The investigations against Trump are entering a new phase after the American elections on November 3. The Democrats are preparing a stronger control of its administration, while a Republican initiative is already targeting Pete Hegseth. On November 8, Hakeem Jeffries announced its support for the indictment of the Secretary of Defense. But neither this declaration nor the democratic election victory is a destitution. In Washington, several procedures, several officials and two calendars overlap.
The first calendar is immediate. Thomas Massie wants to move his resolution against Hegseth as soon as the representatives return to Washington. The second begins in January 2027, when the new elected officials take office and reorganize the commissions. Between these two deadlines, Republicans retain the powers attached to the outgoing Congress. The investigations announced by future democrats must therefore be distinguished from those already carried out.
Hegseth, first parliamentary event after the election
The most precise political change took place on Sunday, November 8. In a television interview, Jeffries said he would vote for the Hegseth resolution. It provides for a discussion with the democratic representatives on Tuesday, without claiming to have a commitment from everyone. Massie, elected Republican of Kentucky, is planning to relaunch her approach as early as Monday, November 9. This is an announced intention, not the result of a vote.
This initiative has not just been born with midterms. On 15 September Massie had presented eight leaders against the Secretary of Defense. Its official press release and its intervention at the Congressional Record make it possible to verify its content. The core of the text is the war against Iran and the limitations imposed on the executive by the 1973 War Powers Resolution.
Three chiefs clearly contest the outbreak of hostilities, their continuation despite a request for withdrawal from Congress and their continuation beyond the legal time limits invoked. The others relate to the protection of civilians, strikes on suspected drug trafficking boats, alleged reprisals against Senator Mark Kelly, the operation in Venezuela and operations in Yemen. These are the accusations made by Massie, not the conclusions of a court.
The administration contests the approach. Donald Trump defended Hegseth and said he wanted to keep him. The secretary denounces a political destruction enterprise. This answer does not address the questions of law raised by the elected representatives. However, it confirms that the proceedings are opposed by the executive, not a announced resignation or recognition of the facts.
The debate on war powers has an additional legal difficulty. A concurrent resolution adopted by both chambers is not presented to the President for signature. The judgmentINS v. Chadhaof 1983 weakened the mechanisms for the Congress to modify executive action without this step. The Congressional Research Service analyses highlight this difficulty for Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution. The binding scope of the mechanism remains contested.
It would therefore be incorrect to repeat Massie’s argument as a definitive right. The challenge to this section does not in itself resolve other issues: initial authorization, withdrawal time or conduct of operations. Each chief is based on a separate justification. Representatives may discuss them separately and are not required to treat the eight charges as an indivisible bloc.
A procedural vote would not yet be a removal
Massie uses a privileged procedure to compel House management to deal with his resolution. The stake is to prevent it from simply remaining without examination. But provoking a vote does not mean obtaining a favourable vote on the accusations. In particular, the Chamber may decide to remove the text or refer it to committee. The exact wording of the question before the elected representatives will therefore be decisive.
A recent example invites this clarification. On 15 September, the House adopted a motion dismissing Trump’s resolution H.Res.1486. The Republican record of votes indicates 232 votes in favour, 147 against and 47 votes against. This election was neither a presidential conviction nor a Senate trial. Counting indistinctly all votes related to a removal produces a misleading reading of parliamentary activity.
For Hegseth, the first question will be to know what act Massie does when Congress returns. The decision of the House’s management, the content of the vote and the support gathered will then come. Jeffries’ public rally strengthens the initiative politically. It does not make it possible to announce in advance the outcome of these stages, especially in an assembly whose composition remains pre-election.
Against Trump, resolutions already exist
The formula « new procedure of removal » may also mask pre-election texts. In particular, the government register keeps H.Res.1575, filed on 24 September by Steve Cohen and referred to the judicial commission. She proposes to charge Trump with several sets of facts. His existence is certain. It is not valid for adoption by the House.
This distinction is visible until the presentation of the document. The text published contains the wording that the President is charged because he describes the decision that the author requests representatives to take. This normative wording does not attest that this decision was voted. The official statement « Introduced in House » identifies a version tabled, not a resolution adopted.
The texts of Cohen and D’Al Green show that parliamentary pressure precedes the new majority. They do not demonstrate the existence of a collective democratic decision to immediately launch a third presidential trial. In an interview on 5 November, Robert Garcia distinguished the investigations he wishes to conduct from the prospect of a new indictment of Trump. He insisted on usable means of control and on the Senate barrier.
Three levels must therefore be separated: a representative proposes counts, a majority eventually decides to adopt them, and the Senate considers the charge. A statement of support, a text tabled and a completed procedure are not three equivalent ways of describing the same situation. The documents consulted establish initiatives and preparations, without allowing a presidential removal as committed to its end.
Not all Trump investigations start in January
Robert Garcia defined his priorities on 3 November: the financial interests of the presidential family, the practices of large companies, the operations of the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, and the processing of Epstein files. His press release uses adversarial vocabulary. This vocabulary expresses its political position; it does not replace the expected demonstration of an investigation.
Most importantly, the change of majority could provide more resources for steps already taken. Opposition elected representatives may write to administrations, request documents and publish reports. Directing a commission adds control of its programme, hearings and instruments of constraint, within the limits of its powers and rules. The change from a voluntary application to a formal injunction may alter the balance of power.
The difference is measured in the document sought. A letter may ask why a contract was awarded. A hearing may question those responsible for the decision. Internal parts can compare their response with the actual chronology. None of these acts alone proves favouritism. However, their articulation allows us to go beyond a confrontation of public statements.
