As the midterm campaign season enters its final stretch, with most House members on the trail rallying supporters and courting donors, a small group of Democrats has been working behind the scenes on a less visible project: preparing for a potential takeover of the House in January. Their goal is not just to win seats but to restore what they see as the proper balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.
The effort is a deliberate departure from the playbook that House Republicans used in 1994, when they rolled out the “Contract with America” under the leadership of then-Whip Newt Gingrich. That document, signed by all GOP incumbents and challengers before the election, promised ten specific policy votes within the first 100 days of the new Congress, alongside internal procedural reforms like term limits for committee chairmen and an end to proxy voting. It was a proactive, unified platform that helped propel Republicans into the majority.
What Democrats are doing now is far less theatrical and more reactive. They have not coalesced around a single set of principles or a detailed legislative agenda. Instead, their planning has been driven by the immediate need to address what they view as President Trump’s aggressive use of executive power to bypass Congress and the courts. As one Democratic aide put it, the approach is less about writing a new contract than about repairing the barn door after the horses have already bolted—and then building a stronger barn to keep them from escaping again.
Leading this effort is Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and a likely chairman if Democrats take the majority. Raskin has framed the task as a “massive reconstruction” of congressional authority, drawing on the nation’s history of rebuilding after crises. He has already drafted legislation that would bar the president from accepting foreign payments without congressional approval and require review of any settlements between the president and his own administration—such as the now-defunct $1.8 billion fund for individuals claiming government persecution.
Other Democrats are prioritizing limits on the president’s unilateral emergency powers, which Trump has used to impose tariffs, authorize deportations, and deploy National Guard and ICE agents for immigration enforcement. The goal, according to several members, is to ensure that future presidents cannot use emergency declarations to sidestep the legislative branch.
While some Democrats have floated the idea of a third impeachment, prominent voices—including former President Barack Obama, former Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and strategist James Carville—have warned against that path, saying it would only re-ignite partisan warfare. Instead, the immediate focus is on using investigative and oversight powers to expose executive mismanagement, abuses of power, and corruption, with the potential for criminal referrals.
Any legislative victories will likely face a presidential veto, and Democrats are unlikely to secure the two-thirds majorities needed to override. Still, even without new laws, the oversight process could shift the balance of power. As turnout models suggest, a strong Democratic wave could put both chambers in play, giving the party broader leverage.
Political analysts note that while this year’s Democratic planning lacks the flash of the 1994 Contract, it could still produce meaningful change. “It’s not a revolution,” said one former congressional staffer. “But it could be a rebalancing.” The president has urged supporters to “pretend I am on the ballot,” and Democrats are happy to play along, hoping that voters will deliver them the majority—and the chance to rebuild congressional authority.
