressure a senator through his position, relationships, resources and influence inside the Senate. Trump could pressure that same senator by speaking directly to the senator’s voters. A politician might not fear a speech by Trump in Washington. But if millions of Republican voters trusted Trump more than that politician, the situation changed completely.

Senators and representatives have to run for reelection. Before facing a Democratic candidate, many of them first have to survive a Republican primary. A public attack from Trump, or an endorsement from Trump for their opponent, could therefore become a direct threat to their political careers. McConnell could influence a politician’s position inside the system. Trump could influence whether voters would allow that politician to return to the system at all. That is a major difference.

4. When Trump and McConnell Needed Each Other

What makes the story more interesting is that the two men once worked together very effectively. During Trump’s first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump and McConnell were not close friends, but they understood that they needed each other.

Trump brought the White House, the energy of Republican voters and the ability to dominate the media agenda. McConnell brought Senate experience, the ability to organize votes and a political machine capable of turning parts of Trump’s agenda into concrete results. The 2017 tax policy and, especially, judicial appointments showed this partnership most clearly. Trump could make the choice. McConnell could find a way to get that choice through the Senate. Trump could create pressure from outside. McConnell handled the votes on the inside.

When those two kinds of power were aimed at the same objective, they were extremely effective. But the relationship also revealed an important reality: Trump still needed people who understood the system. Having voters behind him did not mean that a president could simply bypass Congress.

McConnell, in turn, also needed a Republican president capable of winning elections. Without Trump’s victory in 2016, the Supreme Court seat left open after Scalia’s death could have produced a completely different outcome. The two men needed each other until the conflict shifted from policy to the question of who truly represented the Republican Party.

5. The Split After the 2020 Election

The Trump-McConnell relationship clearly broke down after the 2020 election. Trump continued to challenge the election result, while McConnell recognized Joe Biden as the winner. After the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, McConnell publicly criticized Trump in very strong terms and said Trump was practically and morally responsible for what had happened, although he later voted to acquit Trump in the second impeachment trial.

Trump responded with repeated public attacks on McConnell. Their relationship became extremely hostile, and the two barely spoke directly for years. By the logic of traditional politics, this should have been the moment when McConnell had the advantage. Trump was out of the White House. McConnell was still the Republican leader in the Senate. He had experience, relationships, money and a powerful position inside the system.

But one thing did not leave Washington with Trump: His voters. Trump continued to wield enormous influence over the Republican base. Candidates seeking to win Republican primaries continued to seek his endorsement. Republican politicians who opposed Trump had to consider the reaction of the very voters who would decide whether they could continue representing the party.

This was where the limits of McConnell’s decades of experience became clear. He might have understood the system far better than Trump, but he could not give orders to the voters.

6. Who Could Really Put Pressure on Whom?

It would be wrong to say that Trump was McConnell’s superior or that McConnell was Trump’s superior. The American system does not work that way. When Trump was president and McConnell led the Senate, they occupied different centers of power. Each could make life difficult for the other, but they had different tools.

If Trump wanted to pass legislation or confirm a nominee, McConnell could say that he did not have enough votes. Trump could become angry, attack him or apply pressure, but he could not simply order the Senate to act. That was McConnell’s power. But if McConnell wanted a Republican senator to oppose Trump, that senator had to ask a different question: Whose side are my voters on? That was Trump’s power.

And over the long term, this created a more serious problem for someone who relied on institutional power. McConnell could make life difficult for a politician in Washington for several years. But voters could end that politician’s career in the next election. A Senate leader could control the existing machinery, but if large numbers of voters repeatedly chose candidates loyal to someone else, the composition of that machinery would gradually change.

7. When Two Kinds of Power Collide

This is the most important point in the Trump-McConnell story.

Trump entered politics with almost no political experience. By that time, McConnell had already spent more than three decades in the Senate and nearly a decade leading Senate Republicans. If political experience, relationships and control of the machinery were everything, Trump would have had almost no chance of competing with McConnell for power inside the party. But Trump found a shorter route. Instead of spending decades climbing through the system step by step, he built a direct relationship with a large number of voters.

When enough voters stand behind a politician, the people who hold positions inside the machinery have to take that into account because they also need those same voters to keep their seats. This does not mean Trump can do whatever he wants. Congress, the courts, the Constitution and institutional constraints still exist.

But in an internal struggle within a political party, commanding the support of a large share of voters creates a special advantage: You can pressure the people who control the machinery by threatening the very source of their own power.

By 2024, this was very clear. McConnell had harshly criticized Trump after 2020. Trump had attacked McConnell for years. But when Trump once again secured the Republican presidential nomination, McConnell endorsed him. That did not mean McConnell had become a close Trump ally or that the two had resolved all their disagreements. It showed something simpler: Republican voters had made their choice. McConnell could control many things in the Senate, but he could not replace that choice.

8. McConnell’s Final Chapter and the Lesson About Power

Mitch McConnell’s return to the Senate in a wheelchair on September 14, 2026 marked one of the final stages of a political career spanning more than 40 years. He no longer leads Senate Republicans and will leave the Senate when his term ends in January 2027.

McConnell will leave behind a major legacy. He led Senate Republicans for 18 years, helped shape the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, and became one of the politicians who best understood how to use the power of the Senate. Many decisions made during his time in leadership will continue to affect the United States after he leaves Washington.

But the Republican Party McConnell is preparing to leave is very different from the one he once led. Trump entered politics with no experience in government, overcame much of the party’s traditional leadership and ultimately became the political center of the party. The conflict between the two men therefore leaves an important lesson: Power inside the system can take decades to build, while sufficiently broad support from voters can shift the balance of power much faster.

Trump is attacking a model of economic development.

