With his historic re-election to the presidency, it would seem that Donald Trump’s legal problems are over. Trump, as practically everybody knows, has been the target over the last two years of numerous federal, state, and local prosecutions. Now that Trump will be returning to the nation’s highest office, these cases will be put indefinitely on hold or dropped altogether.

But if Trump’s problems in this respect are over, America’s are not. These cases present a problem for the nation because of the popular perception that they were merely a form of political “lawfare” brought to damage Trump, impair his candidacy, and prevent his return to power. Polls have shown that substantial numbers of Americans view these cases as politically motivated. Indeed, in what may come as a galling surprise to Trump’s political enemies, exit polls indicate that he won a majority of the votes of those Americans who believe democracy is under threat. This result surely reflects these voters’ sense that the various prosecutions of Trump were really an attempt to undermine democratic self-government by depriving the people of a free choice in the presidential contest.

Moreover, the sense that the anti-Trump cases were politicized and abusive is obviously well-founded. All of these cases—the federal prosecutions of Trump in relation to the events of January 6 and his retention of official documents, the New York state fraud case, the New York “hush money” case, and the Georgia RICO prosecution—were absolutely unprecedented. It is, or should be, impossible for any honest person to pretend that they were dictated by some real law enforcement necessity. Trump did not tell any of his supporters to enter the capitol illegally. He is not the only former president (or vice president) to have retained official documents. His alleged real estate fraud harmed nobody. A non-disclosure agreement is not a crime. And there is nothing felonious in a defeated politician arguing to election officials that he would have won if different rules had been followed.

There is, then, ample reason to think that these legal cases were abuses of official power intended to skew the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, either by damaging Trump politically or by making it impossible for him to campaign at all. They were intended not just to harm Donald Trump but also effectively to disenfranchise his supporters. In this sense they represent an unprecedented attack on American self-government.

But what is to be done about them?

In their anger and frustration, some Trump supporters on social media have gone so far as to say that the only solution is for Republican prosecutors to retaliate in kind against popular Democratic politicians. This response would be obviously wrong and destructive—unjustly harming innocent persons and further eroding the norms and institutions that make personal security and self-government possible. Thankfully, there is no reason to think President Trump or any other elected Republican will pursue such a course.

There is, however, a lawful way to address such abuses of the legal system. Section 242 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code prohibits and punishes “deprivation of rights under color of law.” If, as seems to be the case, the justifications for these cases were only pretexts to harm Trump politically, then they would seem to fall within this provision of federal law. There would therefore be nothing unjust or improperly retaliatory if President Trump’s Department of Justice were to investigate these prosecutions as possible violations, and to bring prosecutions against the perpetrators if appropriate.

But such an approach, although not unjust, would certainly be imprudent. Democrats and the media would portray the investigations as examples of Trump prosecuting his political enemies. Regardless of the merits of such a claim, the inevitably resulting furor would probably detract from the Trump Administration’s ability to pursue the many important initiatives that the good of the nation requires and that Trump’s voters elected him to work on. It’s not worth it.

This is not to say, however, that these abuses should just go completely unaddressed. There are other authoritative institutions besides Trump’s Justice Department that possess both the authority and responsibility to inquire into the possibility of deprivations of rights under the color of law, especially ones that are intended to influence the outcome of federal elections. I refer, of course, to the houses of Congress. Republicans will control both the House and the Senate in 2025. It would be perfectly appropriate for either the House or the Senate judiciary committee—or both—to investigate the federal, state, and local prosecutions of Donald Trump.

These committees have direct jurisdiction over the Department of Justice and therefore have every right to oversee the special counsel that Attorney General Garland appointed to investigate and prosecute the then-former president. This should be done to satisfy both the Congress and the public that the federal power was not abused here—or, if it was, to ensure that it does not happen again. These committees would have jurisdiction to investigate the possibly politicized uses of state and local prosecutors’ offices, either because the latter have received federal funds, or, if not, at least to find out whether it is necessary to amend and strengthen the federal prohibition on “deprivation of rights under color of law.” This is certainly a genuine legislative purpose sufficient to justify congressional investigation. Congress and its committees have ample powers to subpoena records and compel testimony in the service of such an investigation.

A congressional inquiry would have the advantages of neither appearing arbitrary and vindictive, on the one hand, nor being toothless, on the other. It would be hard to paint a legislative investigation as a mere kangaroo court, because the committees would include Democrat members with an incentive to defend their co-partisans under investigation. Republican congressional leaders framing the inquiry would do well to avoid anything like the composition of the farcical January 6 committee, which excluded any Republican members who might be inclined to defend President Trump. And although congressional committees cannot punish any wrongdoing they uncover, the costs of complying with the investigation—the time, effort, and public exposure of improper motives, if any—would serve as a wholesome deterrent to future instances of politicized lawfare.

It is not always possible to punish wrongdoing. This does not mean, however, that it must go unremarked and unrebuked by official authority. In the matter of anti-Trump lawfare, Congressional investigation and exposure is the best option in the public interest.