A conservative watchdog is recruiting lawyers to defend President Donald Trump’s allies and administration officials as preparations accelerate for investigations if Democrats win control of either chamber of Congress in November’s elections.
Former Justice Department official Jeff Clark said Wednesday that he would lead a new law firm under the Oversight Project’s banner to challenge what he described as abuses of congressional oversight, bar disciplinary proceedings, and criminal prosecutions.
Alert — Critical announcement:
Under the banner of The Oversight Project, I am opening a new law firm that I will lead to combat government weaponization of all types, but especially abuses of congressional and state legislative branch oversight, perversion of bar…
— Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) September 16, 2026
“We will be expanding our size and footprint significantly,” Clark, the watchdog’s vice president of litigation, wrote on X, appealing for lawyers to join the effort. One of the president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr., responded that it was “good stuff” and “important work.”
Clark is both a capable and a symbolic figure to usher in the new initiative, in part because of the lawfare that he experienced after leaving his role as a senior DOJ official in early 2021, only to find himself dragged through years of relentless proceedings by political opponents seeking his disbarment.
The recruitment push addressed an ongoing concern among Trump’s supporters: that any Democrat-led investigations could leave political appointees with legal bills they cannot afford, even as senior officials secure experienced Washington lawyers.
Conservative influencer Mike Cernovich raised that concern in a post on X that drew a response from the Oversight Project’s president, Mike Howell.
“I don’t want to see young staffers with growing families bankrupted by lawfare due to Democrat hearings and other lawfare, which will begin on day 1 if they win the midterms,” Cernovich wrote. “Do you want to see our people destroyed?”
Howell replied, “help is on the way.”
The exchange underscored preparations extending beyond the president’s closest advisers. Outside allies are building a defense operation for staffers, while the White House prepares for subpoenas and advances legal arguments to protect presidential communications.
Building a defense team
The Oversight Project’s recruitment announcement described an in-house team combining the watchdog’s investigative work with litigation to defend allied lawyers, public servants, and mid-level staffers.
“This is not a position to manage workflows outsourced to outside counsel,” the announcement said. “We are engineering from the ground up the institution necessary, entirely in-house.”
Its lawyers would defend clients against bar complaints, represent them in investigations, and pursue lawsuits against organizations the group accuses of abusing legal processes. The listing offers salaries of $70,000 to $250,000.
Howell outlined the rationale in a June 24 opinion article in the Blaze, arguing that conservative defense efforts had concentrated resources on prominent people rather than developing salaried teams capable of representing a higher number of clients.
He described representing a young former White House official without charge before the House Jan. 6 committee. Preparation and a daylong deposition required weeks of work that he estimated would otherwise have cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Howell proposed a public-defender-style network that would prioritize staffers, local officials, ICE officers, and others with limited resources. He also said it should defend cases honestly characterized as political weaponization, rather than subsidize defenses of financial misconduct or self-dealing.
“The left built a legal machine because it understood power,” Howell wrote. “The right must build one because it understands what happens when power goes undefended.”
What Democrats want to investigate
Trump’s finances are one focus of Democrats’ preparations.
The Washington Examiner reported in July that lawmakers were using his financial disclosure as a guide for investigations. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) cited the Trump family’s cryptocurrency income in seeking restrictions on senior officials and their families from profiting from the industry. Trump denied wrongdoing, and the White House denied conflicts of interest.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats also sought a subpoena of Corey Lewandowski, an adviser to former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, concerning a $220 million advertising campaign. They have asked Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) to exercise subpoena power that they would control with a majority.
Homeland Security Committee Democrats separately demanded records about immigration surveillance tools and information collected about protesters, including spending, privacy safeguards, and watchlist standards.
The handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s records presents another target. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and other Democrats have accused the Justice Department of failing to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and more Democrats are likely to subpoena officials in the DOJ to testify about the agency’s work, from files still under wraps to others that critics have said should have had more redactions to protect victims.
Preparing for another oversight fight
White House counsel Will Scharf would lead the administration’s response to a Democratic majority, building a team to handle subpoenas and investigations while working with Attorney General Todd Blanche, according to a report this month by Politico.
Both worked on Trump’s presidential immunity litigation. Scharf’s experience as staff secretary, overseeing material reaching Trump’s desk, could also inform his handling of demands for presidential records.
His appointment contrasts with the first-term transition: Democrats won the House in November 2018, but Pat Cipollone did not replace Don McGahn as White House counsel until December.
This time, the counsel’s office began briefing appointees in the spring, emphasizing accurate ethics filings and assuring employees of representation in their official capacities. Former employees would not necessarily receive that protection, and officials who left the administration were seeking recommendations for personal lawyers.
The stakes extend beyond employment. Former advisers Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro each served four-month prison sentences in 2024 for contempt of Congress after refusing testimony and document demands from the Jan. 6 committee. Their convictions concerned subpoena noncompliance.
A privilege argument for outside advisers
The administration has also outlined protections it could invoke against demands involving outside advisers.
The Office of Legal Counsel concluded in an Aug. 10 opinion that executive privilege can cover confidential communications with private advisers concerning official presidential decisions and involving or reflecting exchanges with the president or his direct advisers.
Two days later, Trump announced White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s departure at August’s end to become a senior outside adviser.
The administration could argue that qualifying communications with Leavitt after she left government fall within that framework. The memo does not automatically block subpoenas, however. Privilege would need to be asserted over particular communications and could face court review.
The Washington Examiner previously reported that the opinion could also bear on the American Bar Association’s pursuit of communications involving Trump lawyer Boris Epshteyn in litigation over the administration’s actions against law firms.
Asserting those protections can itself require legal help. Scharf’s office would manage the White House response, while employees seeking personal representation and former officials could need their own lawyers.
That is the gap the Oversight Project wants to fill: recruiting lawyers to handle rapid-response filings before clients are overwhelmed by costs.
FEDERAL BAN ON HANDGUN SALES FOR YOUNG ADULTS CANNOT BE ENFORCED, DOJ FINDS
Howell said he would disclose more plans at the group’s upcoming Sept. 30 lawfare summit in Washington.
“Most important, it would operate on a charitable model that directs resources to the most vulnerable clients,” Howell wrote in his June op-ed, noting he is especially concerned about “the people who would otherwise be destroyed before the real fight even begins.”