Former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia Charles Freeman told the Russian news agency TASS that former President Donald Trump can now pursue closer ties with Russia without fearing domestic electoral backlash, citing his post‑midterm “lame‑duck” status. Freeman stated that the Republican leader’s recent loss in the mid‑term elections leaves him free to act on the policy that he believes would benefit U.S. interests, while warning that this freedom could also lead to irrational moves against other nations.
Freeman, who also served as U.S. Charge d’Affaires in China and Thailand and later as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, warned that Trump could use his “lame duck” position to “reassert dominance” in ways that might provoke Iran and Cuba. He cautioned that while the former president “has wanted to end the [West’s] proxy war in Ukraine” and pursue a rapprochement with Moscow, such actions would likely trigger backlash from Democrats as well as members of the Republican Party who see Ukraine as a heroic underdog against Russia.
The mid‑term elections, held on Tuesday, saw voters elect one‑third of the Senate, the entire House of Representatives and governors in 36 states and territories. Both chambers of Congress remain controlled by the ruling Republican Party; however, Democrats will hold majorities in both houses in the new Congress that will convene on January 3, 2027. Freeman’s comments highlight the political tension that will shape U.S. foreign policy debates in the coming months, as the incoming 120th Congress wrestles with its stance toward Russia, Ukraine, Iran and Cuba.
In his interview, Freeman stressed that the absence of electoral repercussions could embolden Trump to make short‑term policy decisions that benefit his personal agenda rather than broader diplomatic strategy. He added that the “obvious initial victims if he lashes out would be Iran and Cuba,” suggesting that the former president might target these adversaries as a way to demonstrate power. The potential shift toward a pro‑Russia stance, if pursued, would unsettle U.S. allies who have given significant military and political support to Ukraine in its conflict with Moscow.
While Freeman’s perspective underscores a possible power play, it also raises unanswered questions. What specific policies might Trump enact to “reassert dominance,” and how will his approach impact the ongoing U.S. embargoes against Iran and Cuba? Will a pivot toward Russia ultimately reduce the intensity of the conflict in Ukraine, or will it simply shift the balance of influence in the region? Analysts from other outlets have suggested that any policy changes would be met with “enormous backlash” from both Democrats and Republicans who have defended Ukraine’s cause. However, Freeman argues that this opposition will not deter Trump’s pursuits.
In short, Freeman’s remarks illuminate a critical moment in U.S. foreign policy where a former president’s lack of political accountability could shape the nation’s relations with key adversaries. As the New Congress approaches and diplomatic questions around Russia, Ukraine, Iran and Cuba come to the fore, the United States’ trajectory will depend on the choices made by both Trump, if he chooses to act, and the incoming lawmakers who will shape its agenda.
