NOVEMBER 6 — The aftermath of the November 2026 American midterm elections is increasingly becoming a question not merely of who controls Congress, but how congressional power will be exercised against President Donald Trump during the remaining two years of his presidency.

The Democrats are preparing for an extensive investigative campaign that could reach into the White House, the President’s family businesses, his Cabinet, his political donors and even the technologies allegedly used in making sensitive national security decisions.

The investigative plots in Washington DC are therefore set to thicken rather than weaken.

What makes this development particularly consequential is the breadth of the proposed investigations.

The emerging congressional agenda goes well beyond the familiar controversies surrounding Trump’s conduct in office. 

It encompasses financial transactions, cryptocurrency, preferential access to market-sensitive information, foreign gifts, tariff exemptions and the possible influence of artificial intelligence on presidential decision-making.

These are not necessarily separate controversies. Congressional investigators may seek to determine whether they reveal broader patterns in the relationship between political authority, private financial interests and the exercise of executive power.

Indeed, four committees and multiple Investigative fronts are in gear.

According to the reported preparations, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island is expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee.

While Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut is being positioned to play a central role through the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

In the House of Representatives, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Robert Garcia of California are expected to assume leading investigative responsibilities through the Judiciary and Oversight committees respectively.

These anticipated appointments depend on the formal organisation of the new Congress.

Nevertheless, the reported recruitment of several dozen additional lawyers and congressional staff suggests that the preparations are institutional rather than merely rhetorical.

The significance is considerable.

Congressional investigations require legal expertise, document examination, financial analysis, witness interviews and the careful preparation of subpoenas.

An investigative committee that possesses sufficient staff can pursue several lines of inquiry simultaneously.

That could substantially complicate the White House’s ability to respond to each investigation separately.

Following the money

One major area of scrutiny concerns Trump’s cryptocurrency dealings and their possible intersection with presidential authority.

The question is not simply whether the President or his family can participate in cryptocurrency ventures.

It is whether private financial interests may have benefited from government decisions, privileged access or relationships with individuals seeking favourable treatment from Washington.

Another proposed investigation concerns Truth Social and allegations that paying customers could obtain earlier access to presidential posts capable of moving financial markets.

If such arrangements are established, investigators would have to examine whether the system created an unfair informational advantage for particular market participants.

The distinction between lawful commercial activity and improper exploitation of public office would be central.

Equally significant are allegations that wealthy donors and politically connected individuals obtained tariff exemptions or other government favours in return for contributions to Trump-aligned political organisations or presidential projects.

These allegations require evidence of an actual connection between contributions and official decisions. Political donations alone do not establish corruption.

Yet the potential scope of congressional scrutiny is substantial because tariff policy affects businesses, consumers, global supply chains and America’s trading partners.

Qatar, foreign influence and presidential gifts

The luxury presidential aircraft donated by Qatar represents another sensitive investigative subject.

The central issues concern the legal treatment of foreign gifts, possible conflicts of interest, national security safeguards and whether the aircraft’s acceptance complied with applicable constitutional and statutory requirements.

A foreign government providing an exceptionally valuable asset to an American administration raises questions that cannot be resolved solely by describing the transaction as a diplomatic gesture.

Investigators may seek records of negotiations, security assessments, ownership arrangements and eventual disposition of the aircraft.

For the Gulf states, including Qatar, these inquiries could become politically delicate.

They would also demonstrate how domestic American congressional oversight can have consequences for foreign governments that maintain close relations with the White House.

Perhaps the most unusual proposed investigation concerns reports that Trump consulted Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence chatbot, Grok, before the January 2026 American operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The committees are reportedly seeking records of the President’s chatbot usage.

The important distinction is between consulting an AI system and relying upon its output to authorise or shape a military operation.

The former does not automatically establish wrongdoing. 

The latter could raise serious questions about intelligence validation, information security, classified material and the chain of command.

If congressional investigators establish that AI-generated information materially influenced operational decisions, the implications would extend well beyond the Trump administration.

They would concern the future relationship between artificial intelligence and presidential war powers.

For Asean and East Asia, where governments are expanding their own military and civilian AI capabilities, this is a question of direct relevance.

Artificial intelligence cannot substitute for accountable human judgment, particularly when the lives of civilians and military personnel are at stake.

Oversight is not the same as conviction though. 

There is, however, an important constitutional distinction.

Congressional committees possess substantial investigative authority, but allegations uncovered through hearings do not automatically constitute criminal findings.

The administration and individuals under investigation retain legal rights. Subpoenas can be challenged, executive privilege may be asserted, and disputes can move into the federal courts.

Furthermore, congressional oversight must serve a legitimate legislative purpose rather than merely function as political punishment.

The Democrats will therefore face their own institutional test: whether their investigations can establish verifiable facts and produce meaningful accountability.

Investigative intensity alone is not proof of investigative success.

Nor should congressional investigations be confused with impeachment.

The House can approve articles of impeachment by a simple majority, but conviction and removal of a president require a two-thirds majority of senators present.

That constitutional threshold remains a major distinction between political confrontation and removal from office.

For America’s allies and partners, the investigations could have consequences beyond Washington.

Congressional scrutiny of tariff exemptions may affect confidence in the predictability of American trade policy.

Investigations involving Qatar could complicate diplomatic relationships in the Gulf.

Questions about AI-assisted military decision-making could generate wider debate over the safeguards required before advanced technologies are incorporated into national security operations.

Meanwhile, the White House may have to devote considerable time and legal resources to responding to congressional demands.

This could influence the administration’s capacity to pursue its foreign policy agenda, although the scale of any disruption will depend on the investigations’ findings and the courts’ rulings.

For Malaysia, Asean, Japan, South Korea and China, the practical lesson is that American foreign policy cannot be understood solely through presidential declarations.

Congress, the judiciary, regulatory institutions and domestic political competition also shape the decisions that eventually reach the international arena.

The coming congressional period could therefore become a test of American institutional accountability.

Whether it produces substantive findings, legislative reforms, prolonged litigation or partisan confrontation remains uncertain.

But the number and diversity of the proposed investigations already indicate that the struggle over presidential accountability is entering a more complicated phase.

The investigative plots in Washington DC are not merely about Donald Trump. 

They concern the boundaries of presidential authority, the relationship between private wealth and public power, and the capacity of American institutions to scrutinise the executive branch.

Those questions will remain consequential long after the midterm election results themselves have faded from the headlines. 

* Phar Kim Beng, PhD is the Professor of Asean Studies at International Islamic University of Malaysia and Director of Institute of International and Asean Studies (IINTAS).

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.