In a letter to the Long Beach Democrat expected to chair the House Oversight Committee in January, Will Scharf cites the Supreme Court’s limits on congressional subpoenas; Mr. Garcia says Congress’s authority comes from Article I.
The White House counsel, Will Scharf, has told Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, the Democrat in line to chair the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee when the new Congress convenes in January, that the administration expects any investigation of it to stay within constitutional limits, and that some of what Democrats have promised would not.
In a letter dated Monday, Nov. 9, and first reported by CBS News, Mr. Scharf reminded Mr. Garcia that congressional investigations must be backed by a “legitimate legislative purpose.” The letter is an early marker in what is likely to be a two-year contest over subpoenas, documents and testimony after Democrats won control of both chambers on Nov. 3.
The administration’s argument
Mr. Scharf’s case rests on a line of Supreme Court decisions holding that Congress’s power to investigate, while broad, exists to serve its power to legislate. In Trump v. Mazars USA, the 2020 case over House subpoenas for Mr. Trump’s financial records, the court acknowledged that Congress has “significant legislative interests” but held that subpoenas must serve a “legitimate legislative purpose,” and it set out factors for courts to weigh when lawmakers seek a president’s information, including whether the request is broader than reasonably necessary.
Citing recent public statements by Democrats about the investigations they intend to open, Mr. Scharf wrote that “abusive threats and public statements about the indiscriminate issuance of subpoenas, along with threats directed at prospective targets within the Administration make it abundantly clear that any forthcoming investigative processes will be deployed to harass and aggrandize rather than to advance any legitimate end.”
He went further. “Beyond being inconsistent with the clear, well-recognized constitutional limitations on your investigative functions, threats to executive branch officials designed to deter them from public service, or process designed merely to abuse or instill fear in the recipient may cross the line into blatant criminality,” he wrote. “And issuing unlawful subpoenas with the intention of depriving citizens of their constitutional rights and privileges may warrant further investigation.”
The letter followed two posts by President Trump on Truth Social on Sunday, in which he said Democrats were threatening senior members of his administration and engaging in “extortion,” that they “should be held accountable for this,” and that “These SLEAZEBAGS should go to jail for what they are doing,” according to CBS News. The president directed the Justice Department to look into the Democrats’ oversight plans, CBS reported.
Garcia’s response
Mr. Garcia answered in a statement Wednesday. “It appears Donald Trump has something to hide,” he said. “Let’s be clear: Congress’ authority comes from Article I of the Constitution, not from the permission of the White House. Congress has wide latitude to conduct investigations and oversight, an authority inherent in the power to legislate.”
“We are a co-equal branch of government and will not be deterred by baseless threats from a weaponized DOJ or from the President’s lawyers,” he added.
Mr. Garcia, 48, a former mayor of Long Beach first elected to the House in 2022, became the committee’s ranking Democrat in 2025. After the election he had a two-word message for the administration: “Lawyer up.” According to CBS News, he has said the committee’s agenda could include the Trump family’s business dealings and crypto ventures, a $2 billion investment that Jared Kushner’s private equity fund received from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, Pentagon contracts to companies linked to the president’s sons, allegations involving Department of Homeland Security contracts, corporate donations for the new White House ballroom, and the Jeffrey Epstein case. None of those matters has resulted in a finding of wrongdoing.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, expected to become speaker, said a Democratic Congress would be “a check and balance” on the executive branch. “If they don’t like it, consult the Constitution,” he told reporters.
What the law allows on both sides
Each side holds real tools. A court can quash a subpoena it finds lacks a legislative purpose, as the administration argued in the first Trump term, and the Mazars factors give a president grounds to resist overly broad demands. But the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause shields members of Congress from prosecution for legislative acts such as voting to issue a subpoena.
Molly Nixon, a senior fellow in executive power at the Cato Institute, told CBS News that the letter was “sort of an opening salvo in what will ultimately be a political debate.” “I think it’s incredibly unlikely that any court would find merit in any criminal charge against a member of Congress for their vote on issuing a subpoena,” she said, adding that a subpoena lacking a valid purpose “might just mean the subpoena doesn’t get enforced or that it’s quashed.”
The Oversight Committee’s Democratic press office and the office of Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not respond to requests for comment from The Inquirer. The White House counsel’s office does not publish a press contact.
California’s stake
The fight will be led in large part by Californians. Under House seniority practice, several of the state’s Democrats who are now ranking members are in line for gavels in January: Mr. Garcia at Oversight, Zoe Lofgren at Science, Space and Technology, Jared Huffman at Natural Resources, Maxine Waters at Financial Services and Mark Takano at Veterans’ Affairs. Committee chairs are formally chosen by the Democratic Caucus when the new Congress organizes.
That gives the state’s delegation, which The Inquirer reported grew more Democratic in this month’s election, an outsized role in how far the new majority presses the administration, and in how the courts end up drawing the line between Congress’s investigative power and a president’s interest in confidentiality.
Adaeze Monroe covers Congress, the White House and federal agencies, with a focus on what Washington’s decisions mean for California, for the Washington Bureau. More from Adaeze Monroe
