
Democrats wrestle with how to conduct oversight as Trump officials crack down
WASHINGTON (AP) — Just hours after she pleaded not guilty to federal charges brought by the Trump administration, New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver was surrounded by dozens of supportive Democratic colleagues in the halls of the Capitol. The case, they argued, strikes at the heart of congressional power.
'If they can break LaMonica, they can break the House of Representatives,' said New York Rep. Yvette Clarke, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Federal prosecutors allege that McIver interfered with law enforcement during a visit with two other House Democrats to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Newark, New Jersey. She calls the charges 'baseless.'
It's far from the only clash between congressional Democrats and the Republican administration as officials ramp up deportations of immigrants around the country.
Sen. Alex Padilla of California was forcibly removed by federal agents while attempting to speak at a news conference for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. At least six groups of House Democrats have recently been denied entry to ICE detention centers. In early June, federal agents entered the district office of Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and briefly detained a staffer.
Congressional Republicans have largely dismissed Democrats' behavior as inflammatory and inappropriate, and some have publicly supported the prosecution of McIver.
Often in the dark about the Trump administration's moves, congressional Democrats are wrestling with how to perform their oversight duties at a time of roiling tensions with the White House and new restrictions on lawmakers visiting federal facilities.
'We have the authority to conduct oversight business, and clearly, House Republicans are not doing that oversight here,' said New Jersey Rep. Rob Menendez, one of the House Democrats who went with McIver to the Newark ICE facility.
'It's our obligation to continue to do it on site at these detention facilities. And even if they don't want us to, we are going to continue to exert our right.'
Democrats confront a stark new reality
The prospect of facing charges for once routine oversight activity has alarmed many congressional Democrats who never expected to face criminal prosecution as elected officials. Lawmakers in both parties were also unnerved by the recent targeted shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers and the nation's tense political atmosphere.
'It's a moment that calls for personal courage of members of Congress,' said Rep. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania. 'I wish that we had more physical protection. I think that's one of those harsh realities that members of Congress who are not in leadership recognize: that oftentimes, we do this job at our own peril, and we do it anyway.'
The arrests and detentions of lawmakers have led some Democrats to take precautionary measures. Several have consulted with the House general counsel about their right to conduct oversight. Multiple lawmakers also sought personal legal counsel, while others have called for a review of congressional rules to provide greater protections.
'The Capitol Police are the security force for members of Congress. We need them to travel with us, to go to facilities and events that the president may have us arrested for,' said Rep. Jonathan Jackson of Illinois.
'There's not a lot of transparency'
As the minority party in the House, Democrats lack the subpoena power to force the White House to provide information. That's a problem, they say, because the Trump administration is unusually secretive about its actions.
'There's not a lot of transparency. From day to day, oftentimes, we're learning about what's happening at the same time as the rest of the nation,' said Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Ga., who led a prayer for McIver at the Capitol rally.
Democrats, to amplify their concerns, have turned to public letters, confronted officials at congressional hearings and digital and media outreach to try to create public pressure.
'We've been very successful when they come in before committees,' said Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois, who added that she believed the public inquiries have 'one hundred percent' resonated with voters.
Tapping into the information pipeline
Congressional Democrats say they often rely on local lawmakers, business leaders and advocates to be their eyes and ears on the ground.
A handful of Democrats say their best sources of information are across the political aisle, since Republicans typically have clearer lines of communication with the White House.
'I know who to call in Houston with the chamber. I think all of us do that,' said Texas Rep. Sylvia Garcia of how business leaders are keeping her updated.
Garcia said Democrats 'need to put more pressure' on leading figures in the agriculture, restaurant and hospitality sectors to take their concerns about the immigrant crackdown to Trump's White House.
'They're the ones he'll listen to. They're the ones who can add the pressure. He's not going to listen to me, a Democrat who was an impeachment manager, who is on the bottom of his list, if I'm on it at all,' Garcia said.
Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, for instance, had a working relationship with a for-profit ICE facility in his district until DHS in February ended reports as part of an agency-wide policy change. A member of Crow's staff now regularly goes to the facility and waits, at times for hours, until staff at the Aurora facility respond to detailed questions posed by the office.
Democrats say 'real oversight' requires winning elections
Still, many House Democrats concede that they can conduct little of their desired oversight until they are back in the majority.
Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, said that 'real oversight power and muscle" only comes 'when you have a gavel."
'Nothing else matters. No rousing oratory, no tours, no speeches, no social media or entertainment, none of that stuff," Veasey said. "Because the thing that keeps Trump up at night more than anything else is the idea he's going to lose this House and there'll be real oversight pressure applied to him.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Congress Won't Act on the Iran Strikes. That Doesn't Make Them Legal.
