{"schema_version":1,"citation_url":"https://567politics.com/news/kushner-witkoff-democratic-congress-subpoenas-oversight-raskin-garcia-november-2026","title":"Democrats gain subpoena power in January: what they have sought from Kushner and Witkoff so far","description":"Incoming chairs plan to compel records from Kushner and Witkoff. The attorney general says Democrats could face scrutiny, and a new privilege opinion may limit them.","author":"567 Politics staff","publisher":"567politics","date_published":"2026-11-09T05:22:26.808662Z","date_modified":"2026-11-09T05:22:49.535096Z","body_markdown":"![Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff at the Kremlin](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Kushner_and_Witkoff_at_the_Kremlin.jpg)\n\nFor most of 2025 and 2026, House Democrats sent letters to Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff that went unanswered. When they tried to force the two envoys to testify, Republicans voted them down. That changes in January. After the Nov. 3 midterms, Democrats will hold majorities in the House and the Senate, and with them the power to issue subpoenas.\n\nIncoming committee chairs have said Kushner, Witkoff's family business and the Trump family's crypto ventures are on their list. The administration has signaled it will push back, and the Justice Department has already laid legal groundwork to limit what Congress can get. Some newly elected Democrats, meanwhile, say they would rather focus on prices.\n\nThis article explains what Democrats have asked for, what they have said they will do, how the White House and the two men have responded, and the legal limits both sides are preparing to test. For the underlying business questions, see our articles on [Witkoff's ethics filings](/news/steve-witkoff-financial-disclosures-world-liberty-107-million-divestment-november-2026), [World Liberty Financial's UAE investors and bank charter](/news/world-liberty-financial-uae-tahnoon-stake-bank-charter-witkoff-sons-november-2026) and [the record of Kushner's past controversies](/news/jared-kushner-controversies-a-record-november-2026).\n\n## What changes in January\n\nWith control of committee gavels, Democrats will be able to call hearings, take depositions and issue subpoenas for testimony and documents, [MS NOW reported](https://www.ms.now/news/lawyer-up-new-democratic-majority-trump-investigations). In the minority, they could only ask.\n\nTwo members are expected to lead much of the work:\n\n- Rep. [Jamie Raskin](/politicians/jamie-raskin), D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is in line to become its chairman.\n- Rep. [Robert Garcia](/politicians/robert-garcia), D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, is expected to chair that panel.\n\nRaskin told MS NOW that oversight will \"expand next Congress.\" He said: \"We already have a strong team of investigators and experienced counsel engaged in this work, and that capacity will expand significantly in the Majority.\"\n\nOn election night, Garcia posted a two-word message for people in Trump's orbit: \"Lawyer up.\" A source familiar with House Democrats' plans told MS NOW to expect a \"flurry\" of letters in the coming weeks, including to private individuals and companies.\n\nHouse Democratic Leader [Hakeem Jeffries](/politicians/hakeem-jeffries) had told MS NOW before the election that a Democratic majority would \"hold the crooks accountable.\"\n\n## The record of unanswered requests\n\nDemocrats are not starting from scratch. Over the past year, they built a paper trail of requests that the targets did not fulfill.\n\n### Raskin's April letter to Kushner\n\nOn April 16, 2026, Raskin sent Kushner a [six-page letter](https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2026-04-16-raskin-to-kushner-affinity-re-conflict-of-interest.pdf) addressed to him both as \"Special Envoy for Peace\" and as head of his investment firm, Affinity Partners. It called his two roles \"a glaring and incurable conflict of interest.\"\n\nThe letter made several claims:\n\n- Kushner said in 2024 that he would not join a second Trump administration and would \"pre-emptively try to avoid any conflicts,\" then became a peace envoy.\n- The New York Times reported in March 2026 that he had sought more money from the Saudi crown prince and other Middle Eastern governments while serving as envoy.\n- Citing Bloomberg, Affinity's assets had grown to about $6.16 billion, and about 99% came from foreign investors.\n- Saudi Arabia's crown prince, Affinity's largest investor, had pushed for the Iran war to continue, which the letter argued created financial pressure on Kushner in ceasefire talks.\n- During a 2022–2024 inquiry, Affinity, represented by Kushner's business partner Chad Mizelle, \"turned over virtually none of the documents requested.\"\n\nThe letter asked for 15 categories of records by April 30, 2026. They included Kushner's communications with Saudi, Emirati, Qatari and Israeli officials since 2022, a list of every Affinity investor and the amount each put in, and his communications about investments in Gaza, Ukraine and Iran.\n\nAffinity's chief legal officer told MS NOW in April that Kushner had complied \"with all applicable laws and requirements and has always operated in the best interests of the United States.\" Raskin has said his inquiries went unanswered.\n\n### Raskin's October letter\n\nOn Oct. 30, Raskin sent a second letter, on his own, after Vanity Fair published an excerpt from a forthcoming book by journalist Matthew Cole. According to [MS NOW](https://www.ms.now/news/raskin-kushner-alleged-foreign-money-ties), Raskin wrote that Kushner was \"currently unfit to serve in any capacity in the United States government\" and demanded that he recuse himself \"from negotiating or representing the United States in any capacity\" until he produced financial records about payments from foreign governments.