Follow the Money: Why Congress Must Investigate in 2027
When the government makes a decision, voters are entitled to know who gets paid. Right now, several lawsuits and public records raise that question about President Trump, his family, and his businesses. In my judgment, Congress has largely declined to ask it.
A lawsuit is not a verdict. Most of what follows are allegations, and many have been denied. No court has found that the President committed a crime in any of these matters. He is presumed innocent, like every American.
But serious allegations deserve answers, and answers require evidence. Congress is the branch built to gather it. The Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Trump v. United States protects a President's official acts, but in the Court's words, "There is no immunity for unofficial acts." Many of the questions below involve private businesses, private money, and private deals.
That makes a careful, preserved congressional record especially valuable. It can answer the public's questions now. It can clear people who did nothing wrong. And if the evidence warrants, it can later help independent state or federal prosecutors decide whether any charges belong in front of a grand jury.
The new Congress takes office on January 3, 2027. Who you send there on November 3 decides whether those questions get asked at all.
Country over Party. Patriot over Partisan.
The issues, in plain English
The matters below fall into four groups: foreign money, your money, access, and a state's gift. Each one comes with the other side's response and where it stands today.
Issue | What is alleged or reported | The response | Status |
A CREW lawsuit alleges Kushner has been a top U.S. negotiator on Gaza, Russia and Ukraine, and Iran without Senate confirmation or public financial disclosures. It says his firm holds over $6 billion, about 99% from foreign investors. | Kushner says he is "just a volunteer" and has never acted to benefit his firm. | Filed October 14, 2026; no ruling | |
A shareholder suit alleges a UAE-linked vehicle agreed to pay $500 million for 49% of a Trump family–linked crypto business, and that a $2 billion foreign-backed deal settled in its stablecoin. | World Liberty disputes the claims; the White House says the President's assets are in a trust. | Filed October 22, 2026; no ruling | |
The Defense Department accepted a Boeing 747-8 from Qatar valued at about $400 million. No congressional consent vote has been reported. | The administration says it was a gift to the Air Force, not the President. | Accepted May 2025 | |
The President and family sued the IRS for billions. The settlement came with a $1.776 billion fund drawn from the Judgment Fund. | Defenders cite a real injury and the Executive's settlement authority. DOJ withdrew the Fund and says no money was paid. | A judge found the suit collusive and in bad faith; on appeal | |
Two lawsuits challenge a roughly $20 million DHS ad campaign featuring the President before the midterms. | The White House calls them public service announcements. | Temporarily blocked through November 8, 2026 | |
A lawsuit alleges a paid service gives subscribers faster access to selected posts, for up to $100,000 a month. | Trump Media says posts reach the public first. | Filed August 12, 2026; pending | |
Disclosures show Microsoft and Amazon sales on July 20, 2026, each $5–25 million, plus late-filing fees. | The White House says advisers manage the accounts. Not evidence of insider trading. | Public disclosure; no case | |
A lawsuit alleges Florida transferred land appraised at $67 million to the President's library foundation for $10. | Defendants say the land went to a separate nonprofit, and states have long supported presidential libraries. | Motions to dismiss pending |
Foreign money
The Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause says no federal officeholder may accept any present or payment from a foreign state without the consent of Congress. That rule exists so Americans never have to wonder whose interests their leaders represent. Senate confirmation serves a similar purpose. Alexander Hamilton called it "an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President."
To be fair, money moving through a company is not the same as money in someone's pocket. Foreign nationality alone proves nothing. That is exactly why the facts need to be gathered.
Your money
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." That is Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. Spending is Congress's job, not the President's and not his lawyers'.
In the IRS case, Judge Kathleen M. Williams found the lawsuit was collusive, brought in bad faith, and filed for an improper purpose. She sanctioned two of the lawyers. She did not decide whether any crime occurred. In the ad case, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon found the challengers were likely to show the spending broke federal appropriations law. Both rulings are preliminary or under appeal.
Access
A President's words can move markets. If paying customers see those words first, ordinary investors, including anyone with a 401(k), are at a disadvantage. The company disputes that this happens.
