An expected “war of investigations” between Trump and his opponents

US President Donald Trump asked the Department of Justice to investigate what he described as “threats” made by his Democratic opponents against officials in his administration, in what appeared to be an indication of early political battles with his opponents before they take control of both chambers of Congress next January.

This escalation came days after the harsh defeat suffered by Republicans in the midterm elections, and at a time when Democrats are preparing to launch a series of parliamentary investigations into White House policies. Which heralds an anticipated “war of investigations” between the two sides, turning the last two years of Trump’s term into an open confrontation between the executive and legislative branches. Trump's move coincided with a reorganization of leadership within the White House, by appointing his hard-line advisor Stephen Miller as chief of staff, succeeding Susie Wiles, in a move that reflected a trend towards tightening the political grip on the administration and a willingness to confront a Democratic majority that does not hide its intention to use the powers of Congress to monitor, subpoena, and investigate.

While the Democrats seek to invest their electoral victory in holding the Trump administration accountable on issues extending from the war with Iran to immigration policies and customs duties, the president seems determined to take the battle to the territory of his opponents, using the executive powers he possesses, and betting that the early confrontation will prevent the Democrats from imposing their political agenda on him.

The results of last Tuesday's elections constituted a political blow to Trump, after the Democrats seized control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, thus ending Republican control over the executive and legislative branches. The implications of the results were not limited to a change in the balance of power within Congress, but rather carried a message of dissatisfaction with the high costs of living, the repercussions of the war with Iran, and the economic policies adopted by the administration. Initially, Trump expressed a willingness to cooperate with the new Democratic leadership, but he quickly moved to a more escalatory speech, accusing his opponents of using the threat of investigations and impeachment to pressure members of his administration.

“A giant step backwards”

On Sunday, Trump said that the midterm elections took the United States “a giant step backwards in history.” He said in a post on his social platform, “Truth Social,”: “America has taken a giant step backward in history. Because of the results of the recent elections...but don’t worry, we will come back bigger and stronger than ever!”

On Saturday, President Trump ordered the Department of Justice to look into what he saw as threats emanating from Democrats, in a move that raised questions about the lines between the president's authority to direct executive policies and the independence of criminal prosecution decisions. This step reveals a remarkable political paradox, as the Ministry of Justice, which Trump wants to use to investigate the Democrats, will itself be at the forefront of the institutions that they intend to subject to strict parliamentary oversight once they assume the presidency of the relevant committees. This confrontation is likely to become an early test of the ability of both parties to use their constitutional powers without sliding into a long institutional crisis.

The Ministry of Justice is at the heart of the confrontation

Democratic movements indicate that the Ministry of Justice will be one of the most prominent arenas of the upcoming conflict. The Washington Post revealed, on Sunday, that the department is preparing for a wave of document requests, subpoenas, and hearings, after Democrats pledged to review decisions it made during the first two years of Trump’s second term, and accused the administration of politicizing law enforcement agencies and using them to pursue the president’s opponents. The files submitted for investigation include prosecutions targeting figures opposed to Trump, including former FBI Director James Comey, in addition to tax settlements that the president and members of his family are suspected of benefiting from, presidential pardons issued by Trump, and the way the department dealt with the files of the late businessman Jeffrey Epstein.

But Trump chose to respond before the investigations began. In a post on his platform, “Truth Social,” he accused the Democrats of sending threatening messages to officials and people he described as innocent, and he saw that what they were doing represented “blackmail at the highest level,” calling for them to be held criminally accountable, without providing public evidence proving the commission of crimes.

The president singled out Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin for criticism, who called for accountability for officials involved in implementing illegal policies. Slotkin responded that anyone who violates the law or uses taxpayer money for personal gain should be held accountable, stressing that anyone who has not committed a violation has nothing to fear. This confrontation with Slotkin has previous backgrounds; She was investigated after sharing a video with Democratic lawmakers urging military and intelligence personnel to “reject illegal orders,” but a grand jury declined to indict her.

Miller leads the White House to a stage of militancy

The appointment of Stephen Miller as White House chief of staff adds a new dimension to the conflict. Miller, whose name has been associated with hard-line immigration policies and defense of expanding the president's powers, represents one of the most prominent voices calling for confrontation within Trump's inner circle. His selection as a successor to Susie Wiles appears to be a political message that goes beyond administrative change, stating that the president does not intend to deal with the election results as a mandate to amend his policies, but rather as a challenge that requires strengthening discipline within the administration and strengthening its decisions in the face of Congress.

