Democrats are eager to launch "aggressive oversight" of the Trump administration if they regain power in the midterm elections, but the party has descended into infighting over how to crack down on one specific issue: corporate capitulation, according to a report published Monday by Politico.

If Democrats take the House majority — an outcome widely predicted — they would gain "broad subpoena powers over companies with ties to [President Donald] Trump and his family," the report explained. In Congress, investigative and subpoena authority is wielded by committee chairs, so control of even one chamber would determine which companies and officials can be compelled to turn over documents or testify. Should the party also retake the Senate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a potential candidate for the Senate Banking Committee, "has already pressed major corporations over their contributions to Trump-linked causes." That panel and its House counterpart, the Financial Services Committee, hold jurisdiction over banks, securities markets and financial institutions — a scope that would put large financial and cryptocurrency firms squarely within reach of any inquiry.

While many Democratic lawmakers and voters want to see corporations held to account, others are pumping the brakes on the idea, creating a new "tension" within the party going forward — one that will help decide how widely any future majority casts its investigative net across corporate America, from Silicon Valley giants to the crypto industry.

"But some Democrats are cautioning that the party shouldn't use investigative authority too broadly against corporate America to avoid steering into retribution," the report explained. "The divide is setting up tension over how Democrats should treat some of the largest and most powerful American companies, from technology giants like Meta and Amazon to cryptocurrency leaders like Coinbase and Ripple, if they return to power next year."

"We don't want to turn into a banana republic where you lose an election and it's all about retribution," Rep. Bill Foster, an Illinois Democrat and senior member of the Financial Services Committee, told Politico. "A lot of the companies did things because Trump had a gun on their head. We're going to have to be a little bit wise about when companies simply did something they had to do to survive this unprecedented level of corruption, compared to companies that actually got on board and profited more by being a partner in his corruption."

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a moderate Nevada Democrat, voiced similar reservations. "I don't look at the federal government to ever be used as a weapon," she said. "Our focus should be solving problems that we're seeing happening. That's where our focus should be — not weaponizing the federal government."

Others, including Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, back a more aggressive investigative push. Murphy has pointed to questions he raised at a recent Senate hearing taking aim at a donation that leading tobacco company Reynolds American made to Trump's super PAC just before the administration unveiled new e-cigarette rules.

"We should get to the bottom of the corrupt relationship that exists between corporations in this country and the Trump administration," Murphy said.

An anonymous former House Democratic aide argued that the leading technology giants — Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta and Microsoft — should be specifically investigated for their donations to Trump's ballroom project, which critics have described as thinly veiled bribes.

"If you funded the ballroom — any of those names, I think, are on the table," the former aide said.

"The corruption is everywhere, and it infects all parts of our government," Warren said of potential corporate oversight. "We can't know how bad it is until we get an independent investigation."