When the new Congress convenes in January, lawmakers will have a robust oversight agenda, including the administration’s corruption and self-enrichment as well as demanding answers on the Iran war and immigration enforcement. These investigations arrive at a time when Americans are expressing widespread concern about government accountability and the actions of their elected leaders. An October Fox News poll found that government corruption topped voters’ concerns, while the war in Iran and immigration were also among the issues troubling voters. Yet, the administration’s reactions to lawmakers’ seeking transparency for their constituents suggests these investigations will not be easy.
Just recently, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), one of Congress’s most important oversight tools, reported that several executive branch agencies failed to provide information needed for its investigation into the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) access to sensitive government systems. And in September 2025, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought went so far as to declare that GAO “shouldn’t exist.”
As Congress prepares to ramp up its oversight efforts, lawmakers should expect similar resistance from the executive branch. Here are five questions congressional investigators should ask when an agency refuses to provide the information they’re seeking.
What is the agency’s legitimate justification for withholding information?
The Supreme Court has recognized that executive privilege protects the confidentiality of certain presidential communications, allowing the president and senior advisers to engage in candid discussions and evaluate policy options without fear of public disclosure. However, executive privilege is a qualified constitutional doctrine, not an absolute shield against congressional scrutiny. Agencies may also cite statutory confidentiality requirements, privacy protections, or other legal restrictions, making it important for investigators to identify precisely what authority an agency is relying on before determining how to respond.
So while there can be legitimate reasons for the executive branch to withhold information from Congress, they need to be upfront about why that is. When agencies assert executive privilege or other legal restrictions, congressional investigators should request a privilege log identifying the documents being withheld, the specific privileges claimed, and the justification for each.
Congressional investigators should not simply accept an agency’s assertion of privilege. They should determine whether the claim has a legitimate legal basis and, if so, whether there are ways to obtain the information while addressing the agency’s concerns.
Before we escalate, is there anything else we can do to resolve this?
Even when agencies resist congressional requests, lawmakers have several options for negotiating access before pursuing more confrontational enforcement measures. These strategies include working with members of both parties to demonstrate broad support for an inquiry; narrowing requests; establishing reasonable deadlines and documenting negotiations; having committee chairs contact agency heads directly; questioning officials at public hearings about outstanding requests; and building public support for the investigation.
These measures are often successful. In 2023, the House Foreign Affairs Committee negotiated access to a State Department dissent cable concerning the Afghanistan withdrawal after the department initially refused to provide it. The agreement allowed the committee chair and ranking member to review the document in camera, addressing the department’s confidentiality concerns and leading the committee to cancel a planned contempt of Congress vote. However, if it becomes clear they are simply permitting foot dragging or the executive branch is not engaging in good faith, investigators should reach for more potent tools.
What legal actions can we use — and enforce — to move negotiations forward?
One of Congress’s most powerful tools for compelling documents and testimony is the subpoena. Both House and Senate committees can issue subpoenas, although authorization procedures vary by committee. Regardless of the process, subpoenas should be used strategically, generally after reasonable efforts to obtain voluntary cooperation have failed.
First and foremost, congressional investigators should never threaten to issue a subpoena unless they know they have the backing of the committee chair and the authority to follow through. Empty threats can damage an investigator’s credibility and undermine future negotiations. Issuing a subpoena can also fundamentally change the relationship between congressional investigators and the parties they are investigating. Once they are introduced, previously cooperative discussions may become more adversarial, making it harder to negotiate access to information.
Even when a subpoena is issued, enforcing it can prove difficult, like when the Senate approved a criminal contempt resolution against Steward Health Care CEO Ralph de la Torre for refusing to testify. Despite holding de la Torre in criminal contempt, the Senate HELP Committee still needed to bump the Department of Justice to help enforce it — illustrating why investigators should make sure agencies are prepared for subpoena enforcement rather than assuming a subpoena will automatically force compliance. This Department of Justice may not be willing to enforce a contempt resolution, particularly against administration officials, but that doesn’t mean Congress should abandon their efforts to obtain information and can use other tools including civil enforcement litigation and public hearings.
None of this means Congress should hesitate to use subpoenas when necessary. Rather, lawmakers should carefully consider whether issuing and enforcing a subpoena will advance their investigation, what alternatives remain available, and the potential consequences.
What other sources will help us advance our investigation?
When executive branch agencies refuse to cooperate, Congress should look beyond traditional document requests and subpoenas to obtain the information it needs. Congress has other ways to obtain records, identify witnesses, and develop leads.
Congress can also turn to independent oversight institutions, including the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and offices of inspectors general (OIGs), for information and investigative assistance. GAO audits federal programs, examines government spending, and recommends improvements, while IGs investigate waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct within federal agencies. Their work can provide congressional investigators with valuable findings, records, and potential witnesses. Congress should ensure these institutions have adequate resources, request investigations, and follow up on their findings and recommendations, especially given the administration’s attempts to undermine their independence.
Whistleblowers are another critical source of information, having helped expose misconduct and recover billions in taxpayer dollars, including more than $5.3 billion through the False Claims Act in fiscal year 2025. Congressional investigators should establish secure reporting channels, publicize opportunities for whistleblowers to come forward, and consult with appropriate counsel to ensure potential whistleblowers understand the protections and limitations associated with disclosing information to Congress.
Publicly available databases like USAspending.gov and SAM.gov can also provide valuable investigative leads. Both resources can help lawmakers identify questionable spending, examine contracts and contractors, and develop additional lines of inquiry.
Congressional investigators may also wish to consider cooperating with state and local authorities – from State Attorneys General to local law enforcement in appropriate cases – to obtain information, identify witnesses, and build a factual picture. For example, in 2026, the House Oversight Committee requested records from Minnesota’s Legislative Auditor concerning potential fraud in federally funded social services programs, illustrating how state-level investigations can provide additional avenues for congressional oversight.
Finally, while members of Congress should not have to rely on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain government records, it can be a useful supplemental strategy when agencies refuse to cooperate. Agencies often process FOIA requests separately from congressional inquiries, potentially providing another avenue for obtaining records. Investigators should also search agencies’ publicly available FOIA libraries, as relevant documents may already have been released. FOIA has an additional benefit since the law generally requires agencies to make an initial determination within 20 working days, subject to statutory exceptions and extensions. Once the deadline is passed, lawmakers can start to set judicial review or legal penalties in motion.
How can we ensure resistance has consequences?
Agencies are less likely to cooperate with congressional investigations if they believe Congress won’t follow up when requests go unanswered. That’s why investigators should have a plan from the beginning for dealing with potentially missed deadlines, incomplete document productions, and refusals to testify. Just as importantly, they need to be prepared to follow through.
Beyond subpoenas and contempt proceedings, lawmakers can use their legislative and appropriations authorities to encourage cooperation, although these options depend on the circumstances and the institutional powers available to them. In May 2026, House appropriators agreed to withhold 25 percent of the budget for the Office of the Veterans Affairs Secretary until the secretary testified before House and Senate appropriations committees. Similarly, in April 2026, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) lifted his hold on Kevin Warsh’s nomination to lead the Federal Reserve after DOJ ended its criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell and provided assurances about the circumstances under which it could be reopened.
Congress has a constitutional responsibility to oversee the executive branch, but that responsibility means little if lawmakers aren’t willing to push back when agencies refuse to cooperate. Not every disagreement needs to end in a subpoena or a court battle. But congressional investigators need to know what options are available, when to use them, and when to recognize that negotiations are going nowhere. Ultimately, oversight only works if Congress is willing to follow through, regardless of which party controls the White House.