In his view, the UK still possesses one of its greatest strategic assets: North Sea oil and gas. Yet it has deliberately restricted new production in pursuit of its net-zero emissions agenda.

Trump argues that abandoning domestic resources leads to higher energy prices, rising production costs, weaker industrial competitiveness, and greater dependence on external suppliers.

That is why he believes expanding North Sea oil and gas production could create jobs, increase government revenue, strengthen energy security, and boost economic growth.

Behind this debate lie two competing political philosophies.

One prioritizes economic growth, industrial strength, and energy security, even if that means relying on fossil fuels for longer.

The other accepts slower short-term growth in exchange for accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy.

If the UK develops its own resources more aggressively, Trump believes it will not only strengthen Britain’s economy but also create more opportunities for U.S. investment, technology, and energy cooperation.

From an America First perspective, a wealthier, stronger, and more self-reliant ally is also a better customer, a stronger NATO contributor, and a more valuable strategic partner for the United States.

That is why, by calling Britain “bankrupt,” Trump is not simply criticizing the UK. He is promoting a model in which allies maximize their own strengths, creating greater economic and strategic benefits for themselves and for the United States.

#UK #NorthSea #Energy #Geopolitics #Trump

Control Threat | Strategic Risk Analysis

Kamala Harris argued that President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy has made U.S. allies view America as a less reliable partner and weakened Washington’s influence in global affairs.

If she wants to become President, she must present a strategy that outperforms Trump’s, one that serves the American people while restoring U.S. influence and global leadership. Harris herself has acknowledged that the Democratic Party appears to be looking for a new face, reflecting the reality that it has yet to rally behind a candidate capable of uniting the party and energizing voters for the 2028 presidential election.

That shows criticizing Donald Trump is not enough. Before anything else, Harris must prove she is still the strongest candidate to secure the Democratic nomination for 2028.

#USA #Politics #KamalaHarris #DonaldTrump

Control Threat | Strategic Risk Analysis

During his meeting with President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu brought maps comparing the military footprint of Israel and Turkey in Syria.

According to an Israeli official, the goal was to show that Israel is not the main power expanding its presence in Syria. Israeli officials say their forces control about 0.1% of Syrian territory, while areas under Turkish presence or influence account for roughly 5%.

The discussion suggests Israel’s strategic focus is expanding beyond Iran. As Tehran’s influence declines, Ankara is emerging as a more significant regional rival under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose assertive foreign policy continues to expand Turkey’s reach.

This also creates a dilemma for Washington. Israel is America’s closest strategic ally in the Middle East, while Turkey remains a key NATO member with growing military and geopolitical influence. A direct confrontation between the two would undermine U.S. interests. Washington is therefore likely to seek to contain Turkey’s growing influence through diplomacy and strategic balancing rather than allow an open clash.

#USA #Israel #Turkey #Syria #MiddleEast

Control Threat | Strategic Risk Analysis

Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman met with U.S. Vice President JD Vance in Washington after the United States and Saudi Arabia carried out joint strikes against Iran-backed forces in Iraq.

During the meeting, Khalid delivered a personal message from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, discussed the recent strikes, Saudi Arabia’s response to attacks on its infrastructure, and the growing risk that Iran will escalate through its proxy forces in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen.

Riyadh’s decision to openly coordinate military action with Washington signals a much tougher stance toward Iran. At the same time, Saudi Arabia remains highly cautious. It appears the kingdom still does not believe Iran has been weakened enough to eliminate the threat it poses to regional security.

Saudi Arabia’s objective is also becoming clearer. It wants the United States to use its military power to weaken or destroy the Houthis and Iran-backed militias in Iraq, reducing the direct threat to Saudi territory. That alone shows Riyadh has no interest in allowing Tehran to preserve its network of regional influence.

This is also a defining moment for the United States. For decades, Washington has presented itself as the ultimate security guarantor for its allies. If America can protect Saudi Arabia while degrading Iran’s proxy network, its credibility will be reinforced not only in the Middle East but across the world.

If it fails, however, the consequences will extend far beyond the region. Allies and partners may begin questioning whether U.S. security commitments can truly be relied upon. The outcome of this confrontation will shape not only Iran’s future, but also America’s reputation as the world’s leading security guarantor.

#USA #SaudiArabia #Iran #MiddleEast #Geopolitics

Control Threat | Strategic Risk Analysis

Britain and France’s refusal to join the U.S.-led multinational naval task force to protect shipping through the Strait of Hormuz shows that even Washington’s closest allies are not always willing to follow its strategic agenda.

The Trump administration’s approach may have widened the gap. The United States launched strikes on Iran without fully consulting its European allies, then asked them to help secure maritime traffic in Hormuz. For countries with a high degree of strategic autonomy such as Britain and France, being presented with a fait accompli is difficult to accept.

More importantly, Trump does not have enough leverage to compel London and Paris to participate. Their refusal is clear evidence that U.S. influence has limits. Both Britain and France are major powers with significant strategic autonomy, meaning Washington cannot simply expect compliance.

When pressure is not enough, incentives become essential. So far, however, Washington has failed to offer benefits compelling enough for Britain and France to share the military risks of a crisis they did not initiate.

#USA #UK #France #Iran #Hormuz

Control Threat | Strategic Risk Analysis

Before he had power, Donald Trump was a system disruptor. He opposed the elites, rejected globalization, challenged traditional politics, and spoke out against war. He stood outside the system and attacked it from every direction.

But once he entered the White House, everything changed. He was no longer breaking the system. He was using it.
Using state power to reshape the rules, intervene militarily, and pressure allies to serve his objectives.

And this is not just the story of one man or one party.
Anyone who holds power must operate within the logic of power.

In politics, the real question is not who holds power, but what happens when they do.

Power does not change people. It reveals who they truly are.