Wall Street is bracing for a renewed wave of congressional scrutiny after Democrats swept this week's midterm elections, but analysts and legal experts say the fallout is likely to amount to little more than "political theater"—at least for now.

The election results have left Democrats in a celebratory mood. On Wall Street, the mood is far less upbeat. Lawmakers who have expressed pointed hostility toward the financial industry—including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)—are preparing to wield oversight power, a prospect that would seem to bode ill for behemoths such as JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

The first signs of the new political order are already appearing. Just days after the election, CNBC reported, citing a source familiar with the matter, that Senate Democrats are gearing up to investigate JPMorgan over the bank's relationship with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. JPMorgan declined Fortune's request for comment on the matter.

Even earlier, on the same evening that polls closed, Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who is expected to chair the Senate Finance Committee—the panel that holds jurisdiction over tax policy and the Treasury Department—posted a one-word message on X: "Subpoenas." The post served as a succinct preview of the scrutiny Wall Street could face once Democrats take control early next year.

"I think there's going to be a tremendous amount of political theater," Joann Needleman, head of the financial services regulatory and compliance practice at law firm Clark Hill, told Fortune.

In practice, that could mean subpoenas, investigations, hearings and more strongly worded letters demanding answers from top executives. Warren, who is widely expected to become the new chair of the powerful Senate Banking Committee, is among the lawmakers expected to lead that charge. Committee chairs in the Senate go to the majority party, and with the gavel comes control of the hearing calendar and the power to call witnesses. The Banking Committee's jurisdiction covers the federal agencies that supervise the nation's banks, meaning bank executives and their regulators alike can be brought before it for public testimony.

"Elizabeth Warren is going to bring all of these firms in and talk about all the billions that they've made and all the things that they have charged consumers," Needleman said. "The bigger banks will just be called in and be put to shame by various committees that want to inquire about them."

Warren has already demonstrated how aggressively she is willing to challenge the financial industry. She has previously called for criminal probes into banking executives, described the private-equity industry as legal "looting," and written a bill that could make it easier to prosecute executives.

Longtime Wall Street watchers, though, say any upcoming investigations or oversight hearings are par for the course.

"The people who were elected have mandates, and you have to expect them to follow through on those mandates," said Mike Mayo, Wells Fargo's head of U.S. large-cap bank research.

That does not mean the shift will significantly disrupt how the big banks operate on a day-to-day level.

"We could certainly see tougher language, more congressional hearings, and increased scrutiny of industries … but translating that rhetoric into meaningful legislation is an entirely different challenge," Ken Mahoney, president and CEO of Mahoney Asset Management, said in a statement to Fortune.

President Donald Trump, after all, still holds veto power. Financial regulators such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency also remain under Trump-appointed leadership. Those agencies still have the authority to enforce the rules for banks, meaning a change in the congressional majority would not reverse the administration's agenda.

Wall Street has already benefited massively from Trump's second term in the White House. The FDIC rolled back Biden-era merger policies, making it easier for big banks to facilitate megadeals, and regulators have relaxed key capital constraints, giving banks greater flexibility to deploy their balance sheets.

"The legislative leaders, at a minimum, have a full pulpit to relay their messages," Mayo, who started his career as a bank analyst at the Federal Reserve, told Fortune. "The degree that those messages translate to actual laws or regulations is a lot less. So I think it's a matter of setting a tone, or the pace and degree of deregulation, as opposed to changing the direction."

Citi analyst Ben Gerlinger echoed that view. "They can subpoena companies. They can bring in management. But it really, frankly, can't change their business models too much without a regulatory agency being that acting figure," Gerlinger told Fortune. "They can make life difficult, but they can't necessarily change the overall tenor of where the banks are projected to go."

"But at the end of the day, earnings drive banks," he added. "I think earnings are still in a really good spot, in addition to capital levels."

For Wall Street, the concrete markers to watch are the seating of the new Congress, the organizing of its committees, and the first subpoenas and hearing announcements that follow. If the blue wave outlasts Trump and brings new regulators to Washington, that would be a different story—but not one for today.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com.