\n\nRaskin also wrote that at least five foreign governments \"appear to have damning kompromat\" on Kushner. Those are his allegations, drawn from a book that MS NOW said it had not independently verified.\n\n### The Vanity Fair allegations and Kushner's denial\n\nThe excerpt from Cole's book, \"Princes and Thieves,\" alleges that Saudi and Emirati leaders placed at least $2 billion in accounts Kushner could access during Trump's first term. It also alleges that Dutch intelligence saw his screen after Russia hacked his phone in 2017, and that the Saudi crown prince put roughly $1 billion into at least one account for Kushner. [CBS News](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jared-kushner-pushes-back-report-hacked-phone-spies-transfer/) and [TheWrap](https://www.thewrap.com/media-platforms/journalism/jared-kushner-lawyer-demands-vanity-fair-book-excerpt-removed/) both said they had not independently verified the claims.\n\nKushner denied all of it. He wrote that the allegations \"never happened\" and called them \"outrageous fabrications being presented as investigative journalism.\" \"No bank statements, wire transfer records, account numbers, transaction dates, or other verifiable details were provided to support these extraordinary accusations.\" He said he had given more than 30 hours of testimony to past investigations and that \"none of these allegations ever surfaced, because none of these events ever happened.\"\n\nHis lawyer, Mizelle, demanded that Vanity Fair remove the excerpt and preserve its records, and said Kushner intends to pursue legal action. White House communications director Steven Cheung called the book \"complete fiction\" and said the author \"presents no evidence or even a shred of documentation.\"\n\nWhen MS NOW asked about Raskin's October letter, the White House and Kushner's representatives pointed to those earlier statements.\n\n### Requests about Witkoff\n\nWitkoff has drawn separate requests. In January 2026, Reps. Gabe Amo and [Gregory Meeks](/politicians/gregory-meeks) asked the State and Commerce inspectors general to investigate whether Witkoff had fully divested from World Liberty Financial and how his family's Gulf deals related to his official work. In February, Rep. [Ro Khanna](/politicians/ro-khanna) wrote to Witkoff's son Zach, World Liberty's co-founder, seeking the documents behind a $500 million investment from a UAE royal's investment group. No public findings or replies to either request were found.\n\nThe White House has said Witkoff \"has not and does not participate in any official matters that could impact his financial interests\" and has divested from World Liberty.\n\n## The subpoena vote that failed\n\nThe closest Democrats came to compelling testimony was on March 25, 2026. At a House Foreign Affairs Committee markup, Meeks, the panel's top Democrat, moved to subpoena Secretary of State [Marco Rubio](/politicians/marco-rubio), Witkoff and Kushner to testify publicly about the Iran war before the end of April.\n\n\"The American people deserve transparency and accountability on a conflict of this magnitude, and this committee has the responsibility to provide it,\" Meeks said, according to [Anadolu Agency](https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-house-democrat-moves-to-subpoena-rubio-witkoff-kushner-for-iran-war-hearing/3879295).\n\nThe motion was about the war, not about business conflicts. It failed 22 to 24 on a party-line vote, according to the [committee's roll call](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA00/20260325/119086/CRPT-119-FA00-Vote002-20260325.pdf).\n\n```chart\ntype: column\ntitle: House Foreign Affairs Committee vote on subpoenaing Rubio, Witkoff and Kushner, March 25, 2026\nsource: [House Foreign Affairs Committee roll call](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA00/20260325/119086/CRPT-119-FA00-Vote002-20260325.pdf)\nnote: Members by party. Republicans not voting: Burchett, Kean, Mills and Miller. Democrat not voting: Lieu.\n---\nParty | Yes | No | Did not vote\nRepublicans | 0 | 24 | 4\nDemocrats | 22 | 0 | 1\n```\n\nIn the new Congress, Democrats will hold the majority on committees like this one, so a motion like Meeks's would be expected to pass.\n\n## How the administration is responding\n\n### The attorney general\n\nOn Nov. 8, Attorney General Todd Blanche said on CNN's \"State of the Union\" that the Justice Department could investigate Democrats over their oversight plans. Asked whether there might be such investigations, he said \"there could be,\" [the Washington Sun reported](https://www.washingtonsun.com/whitehouse/blanche-trump-investigate-democrats-congress-oversight?redirected=notus_org).\n\n\"You honestly think that all they're doing is talking about their oversight obligations when they're talking about going after basically every member of the Cabinet?\" Blanche said. \"They're talking about impeachments. They're talking about going after companies, private companies who happen to have made investments in this country over the past couple of years.\"\n\nTrump wrote on Truth Social that the Justice Department should \"look into this criminal act,\" referring to Democrats \"going around threatening a lot of people\" with \"Impeachment and many other forms of punishment.\"\n\nBlanche also said the department would represent officials called before Congress, as it does in every administration.\n\n### Garcia's reply\n\nGarcia appeared on CNN right after Blanche. \"They're so thin skinned,\" he said. \"It's like guys, relax. We have a job to do, and we're going to do it aggressively.\" He noted that Blanche was once Trump's personal lawyer.