The stock sales are a separate question. Owning stock is not illegal, and the disclosures do not show that any trade used confidential information. But the same rule should apply to everyone: no one who writes, enforces, or judges our laws should be trading individual stocks. That includes members of Congress and federal judges.
A state's gift
The Domestic Emoluments Clause says the President receives a fixed salary and no other payment from the United States or any state. Unlike the foreign clause, Congress cannot waive it. The point is a President who works for the whole country, not whichever state offers the best deal.
What presidential immunity covers, and what it doesn't
In Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), the Supreme Court divided a President's conduct into three categories. Only the first two receive protection. The Court said plainly: "The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law."
Category | Examples | Protection from criminal prosecution |
Core constitutional powers | Pardons, removing executive officers, recognizing foreign governments | Absolute |
Other official acts | Most actions taken as President where power is shared with Congress | Presumptive: prosecutors must show charges pose no danger to the Executive Branch's authority and functions |
Unofficial acts | Running a private business, personal investments, private deals, acting as a private litigant | None |
The Court also set three ground rules that matter here:
Motives don't decide the category. Courts "may not inquire into the President's motives" when deciding whether an act was official.
Breaking a law doesn't make an act unofficial. An act is not unofficial "merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."
Evidence about protected acts is limited. Testimony or private records probing immune official conduct "may not be admitted as evidence at trial." Justice Barrett disagreed with this part, but it is the majority's rule.
Why this matters for the issues above
Many of the questions in this post sit on the private side of the line. A family crypto company, a social media business, a personal stock portfolio, and a library foundation are not powers of the presidency. Biazzo Law's analysis of the stock disclosures puts it this way: "Managing a personal stock portfolio ordinarily is private conduct, rather than a duty of the presidency."
Other questions are mixed. The decision to settle the IRS case was made by Justice Department officials using official power. But the President and his family filed that lawsuit as private plaintiffs. Where the line falls in each matter is a question courts would decide, not one this post can settle.
Three more limits on immunity are worth knowing:
It protects the President, not everyone around him. Family members, business partners, lawyers, contractors, and private companies have no presidential immunity.
It doesn't make conduct lawful. Immunity is a shield from prosecution, not a finding that nothing wrong happened.
It isn't the same as oversight. The immunity decision limits criminal cases. It does not stop Congress from investigating, subject to the separate limits in Trump v. Mazars for a President's personal records.
Why preserving the record matters
Evidence doesn't wait for elections. Emails get deleted, phones get replaced, and witnesses leave government and forget details. A Congress that acts early can lock in the facts while they still exist. A Congress that waits may find there is nothing left to examine.
The clock is running
Five years. Most federal crimes must be charged within five years (18 U.S.C. § 3282). Conduct from 2025 and 2026 starts running out in 2030 and 2031.
No indictment while in office. Justice Department policy, set out in a 2000 Office of Legal Counsel opinion, is not to indict a sitting President. This President's term ends January 20, 2029. During that time, the record either gets preserved or it doesn't.
People around the President are different. That DOJ policy covers only the President. Others could be investigated at any time, if the evidence warranted it.
Federal and state prosecutors
A congressional record can serve both. The difference is the pardon power. A President can pardon only "Offenses against the United States," meaning federal crimes. A presidential pardon has no effect on state charges.
Whether and when a state may prosecute a sitting or former President raises separate constitutional questions that the immunity decision did not fully resolve. But state laws on fraud, false records, and bribery of state officials exist independently of federal law. Private conduct, such as how a land deal was arranged or how a private company handled investors, is the kind of evidence a state prosecutor could examine.
This has happened before
Teapot Dome (1920s). A Senate investigation uncovered secret oil leases. Interior Secretary Albert Fall was later convicted of bribery, the first Cabinet officer to go to prison for crimes in office. The Supreme Court's decision in McGrain v. Daugherty (1927), which upheld Congress's power to compel testimony, grew out of the same scandal.
Watergate (1973). Testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee revealed the White House taping system. Those tapes became central evidence for the special prosecutor and the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon.
