Democrats Are Divided Over How Hard To Go After Companies That Courted Trump

Democrats are eager to probe President Donald Trump’s business ties if they retake Congress, but those plans are already exposing an intraparty fault line over how hard to go after companies that courted the White House over the past two years.

California Reps. Robert Garcia, who could lead the House Oversight Committee, and Maxine Waters, who is poised to retake the House Financial Services gavel, would have broad subpoena powers over companies with ties to Trump and his family. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a potential Senate Banking chair, has already pressed major corporations over their contributions to Trump-linked causes.

But some Democrats are cautioning that the party shouldn’t use investigative authority too broadly against corporate America to avoid steering into retribution. The divide is setting up tension over how Democrats should treat some of the largest and most powerful American companies, from technology giants like Meta and Amazon to cryptocurrency leaders like Coinbase and Ripple, if they return to power next year.

“We don’t want to turn into a banana republic where you lose an election and it’s all about retribution,” said Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee. “A lot of the companies did things because Trump had a gun on their head. We’re going to have to be a little bit wise about when companies simply did something they had to do to survive this unprecedented level of corruption, compared to companies that actually got on board and profited more by being a partner in his corruption.”

The split previews a debate Democrats will face if they reclaim power in January: how far to go in scrutinizing corporations, law firms and universities that took steps to stay in Trump’s good graces. The party is united by the idea of aggressive oversight of the administration, which will help shape Democrats’ messaging in the run-up to the 2028 election, but at odds over how far to go beyond that. The Trump administration has consistently denied any allegations of corruption.

“We should get to the bottom of the corrupt relationship that exists between corporations in this country and the Trump administration,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). He pointed to questions he posed at a recent Senate hearing taking aim at a donation that a leading tobacco company, Reynolds American, made to Trump’s super PAC just before the administration unveiled new e-cigarette rules. Reynolds did not respond to a request for comment.

Technology companies that have taken various steps to remain on Trump’s good side could become a prime target for some Democrats. Leading tech firms including Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta and Microsoft have all donated to Trump’s effort to build a White House ballroom — contributions that some Democrats have already started to examine while in the minority.

“If you funded the ballroom — any of those names, I think, are on the table,” said a former House Democratic aide who now works as a lobbyist and was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Warren and other Democrats have sent oversight letters to some of the ballroom donors, signaling an interest in probing the contributions. The Massachusetts Democrat warned in letters to some of the firms that donated money, signed by 10 other lawmakers, of a potential “for a quid-pro-quo exchange of a contribution to the ballroom for regulatory or other favors from the federal government.”

Warren released letters from companies that responded to her inquiry on why they provided funding for the project, with most highlighting long-standing commitments to philanthropy and supporting public projects.

Google and Microsoft declined to comment. Apple, Meta and Amazon did not respond to requests for comment.

Asked about potential corporate oversight, Warren said, “The corruption is everywhere, and it infects all parts of our government.”

“We can't know how bad it is until we get an independent investigation,” she said.

But others are hoping for a more targeted approach.

“I don’t look at the federal government to ever be used as a weapon,” said Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a moderate Democrat and former Nevada attorney general who serves with Warren on Senate Banking.

“Our focus should be solving problems that we’re seeing happening,” she said, pointing to cost-of-living issues around health care, housing and energy. “That’s where our focus should be — not weaponizing the federal government.”

Sen. Dick Durbin, a retiring Illinois Democrat who serves as the party’s leader on the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview that if companies have not violated the law, “then I wouldn’t give them any special attention.”

“If there’s a question of whether they violated the law — serious matter,” he said.

Asked about the ballroom contributions, Durbin said, “I don’t think that’s a crime. The courts may see it differently, but until someone proves to me otherwise, I don’t think that’s anything that should be investigated.”

In financial services, the real “low-hanging fruit” of a Democratic oversight agenda will likely be in the cryptocurrency industry, said the former Democratic aide.

