Yes! From Wilson in 1918, to Truman, Eisenhower, Clinton, Bush, and now Trump, only these six presidents in over a century have experienced their parties simultaneously losing control of both houses of Congress in midterm elections. But we can't look at things only from one perspective! 1️⃣ The voters' choice does not guarantee perpetual authority. Political support is never a guaranteed, permanent guarantee. 2️⃣ Losing Congress does not equate to losing political initiative. Historically, Truman, Eisenhower, and Clinton all won their next presidential election after losing both houses of Congress. In the next two years, Trump may face constraints, or he may use the congressional deadlock to rebuild his supporters. The difference lies in whether he can translate political conflict into tangible governance results. However, Trump is already in his second term, so we cannot directly draw parallels with historical re-election cases. 3️⃣ For financial markets, political defeat is not necessarily a negative for asset prices. A divided Congress may reduce the likelihood of radical policies being implemented, but it could also lead to budget impasses, debt negotiations, and regulatory uncertainty. For US stocks, the US dollar, and Bitcoin, rather than speculating whether Trump will retaliate, it's more important to focus on how policy changes affect liquidity, interest rates, and market expectations. Finally, I think the most worthwhile aspect to consider is the system itself. The US system is fascinating; American politics is full of power struggles and exchanges of interests, and as @mscryptojiayi said, sometimes it even looks like a giant makeshift operation. But regardless, the value of a system lies not in ensuring that every person in power is always right, but in whether there is the power to correct and restrain deviations in power. I remain optimistic in the long term!