In the run-up to the US midterms, investors will be inundated with election analysis.

Who will win the House and Senate? How will markets react? Which sectors will benefit from a Republican or Democratic victory? What might the results say about the race for the White House in 2028?

These are reasonable questions. Elections matter, of course. Control of Congress matters. Tax policy, regulation, and fiscal spending all matter to investment outcomes.

But I increasingly think they are the wrong place to focus. That’s because the most important midterm question isn’t who wins on November 3.

It’s what doesn’t change.

A decade ago, AI was largely a technology or productivity story. Today, it’s becoming an infrastructure story.

But what strikes me most is that both parties increasingly view AI through the lens of national competitiveness, economic strength, and, especially, national security.

A decade ago, AI was largely a technology or productivity story. Today, it’s becoming an infrastructure story. The policy conversation in Washington is now focused on how to govern AI, deploy it, secure it and—above all—how to compete with China to ensure US economic and national security as this technology rapidly develops. Once an issue reaches that stage, it rarely disappears after an election.

I think the same can be said of industrial policy. For much of the post-Cold War era, policymakers, companies, and investors largely assumed that economic efficiency should determine where capital was allocated and where production occurred. That was the golden rule of globalization. 

But in a world marked by rising geopolitical competition and real military conflict, events are pointing to the same lesson:

• The Iran conflict reminded us that energy security and maritime chokepoints still matter.
• Ukraine continues to demonstrate that industrial production, logistics, munitions, and force generation often matter more than sophisticated systems alone.
• Taiwan’s recent military exercises focused less on displaying advanced equipment and more on reserve mobilization, command flexibility, communications resilience, and societal preparedness.

The common thread here isn’t politics—it’s resilience. The ability to manufacture, replenish, adapt, mobilize, and sustain is playing an ever-larger role in shaping both national-security outcomes and investment opportunities.

That’s reality, and reality is not a Republican idea nor a Democratic idea. That’s why I think it’s unlikely to change on Election Day.

Economics and National Security

Perhaps the most important trend is the growing blur between economics and national security. That’s because for most of the past four or five decades, investors could largely analyze geopolitical issues separately from economic ones.

That’s now becoming much harder. Access to critical minerals is both an economic issue and a security issue. Same, too, with semiconductors. Cybersecurity, energy infrastructure, and the centrality of AI all further blur these lines.

Even the recent cyberattacks against US water utilities in Michigan and Minnesota carry lessons that extend beyond cybersecurity by underscoring that critical infrastructure, public trust, digital resilience, and systems reliability are becoming central components of national power.

These issues are today shaping capital allocation decisions regardless of which party controls Congress next year or occupies the White House in 2029.

The biggest investment opportunities of the next decade may emerge not from policy reversals but policy continuity.

Resilience through the Investment Lens

The observation leads to one of the more underappreciated realities of contemporary American politics. For all the discussion of political polarization—and to be sure, it exists—there’s also an emerging strategic consensus.

Beneath the political conflict and partisan noise, there’s growing agreement around several core ideas: America needs secure supply chains. America needs advanced manufacturing. It also needs technological leadership, resilient infrastructure, strong cybersecurity, new sources of energy, competitive advantages in AI, and the right policy tools to compete effectively with China.

The key takeaway? The biggest investment opportunities of the next decade may emerge not from policy reversals but policy continuity.

Markets spend enormous amounts of time trying to forecast election outcomes. The more useful question might be: Which trends are likely to survive the election regardless of who wins?

Increasingly to me, that list looks clear:

• Supply-chain resilience
• Energy security
• Cybersecurity
• Infrastructure resilience
• Critical minerals
• Defense modernization
• Industrial capacity
• Artificial intelligence
• Competition with China

These themes may advance more quickly under one party than another. They may be implemented differently. Funding levels may vary. Regulatory approaches will certainly differ.

But through my geopolitical lens, the underlying structural trajectory appears remarkably durable.

And that brings me back to the most important midterm question of all: It’s not who wins, which party gains a handful of seats, or which headline dominates election night. The most important question is what America has already decided.

I think the biggest investment stories of the next decade are unlikely to come from electoral surprises. They’ll emerge from the structural shifts that continue long after the votes have been counted.

And increasingly, those shifts point in the same direction: toward a world where resilience, capacity, national security, and adaptation matter more than economic efficiency alone.

Talk to your financial professional to learn how geopolitics are transforming market opportunities.

Important Risks: Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. • Focusing on one or more sectors, including the information technology, consumer discretionary and communication services sectors, may subject investors to increased volatility and risk of loss if adverse developments occur.

This information should not be considered investment advice or a recommendation to buy/sell any security. In addition, it does not take into account the specific investment objectives, tax and financial condition of any specific person. This information has been prepared from sources believed reliable, but the accuracy and completeness of the information cannot be guaranteed. This material and/or its contents are current at the time of writing and are subject to change without notice.

The views expressed here are those of the authors and are based on available information and are subject to change without notice. This information should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation to buy/sell any security. In addition, it does not take into account the specific investment objectives, tax and financial condition of any specific person. Portfolio positioning is at the discretion of the individual portfolio management teams; individual portfolio management teams and different fund sub-advisers may hold different views and may make different investment decisions for different clients or portfolios. This material and/or its contents are current as of the time of writing and may not be reproduced or distributed in whole or in part, for any purpose, without the express written consent of Wellington Management or Hartford Funds.