By Jessica Cusworth
Based on analysis by the Farm Action policy team
Voters Delivered a Resounding Rejection of Republican Leadership
Last week, Democrats flipped control of Congress and won in traditionally Republican states and rural districts, as voters pushed back against an administration that promised lower prices and greater economic opportunity but failed to deliver.
But the frustration behind the results is not new. Americans have repeatedly shifted political power between Republicans and Democrats in search of meaningful economic change, only to see many of the same problems persist. President Donald Trump returned to office in 2024 promising to put everyday Americans first. Two years later, families are still struggling with high costs, and powerful corporations maintain their grip on the economy.
The election delivered an unusually forceful message: Voters expect their leaders to deliver meaningful change, not another round of broken promises.
Corporate Power Is at the Center of the Problem
For decades, policies that favored consolidation and inadequate antitrust enforcement under both Republican and Democratic leadership allowed powerful corporations to gain greater control over the American economy. Few sectors illustrate the consequences more clearly than food and agriculture.
As a handful of corporations have come to dominate key parts of the agricultural supply chain, farmers have become increasingly dependent on those companies to supply the inputs—such as diesel, fertilizer, seeds, and equipment—they need to operate. With fewer companies competing for their business, farmers have little bargaining power over the prices they pay, the prices they receive, or the terms of their contracts. Many are struggling to stay afloat, even with repeated government assistance.
Consumers feel the effects, too. A handful of powerful companies control key parts of the food supply chain, driving up grocery prices while taking a larger share of the money consumers spend on food. Trump’s beef import policy illustrates this imbalance: Introducing cheaper imported beef lowered costs for the largest meatpackers but failed to deliver meaningful savings to consumers, while American ranchers are getting paid less for their cattle.
Corporate power extends beyond the marketplace and into Washington, where powerful companies lobby for policies that protect their interests at the expense of farmers and consumers. For example, the Save Our Bacon Act would undermine state laws such as California’s Proposition 12, which has created vital market opportunities for independent hog farmers raising crate-free pork, while pesticide immunity measures make it harder for people harmed by pesticides to hold manufacturers accountable.
A Different Approach Is Emerging
The election showed that candidates who challenge corporate power and emphasize economic fairness can transcend traditional party lines, as Democrats won in places long considered Republican strongholds.
James Talarico and Josh Turek are just two examples of a broader group of election winners who campaigned on challenging corporate power, restoring competition, and expanding economic opportunity.
Texas: Senator-elect James Talarico
Talarico made challenging corporate power central to his economic agenda, connecting rising costs to corporate concentration and political influence. His proposals included strengthening oversight of grocery mergers, breaking up monopolies, and banning corporate political action committees.
Iowa: Senator-elect Josh Turek
Turek defeated Republican Representative Ashley Hinson, whose support for corporate interests became a point of criticism during the campaign. Hinson sponsored the Save Our Bacon Act, which seeks to override state agricultural protections.
Turek, by contrast, embraced several Farm Action priorities, including cracking down on agribusiness and meatpacking monopolies, requiring country-of-origin labeling, establishing federal right-to-repair protections, addressing the impact of tariffs on farmers, and limiting corporate and private-equity ownership of farmland.
Democratic Gains in Rural Districts
Democrats also flipped Republican-held seats in rural and agricultural districts in Wisconsin, Iowa, and North Carolina. In Texas, Democrats won the governorship, a U.S. Senate seat, and control of the state House. Several winning candidates embraced anti-monopoly platforms.
For a full rundown of the election results, check out our 2026 Midterm Election Results Tracker.
Democrats Have an Opportunity and an Obligation to Deliver
Democrats should not mistake voters’ rejection of Republican leadership for unconditional support of their own party. But the election provides an opportunity for the party to show it heard voters’ demands for meaningful economic change.
For Farm Action, that means moving beyond campaign promises and advancing policies that confront corporate concentration and restore fair competition. Stronger antitrust enforcement, country-of-origin labeling, federal right-to-repair protections, and defending market opportunities for independent farmers would be concrete steps toward that goal.
Success should be measured by whether farmers receive fair prices, independent businesses can compete, and families can afford the food they need—not simply by which party controls Washington.
While the election ensures a change of political power in Washington, whether it changes the balance of economic power in America remains to be seen.
That is the real test facing Democrats—and the challenge Farm Action will continue to put before leaders of both parties.