Both parties do this. In 2023 and 2024, House Republicans investigated President Biden's family business dealings. Whatever you think of the result, investigating a President's family finances is a long-standing, bipartisan use of oversight power.
How the hand-off works, and its limits
Congress sends preservation letters, gathers records, and takes sworn testimony.
Congress publishes findings and, where the evidence supports it, makes referrals.
Independent prosecutors review the evidence and decide for themselves.
A grand jury decides whether to indict. A judge and jury decide guilt, with every constitutional protection intact.
Congress must do this carefully. It cannot declare anyone guilty or force prosecutors to bring charges. Witnesses keep their rights. And Congress should be cautious about granting witnesses immunity for their testimony. Oliver North's Iran-Contra conviction was vacated in 1990 because his immunized congressional testimony may have tainted the trial. Good oversight preserves evidence without spoiling it.
A careful record also protects the innocent. If the evidence shows no wrongdoing, a public, documented investigation is the most credible way to say so.
One reform worth considering
Congress could pause the statute of limitations for a President's federal crimes while DOJ policy bars indicting a sitting President. Proposals like this have been introduced before. Extending a limitations period that has not yet expired is generally permitted. Reviving one that has expired is not, under Stogner v. California (2003). A rule like this would apply to every future President, of either party.
What a new Congress can do starting January 3, 2027
Congress is the first branch of government. Article I gives it the power of the purse, the power to legislate, and, as the Supreme Court has long recognized, the power to investigate. Courts have done some of this work, but courts can only decide the cases brought to them. They can't hold hearings, follow the money on their own, or control the budget.
In my judgment, over the past two years, Congress has largely chosen not to use these tools. Too often it has acted less like a co-equal branch and more like a rubber stamp. That isn't a Republican problem or a Democratic problem. When one party controls both Congress and the White House, oversight tends to go quiet, whichever party it is.
In the first 100 days, a Congress that takes its job seriously could:
Send preservation letters to the White House, Justice Department, Treasury, IRS, State Department, Defense Department, Trump Media, World Liberty Financial, and the library foundation
Request records and sworn testimony on foreign payments, the Judgment Fund settlement, the ad campaign, Truth Social's paid service, and envoy disclosures
Ask inspectors general and the Government Accountability Office for legal opinions and reviews of spending
Hold a public consent vote on the Qatari 747 and any other foreign gift
Issue subpoenas where requests are refused, within the limits of Trump v. Mazars
Publish findings and make referrals where the evidence supports them
And it could pass rules that apply to every future President:
A ban on individual stock trading for members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, senior officials, and federal judges
Public disclosure of foreign payments to a President's businesses and of large presidential-library donations
Financial disclosure for anyone who negotiates for the United States, based on what they do, not their title
Limits on using the Judgment Fund to settle lawsuits brought by a sitting President or his family
A pause on the statute of limitations for a President's federal crimes while in office
These reforms have limits. A President can veto legislation, and an override takes two-thirds of both chambers. Executive privilege fights can slow subpoenas. But hearings, subpoenas, consent votes, and funding conditions do not need a veto-proof majority. They need a majority willing to ask questions.
Why every American should care, whatever your politics
These rules aren't about one man. They're about the office, and every person who will ever hold it.
Try this test. Take every fact in this post. Now put the name of the politician you trust least in place of the current President. If you'd want answers then, you should want them now.
Here is what's at stake for ordinary Americans:
Your country's interests. If foreign governments can invest in a leader's family business, you can't be sure whose interests are being represented at the negotiating table, on Gaza, Ukraine, Iran, or anything else.
Your tax dollars. If a President can settle a lawsuit against his own government, public money can become a private account. The Constitution gave Congress the purse to stop exactly that.
Your retirement savings. If insiders pay for early access to market-moving posts, or officials trade on what they know, the market tilts against every family with a 401(k).
Your vote. Taxpayer-funded ads featuring a President right before an election should concern anyone who wants campaigns paid for by campaigns, not by the public.
