Congress

White House prepares for Democratic investigations

Published

3 weeks ago

September 1, 2026

President Donald Trump, his family and officials in his orbit are preparing for a Democratic takeover next year — even though the president remains publicly optimistic that his party will retain control of Congress.

They are looking for lawyers, expanding the definition of executive privilege, briefing political appointees and reviewing oversight material from Trump’s last term to prepare for another onslaught from Democrats.

The moves underscore the concern permeating the West Wing as Democrats appear poised to regain control of at least the House and possibly the Senate.

Unlike in 2019, when a relatively unseasoned and often chaotic White House was slow to prepare, Trump’s second-term team is determined to be ready, including pushing precedent and scoring a few political points of their own along the way.

Inside the White House, Trump aides started preparing for Democratic investigations as early as this spring, with the counsel’s office holding private briefings for political appointees, according to two former administration officials familiar with the briefings. Like others in this story, they were granted anonymity to discuss behind-the-scenes preparations. The White House counsel’s office reassured current employees that the administration’s lawyers will represent them in their official capacities if Congress demands documents or testimony, according to the two officials, although political appointees who have left government would not necessarily have the same protection.

Still, current and former administration officials are asking each other for recommendations about who could represent them in a personal capacity if they are subpoenaed in 2027, said one of the former officials and another Trump ally.

Some have reached out to Stefan Passantino, a former deputy White House counsel who is now a partner at Miller Strategies, according to the Trump ally. Passantino, who did not respond to a request for comment, represented Cassidy Hutchinson during the Jan. 6 investigations and worked with the Trump Organization on its responses to congressional investigations in 2023.

The White House counsel’s office also encouraged staff to be careful about what they put in writing and offered guidance about how to respond to congressional inquiries, according to the Washington Post.

The briefings emphasized the importance of ensuring that financial disclosures, ethics filings and other required paperwork are complete, accurate and submitted on time, according to a former White House official familiar with the discussions.

“Basically, don’t give them a reason to find anything,” the former official said.

Trump is focusing on preserving the GOP majorities in Congress, White House spokesperson Olivia Wales said in a statement, “and doubling down on the progress he has made to lower costs for families, put more money back in workers’ pockets, and make our communities safer than ever before.”

“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 new toolbox’

The administration has also laid down an untested legal marker to try and protect communications between Trump and people outside government — likely signaling a more aggressive approach to subpoenas.

In an Aug. 10 memorandum, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that executive privilege can apply to presidential communications with private advisers, “so long as the communications … relate to official presidential decisionmaking, involve or reflect communications with the President or his direct advisers, and are confidential.”

The memo does not, however, argue for blanket immunity from a subpoena, and it specifies that Congress could overcome the assertion of privilege by showing that the information is “demonstrably critical.”Trump relies heavily on a constellation of informal advisers, family members, business figures and outside allies on everything from who his next press secretary should be to where to deploy the National Guard. The opinion could provide a legal basis for the White House to resist congressional demands for communications with Trump or his senior advisers, and even for people who aren’t government employees.

The administration could potentially use the OLC memo alongside the protections afforded by the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Mazars USA, which limited Congress’ oversight powers during the first Trump administration. The court ruled that Congress can seek a president’s personal records, but it also sought to protect the separation of powers by requiring courts to consider why the records are needed and why the request is not overly broad.

“Combine that with the extension of executive privilege to private advisers, then you have a whole new umbrella of potential privileged information,” said Brandon Rios, co-lead of the congressional investigations practice at DLA Piper, who served as then-Vice President Kamala Harris’ counsel. “And when you have an administration that has shown a direct interest in taking a maximalist approach to executive authority — those two things in concert are strong tools in a new toolbox.”

But it’s uncharted territory, and could potentially create a rash of headaches for company executives caught between the Trump White House and a Democratic-controlled Congress.

“For instance, if a CEO had a phone conversation with Trump, or if you went into the White House to present information to drive a decision-making process, the White House could take the position that those documents are subject to executive privilege,” said Alyssa DaCunha, co-chair of WilmerHale’s Strategic Response and Congressional Investigations practices. “That could put companies in a difficult position of trying to abide by the White House’s determinations of privilege protections while also telling their story to Congress.”

The targets

Beyond the president and his immediate family, Democrats have a long list of officials they’d like to probe and bring before committees: Chief of staff Susie Wiles, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and her special adviser Corey Lewandowski, among others.

