White House Counsel Will Scharf warned House Democrats this week not to overreach, saying their subpoenas need a legitimate legislative purpose. His letter went to Democrat Rep. Robert Garcia of California (CA-42), who is seeking the House Oversight gavel and had a two-word message for the Trump administration as Democrats won the House: “Lawyer up!”
My colleague Nick Arama covered what came next. Garcia went after White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Scharf, citing a Nov. 7 MS NOW interview, says the congressman also discussed contacts with state attorneys general and using the committee to gather information for possible prosecutions.
Scharf’s letter is dated Monday, Nov. 9, and became public Wednesday, Nov. 11. He opens with Watkins v. United States and Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP. The first dealt with the limits of congressional investigations. The second dealt with subpoenas for a president’s personal records.
"The Supreme Court has held that '[i]nvestigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to ‘punish’ those investigated are indefensible.' Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957). Congressional investigations must further a legitimate legislative task; Congress cannot employ them to exercise powers of criminal prosecution assigned to the Executive and the Judiciary."
In Mazars, the House sent subpoenas to Trump’s accounting firm and two banks. It wanted his financial records. The Court said the House had to look elsewhere if it could reasonably get the information it needed. Lawmakers couldn’t make Trump’s finances a “case study” for a law that would apply to everyone. If Congress really did need his records, the subpoena had to be limited to what it needed for that work.
On page three of his letter, Scharf warns that threats intended to drive executive branch officials from public service could cross into criminal conduct. Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan also weighed in on the issue Wednesday.
White House Counsel Will Scharf sends a characteristically measured and thoughtful letter to incoming House Oversight Chair Robert Garcia. Garcia has made several outlandish statements that extend beyond the traditional oversight role. And Scharf explains the problem with that https://t.co/n3gZmc4r5p
— Eric W. (@EWess92) November 11, 2026
Garcia said Wednesday that Trump had something to hide. As he saw it, the administration was using the Justice Department to scare the committee off. He said Congress gets its authority from Article I.
“Congress has wide latitude to conduct investigations and oversight, an authority inherent in the power to legislate. The American people voted overwhelmingly for us to pass laws to root out corruption and abuse.”
In Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, the group that sued said a Senate subcommittee was using a subpoena to harass it. The Court held that the senators were protected by the Speech or Debate Clause because issuing the subpoena was part of their legislative work. The accusation of harassment didn’t take that protection away. That may explain why Scharf spends his letter on what Garcia has said. The White House can call him out for talking about prosecutions. Once there’s a subpoena to fight over, what counts is what the committee asks for and why it needs it.
Dana Bash asked Garcia on CNN whether Stephen Miller had committed a crime. Garcia pointed to Miller’s role in shaping the administration’s policies but failed to mention a specific offense. If the committee wants him under oath, Garcia should be able to say what it needs to learn from him and what legislation his answers could inform. The questions the Court asked in Mazars are worth asking here, too. Could Congress get the same answers elsewhere? Is the committee asking for more than it needs? The White House should press for those answers before anyone is ordered to appear. A policy fight with Miller is a poor substitute for explaining what Congress needs his testimony to do.