Democratic lawmakers are preparing legislation and oversight plans targeting President Donald Trump’s executive powers, immigration policies, federal workforce changes and health care agenda if they regain control of Congress in November, though any major rollback would still face a presidential veto.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
WASHINGTON — Democrats are developing a broad legislative and oversight agenda aimed at reversing or restricting major parts of President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda if they regain control of Congress in the November midterm elections.
The emerging plans cover presidential emergency powers, tariffs, the Justice Department, civil service protections, government ethics, immigration enforcement and health care, according to The Washington Post.
But even if Democrats win both the House and Senate, their ability to dismantle Trump’s policies would be limited by the president himself.
Most legislation would still have to pass both chambers and be signed by Trump or receive enough votes to override a veto — two-thirds of both the House and Senate.
Trump has already made clear that he intends to use that power.
During a Sept. 10 interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, Trump said he would become a legislative “blocker” if Democrats captured Congress.
“I’ll end up being a blocker,” Trump said. “I’ll block all their bad stuff for two years. It won’t be the same, but I’ll be a blocker.”
Trump nevertheless left open the possibility of negotiations.
“And probably be able to make deals with them,” he said. “You know, they’re going to want some stuff, and we’ll get, you make deals.”
The remarks, also documented in a transcript of the interview, underscore the divide that would define Washington if voters deliver Democrats control of Congress while Trump remains in the White House for the final two years of his term.
Democrats are planning for that possibility anyway.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told the Post that a change in congressional control would require what he called a “massive reconstruction task.”
Raskin has been among the lawmakers drafting proposals intended to reduce presidential authority in areas where Democrats argue Trump has expanded executive power.
Those descriptions reflect the Democrats’ political and legal assessment of Trump’s presidency. Republicans argue that Trump has exercised authority granted to the executive branch and that many Democratic proposals would improperly weaken presidential power.
One major target is emergency authority.
Trump has relied on emergency declarations in areas including immigration, trade and tariffs.
Democratic Reps. Suzan DelBene of Washington and Don Beyer of Virginia have backed legislation that would require Congress to approve certain tariffs imposed through national-emergency powers rather than allowing them to remain in effect indefinitely through presidential action alone.
The proposal reflects broader concern among Democrats about presidents using emergency statutes to make major economic decisions without obtaining new congressional approval.
Other proposals would impose congressional checks on White House operations.
One measure under discussion would require lawmakers to approve major physical changes to the White House complex, following criticism from Democrats over Trump’s renovation projects and planned ballroom.
Raskin has also worked on legislation that would strengthen restrictions on presidents accepting certain payments or benefits from foreign governments.
Another proposal would seek to prohibit executive-branch officials from using government power to retaliate against individuals or organizations because of protected political speech.
Democrats are also examining changes involving the Justice Department.
Lawyers, former prosecutors and Democratic lawmakers are discussing ways to give career Justice Department personnel greater protection from political intervention.
Proposals under consideration include additional safeguards for career prosecutors and restrictions on removing or reassigning officials for political reasons.
Supporters argue those protections would reinforce the department’s traditional independence in individual criminal matters.
Republicans have long disputed the idea that the Justice Department should operate independently from all presidential oversight, noting that the attorney general is appointed by and serves under the president.
The federal workforce represents another major area Democrats are preparing to revisit.
Trump has pursued substantial changes to civil service rules and federal staffing during his second term, including efforts to make it easier to remove certain government employees and restructure agencies.
The Partnership for Public Service and other government-reform organizations have proposed legislation that would reinforce civil service protections and make it more difficult for future presidents to fire career employees without documented cause.
Those proposals could establish new standards for hiring, termination and reclassification of federal workers.
Democrats argue that stronger protections are needed to keep career government employees insulated from partisan pressure.
Trump and his allies have taken the opposite position, arguing that presidents need greater ability to remove employees who obstruct elected administrations or fail to carry out lawful policy directives.
Government ethics rules could also receive attention.