And Democrats plan to home in on businesses and outside entities that have fewer protections than White House advisers and staff.

“It’s tying corruption to the cost story that Democrats are trying to tell. Corruption costs Americans’ money, the self-enrichement, the foreign government payments, contracts to your friends and family,” said Kyle Herrig, founding partner at Focal Point Strategy Group who led the Congressional Integrity Project’s efforts to combat House Republicans’ investigations of the Biden administration.

Key hubs of defense inside the White House

As Democrats gear up, the White House is reshaping the office most responsible for responding to a Democratic Congress. Will Scharf, who was White House staff secretary, took over on Tuesday as White House counsel.

The quick transition is a stark contrast from 2018, when Democrats won the House. Aides at the time knew then-White House Counsel Don McGahn would soon depart, but his replacement, Pat Cipollone, didn’t take over until that December.

Scharf will play a major role in crafting the administration’s approach and building out a team of lawyers to respond to Democratic probes. And he will work closely with Attorney General Todd Blanche, who he worked with on Trump’s presidential immunity litigation, including the related Supreme Court case.

The former Trump official said that Scharf’s previous experience as staff secretary will serve him well.

“The staff secretary’s office is probably one of the most highly scrutinized offices in the White House, just because they have to be so mindful of every single thing that goes in front of the president,” the former official said. “Will has operated off of a very fine-tooth-comb process, and he would naturally take that into the White House counsel’s office.”

Compared to his predecessor, Dave Warrington, who was a “straightshooter” with his legal recommendation, the former official said they expect Scharf to “play a bit more to what the president wants.”

If Democrats take over, Scharf’s day-to-day work would be less focused on advancing the president’s agenda, and instead on preparing the administration to defend against subpoenas and investigations. Other offices would feel that shift as well: The White House has yet to announce a replacement for James Braid, the president’s top liaison to Congress.

Tevi Troy, a presidential historian and a former Bush White House aide, said the jobs “change in character” after the shift in power.

“The first six years of the Bush White House, being in White House counsel was the best job. It was amazing. You got to kibitz about Supreme Court nominations, and there was somebody from White House counsel in every briefing with the president,” he said. After Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, “they completely had to change the office because it became kind of battlers — people who’d fought in litigation.”

The effects of a possible Democratic Congress will be felt beyond the White House, too, as agencies are potentially wrapped up in investigations. Troy, who was deputy HHS secretary during the end of the Bush administration, said senior officials held weekly meetings with the department’s legal and congressional affairs teams to review subpoenas and investigations.

“It was an hour of my time every single week,” he said. “That’s a valuable hour, and a lot of senior people are in that meeting. So it takes away time from doing the agenda stuff you’re trying to do, trying to get your policies through.”

Congress

Paul: ICE hasn’t shared information about Minneapolis shooting probes

Published

2 hours ago

September 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Department of Homeland Security still has not shared the findings from its investigations into the January killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis, despite continued requests from the top Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the chair of the panel, said during a brief hallway interview that DHS has not yet given the committee any information from internal probes into any shootings involving immigration officers.

Asked if that included the two January shootings in Minneapolis, where immigration officers shot and killed two American citizens, Paul said: “We’ve asked for information. We’re still asking.”

DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Paul’s comments come as DHS faces continued bipartisan scrutiny following several incidents where ICE or Border Patrol agents used deadly force against individuals they were trying to apprehend. Several of those individuals were U.S. citizens.

Most recently, ICE agents Saturday shot an unauthorized immigrant who faced deportation. The man, 28-year-old Wilber Rafael Garcés Pérez, survived. His lawyers claim he has been transferred into ICE custody despite still having a bullet lodged in his back.

Paul had asked DHS earlier this year to share more information about its reviews of the shootings, and did not schedule a confirmation hearing for the administration’s ICE director nominee as he awaited those findings. The White House ultimately pulled that nomination last week as the nomination stalled.

Congress

GOP Armed Services chair blasts White House welcome of Chinese leader

Published

3 hours ago

September 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker lambasted the White House decision to invite Chinese leader Xi Jinping for a state dinner this week, calling the foreign head of state “a brutal, unelected and oppressive dictator” who cannot be trusted.

Wicker, typically a staunch defender of President Donald Trump and Republican loyalist, targeted most of his criticism at Xi and Chinese policy during a Senate floor speech Tuesday. But the comments were nonetheless a surprise rebuke of the president’s courting of Beijing amid broader concerns, such as the durability of U.S. security commitments to the Indo-Pacific, including in deterring a potential invasion of Taiwan from the Chinese mainland.