\n\nGarcia called the president's relatives \"the most corrupt family to ever be in the Oval Office, in the White House.\" He said people such as Donald Trump Jr. and Kushner should be \"expected to answer questions\" because the public is \"tired and sick of the grift of the Trump family.\" Those are Garcia's words, and no committee has made such findings.\n\n## The legal fight ahead: privilege for private advisers\n\nKushner and Witkoff present an unusual problem for investigators. Kushner has served as an envoy without a regular government salary, and both men's family businesses are private companies. Subpoenas to private parties are one way Democrats planned to get around White House resistance.\n\nOn Aug. 10, 2026, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion that could complicate that strategy. It concluded that [executive privilege can cover the president's communications with private advisers](https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1457271/dl) outside the government.\n\nUnder the opinion, privilege applies when communications \"(1) relate to official presidential decisionmaking, (2) involve or reflect communications with the President or his direct advisers, and (3) are confidential.\" Congress can overcome the privilege only by showing that the material is \"demonstrably critical\" to its work.\n\nReaction split along familiar lines, [Axios reported](https://www.axios.com/2026/08/11/trump-doj-executive-privilege-democratic-probes):\n\n- A Justice Department official said the opinion \"reaffirms the longstanding position of the office going back at least as far as Paul Clement in 2007 and arguably as far back as 1972.\"\n- Sen. [Adam Schiff](/politicians/adam-schiff), D-Calif., called it a \"partisan measure to insulate the president and his corrupt activities from Congressional subpoenas.\"\n- Jonathan Shaub, a University of Kentucky law professor and former OLC lawyer, said it \"really could be a pretty significant weapon\" to deflect inquiries into private parties. He also said he doubted courts would accept the theory.\n\nShaub noted a limit. The privilege covers presidential duties. A probe of something like the Trump family's crypto business \"may be harder to defend as privileged,\" Axios reported. That distinction could matter for Witkoff's family companies and World Liberty Financial, which are private businesses, as well as for Affinity's investor records.\n\nMS NOW reported that the opinion could also discourage private individuals from voluntarily sharing information with Congress.\n\n## A debate inside the Democratic Party\n\nNot every Democrat wants investigations to lead the agenda. Sen.-elect Adam Hamilton, who flipped a Senate seat in Kansas, said on NBC's \"Meet the Press\" that he would be \"deeply disappointed\" if the new Congress spent two years mainly on investigations.\n\n\"The bigger priority for me, and I think for most people in America, especially people living paycheck to paycheck, is 'please help us with the cost of living,'\" Hamilton said, according to [NBC News](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-adam-hamilton-disappointed-democrats-trump-investigations-schumer-rcna608088). He warned that if Democrats did not focus on helping people, \"this is going to be a one-and-done\" blue wave.\n\nSen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., agreed: \"We cannot spend all of our time investigating Trump.\"\n\nSenate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer struck a different tone. \"Whenever Trump defies the will of the American people or the law, we will launch investigations, take him to court and entangle him in legislative razor wire,\" he told reporters.\n\n## Timeline\n\n```diagram\ntype: timeline\ntitle: Congressional scrutiny of Kushner and Witkoff\n---\n2026-01-08: Reps. Amo and Meeks ask inspectors general to investigate Witkoff\n2026-02-04: Rep. Khanna seeks World Liberty documents from Zach Witkoff\n2026-03-25: House Foreign Affairs Republicans block subpoenas for Rubio, Witkoff and Kushner, 24-22\n2026-04-16: Raskin asks Kushner for 15 categories of records by April 30\n2026-08-10: Justice Department opinion extends executive privilege to private advisers\n2026-10-22: Vanity Fair publishes book excerpt; Kushner denies the claims\n2026-10-30: Raskin demands Kushner recuse himself from negotiations\n2026-11-03: Democrats win House and Senate majorities\n2026-11-08: Blanche says Democrats \"could\" face investigations; Garcia calls them \"thin skinned\"\n```\n\n## Where the main questions stand\n\nAs of Nov. 9, 2026:\n\n- **No subpoena has been issued** to Kushner, Witkoff or their companies. Democrats gain that power when the new Congress convenes in January.\n- **No finding of wrongdoing** has been made against either man by Congress, an inspector general or a court on the matters described here. Both deny wrongdoing.\n- **The Vanity Fair allegations** remain unverified by the outlets that reported on them, and Kushner's lawyer has threatened legal action.\n- **The privilege opinion** has not been tested in court.\n- **The Justice Department** has not announced any investigation of Democratic lawmakers. Blanche said only that one \"could\" happen.\n\nThe next stage will turn on how much Democrats choose to prioritize these probes, whether Kushner, Witkoff and their companies comply with subpoenas, and how courts treat claims of privilege for advisers who sit outside the formal government payroll.","link_base":"https://567politics.com/news/kushner-witkoff-democratic-congress-subpoenas-oversight-raskin-garcia-november-2026","citation_guidance":"Cite citation_url. Preserve source links, dates and qualifications. date_modified is an edit date, not proof that every claim was rechecked. Third-party images and quoted material retain their own rights."}