Analysts say that this strategy may put the White House before a difficult test, especially since the Democrats will assume the presidency of the main parliamentary committees, giving them the ability to summon senior officials, demand internal documents, and open investigations that may involve the most influential figures in the administration. However, the Democrats' control of Congress does not mean that they are able to impose all their demands. The president retains the right to veto legislation, while the administration can challenge parliamentary summons before the courts, and invoke executive privilege to withhold certain communications and documents. These disputes may turn into legal battles that last months, or perhaps years.

The Iran war returns to Washington

The anticipated confrontation is not limited to investigations and internal files. The war with Iran, whose economic and political repercussions contributed to weakening Republicans electorally, is likely to become one of the most prominent arenas of clash between Trump and the new Congress. The Democrats; Those who invested during their election campaigns in voter anger over rising fuel prices and the cost of living will face pressure to translate their promises into concrete measures, whether by trying to restrict military operations, or tightening control over defense spending and war-related decisions.

Congress has influential tools in this field, most notably the power to approve budgets, hold hearings, review military deals, and demand legal explanations for operations carried out by the administration outside American territory. But Democrats' ability to change the course of foreign policy will remain limited by complex constitutional balances; The president has broad powers as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and some decisions related to sanctions and military movements can be taken without new legislation.

Analysts fear that the clash over Iran may turn into a broader confrontation over the limits of presidential authority in making war and peace decisions, at a time when Washington's allies and opponents fear that the American internal division will lead to increased ambiguity about the United States' foreign commitments.

Democrats face the test of governance

However, the electoral victory is not without risks for Democrats. Although they have a relatively comfortable majority in the House of Representatives, and at least 54 seats in the Senate, they do not necessarily have enough votes to override filibustering legislation in the Senate or overturn a presidential veto. An overemphasis on investigations may also give Trump an opportunity to portray his opponents as preoccupied with political revenge rather than addressing the economic problems that drove voters to vote against Republicans. On the other hand, the president may find himself facing a similar dilemma if his strategy turns into a series of battles with Congress at the expense of addressing inflation, energy costs, and economic concerns.

The election results, which witnessed a number of traditionally Republican areas shifting toward Democrats, indicate that sectors of the electorate are no longer responsive to the same extent to political discourse based on polarization, especially when it comes to daily economic burdens.

An early battle over the 2028 elections

The repercussions of the current confrontation extend beyond the remaining two years of Trump's term, casting a shadow over the 2028 presidential elections. Democrats will attempt to use their control of Congress to demonstrate their ability to curb executive power, while Trump seeks to maintain the cohesion of his electoral base and prevent the legislative defeat from turning into a long-term decline in the influence of the Republican Party.

Parliamentary investigations would expose senior administration officials to repeated political and legal tests, but they could also give Trump new material to mobilize his supporters by accusing Democrats of trying to paralyze his government.

Between these two paths, Washington appears to be entering a phase of divided governance, in which the chances of major legislative settlements decline, and confrontations over powers, oversight, and public spending advance. The question that will be answered in the coming months is not only whether the Democrats will be able to besiege Trump, but whether the president will be able to turn his battle with them into a means of regaining the political initiative after the electoral defeat. If last Tuesday's elections ended Republican control of Congress, they did not end Trump's ability to impose the tone of confrontation in Washington. On the contrary; His first steps indicate that the president chose to enter the battle before his opponents reached legislative power, in a confrontation that may determine not only the future of his administration, but also the limits of the relationship between the White House and Congress during the second half of his term.

After the dust of the electoral earthquake caused by the US midterm elections has settled, attention is turning to Congress, with its new composition and diverse faces. Democrats, who lavished promises on voters, face the test of translating them into policies and legislation, while Republicans, after their resounding defeat, seek to adapt as they move into the minority ranks. However, two months separate the new Congress from assuming its duties early next year, a period during which Republicans may seek to exploit what remains of their majority to pass as much of their legislative priorities as possible and President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The Washington Report programme, which is the result of cooperation between Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper and Al-Sharq Network, reviews the limits of the new Congress’ ability to curb Trump’s policies, and the possibilities of Republican rebellion against him after the electoral defeat, as well as the most prominent files on the congressional agenda during the “lame duck” period.

A majority is not enough to confront Trump

Although they control both chambers of Congress, Democrats will not be able to pass their legislative agenda without Republican cooperation. Most legislation subject to the rule of ending debate in the Senate requires the approval of sixty members, while overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

Richard Stern, vice president of the Plymouth Institute at the conservative American Freedom Foundation, explains that Democrats “will have a very large majority, but they will not reach the required number of sixty votes.” He adds: “So there will have to be some negotiations between Democrats and Republicans in Congress regarding any action they take, not to mention the fact that they will not have the two-thirds of the votes needed to override the presidential veto. “So I think we will see a possible government shutdown due to negotiations over which military activities will be funded.”