The Mississippi Republican urged Trump to press the Chinese premier on a variety of sensitive topics — including purported support for Iran, its military buildup and human rights abuses.

“Had the White House asked me for advice, I would have suggested the president not invite Xi Jinping to Washington for such a lavish welcome here in the United States, based on all of the troubling issues we have with President Xi and the Chinese Communist Party,” he said.

“I know the president tends to discuss trade and artificial intelligence with the Chinese leadership, and rightfully so,” he said. “Perhaps some progress will be made. But … during every minute of dialog, our commander in chief should keep in mind that his guest is a brutal, unelected and oppressive dictator who seeks to dominate his neighbors and whose massive military arsenal is aimed directly at the United States of America.”

The senior Republican’s comments on the Senate floor were delivered just a few hours before Xi’s expected arrival in Washington. Trump has scheduled a formal welcome ceremony for Xi and his wife at the White House on Thursday, along with talks between the two leaders throughout his three-day visit.

Trump is facing bipartisan criticism over the state visit by Xi. Wicker’s comments followed similar attacks on Chinese leadership from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Ted Budd (R-N.C.).

“President Trump has been clear that under his leadership, the United States must engage with China, given the reality of our economic relationship,” Budd said. “But we can’t forget that China is also a competitor and an adversary.”

Congress

Appeals court’s Capitol steps ruling may signal trouble for Trump on media ban

Published

7 hours ago

September 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A federal appeals court ruling Tuesday on demonstrators’ access to the steps of the Capitol could bode poorly for President Donald Trump’s attempt to ban three media organizations from the White House.

The majority opinion, written by Trump appointee Neomi Rao, concluded that the East Steps of the Capitol are a “nonpublic forum” — just like most areas of the White House grounds, including the press facilities. While the government may impose restrictions on access to those nonpublic areas, the limits must be “viewpoint neutral,” apply “objective, workable standards” and not permit officials to exercise “unbridled discretion over a forum’s use,” the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel concluded.

“A regulation that grants the government arbitrary control over who may speak invites the suppression of disfavored viewpoints and undermines the First Amendment’s core protections,” wrote Rao, who was joined in the majority by Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee.

The ruling, on the eve of a hearing over restoring White House accessfor Blue Light News, BLN and MS NOW, reaffirms the D.C. Circuit’s longstanding First Amendment precedents at an inopportune time for Trump. The president has explicitly described his ban on the three outlets as a punishment for publishing what he calls “fake news.”

“Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown ‘sources,’ shouldn’t be allowed access to the most important Office anywhere in the World,” Trump said on social media Monday.

The outlets have said their access was revoked because the White House objected to their reporting and that the ban “threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

The D.C. Circuit would hear any appeals in the litigation over Trump’s media ban, and Trump has in fact already said he anticipates filing an appeal, presuming that he will be dealt a defeat in district court.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The D.C. Circuit’s Tuesday ruling stemmed from a lawsuit brought by Patrick Mahoney, a clergyman who sought to hold prayer vigils and demonstrations on the East Steps of the Capitol several months after the Jan. 6, 2021 attack, which resulted in new access restrictions. His permit was denied in part based on Capitol Police regulations that prohibit public demonstrations on the steps unless they are sponsored by a member of Congress.

Though the case has inched through the courts for years, Tuesday’s ruling resolves a key question, labeling the Capitol’s East Steps a “nonpublic forum” for which congressional authorities may restrict public access — in part because lawmakers use those steps to enter and exit the building.

But allowing members of Congress to sponsor gatherings on the steps creates an arbitrary system, the majority concluded.

“Because the protection of unpopular speech and advocacy is central to the First Amendment, we cannot leave it to the selective enforcement of members,” Rao wrote.

Notably, Rao’s opinion cites a D.C. Circuit ruling last year that concluded “it would be unreasonable to control access to White House press facilities through standardless discretion.”

The third judge on the panel, Clinton appointee Judith Rogers, dissented, but her opinion was even more protective of free-speech rights.

Rogers said she agreed with her colleagues that the “selective exception” for demonstrations sponsored by lawmakers was unconstitutional. However, she said she would have held that the lower portion of the Capitol steps was a public forum where the government was obligated to permit protest activity.