Your equal treatment under law. You can't sue your own employer, write the settlement yourself, and approve the payment. No public official should be able to either.
This isn't left or right. It's whether the people in power play by the same rules you do. Supporting a President's policies and wanting his conduct examined are not in conflict. Patriots can do both.
Frequently asked questions
Has President Trump been charged with a crime in any of these matters?
No. No one has been charged, and no court has found that the President committed a crime in any of these matters. The cases described here are civil lawsuits or public disclosures, and the allegations are disputed.
Does presidential immunity mean a President can never be prosecuted?
No. Under Trump v. United States (2024), a President has absolute immunity for core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts, such as running a private business or making personal investments.
Can Congress prosecute anyone?
No. Congress can investigate, publish findings, and refer evidence to prosecutors. Only prosecutors can bring charges, only grand juries can indict, and only courts can decide guilt.
How could a congressional investigation help prosecutors?
It can preserve documents and sworn testimony before they're lost, and identify who made decisions and who benefited. Prosecutors then decide independently whether the evidence supports charges. Congress must avoid granting witness immunity carelessly, because that can make later prosecution harder.
Can a President pardon state crimes?
No. The pardon power covers only "Offenses against the United States," meaning federal crimes. Whether a state may prosecute a sitting President raises separate constitutional questions.
Do I have to change parties to support oversight?
No. You can keep every one of your policy beliefs. You can split your ticket, choose an independent, or vote for whichever candidate in your race will investigate credible allegations, even against their own party.
When does the new Congress start?
Noon on January 3, 2027, under the Twentieth Amendment. Committee leadership, and therefore what gets investigated, depends on which party holds each chamber.
Your ballot is a hiring decision
Early voting and mail voting are already underway in many states. Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, 2026.
Before you vote, ask every candidate in every race three questions:
Will you investigate credible allegations, even when they involve your own party?
Will you ban stock trading for yourself?
Will you protect Congress's control over our money?
Look at their record, not their slogans. If restoring oversight means voting for a Democrat, splitting your ticket, or choosing an independent, you can do that and keep every one of your own beliefs.
Voting checklist
Check your registration, deadlines, and voting options directly with your state or local election office, or start at vote.gov.
If you vote by mail, follow every instruction. Where your state allows it, consider returning your ballot in person to an official drop box or election office. In some states, a postmark isn't enough.
Research every race on your ballot, not just the top of the ticket.
Public officials work for all of us. They owe us honest service, and they owe us the truth about who is paying them. Vote for people willing to ask that question, even of their own side. Then keep holding them accountable.
Country over Party. Patriot over Partisan.
About the Government Oversight Program
Biazzo Law's Government Oversight Program is a nonpartisan public-service project. Through it, Corey J. Biazzo, Esq., a political independent, Navy veteran, and attorney, pursues public records, provides civics education, and participates in constitutional cases through friend-of-the-court briefs. The program applies the same standard to every administration and every party. Learn more about the Government Oversight Program.
This post is general information and commentary, not legal advice. It describes allegations and court proceedings that are ongoing. Everyone named is presumed innocent, and nothing here states or implies that any person has committed a crime.
Related reading
CREW v. Kushner: The Appointments Clause, Ethics, and Congress
The Emoluments Clauses, the Trump Library, and Congress in 2027
Eleventh Circuit Denies Stay in Trump v. IRS Sanctions Appeal
Biazzo Law Seeks Leave to File Amicus Brief in the Miami Trump Library Emoluments Case
Could Trump Face Criminal Exposure Over the Anti-Weaponization Fund Settlement?
Sources
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) (slip opinion, No. 23-939, decided July 1, 2024)
U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cls. 7–8; art. II, § 1, cl. 7; art. II, § 2, cl. 1; amend. XX
18 U.S.C. § 3282 (five-year federal statute of limitations)
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. 848 (2020); McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974); Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003); United States v. North, 910 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
Office of Legal Counsel, A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution (Oct. 16, 2000)
Court filings and facts as summarized in the Biazzo Law posts listed under Related reading
Comments