This week's election results in the United States brought me considerable cheer. They did so for two reasons. One was personal: my friend Juli Mathew was re-elected as a judge in Fort Bend County, Texas, for a third consecutive term. The other was political: the American electorate delivered a resounding rebuke to President Donald Trump and his Republican Party.

Juli is a Democrat. I have had the privilege of visiting her court and watching her dispense justice. The experience was quite different from what I am accustomed to seeing in Indian courts. Indian judges, with a few exceptions, tend to maintain a rather stern demeanour.

Juli, on the other hand, laughed, joked and exchanged pleasantries with her staff, attorneys and even the accused who appeared before her. She was approachable without compromising the dignity of her office. There was warmth in her manner, but also firmness in the discharge of her responsibilities.

Her re-election is particularly gratifying because she has earned the confidence of the electorate for the third time. Fort Bend County Court at Law No. 3 is not a ceremonial position. It involves adjudicating disputes and administering justice. Juli secured nearly 60 per cent of the votes, defeating her Republican opponent.

Her victory is also part of a larger story about the growing political influence of Americans of Indian origin. Several of them have made their presence felt in the elections held on November 3.

Among those who secured victories were Ami Bera, Ro Khanna, Pramila Jayapal and Suhas Subramanyam. Bera won an eighth term in the House of Representatives from California. A physician by profession, he has become the longest-serving Indian-American member of the House. Ro Khanna, representing California's Silicon Valley region, secured another term. Pramila Jayapal, who has been a prominent progressive voice in the House, was also re-elected. Suhas Subramanyam won a second term representing Virginia.

Pia Dandiya made her debut in the House of Representatives, winning Florida's 22nd Congressional District. Maryland Lieutenant Governor Aruna Miller also secured another term.

The significance of these victories goes beyond the ethnic background of the candidates. They demonstrate that American democracy, despite its many imperfections, offers opportunities for people from immigrant communities to rise through the political system. Their success also reflects the growing confidence of Indian-Americans, a community numbering more than five million, in participating in the political process. In contrast, find out how many Muslims and Christians hold ministerial and gubernatorial positions in India.

Having said the above, let me add the following: There is an Indian-origin candidate whose defeat I find particularly satisfying. He is Vivek Ramaswamy, who was once projected by some of his admirers as a potential future President of the United States. A Republican, he contested the Ohio gubernatorial election and lost to his Democratic opponent, Dr Amy Acton.

One might ask why I take such pleasure in his defeat. The answer lies in the kind of politics he chose to practise during the campaign.

The issue is not that Ramaswamy is a Republican. Nor is it that he has the right to criticise his political opponent. The issue is the manner in which he chose to conduct his campaign.

Ramaswamy released a campaign advertisement featuring Donna Arthur, the estranged mother of his Democratic rival, Amy Acton. The mother called her daughter a liar and questioned her account of her childhood. What made the advertisement particularly repugnant was the background to the controversy. Acton was just 12 when her stepfather was indicted on a charge of raping her. Her mother subsequently lost custody of her children, and Acton has not been in contact with her for decades.

Ramaswamy could have withdrawn the advertisement and apologised. What was even more disturbing was the reaction of those at the highest levels of the Republican establishment. Vice-President JD Vance defended the advertisement. President Trump, too, came to Ramaswamy's rescue, saying that such an advertisement was fair game, suggesting that he himself would have used similar material.

One could only conclude that the three were made for one another. When political ambition becomes so overwhelming that even the sexual abuse of a child can be exploited for electoral advantage, something is seriously wrong with the moral compass of those involved.

Ramaswamy was once known for his proximity to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He praised Modi and his policies to the skies. His admiration for the Indian Prime Minister was hardly a secret. It is therefore worth asking whether the political culture he admired in India has anything to teach him about the importance of decency in public life. One does not have to agree with a political opponent to respect her dignity.

Ramaswamy's defeat was only one part of a much larger electoral story. The elections have been a decisive setback for Trump. Democrats have won control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, reversing Republican control of Congress. They have also made substantial gains in governorships and other state-level contests. The result is a serious political warning to a President who has often behaved as though his authority is beyond question.

It would be simplistic to attribute the entire Democratic victory to one issue. But the economy was certainly a major factor. Trump returned to power promising to Make America Great Again. His tariff policies, however, have contributed to higher costs for American consumers. He had promised to bring down prices, but voters found that groceries, healthcare, household necessities and other essentials remained expensive.

The war with Iran has compounded the problem. The conflict has pushed up energy costs, adding to the financial burden on ordinary Americans. The irony is that a President who promised to put American interests first has pursued policies that have made life more difficult for many Americans.

Trump, however, is not a man who readily accepts defeat. His reaction to the election results was characteristic. He claimed that the Republicans would have won in a landslide had his name been on the ballot. I never knew that vanity could reach such dizzy heights. The President seemed to suggest that the candidates he had endorsed were not responsible for their defeat; the real culprit was his absence from the ballot paper!