Major cryptocurrency players, including Coinbase, Ripple, Tether and Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, also chipped in for the ballroom. Beyond that, Democrats have accused Trump of using regulatory actions to benefit his family’s crypto businesses, notably a Trump-backed venture called World Liberty Financial that has been striking deals around the world. The Trump administration has said there are no conflicts of interest related to his crypto businesses; former White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt previously told POLITICO that Trump and his family “have ever engaged, or will ever engage, in conflicts of interest.”

A spokesperson for Tether said in a statement that “Tether welcomes oversight and works constructively with policymakers and law enforcement across the political spectrum. Our approach doesn't change with the makeup of Congress.”

Spokespeople for Ripple and Gemini — the Winklevoss’ cryptocurrency exchange — did not respond to requests for comment. Coinbase and World Liberty Financial did not respond in time for publication.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that “Democrats have spent a decade recycling investigations and accusations against President Trump, his family and his administration.”

“The President remains focused on delivering results for the American people, not partisan political theater,” Kelly said.

The financial services sector is bracing for “investigations into any financial contributions to the various Trump entities,” said a lobbyist for the industry who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation.

Wall Street giants are optimistic that a focus on crypto and other Trump family targets will help spare them from the most searing oversight. Still, Democrats have also signaled a continued interest in probing Jeffrey Epstein’s networks and the late convicted sex offender's associates — a push that has ensnared big banks in the past.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, who is in line to become House Judiciary chair in a Democratic majority, pressed JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America and Bank of New York Mellon last year over their handling of Epstein-related payments. A federal judge earlier this year dismissed claims filed against Bank of New York Mellon related to Epstein.

Senate Finance ranking member Ron Wyden has also taken aim at JPMorgan over its management of Epstein’s accounts. Deutsche Bank ended up in Democrats’ crosshairs after the party won control of the House in the first Trump administration when they probed the bank’s relationship with the president and issued subpoenas that sparked a legal battle with the Trump family that went to the Supreme Court.

All four banks have previously denied allegations of wrongdoing tied to Epstein. JPMorgan, which has been the subject of the most intense Epstein-related scrutiny, has said it regrets its relationship with him but “did not help him commit his heinous acts.”

Deutsche Bank and Bank of America declined to comment. JPMorgan Chase and Bank of New York Mellon did not respond to requests for comment.

Democrats who are pushing for more restrained corporate oversight aren’t rejecting all scrutiny. Foster, who is in line to chair a House Financial Services subcommittee on financial institutions, said Democrats’ approach to companies “will depend entirely on the nature of the actions that they took in response to pressure from the Trump administration.”

“If they engaged in corrupt activities in response to corrupt pressure from the Trump family, that’s one class of concerns,” the Illinois Democrat said. “If they simply had their arms twisted into making a contribution to one of President Trump’s vanity projects, that’s annoying but a lower level of concern.”

Progressives, for their part, say a restrained approach would sit uneasily with the party’s base after Democrats have made fighting Trump’s alleged corruption a central campaign message.

“It would be political suicide for Democrats to campaign on fighting corruption and then turn around and go easy on the very companies that are facilitating it,” said Ella Fanger, corporate power policy adviser at the liberal nonprofit group Demand Progress.

Progressive lawmakers say the focus of oversight should remain on the administration. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat who is a potential 2028 presidential contender, said the party’s “priority should be Trump administration corruption.” But he’s not taking corporate America off the table, either.

“I’ve repeatedly criticized firms that have essentially submitted to political blackmail when they didn’t have to,” he said. “They could’ve resisted. Some law firms resisted, some caved. And those that caved should be called out because when they cave, they just feed a Trump beast.”

James Bair, who leads the congressional investigations practice at Crowell & Moring, said Democrats have a perception that the private sector, particularly the tech industry, has either “pivoted very hard” toward Trump or “blown off” attempts at Democratic oversight while the party was in the minority.

“Whether those are fair characterizations or not is kind of irrelevant because that's the perception,” he said. “I do think that you will see that those perceptions will be informing what a potential set of Democratic oversight requests ends up looking like.”

Jacob Wendler contributed to this report.