Family affairs and contracts, a documented project
The private interest file already contains formal requests. On 6 October, Garcia asked Jared Kushner for information on Affinity Partners’ investments and their relationship to its diplomatic role in the Middle East. The letter addresses a possible conflict of interest. It does not make it possible to conclude that each investment constitutes a counterpart to a US decision.
This question is concrete: who benefits from a financial operation, when and during which public responsibilities? In order to establish a problematic link, participations, administrative decisions, exchanges and applicable rules must be examined. Family proximity can justify increased control. It does not exempt the persons concerned from establishing the facts or obtaining explanations.
Another case concerns agreements between Trump and law firms. On 16 October, Jamie Raskin, Richard Blumenthal and Adam Schiff challenged Kirkland & Ellis’ refusal to provide clarification on a legal service commitment. Their approach involves the House and the Senate even before the new majorities are installed. It illustrates the type of requests that could be replicated with additional resources.
These investigations can reach private companies without automatically charging them with a crime. A company may hold contracts, e-mails or accounting elements relevant to the control of a public decision. The examination shall distinguish between the documents sought, the role of the holder and any conclusions. To receive a request from Congress does not amount to a charge.
Epstein, immigration and federal data
Epstein case management is among the priorities announced by Garcia. He wanted public hearings and more documents. The subject has two different questions: the acts of those involved in Epstein’s crimes and how the authorities handled the available information. An investigation of the second does not automatically assign the first to any person cited in archives.
The publication of documents will also have to deal with the protection of victims and judicial requirements. A name in an address book, a testimony, a charge and a court decision have distinct probative values. For Congress, the challenge is to verify what has been retained, communicated or retained, and then explain on what basis. The accumulation of documents is not enough without their contextualization.
On immigration, there is also a clear parliamentary background. On 14 January, Robin Kelly tabled resolution H.Res.996 against Kristi Noem. She cited, inter alia, obstacles to the control of places of detention. This text constitutes a date precedent. It should not be presented as a midterm initiative, nor should it be confused with the old ministerial target with current officials.
Garcia also wants to look at DOGE activities and access to federal data. In his interview on 5 November, he asked questions about the information consulted and about the people who had access to it. These questions call for access logs, authorisations and administrative responses. They do not allow, in the state, to state that a data theft is established.
The battle of archives may precede that of witnesses
On October 29, Garcia and Raskin asked the White House to preserve presidential conversations with artificial intelligence tools. Their letter followed information on Grok’s use of an operation in Venezuela. They also requested a briefing on conservation rules. The verifiable act is this request for preservation; narratives on military decisions remain to be examined.
This shows why an investigation sometimes starts well before a spectacular hearing. If the trades sought are not preserved, their reconstruction becomes more difficult. The elected representatives can therefore request to preserve archives without having yet established all the facts. Such an application shall protect the possibility of subsequent control. It does not prejudge the content of the documents or what they will demonstrate.
Department of Justice prepares response
On November 7, Trump asked the Department of Justice to look at the democrats who threaten his administration of investigations or removal. He described their conduct as criminal without providing evidence of an offence. The next day, Minister Todd Blanche resumed this criticism. These statements add institutional conflict to the investigations announced.
The question is not just who will hold the hearing. The Ministry of Justice also intervenes in disputes concerning certain requests from Congress. When elected officials are looking for documents on the Ministry’s own action, the positions of the two institutions may differ. A threat of investigation against parliamentarians, however, does not absolve the constitutional control powers of Congress.
The executive may invoke executive privilege to protect certain communications. This mechanism was not born with Trump’s second term. An opinion of the Ministry’s legal office, dated 20 December 2024, already defends protection against certain parliamentary sanctions against an official who respects a presidential invocation of this privilege. This is the legal position of the executive, not a general authorisation to refuse any cooperation.
In particular, the commissions have civil remedies to ask the courts to enforce an injunction. These procedures raise issues of jurisdiction, legislative purpose and privilege. They can last. While electoral success is a lever, it does not guarantee the immediate release of cases or a judicial calendar aligned with political expectations.
The House accuses, the Senate can dismiss
The Constitution divides the roles. The Chamber has the power of indictment, usually exercised by a majority vote. The Senate has the power to judge. A conviction requires the agreement of two thirds of the senators present. If the 100 senators participate, 67 votes are required. This threshold is different from that sufficient to control the assembly.
The procedure may be directed to the President, Vice-President and other federal civilian officials. It does not collectively reverse an administration as a motion of parliamentary censure. Each target, leader and vote must be identified. The indictment of Hegseth would therefore not legally be Trump’s, even if it would have political consequences for the President.
The Senate does not issue a prison sentence in this context. The constitutional consequences relate to the function and possibly future access to certain responsibilities. Criminal responsibility is another way. Conversely, a parliamentary inquiry can inform a reform or budgetary decision without leading to an indictment. Institutional sanction is not its only possible result.
The deadlines to be monitored
The first appointment is the actual resumption of the Massie approach. The text submitted, the procedure chosen and the voting will have to be checked. The next one concerns the organisation of the Democratic majority, its leaders and committee presidencies. The new mandates will begin on 3 January 2027: the November announcements do not immediately transfer the powers of the outgoing Congress.
The first requests for documents, summonses and executive responses will then be used to measure the true extent of the control announced. On removal, the decisive benchmark will remain the transition from an individual intention to an adopted act. On the investigations, it will be the documents obtained and their examination contradictory. The democratic debate announced on Tuesday on Hegseth is the next political step identified, not yet its outcome.
Comments