This is an extraordinary way of interpreting an electoral verdict. The voters were not given an opportunity to vote for Trump personally. They were, however, given an opportunity to pass judgement on his administration, its policies and the candidates who identified themselves with him. They did precisely that.

Trump should also reflect on the fate of those who promoted the argument that his defeat in the 2020 presidential election was the result of electoral manipulation. He has repeatedly alleged that the earlier election was stolen. His supporters have used the allegation to question the credibility of American electoral institutions.

There is an interesting aspect to Trump's attempts to influence the electoral process. He has repeatedly spoken of illegal immigrants infiltrating voter lists and has sought measures to tighten voter registration. His approach has echoes of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being undertaken in India.

However, the American electoral system is fundamentally different. Elections are administered primarily by the individual states, with substantial authority vested in state and local officials. The President cannot simply take over the process or appoint a national election chief of his choice. Nor can he install someone equivalent to India's Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, to implement his preferred electoral agenda.

Trump's latest reaction to the Alaska Senate contest provides an illuminating example of his attitude. There were two candidates with similar names: Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan and another candidate, Daniel J. Sullivan. Trump demanded that votes cast for the latter be added to those of the Republican incumbent. He wanted the matter settled by transferring the votes and declaring his candidate the winner.

This is an extraordinary proposition. A vote cast for one candidate cannot simply be transferred to another because the President believes that the voter intended to support someone else. Alaska's ranked-choice voting system makes the matter even more complicated because voters can rank more than one candidate.

Of course, Trump remains President. The Constitution gives him considerable executive authority, including the power to veto legislation passed by Congress. A two-thirds majority in both Houses can override a presidential veto, but such a majority is difficult to secure. Therefore, it would be premature to describe him as a completely powerless President.

Yet, politically, he has been weakened considerably. With Democrats controlling both Houses, his administration will face closer scrutiny. Congressional committees can investigate its functioning, summon officials and demand explanations. Legislation that he wants passed may face serious obstacles.

The President may continue to govern in his characteristic style. He may issue executive orders, threaten opponents and make statements that unsettle governments around the world. But he can no longer expect Congress to function as an unquestioning extension of the White House.

Trump's policies have consequences far beyond American shores. His tariff wars have affected international trade. His approach to foreign policy has unsettled allies and emboldened adversaries. His war with Iran has had implications for energy markets and the security of the wider region.

India, in particular, should be cautious about aligning itself too closely with his worldview. It has traditionally maintained relations with countries across the political and ideological spectrum. Iran has been an important partner, particularly in meeting our energy requirements and developing the Chabahar port. Our relationship with Palestine has also enjoyed considerable goodwill. We should not sacrifice these longstanding interests merely to please an American President or demonstrate our proximity to his administration.

There is a lesson here for Modi. His friendship with Trump and his close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should not determine India's approach to the Middle East. Netanyahu himself is facing considerable political and international difficulties. India's interests must remain paramount, irrespective of who occupies the White House or the office of Prime Minister in Israel.

The American elections have also thrown up some interesting personalities of Indian origin. Los Angeles, the second-largest city in the United States, will soon have an Indian-born Mayor. Nithya Raman, an urban planner and city council member, defeated incumbent Mayor Karen Bass. Her victory is particularly remarkable because she became the first challenger in more than two decades to defeat a sitting Los Angeles Mayor.

New York already has a Mayor with an Indian connection. Zohran Mamdani, elected in 2025, is the son of filmmaker Mira Nair, who was born in India. Mamdani's election was itself historic, making him the city's first Muslim Mayor.

There is another historic development that deserves special attention. Abdul El-Sayed, a Democrat, has been elected to the Senate from Michigan. He is the first Muslim to be elected to the US Senate. Of Egyptian origin, he has an interesting Karnataka connection through his wife, Dr Sarah Jukaku.

Sarah was born into an Indian immigrant Muslim family in Michigan, whose roots can be traced to Bhatkal in Karnataka. Her grandfather, Jukaku Shamshuddin, served as Deputy Minister for Finance in the erstwhile Mysore State under Chief Minister BD Jatti, who became India's fifth Vice-President.

Sarah is a practising psychiatrist. She met Abdul El-Sayed when both were students at the University of Michigan. They married in 2006 and have two daughters. During the election campaign, she jokingly told an audience that nobody told her husband what to do except her!

The success of these candidates is significant for another reason. It demonstrates that American politics is gradually becoming more representative of the country's changing population. People whose parents or grandparents migrated from distant countries are now occupying positions of considerable responsibility. Their ancestry does not prevent them from becoming part of the American mainstream.

There is, however, a distinction between celebrating the achievements of people of Indian origin and expecting them to pursue India's interests. Once elected, they are accountable to their American constituents. They are Americans first, and their political responsibilities are to the people who elected them. That is precisely how democracy should work.

The most important lesson from the elections is not that Democrats have won or that Republicans have lost. It is that the American electorate has demonstrated its capacity to correct the course of its government. No President, however powerful, can assume that the people will remain loyal to him indefinitely. Nor can a leader convert an electoral victory into a permanent licence to govern without restraint.