ISSUE BRIEF: The Historical and Legal Basis for the Exercise of Congressional Oversight Authority

With the recent change in leadership of the House of Representatives following the 2018 midterm elections, there has been considerable discussion about what role the 116th Congress will play in holding the Trump Administration and others accountable to the text and values of the U.S. Constitution, as well as to federal law more generally.

Summary

The House of Representatives could, if it chooses, play a significant role—investigating a range of critical matters such as the misuse of funds by cabinet officials, connections between President Trump’s campaign and Russia, whether the President or other officials are improperly benefitting financially from their offices, and whether the Executive Branch is properly enforcing environmental and other public health and safety laws.

Congress’s power to investigate has deep roots in our political tradition, and the ability of Congress to investigate is embedded in our national charter, which gives Congress the power to legislate. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[a] legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information—which not infrequently is true—recourse must be had to others who do possess it.” Given its function, the congressional power to investigate is quite broad, “indeed co-extensive with the power to legislate.” Moreover, should the Executive Branch refuse to comply with congressional requests for information, Congress has tools available to enforce its oversight authority, including bringing a civil action in court against recalcitrant Executive Branch officials.

The House of Representatives of the 116th Congress can do what the previous House declined to do: engage in robust and vigorous oversight of the Executive Branch. Doing so will ensure that Congress and the American people have a more complete picture of what this Administration is doing, the extent to which it is (or is not) faithfully complying with the U.S. Constitution and federal law, and the ways in which Congress could legislate to correct any wrongdoing and to better serve the American people.

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

Supreme Court not fully sold on foreclosure fairness bid

Courthouse News Service
A showdown over tax foreclosures had the justices considering the striking set of facts that...
Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Oral Argument Focuses on Takings Clause, While Largely Ignoring the Problematic Excessive-Fines-Clause Analysis Applied by the Court Below

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pung v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
February 24, 2026

50+ Organizations Condemn Federal Authorities for Blocking Minnesota’s Independent Investigation into CBP Killing of Alex Pretti

WASHINGTON, DC — Today marks one month since the killing of Alex Pretti on January...
Rule of Law
February 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rejects President Trump’s Claim of Unilateral Tariff Authority

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

In Climate United Fund v. Citibank, the en banc United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress.
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Oregon v. Landis

In Oregon v. Landis, the Ninth Circuit is considering when states may prosecute federal officers for state crimes.