President Donald Trump has insisted that the sites in Iran targeted by American airstrikes last week have been 'obliterated,' decimating its nuclear program—a claim that has been backed up by key administration officials despite an initial intelligence report finding that the damage was more moderate. But alongside the question of whether significant damage has been done to Iran's nuclear ambitions, there is another thorny issue that lawmakers must now address: the legality of Trump's decision to authorize the strikes in the first place. 'It's not just a matter of statutory interpretation, it's a matter of [the] Constitution requiring that Congress be the one to play a critical role in making a decision and using force,' said Oona Hathaway, professor of international law at Yale Law School. 'For the president to make that decision unilaterally, without going to the Security Council, without going to Congress, and putting U.S. troops and allies at risk is really extraordinary and clearly unlawful.' The president's power to use military force is constrained by the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations Charter, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. According to Article 1 of the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war, although it has not done so since World War II. The War Powers Resolution was enacted in response to the Vietnam War as an attempt to counter presidents' approval of military action without the consent of Congress. It was pushed through over President Richard Nixon's veto. The law requires that a president consult with Congress before engaging military forces, and report within 48 hours why the action was taken, under what authority, and 'the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.' It also says a president must terminate the use of military force within 60 days if he has not sought approval from Congress. Despite its intention to ensure a conflict such as the Vietnam War never occurred without congressional consent again, the War Powers Resolution has often been ignored by the White House. For decades, presidents have pushed the limits of their power to engage in conflicts, while Congress has continued to take the back seat in enforcing its constitutional authority to declare war. Several presidents have taken military action without following the letter of the War Powers Resolution, including President Bill Clinton ordering airstrikes in Kosovo and President Barack Obama authorizing intervention in Libya. But Michael Glennon, professor of constitutional and international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, argued Trump's actions were unique in that 'the risks entailed in this particular action are orders of magnitude greater than any of the supposed recent precedents.' He cited the threat of retaliation to the tens of thousands of U.S. troops posted around the Middle East, as well as 'stoking long-term regional animosities' and 'degrading the American reputation in diplomatic dealings with other countries.' 'In none of these recent cases was the context the same—the context being the exposure of the United States to a level of risk and cost that has not occurred before,' Glennon said. Trump's actions do follow a pattern of presidential engagement in conflict being followed by congressional dithering. Over several decades, presidents have learned that there will be little consequence for ignoring the War Powers Resolution. Hathaway said that cases challenging a president's actions do not typically go to court due to lack of legal standing. 'I don't think that that should lead us to think that there is no relevant law here, that this is a law-free zone where the president can do whatever he wants because he knows no one can actually enforce the rules,' said Hathaway. 'If the fact that there may not be consequences means that there's no law, then we've really got a problem on our hands.' Any pushback to unilateral presidential action may come from public disapproval of extended conflict rather than direct congressional action. A new Quinnipiac poll shows that the public is largely reacting to Trump's strikes in Iran with disapproval, although Republicans remain on board with the president's actions. 'Ultimately, Congress has not, in a significant way, constrained presidents from acting in these cases,' said Jordan Tama, professor in the Department of Foreign Policy and Global Security at American University's School of International Service. 'The members of Congress who have been most concerned about violations of the War Powers Resolution, or presidential actions that are not authorized by Congress … have not been able to muster the majority you need in Congress to pass new binding legislation that explicitly prohibits the president from pursuing military action.' Trump's actions in Iran have been met with some pushback from lawmakers, particularly after a scheduled briefing by administration officials for lawmakers was postponed this week. Axios further reported that the White House is limiting the sharing of classified information with Congress. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine is leading a resolution that would require Trump to seek congressional approval before engaging in further military hostilities in Iran, with an added amendment intended to alleviate concerns that it might hamper American support for Israel's activities in the region. Although the Senate is set to vote on the measure on Friday evening, it's unclear whether it would garner any Republican support in the upper chamber. Moreover, GOP Representative Thomas Massie, the Republican co-sponsor of a parallel measure in the House, said that a vote on his bipartisan resolution might be made moot if the ceasefire between Iran and Israel holds. Even if either of these measures makes it to the floor, however, it's unclear how much bipartisan support they would receive. Indeed, there is little political will to repudiate the president, and even if there was, lawmakers would need to marshal a veto-proof majority to take concrete action. Overturning a presidential veto would require support from two-thirds of members, which is unlikely in a Republican-majority Congress. In 2019, Congress approved a measure that would have pulled American support for Saudi Arabia's conflict in Yemen, but that resolution was vetoed by Trump. This puts Congress in a 'terrible fix,' said Hathaway: Rather than the president going to Congress to authorize military action, Congress must take the initiative to repudiate it. 