Democrats are bracing themselves for heavy losses in mid-term elections in November, which would doom most of the administration’s remaining ambitions. A gerontocratic rematch in 2024 could well see Donald Trump returned to the White House—legitimately.
The Economist
I assume the use of past tense here is a passive form, like being returned. However, if the present tense, return, is used. I wouldn't see the difference. So what's the difference?
"...see Donald Trump returned to the White House" means Trump being elected, "...see Donald Trump return to the White House" could mean him going on a visit or tour.
The verb return has both transitive and intransitive meanings. The transitive sense, which allows the use of the passive, generally relates to giving/sending something (often giving back), but here refers specifically to electing a candidate; Merriam-Webster says this is chiefly a British usage (The Economist is a British magazine). The main intransitive meaning is that of motion, going back to a place where you had previously been.
First, let's notice that The Economist is a British publication. Return is used in UK English in a special sense that we don't see in the US:
UK to elect someone to be a member of parliament, or to another political job (Cambridge Dictionary)
The sentence in the article uses this meaning of return.
However, if you ditch the passive voice and talk about Trump returning to the White House, now you're in universal "return" territory, with the general meaning of "go back," which works in both types of English. That is the difference. However, in practice, you're right, both sentences work, and the bottom line meaning will be pretty much the same in this case. But the UK sense would work even for someone who had never held office.
