Donald Trump on 26 June. Photograph: ABACA/ShutterstockView image in fullscreenDonald Trump on 26 June. Photograph: ABACA/ShutterstockDemocrats will have ‘field day’ with Trump inquiries if they win House, legal experts sayInvestigations into president and corruption charges will get heavy scrutiny if Democrats win majority in midterms
Donald Trump’s presidency is facing investigations and corruption charges from a key House Democrat and ex-prosecutors, involving political and personal abuses of power, which legal experts predict will get heavy scrutiny if Democrats win the House majority in the midterms.
Legal critics call the scandals dogging the president “target rich” for investigations that Democrats will have a “field day” investigating if they win the House majority. Critics cite, for instance, Trump’s damaging the rule of law by weaponizing the Department of Justice (DoJ) to exact revenge on political foes and protect himself from federal investigations, plus Trump moves to profit in radical ways from his presidency with lucrative and new cryptocurrency ventures.
Among the scandals plaguing Trump are a proposed $1.8bn “anti-weaponization” slush fund to help “Maga” allies charged with crimes and deter IRS investigations of Trump’s taxes, the weaponization of DoJ to prosecute Trump enemies and help friends, the escalating private and public costs of his prized White House ballroom, and Trump’s backing of cryptocurrency policies that coincided with his earning a whopping $1.4bn from his crypto ventures in 2025.
Read moreIn the House, Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the judiciary committee, has already spearheaded Democratic inquiries by the panel and is expected to assume the top post and lead key investigations if Democrats take back the House.
In Raskin’s eyes, the stakes are high for the rule of law and democracy.
“The political and financial corruption driving the Trump presidency is a civic emergency,” Raskin said in a statement. “Congress has a responsibility to confront all this corruption directly – to expose it and take all steps necessary to crush it as quickly as possible.
“Democrats may not yet hold the gavels, but we are already pursuing a broad range of investigations using every tool available to us. That work includes scrutiny of, and opposition to, the $1.8bn convicted criminal slush fund and super pardon for the Trumps,” which he has noted gives them total and permanent immunity from all tax and legal matters.
View image in fullscreenJamie Raskin. Photograph: Allison Robbert/APRaskin in his statement also cited investigations into “the weaponization of the Department of Justice against chosen enemies in the nonprofit world; the comprehensive Epstein human trafficking cover-up; rampant violations of the foreign emoluments clause and legal conflicts of interest by the president, Jared Kushner and other senior officials; and the theft and waste of public resources by Trump and his cabinet of corruption.”
Looking ahead, Raskin predicted more aggressive moves post-November if Democrats take the House. “With control of the House, we can call hearings, conduct depositions, use subpoenas to compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of documents, if necessary, and pass bills that root out corruption to make sure the government is serving the needs of the people.”
Some ex-prosecutors and veteran investigators, too, have begun strategizing about plans to help House Democrats with investigations if the GOP loses their majority, according to a legal source familiar with the informal and early talks.
Legal critics and scholars say Trump’s scandals and corruption rival and may surpass those of any other president, and note that some Senate Republicans like Thom Tillis of North Carolina have criticized Trump sharply over the $1.8bn slush fund.
Ex-federal prosecutor and veteran DC attorney Ty Cobb, who was a special White House counsel during Trump’s first term, said that “Trump’s corruption is one of a kind” and dwarfs that of any other president.
“It’s like comparing Fort Knox to a child’s piggy bank,” Cobb said.
Cobb also cited various Trump abuses of power that he predicted “will all be subjected to congressional scrutiny if the GOP loses their House majority”. He zeroed in on Trump’s $1.8bn fund as especially abusive.
View image in fullscreenWhite House lawyer Ty Cobb. Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP“There’s no way to discuss the slush fund as anything but criminal conduct,” he said, noting that it drew strong opposition from some GOP senators who were “furious about it”.
Cobb urged House investigations into Trump’s recently reported $220m to $750m in stock trades, which included shares of Nvidia and of many other major government contractors. He said investigations should look at “the Qatari $400m plane given to Trump and related quid pro quo, plus the UAE’s $500m investment in Trump’s World Liberty Financial crypto currency venture and the sensitive chips they were given in exchange.”
