Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s call for young Americans to avoid jobs in the Trump administration could give Trump officials grounds to challenge congressional investigations if Democrats regain control of Congress, a former federal prosecutor says.
The Michigan Democrat said last month that she wanted her party to pursue high-profile cases against people who had served Trump, hoping the prospect would discourage young graduates from joining his administration.
Speaking at an Oct. 13 event at the University of Chicago, Slotkin said she wanted to send a deterrent message. She suggested graduates might worry that taking a government job could bring them serious trouble later.
Abhishek Kambli, a former deputy associate attorney general in Trump’s Justice Department, said those comments could complicate investigations if Democrats win control of either chamber in the midterm elections.
Congress has wide authority to investigate, issue subpoenas and examine government operations. But the Supreme Court has said those powers cannot be used simply to punish individuals.
The court considered those limits in 2020, when House Democrats sought Trump’s personal financial records through subpoenas. In Trump v. Mazars, the justices set out four factors for courts to consider: whether Congress has a legitimate legislative need for the records, whether the requests are appropriately narrow, whether the information is available from another source and how burdensome the subpoenas would be for the president.
The case went back to lower courts, and the Supreme Court did not decide whether the subpoenas met those standards. Questions about how to apply the test remain.
Kambli said lawmakers cannot simply add a standard statement that an investigation serves a legislative purpose. Courts, he argued, may consider the full context, including lawmakers’ public comments, when deciding whether a subpoena is constitutionally justified.
He said remarks by Democrats could be used against them if future subpoenas are challenged.
Democrats discuss investigations if they regain control
House Democrats have begun preparing investigations into Trump’s family business dealings and possible conflicts of interest if they win back the chamber. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut has also said he would broaden an inquiry into donors supporting Trump’s White House ballroom if Democrats take the Senate.
Michael Morley, a constitutional law professor at Florida State University, questioned whether partisan comments would be enough to invalidate congressional investigations. Courts, he said, generally understand that political motives can be part of congressional inquiries and are unlikely to reject subpoenas on that basis alone.
Morley said a court would be hesitant to conclude that Congress lacked constitutional authority based on the possible personal motives of one or more lawmakers.
He also noted that Trump v. Mazars dealt with subpoenas for the president’s personal records. Extending the same demanding legal test to subpoenas involving other administration officials, he said, would be a significant step.
Still, Morley said Slotkin’s comments could affect how judges view a case where the legal justification for a subpoena is already unclear. He described the remarks as unhelpful and said they might make courts slightly less inclined to resolve close questions in Democrats’ favor.
Slotkin has denied that she wants to target people simply for working under a Republican administration. She told CNN that she meant officials who break the law or misuse taxpayer money, and called the criticism of her comments manufactured outrage.
Kambli warned that investigations could cause financial and reputational harm even if no criminal charges follow. He said the investigative process itself can become a punishment, particularly for people who cannot afford legal representation.
He added that Trump’s Justice Department would probably not prosecute administration officials over contempt referrals from a Democratic-led Congress, though that could change under a future Democratic administration.
Morley also criticized the idea of frightening young public servants who may not have the resources to defend themselves. He said political disagreements should not be handled that way.