Democratic lawmakers have discussed tighter restrictions on stock trading and other financial activities involving senior administration officials and members of government.
House Democrats are separately preparing a potentially extensive oversight agenda if they regain the chamber.
Lawmakers have identified Trump’s family business interests, federal contracting, immigration enforcement and administration spending as possible subjects for committee investigations.
A Washington Post review of those plans found several Democratic committees preparing to use subpoena and investigative powers if control of the House changes hands.
Some Democrats have also left open the possibility of impeachment-related inquiries, although such investigations would be separate from legislation intended to change Trump administration policies.
Health care could provide one of the clearest legislative dividing lines.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has said Democrats would move to reverse Medicaid provisions contained in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act and restore enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits.
“Certainly, we need to reverse the Medicaid cuts,” Jeffries said during a Sept. 29 interview, according to his official congressional office.
“And at the same period of time, we certainly need to restore the Affordable Care Act tax credits so we can reverse the increases in health insurance premiums that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing,” he said.
The Trump-backed law includes Medicaid work requirements and other eligibility and financing changes scheduled to take effect or expand in 2027.
It also changes access to Affordable Care Act subsidies for some legal immigrants and reduces federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Democrats have made those changes a major part of their midterm argument on health care and affordability.
Party lawmakers are also considering policies extending beyond simply restoring previous programs.
According to reporting on the Democratic health care agenda, proposals under discussion include adding dental, vision and hearing benefits to Medicare, lowering the eligibility age and expanding government-backed insurance options.
Those proposals remain under debate within the party and have not been adopted as a single final legislative package.
Immigration represents another likely area of confrontation.
Democratic lawmakers have signaled plans to review Trump administration detention policies, enforcement operations, federal immigration contracts and the deployment of National Guard personnel in American cities.
They could also use congressional oversight authority to examine spending by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security.
Any attempt to substantially reverse Trump’s immigration policy through legislation would encounter the same obstacle as other Democratic priorities: the president could veto it.
Congressional control could still have significant consequences even without legislation becoming law.
A Democratic House could control committee investigations, issue subpoenas and determine which bills receive floor votes.
Control of the Senate would give Democrats authority over committees and affect consideration of presidential nominees.
Congress also controls appropriations, potentially giving lawmakers leverage over administration spending.
That could produce repeated confrontations over government funding and the extent to which Congress can restrict how the executive branch uses appropriated money.
Democrats have increasingly focused on those issues as Trump has sought to cancel or redirect previously approved federal spending.
The larger effort draws comparisons from some Democratic lawmakers and legal scholars to the reforms Congress enacted after Watergate, when lawmakers imposed new ethics, campaign-finance and government-transparency restrictions.
Whether comparable legislation could become law while Trump remains president is another matter.
Even with majorities in both chambers, Democrats would generally lack the votes necessary to override presidential vetoes unless substantial numbers of Republicans joined them.
Senate rules could create another barrier.
Most legislation remains subject to the filibuster, requiring 60 votes to advance unless lawmakers use the budget reconciliation process or change Senate rules.
Some executive actions could potentially be restricted through appropriations bills, but those measures would also require presidential approval unless Congress had enough votes to override a veto.
The result could be two years of divided government characterized as much by investigations, spending battles and executive-legislative litigation as by enacted legislation.
Trump said in September that he expects to resist Democratic initiatives if that happens.
At the same time, he suggested divided government would not necessarily eliminate the possibility of agreements.
“I’ll block all their bad stuff for two years,” Trump said. “And probably be able to make deals with them.”
For Democrats, November therefore represents more than an opportunity to change control of Capitol Hill.
Party lawmakers are preparing to use congressional authority to challenge parts of Trump’s second-term agenda and establish new limits on presidential power.
For Trump, retaining Republican majorities would preserve a Congress more closely aligned with his administration.
If Democrats take control instead, the final two years of his term could become a struggle over how much of his agenda Congress can constrain — and how much the president can prevent lawmakers from undoing.
Original article
Comments