In his first term, President Trump approached congressional investigations with a strategy of resisting and stonewalling, hoping to stall the inquiries until Democrats ran out of time.
But in anticipation of Democrats’ return to control of Congress in his second term, Mr. Trump has embarked on an even more aggressive maneuver: threatening to treat some legislative oversight as a potential crime.
That tactic is expected to be part of an all-out effort by the White House to block Democratic congressional oversight over the next two years.
The pushback will be led in part by Mr. Trump’s new chief of staff, Stephen Miller, a political brawler with extensive experience on Capitol Hill. It will be bolstered by a Justice Department and a White House Counsel’s Office that have been quietly laying the groundwork for the fight.
At stake: whether the Trump administration can prevent Democrats from getting access to its decision-making and scrutinizing the actions of top officials and powerful people, in and out of government. Mr. Trump has also become increasingly concerned that some of his biggest supporters who give money toward his prized construction projects will be targeted, according to aides and his public statements.
The White House is bracing for a spate of investigations, and officials say they are ready to punch back.
“If you’re not ready for these fights, you’re going to be in a whole lot of trouble legally and politically,” said Hogan Gidley, a White House deputy press secretary in the first Trump administration. “They have a really good plan and have a good leader at the top in Stephen Miller. He is primed and ready for this fight, like no one else would be.”
While clashes between lawmakers and the White House over congressional investigations are not unusual, the escalating threats could result in a remarkable battle that reshapes the balance of power between the two branches of government. Legal experts have said the White House’s contention that congressional investigations “may cross the line into blatant criminality” pushes the bounds of the law, but much remains unclear about how the courts might handle the coming fights.
“As the president has said, he’s willing to work with anyone to continue delivering victories for hard-working Americans,” said Lauren Bis, a White House spokeswoman. “If Democrats choose to pursue sham investigations and radical left policies, they are choosing to work against the American people.”
Top Democrats have shown no indications they are intimidated or plan to slow down. They have already sent letters to scores of potential targets of investigations, on everything from cuts to scientific research to donors for Mr. Trump’s White House ballroom.
On Thursday, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Representative Robert Garcia of California and Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut announced an investigation into a top Trump fund-raiser, Meredith O’Rourke, after reports indicated that she coordinated more than $800 million in contributions to the president’s favorite construction projects.
“The fund-raising operation that President Trump reportedly directs with your assistance reeks of potential corruption and the potential for quid pro quo politics,” the lawmakers wrote to Ms. O’Rourke.
A spokesman for Ms. O’Rourke said that Mr. Trump could not be bought, and that Democrats’ accusations were baseless.
The White House plan to shield Mr. Trump’s donors and threaten Democrats has been taking shape for months in response to what they believe will be an unrelenting pace of oversight.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel over the summer quietly published an opinion asserting that even communications by those outside government could be covered by executive privilege if they concerned Mr. Trump and his top aides.
Rachel Jag, a former staff member to Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the newly elected Republican leader in the House, will coordinate the department’s response to Democratic subpoenas, records requests and accusations. She is overseeing a large staff, but the department is seeking experienced lawyers to fill out what are expected to be high-workload jobs.
The department has been hit by a wave of departures, and Ms. Jag took over the role on an interim basis after Patrick Davis, who served as the department’s head of legislative affairs, quit just before the midterm elections for reasons that remain unclear.
At the White House, Mr. Trump appointed Mr. Miller chief of staff after Democrats swept to victory last week.
“Stephen Miller is President Trump’s wartime general,” said Mike Davis, a former chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “He’s very experienced, including on the Hill.”
And the White House Counsel’s Office began beefing up its staff, hiring two lawyers to deal with oversight.
On Saturday, the president posted on social media: “Threatening letters have been sent to many people, all innocent, from Democrat Political Leaders. By copy of this statement, I am ordering the Department of Justice to look into this criminal act, immediately!”
Top lawyers across the federal government snapped into action.
Aaron Reitz, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas, sent a letter to Mr. Blumenthal on Wednesday, warning of “significant legal consequences” should he continue to pursue an investigation into the ballroom donors.
Attorney General Todd Blanche said on Thursday that top leaders at the Justice Department had been working with Mr. Reitz.
At a news conference, Mr. Blanche said there were “no ongoing criminal investigations” into statements made by incoming members of Congress. Nevertheless, he said, Justice Department officials were concerned about some of the statements made after the election.
“There can come a point when a criticism becomes a threat,” Mr. Blanche said, adding, “There are threats, which can be allowed as well, but at some point it does become a crime.”
Then, Will Scharf, the White House counsel, put Mr. Garcia, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight Committee, on notice that he could be committing criminal acts by pursuing investigations.
Asked about his letter to Mr. Garcia and whether it meant the White House was prepared to prosecute lawmakers, Mr. Scharf said that “the letter stands for itself.”
“I meant everything I said,” Mr. Scharf added in an interview on Thursday. He declined to address how the administration’s efforts squared with the “speech or debate” clause of the Constitution, which shields lawmakers from being subpoenaed or prosecuted by the executive branch over their legislative work.
Congress, at its core, is a legislative body, not a prosecutorial one. To the extent Congress has investigative powers, they are to obtain information to help in the act of legislating.
If administration officials fight congressional subpoenas, federal courts would have to referee — litigation that could take months or years to resolve.
Mr. Scharf and others are collecting examples of lawmakers who they say are making clear their investigations have no legislative purpose.
Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel for part of Mr. Trump’s first term, said the White House had long prepared for the oversight.
“They’ve talked to a lot of people who’ve done it before,” he said.
Of Mr. Scharf’s letter, Mr. McGahn said, “It’s smart to chronicle in writing all of the things that the various Democratic congressmen will say about oversight that shows that they’re not doing it for a legislative purpose.”
Stanley M. Brand, the top lawyer in the House under Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr., said the White House threats against lawmakers carried little legal power. But he said Congress would have difficulty enforcing any subpoena should the administration refuse to comply, because any criminal referral would go to the Justice Department. And the attorney general reports to Mr. Trump.
“Although the Democrats control the Congress, the administration still controls the Department of Justice, and so to the extent that people get referred for contempt under the criminal statute, I don’t expect that to go anywhere,” he said.
Either chamber of Congress could also consider trying to use its long-dormant “inherent contempt” powers. Such a move would direct the sergeant-at-arms to arrest an official who refused to comply with the directives of Congress.
It would be another escalation in a fight that has been full of them even before it has begun.
Glenn Thrush contributed reporting.
