Democrats draw up plans for wave of investigations should they win Congress

Democrats in Congress are already mapping out how they would deploy their power should they win a majority in the House or Senate in next week's midterm elections. Victory is far from assured, but control of either chamber would give the party the authority to issue subpoenas and the additional funding to launch investigations early next year. Staffers have begun assembling a list of possible targets and witnesses, according to people familiar with the discussions, with senior figures in the Trump administration — and possibly the president himself — under consideration.

The Trump family's business empire is expected to be a primary target of any initial inquiries. "We want to make sure that [American] taxpayer dollars are being used wisely and not being stolen or pocketed because of corruption," Suhas Subramanyam, a Virginia Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, told the BBC. Among the matters under consideration are ties between the administration and corporate entities, particularly cryptocurrency firms, and the international business dealings of the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Investigators could also examine the $400m aircraft gifted by Qatar to serve as Air Force One and multimillion-dollar defence contracts awarded to firms linked to the Trump family. "What's shocking to me is not only that this administration, cabinet officials and even the president and his family have been corrupt and self-dealing, but they've been so brazen and open about it," Subramanyam said.

The White House has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Olivia Wales, a spokesperson, said President Trump was focused on retaining Republican majorities in Congress and on the progress he has made in lowering costs for families. "Democrats have no agenda to improve the lives of the American people, just plans to obstruct and baselessly target President Trump's commonsense agenda," she added. A White House official said the administration was "always prepared" to respond to oversight requests, whoever controls Congress.

Democratic lawmakers have also vowed to examine Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth's handling of the war with Iran that began in February, including civilian casualties, munitions shortfalls, spending and claims of poorly prepared troops and facilities. A source familiar with the discussions said boat strikes in the Caribbean, which the administration says are aimed at stopping the flow of drugs into the United States, could also come under scrutiny. In April, a group of House Democrats filed rare articles of impeachment against Hegseth, citing the war and accusing him of high crimes and misdemeanours. Impeachment requires only a simple majority in the House, though conviction and removal would need a two-thirds vote in the Senate; no cabinet official has ever been removed in this way. Some experts believe the negative publicity of congressional hearings could ultimately lead Hegseth to be dismissed or to resign. "If it looks bad for the White House, and it's a drag on their media attention, President Trump might be likely to cut loose those officials, because he doesn't want that bad press," said David Miller, a political science professor at American University in Washington. "In a sense that could be a win for the Democrats." Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer under George W Bush, said the decision to launch the war should come under scrutiny. "The bigger issue is this: this war was never authorised by the United States Congress, and I don't care who the secretary of defence is," he said, adding that the constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and that lawmakers should haul officials in to answer questions.

Kingsley Wilson, the Pentagon press secretary, defended Hegseth's record in a statement, calling him a "transformative leader" who has slashed bureaucracy, unleashed innovation and delivered for warfighters. "By every measurable metric, the Department of War is better under Secretary Hegseth's leadership than before," she said, using the administration's preferred name for the defence department.

Senior Democrats, including Robert Garcia of California, who has been tapped to lead the House Oversight Committee should the party take back the chamber, have identified immigration enforcement as a key priority. Investigations could examine allegations of misconduct by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents during raids across the country. Such inquiries may prove politically tricky. Trump campaigned in 2024 on a promise of mass deportations of undocumented migrants, a message that resonated with many of his supporters, but recent polls suggest many Americans, including some who backed him, are uncomfortable with the tactics used by ICE in cities this year. Painter said Democrats would have to walk a fine line between opposing ICE tactics and appearing to dismiss broader immigration concerns.

The party remains split on whether to attempt to impeach Trump for a third time. Some, such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have expressed support, citing what they regard as an unauthorised war with Iran and other alleged impeachable offences. Others advocate caution, arguing that any impeachment is unlikely to end with the Senate voting to remove a president who has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, and it is unclear whether the party could agree on grounds for proceedings. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office in October: "I can do whatever I want, if I want," adding that he regards the impeachment efforts during his first term and the later criminal cases brought against him as "very illegal things". James Comer, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told the Washington Sun in June that Democrats were "one-trick ponies" who were "going to go after Trump".

There is no guarantee that any investigation would end with a meaningful outcome. Subramanyam, however, said the effort itself would send a message. "If we do not do something because we are scared of the optics, or we don't think it will be successful, or they stonewall us, that will be bad," he said. "Not just for the next two years, but for the next 20 years."