Slotkin's Pledge to 'Go After' Trump Staffers Describes Unconstitutional Congressional Investigations
Source: Abhi Kambli. "Why Slotkin's Threats To Trump Staffers Are Likely Unconstitutional." October 27, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that Congress can only investigate to help it write laws, not to punish people or expose them for its own sake. Slotkin said Democrats should 'go after' Trump staffers and scare off future federal hires, which sounds like punishment rather than lawmaking. The author concludes that this is likely unconstitutional and gives Trump allies ammunition to fight future subpoenas.
Conclusion
Sen. Slotkin's statements about using congressional investigations to 'go after' Trump administration staffers and deter people from federal service describe a use of congressional power that is likely unconstitutional, and they weaken Congress's ability to defend its oversight powers before the Supreme Court.
Premises
- Congress's investigative and subpoena power is not enumerated in the Constitution. It is an implied power that exists only to gather information needed to legislate, and it requires a valid legislative purpose.
- Courts have held that Congress may not investigate to expose for the sake of exposure, to punish those investigated, to enforce the law, or to try individuals for wrongdoing.
- Under Trump v. Mazars, subpoenas aimed at the executive branch receive heightened separation-of-powers scrutiny, because Congress could otherwise exert an imperious control over the executive and aggrandize itself at the president's expense.
- Slotkin said Democrats should seek 'accountability' for corruption, which is law enforcement and accountability work reserved to the executive and judicial branches.
- Slotkin said Democrats should 'go after' people around Trump to send a 'deterrence message' to prospective federal employees, which amounts to punitive exposure for exposure's sake.
- Investigations meant to deter people from working for an administration would give Congress power to hold the executive hostage and chill its operations, which shows disregard for the separation of powers.
- Because defendants resisting subpoenas can cite these statements as evidence of an illegitimate purpose, they make it harder for Congress to defend its oversight authority.
Assumptions
- A senator's offhand podcast remarks are admissible or persuasive evidence of the purpose behind later committee investigations or subpoenas.
- Courts will extend the heightened Mazars scrutiny, which concerned the president's personal information, to investigations of staffers and contractors.
- Slotkin's words describe a plan for investigations whose purpose is punitive or deterrent, rather than loose political rhetoric that could coexist with legitimate oversight.
- Oversight aimed at corruption can be separated from impermissible law enforcement or accountability aims.
- Congressional purpose is judged by the stated motives of individual members, not just by the formal legislative rationale a committee offers.
- The deterrent effect on prospective federal employees would be a real and significant harm to executive operations.