However, control of Congress gives Democrats broad oversight and political tools to confront Trump, most notably the chairmanship of committees and the power to summon administration officials and conduct investigations, in addition to controlling legislation related to government spending and approving appointments in the Senate.

Investigative journalist Mark Albert expects that the Democrats will launch a wide wave of investigations into corruption and conflicts of interest issues, noting that voters have demanded that the administration be held accountable, which will make accountability a top priority for the new Congress.

As for the former official in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Ian Russell, it is likely that these investigations will lead to changes within the ranks of the administration, saying: “I believe that the days of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth are numbered,” and he expects other ministerial reshuffles, stressing the need to hold officials accountable regardless of their party affiliations.

The Iran war stands out as one of the most complex issues in the upcoming confrontation between Congress and the White House. While the president retains broad powers to manage military operations, Congress has the authority to approve funding, giving Democrats a leverage to try to restrict war spending. Russell acknowledges the difficulty of using this card as the defense budget discussion approaches, in light of the sensitivity of any decision that may reflect on the American forces deployed in the region.

Will Republicans turn against Trump?

The most prominent challenges facing Trump may come from within the ranks of his own party. The statements of his deputy, J.D. Vance, who held the war with Iran responsible for the electoral loss, raised questions about the possibility of a rift in the relationship between the two men. Russell believes that Vance is “trying to find a way to create distance between himself and the president,” in preparation for the upcoming presidential elections.

As for Stern, he believes that the Vice President seeks to distance himself from decisions he participated in making, but he holds Trump himself responsible for the erosion of Americans’ confidence in his administration. Stern says that the president, after his tariff policies and confrontations with his opponents, “broke that trust” when he asked the Americans to support war with Iran. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth may be one of the first victims of the cracks within the Republican Party. Republican Representative Thomas Massie has pledged to submit a resolution to impeach him during the current Congress session, amid expectations that it will receive support from both parties. Russell points out Trump's tense relationship with a number of Republican senators who lost the primary elections because of his interference against them, suggesting that they will support the removal of Hegseth, who may turn into an "easy scapegoat," as he puts it.

Stern expects that the number of Republicans willing to challenge the president publicly will increase, but he rules out a mass rebellion against him, in light of the calculations of the 2028 presidential race, which may prompt many to wait.

Amid the party's efforts to reorganize its ranks, Stern believes that defeat may provide Republicans with an opportunity to redefine their political identity, speaking of the possibility of the emergence of a “new Reagan,” as he puts it. Marco Rubio is likely to be one of the most prominent contenders for the party's presidential nomination in 2028, along with Vance and other figures who may emerge over the next two years.

Last chance or early confrontation?

Before Democrats take over legislative power early next year, Republicans will retain their majority in both chambers of Congress until the end of their current term, giving them a final opportunity to pass legislation and approve appointments that may be difficult to approve after they move into the minority ranks.

Among the proposed scenarios is replacing War Minister Pete Hegseth, and approving the appointment of a successor before January, although Stern believes that talking about this possibility is still premature.

The most pressing test relates to the government funding crisis, with current funding expiring on December 11. Albert proposes two possibilities: approving temporary funding that will spare the country from a government shutdown until the new Congress is convened, or entering into a political confrontation during which the Democrats seek to extract concessions in exchange for their support. He says that the Democrats “will demand a very high price in exchange for granting their votes,” pointing out that the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act also constitutes a legislative priority during this period. However, escalation is not inevitable; Albert sees room for consensus between the two parties on a number of issues, including reforming the system of licenses and customs duties, and perhaps restricting the president’s powers to wage wars. Ultimately, the course of the relationship between Congress and the White House may depend on Trump's own calculations. Albert wonders: “Does he want to leave the White House as a president who constantly uses his veto, or does he prefer to achieve joint legislative achievements that strengthen his political legacy?”

Testing Democrats' promises

On the other hand, the Democrats face a test no less difficult than the battle to seize the majority, which is fulfilling their electoral promises. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer pledged to reduce the cost of living and fight corruption, but Stern doubts that the party's victory will be a popular mandate to implement its agenda.

He says: “The Democrats did not actually win these elections, but rather it was the Republicans who lost them,” considering that the voters’ vote was closer to punishing Trump for his policies than to adopting the Democrats’ program.

On the other hand, Russell disagrees with this characterization, stressing that the Democrats ran a disciplined election campaign that made reducing the cost of living its top priority. But he acknowledges that the transition from promises to legislation will not be easy, in light of the differences within the party regarding ways to implement its agenda, especially with the growing influence of the progressive wing and the start of early competition for the upcoming presidential elections.