Trump and the White House have firmly denied charges that his policies and business dealings with his sons in crypto, hotels and other areas present any conflicts of interest, emphasizing that his decisions are motivated by putting America’s interests first.
Asked by reporters about his crypto bonanza last year and his overall income in 2025, which hit $2bn, Trump said: “I’m profiting, because the stock market’s going up … Everybody’s profiting.”
Press secretary Karoline Leavitt last fall told NPR that “neither the president nor his family have ever engaged or will ever engage in conflicts of interest.”
Legal analysts and ex-prosecutors predict Trump will continue his pattern of hitting back hard at investigations of his conduct, and Democrats have to be careful in choosing their targets to investigate.
While Trump has often attacked his critics in vindictive language and called allegations of corruption against him “witch-hunts”, he’s fully aware that losing the House majority would endanger his future.
At a Republican House retreat in January, Trump acknowledged the stakes are high for his presidency if the GOP loses the House.
“You gotta win the midterms, because if we don’t win the midterms, it’s just gonna be … I mean, they’ll find a reason to impeach me,” Trump told lawmakers.
View image in fullscreenBarbara McQuade in 2019. Photograph: Andrew Harnik/APFormer US attorney for eastern Michigan Barbara McQuade, who now teaches law at the University of Michigan, cited multiple examples of Trump scandals that are ripe for further scrutiny.
“Trump’s acceptance of emoluments, such as the plane from Qatar, his solicitation of donations for his ballroom from government contractors, and the apparent cottage industry that has developed around the pardon power are all worthy of investigation because they suggest a president whose loyalty to the American people is compromised,” said McQuade.
“Another area Congress should probe is the Trump administration’s apparent abuse of the justice department to attack enemies, such as ex-FBI director [James] Comey, New York AG Letitia James, former Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell” and others. “The constitution requires the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Weaponizing the legal system for political gain betrays that duty.”
Similarly, ex-DoJ inspector general Michael Bromwich said: “Since day one, the Trump administration has engaged in conduct that has no parallel in any previous administration – from firing large numbers of government employees without any analysis of the costs to selling pardons to serious criminals – and that is worthy of exploration and investigation by congressional oversight committees.”
Bromwich continued: “One of the challenges will be how to allocate resources across the scores of matters that are worthy of investigation. In the justice department alone, there are literally scores of allegations of misconduct, waste, fraud and abuse that both Congress and the DoJ (inspector general) have shown no interest in exploring.”
Notably, ex-GOP Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania also sees Democrats moving fast to hold Trump accountable if they’re in the majority. Dent said he suspects “the Democrats will take a run at a number of issues”, if they win the House, citing the DoJ’s weaponization to charge Trump foes, Trump “friendly” business deals and investigations of donors who gave to fund the ballroom.
View image in fullscreenCharlie Dent in 2017. Photograph: Mark Makela/The GuardianDent stressed “the judiciary committee will have a field day with the prosecutions” by DoJ of Trump’s enemies.
In historical terms, Harvard government professor Steven Levitsky, the coauthor of How Democracies Die, said that Trump administration actions involve “large-scale attacks on the constitution and the rule of law … When a leader abuses his power, attempts to steal an election and sells out to foreign governments, he needs to be investigated.”
Still, Levitsky added he expects there will be some divisions among Democrats in how aggressively they investigate Trump.
“Many top Democrats were not trained for hardball or authoritarian politics,” he said.
In a similar vein, former Federal Election Commission general counsel Larry Noble said Trump’s second term has created a surge in corruption: “The breadth and depth of the corruption that is the hallmark of Trump’s second term seems unrivaled in our history. He appears to combine the mindset of a petty crime boss looking for ways to use his office to make as much money as possible with the ambition of a would-be autocrat looking to undermine the pillars of our democracy.”
Noble did caution that “if the Democrats take the House, they will have a number of investigative tools. I have little doubt, however, that Trump will use the powers of his office, real and imagined, as well as the efforts of those in Congress and the courts who seem too willing to do his bidding to fight back. I have no doubt that self-preservation is way above the preservation of our democracy as his guiding principle.”
Bromwich too warned that “one major question is whether this administration will shatter yet another norm – and simply refuse to submit to congressional oversight.”
