WLRN has partnered with PolitiFact to fact-check Florida politicians. The Pulitzer Prize-winning team seeks to present the true facts, unaffected by agenda or biases.
In the 1972 movie “The Candidate,” the politician played by actor Robert Redford wins his Senate election and then pulls his campaign aide aside, asking, “What do we do now?” Famously, the movie ends and he never gets an answer.
That’s unlikely to be the case for the incoming Democratic majorities in the House and Senate after the party’s tectonic victories Nov. 3. Where the new majorities can find common ground on legislation with President Donald Trump remains to be seen. But under the constitutional order, the new Democratic congressional majority doesn’t need Trump’s permission to conduct oversight of the executive branch.
READ MORE: 6 takeaways from Democrats' big wave on election night
“Oversight can be a powerful tool, because Congress has subpoena power and the ability to use public hearings to put a spotlight on malfeasance or misconduct in the executive branch,” said Matthew Green, a Catholic University of America political scientist. “Even if the White House tries to stonewall Congress, the House and Senate can force White House allies to testify, such as heads of major corporations or law firms.”
What is congressional oversight?
According to Congress’ own Congressional Oversight Manual, lawmakers have the authority to ensure the executive branch complies with laws; improve government efficiency and effectiveness; and “investigate alleged instances of poor administration, arbitrary and capricious behavior, abuse, waste, dishonesty and fraud.”
This power has limits — especially during a period of divided government, like the one that will begin in January 2027. Congress would have little power to push the Justice Department to prosecute alleged malfeasance, and executive branch officials can stonewall lawmakers’ inquiries.
“Trump has a demonstrated track record of completely refusing to cooperate with any oversight requests,” said Frank O. Bowman III, a University of Missouri emeritus law professor and author of the forthcoming book, “Great and Dangerous Offenses: The Case for (and Against) Impeaching Trump a Third Time.” “He has resisted hundreds of ordinary oversight inquiries. This makes it less effective for discovering facts.”
Under Trump, the Office of Legal Counsel, a Justice Department division that issues influential opinions on constitutional matters, has issued one that argues for an expansive view of executive privilege, the legal doctrine that protects White House deliberations from being subpoenaed. The opinion said executive privilege can cover outside parties the president consults with, said Stanley Brand, a longtime Washington, D.C., attorney who serves as distinguished fellow at Penn State Dickinson Law.
Protracted battles over subpoena compliance are “very likely,” Brand said. “Committees will have to use informal means as well as subpoenas to elicit information from lower-level bureaucrats and willing outside sources to gain traction with their inquiries.”
Despite these shortcomings, using its oversight authority allows Congress to publicly flex its accountability muscles.
“The House can do a lot by securing testimony and documents from those not subject to Trump’s control, including former officials, officials who — like multiple witnesses in the first Trump impeachment — choose to defy Trump’s efforts to prevent them from testifying,” Bowman said. “It could also include people and companies outside the administration and the Trump family orbit.”
Some of the most important issues for voters, including tariffs, war powers and corruption, are “fertile ground for investigation,” said James Robenalt, a lawyer and historian of the Watergate scandal.
Oversight pressure could also prod lawmakers towards progress enacting legislation, said Steven Smith, an Arizona State University political scientist.
“On many issues, legislators can develop legislative approaches informed by oversight activities,” Smith said.
Democrats will need to decide on impeachment
Trump has already survived two impeachments, because of a combination of Republican senators’ loyalty and the requirement that two-thirds of the chamber vote for removal from office.
Republicans have warned that Democrats will follow their staunchest supporters’ desires by quickly impeaching Trump. But with a history of failed impeachments galvanizing the president’s supporters, some Democrats have expressed caution about impeaching Trump again.
“We’re not afraid to impeach him,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who is in line to chair the House Judiciary Committee, told CNN the day after the election. “It’s a tool in the constitutional toolkit, but we understand it’s not a panacea.”
Raskin chalked up the talk of a new impeachment to Republican wishful thinking. “They would love us to impeach them,” he said. “That would solve a huge political problem for them.”
Scholars agreed that Democrats will need to balance the legal justification for an impeachment with the political consequences of launching one.
Bowman said he would not recommend prioritizing impeachment, because of the “vanishingly improbable” chance of a Senate conviction.
Experts said another avenue could be more fruitful for the new Democratic majority: impeaching Cabinet members.
There is precedent for this. Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached in 1876, and Homeland Security Secretary Alexander Mayorkas was impeached in 2024. Neither was convicted.
While the bar for a conviction would be high, an ouster might not be impossible for such Cabinet members as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth or Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Green said. An outgoing Republican House member, Tom Massie of Kentucky, has already begun the process of impeaching Hegseth.
Hearings “could build broader public support for impeachment and, ideally from the Democrats’ perspective, might pressure those Cabinet officials to resign before the Senate is forced to have a trial.”
Our Sources
- Congressional Research Service, “Congressional Oversight Manual,” March 27, 2026
- Office of Legal Counsel, “Applicability of Executive Privilege to Presidential Communications with Private Advisers,” Aug 10, 2026
- Jamie Raskin, remarks on CNN, Nov. 4, 2026
- USA Today, “Mike Johnson predicts Trump impeachment if Democrats win House,” Oct. 7, 2026
- Louisville Courier-Journal, “Massie could soon force House impeachment vote against Pete Hegseth,” Nov. 4, 2026
- Daily Beast, “MAGA Senator Predicts Far Worse Is Coming for Trump,” Nov. 4, 2026
- PolitiFact, “Democrats will soon control Congress. How might Trump use veto power? What could override it?” Nov. 4, 2026
- Email interview with Frank O. Bowman III, University of Missouri emeritus law professor and author of “Great and Dangerous Offenses: The Case for (and Against) Impeaching Trump a Third Time,” Nov. 4, 2026
- Email interview with James Robenalt, lawyer and historian of the Watergate scandal, Nov. 4, 2026
- Email interview with Stanley Brand, distinguished fellow at Penn State Dickinson Law, Nov. 4, 2026
- Email interview with Steven Smith, Arizona State University political scientist, Nov. 4, 2026
- Email interview with Michael Gerhardt, University of North Carolina law professor, Nov. 4, 2026
- Email interview with Matthew Green, Catholic University of America political scientist, Nov. 4, 2026
