Dems Consider Probes Into Companies, Law Firms That Worked With Trump
Democrats in Congress are discussing potential investigations into companies, universities, and law firms that worked with the Trump administration, as they look ahead to the possibility of regaining congressional power after the 2026 midterm elections.
According to a report from Axios, Democrats – who have complained that the White House is ‘weaponizing’ the justice system after Joe Biden’s DOJ actually charged President Trump – are in the early stages of considering how they might use subpoena authority if they take control of Congress. The discussions focus on potential oversight efforts targeting institutions that cooperated with the Trump administration, Breitbart News reported.
Several Senate Democrats have reportedly taken part in preliminary discussions about the strategy. Among them are Sens. Adam Schiff of California, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.
All three senators currently serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The panel plays a key role in congressional investigations and oversight of the Justice Department.
Senate Democrats Block DHS Funding Again As Terror Threats Mount
Schiff previously led the first impeachment effort against President Donald Trump during Trump’s first term. That investigation centered on allegations related to the president’s actions during the 2016 election cycle.
Lawmakers from both parties reportedly believe Democrats have a strong chance of winning control of the House in the next election cycle. If that happens, the party could gain expanded authority to launch investigations.
The House of Representatives has broader subpoena powers than the Senate. That authority would allow Democrats to compel testimony and documents from companies and institutions.
Axios reported that Democrats are exploring potential investigations into why certain organizations chose to work with the Trump administration. The list of possible targets could include corporations, universities, and private entities.
Some discussions have reportedly focused on financial matters tied to the White House. Those include donations connected to a renovation project involving the East Wing.
Lawmakers have also discussed examining financial agreements between the administration and universities. The details of those potential investigations remain unclear.
A spokesperson for Schiff said the senator has already filed a series of Freedom of Information Act requests related to Trump-era issues. The requests seek records connected to several matters involving the administration.
The spokesperson said the requests cover 12 different topics. Those include bank records connected to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and questions surrounding Trump’s reported acceptance of a plane from Qatar.
Democrats have also questioned individuals involved in fundraising efforts tied to the administration. Those inquiries focused on lobbyists and fundraisers who were reportedly seeking donations from corporations and wealthy donors.
The donations were allegedly connected to a proposal to construct a ballroom associated with the president. Lawmakers have raised questions about how those fundraising efforts were conducted.
Democratic lawmakers have also discussed using oversight powers to investigate major corporations. Some of the conversations have included the possibility of antitrust investigations.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, criticized Trump’s financial dealings during his presidency.
“The cardinal, original sin of Trump was to decide that he was going to use the presidency as a profit-making enterprise in his first term,” Raskin said. “Congress should have impeached him for receiving millions and millions of dollars from foreign governments,” Raskin said.
Some Democrats have also raised concerns about consolidation in the media industry. They argue that large corporations controlling major news outlets could face scrutiny.
Sen. Chris Murphy suggested some media companies could face action if Democrats return to power.
“Paramount should enjoy its growing news monopoly while they have it,” Murphy said. “When Democrats win back power we are going to break up these anti-democratic information conglomerates,” Murphy said.
Other lawmakers have suggested focusing on a smaller number of companies rather than launching widespread investigations. They argue that concentrating on a few cases could be more effective.
“I don’t think you can do like 100 companies but I think you can do three and start with that,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal said. “You can’t do everything, but you’ve got to pick a few of the worst and focus there.”
SHOWDOWN ON THE FIVE: Jessica Tarlov Drops Truth Bomb on GOP’s Controversial Voter Legislation
SHOWDOWN ON THE FIVE: Jessica Tarlov Drops Truth Bomb on GOP’s Controversial Voter Legislation
WASHINGTON — A ferocious battle over the soul of American democracy erupted on cable news this week, proving once again that the clash over election integrity is reaching a boiling point.
During a high-stakes segment on Fox News' top-rated program The Five, liberal co-host Jessica Tarlov ignited an intense firestorm by sounding the alarm on the Republican-backed SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act).
Her warning was sharp, direct, and unapologetic: This isn't just a simple Voter ID bill—it’s a bureaucratic roadblock designed to keep millions of legal Americans away from the ballot box.
"Far Beyond Voter ID": Tarlov Sounds the Alarm
While GOP proponents frame the SAVE Act as a common-sense measure to restore trust in elections, Tarlov shredded that narrative live on air, dissecting the fine print of the proposed federal mandate.
Under the bill, anyone registering to vote in federal elections would be legally required to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship—such as a physical U.S. passport, a certified birth certificate, or naturalization papers.
"People hear 'Voter ID' and think it’s just showing a driver's license at the counter," Tarlov argued. "It’s not. This bill demands physical proof of citizenship upfront. Millions of everyday, hard-working American citizens do not have a valid passport sitting in a drawer or immediate access to an official birth certificate. This creates an artificial barrier to a fundamental constitutional right." without instant paperwork access.
Integrity Guardrail or Voter Suppression? The Great Debate
The fiery television debate reflects a massive political rift tearing through Capitol Hill and statehouses across the country.
The Conservative Defense: Republican sponsors and conservative commentators insist the measure is vital to national security and sovereign elections. They argue that verifying citizenship at registration is a necessary safeguard to prevent non-citizens from ever slipping onto federal voter rolls.
The Progressive Pushback: Critics like Tarlov argue that non-citizen voting in federal elections is already illegal, strictly policed, and exceptionally rare. Opponents caution that adding heavy administrative hurdles will unintentionally disenfranchise lawful voters—particularly students, low-income citizens, rural voters, and women whose names have changed due to marriage.
The Stakes Couldn't Be Higher
As the debate over voter access versus election security intensifies, the SAVE Act has turned into a major political litmus test.
Is requiring physical proof of citizenship a mandatory protection to guarantee that every vote is lawful? Or is it an unnecessary, red-tape nightmare that punishes legal citizens for not having their paperwork in order?
One thing is certain: as long as voices like Jessica Tarlov continue to push back on prime-time television, the fight over who gets to vote—and how hard it is to do so—is far from over.
Jessica Tarlov Says Trump Has 35% Approval Rating in Most Polls
Supporters of the bill strongly disagree, saying it is designed to protect election integrity by preventing non-citizens from registering to vote. Opponents argue the existing safeguards are already sufficient and fear the measure could unintentionally disenfranchise lawful voters. Is the SAVE Act a necessary election safeguard, or does it create unnecessary barriers to voting?