'We end up with this learned helplessness in the sense that Congress chooses to stop trying, because what's the point?' said Hathaway. 'The president has learned that [he] can use military force without seeking authorities from Congress without consequence.' Aside from a seeming unwillingness to counter smaller-scale military engagements by presidents, Congress has similarly struggled to repeal or update authorizations for the use of military force in Iraq and Afghanistan approved ahead of the Gulf War and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The 2001 authorization, which applied to perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, has been treated by presidents as an umbrella approval to strike at other organizations affiliated with Al Qaeda. Efforts to overturn or narrow these authorizations have floundered in recent years, even decades after they were approved. Countering the president invites risk for members of Congress. For Republicans, resistance to the president's aims will only court Trump's retaliation. More generally, however, lawmakers take the view that authorizing the commencement of military engagements—or ordering them to cease—comes with unintended political consequences. Voting in favor of the 2003 authorization of military force in Iraq became a major political albatross for Democratic primary candidates in the 2008 presidential election. That said, repealing such an authorization invites blowback, as well, if, for example, the move to do away with such a law was followed by a terrorist attack on American soil, or U.S. interests getting threatened abroad. The status quo has a latent appeal to lawmakers, who get to offset the political risk of military intervention while maintaining the ability to criticize it—or take credit. 'Casting a dangerous vote on an issue of war and peace is a perilous political act, and they would prefer to avoid that, because they would prefer their careers be extended and not hindered,' said Glennon.

Washington Post
33 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court will hear challenge to limits on political party spending
The Supreme Court will hear a significant campaign finance case next term that will examine whether it violates the Constitution to restrict the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with individual candidates. The national Republican senatorial and congressional committees, then-Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) and then-Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) filed suit over the limits in 2022, saying they conflict with the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.


Newsweek
35 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Spotted Wearing Glasses
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump was spotted wearing reading glasses in his motorcade over the weekend, a rare sighting of the president who reportedly avoids using them in public. A photographer based in Northern Virginia captured the images and shared them on X, formerly Twitter. According to the photographer, the photos show Trump departing Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, on Sunday, a day after a round of golf. Why It Matters Trump, 79, who was the oldest president ever elected to a second term, has long been known to be very careful and savvy with his public image. While it isn't uncommon for somebody his age to require glasses, there are few publicly available photos of Trump wearing glasses during his presidency. Sunday's images appear to mark the first such instance during his second term. What To Know President Donald Trump was spotted wearing reading glasses on June 29, 2025, as he departed Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia. President Donald Trump was spotted wearing reading glasses on June 29, 2025, as he departed Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia. Supplied/NorthernVirginiaPoliceCars "President Donald J. Trump departs Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia following a round of golf with CIA Director John Radcliffe and Senators Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, and Eric Schmitt," professional police, fire, & EMS photographer, Northern Virginia Police Cars, posted on X on Sunday. "POTUS is seen reading the paper in the back of his newer low-profile Suburban." USA Today reported that Trump had played golf with the senators and Radcliffe before a Senate vote to debate the "Big Beautiful Bill." The images show the president wearing his reading glasses, a white shirt, and a cream-colored "Make America Great Again" cap while seated in the back of the Chevrolet Suburban presidential limousine. While it's unclear what he is reading from the photos, the president, according to a New York Times report in November 2019, has refrained from using reading glasses in front of others and rarely writes tweets himself in public. Instead, then White House social media director Dan Scavino would draft and send tweets on Trump's behalf, often enlarging printed drafts to extra-large fonts for the president to review and approve. One single-page article reportedly expanded to six pages once the font was enlarged to suit Trump's preferences. Sunday's sighting marks what appears to be the first time in years—and the first during Trump's second term—that he has been publicly photographed wearing reading glasses. He was also pictured in October 2017 wearing glasses while on his way back from the Trump National Golf Course. Before that, in January 2016, he wore glasses while campaigning in Cedar Falls, Iowa, as he read the lyrics to an song released by Al Wilson called "The Snake." What People Are Saying The images drew attention on social media. Some reactions on X included: "Has ANYONE seen him in glasses before?" "One of the few times I ever saw him with glasses on in public was his first 'The Snake' speech in Jan. 2016. I thought they looked good on him but he probably sees them as a sign of weakness." "GLASSES?!? I've often wondered if he wore one." "Rare glasses form." What Happens Next According to Trump's public schedule, he's due to sign executive orders in the Oval Office Monday afternoon.