Preparing for Enforcement and Oversight in the New Washington Environment

The Washington playbook was once straightforward. You hired the right lawyers and lobbyists, engaged with agency and Congressional staff, and worked to shape the investigations, regulations, and bills that mattered to your business. It followed a relatively logical process, and you worked behind the scenes to shape the outcome. In this playbook, the communications function supports legal and policy.

That is not the environment we see in DC today. Hyper-polarization and the expectation of frequent changes in party control have disrupted the traditional playbook. From a legal and policy perspective, the game is shifting to the states, where blocs of state attorneys general are increasingly stepping into the void left by Washington. In Congress, there is a growing emphasis on hearings, letters, and other forms of oversight, with little anticipation of major legislation. And in the executive branch, there is a focus on executive orders, warning letters, guidance documents, and public statements.

Political actors in this environment gravitate towards tools that require no consensus, that can be used immediately, and that put pressure on stakeholders to act. By design, these tools are public, placing communications at the center of strategy.

For example, at my former agency, the Federal Trade Commission, major cases can take years of investigation, trial, and appeals – longer than one President or FTC Chair is in office. Traditionally, most of that work stayed behind closed doors. The gap between legal reality and public expectations creates pressure, which is exacerbated by the possibility that the next administration could reverse course – 2025 saw the FTC undo many decisions made under the previous Chair, including matters impacting PepsiCo, Exxon, and Chevron.

A typical solution includes executive orders, warning letters, guidance documents, and public statements. These set the agenda, pressure businesses to comply with the administration’s priorities, and demonstrate that the agency is delivering results. The decision to issue a warning letter and the decision to announce it are made together; the public narrative is built in from the beginning.

At times, leaks have advanced public narratives about investigations beyond the reach of any official action. The FTC’s Inspector General reported in 2024 that unauthorized leaks had been “steadily increasing.” Companies like Microsoft and OpenAI learned about confidential investigations from the press. For agency leadership, this strategy produces a public impression of a steady stream of wins. The wins are immediate, even if the investigation never results in a complaint (there was no public follow-up on that investigation leaked about OpenAI), the action is struck down in court, or the next administration reverses course. Even now, CNN reports that “Democrats are calling Lina Khan,” demonstrating that this strategy can pay off.

Regardless of the tactics chosen, there is a strong incentive for federal agency leadership to make public communications a key part of their strategy, with serious consequences for businesses. Under the old playbook, the primary consequences were legal. That assumption no longer holds.

Public criticism of specific, named companies is now a daily feature of American politics, and Narrative’s research shows that the American public is paying attention. A change in partisan control after the midterms could accelerate this dynamic as Congress and state AGs seek to counterbalance the current Administration, while executive branch leaders push back.

Staying silent is not an option, not only because political actors are rewarded for keeping these attacks public, but also because Americans think that companies should respond when facing criticism from politicians. In fact, recent research from Golin’s CEO Impact Index found, “when CEOs reduce their public footprint, they don’t generate silence. They generate a vacuum.” Silence cedes the ground to whoever sent the letter, filed the lawsuit, or held the hearing.

This is not to say that companies should jump into the fray on every political or social issue (research from Ipsos continues to show this is a risky strategy). The public will be most receptive to your story when you speak about issues that directly impact your business. In disruptive moments – the unexpected warning letter, the leaked investigation, the challenging hearing – you must respond with a disciplined voice, projecting business expertise and stability while avoiding partisan politics.

For most companies, that means preparing the message before a disruption occurs. Whether it comes from a Congressional committee, a federal agency, or a state AG coalition, the disruption will come, possibly without warning. Businesses must prepare now by identifying stakeholders, testing messages, training spokespeople, and building relationships with third parties. When the disruption hits, the companies that have already been shaping the public narrative will outlast those still waiting for the old playbook to return.

Chris Bissex is a Managing Director at Narrative, bringing a wealth of experience advising senior leaders in corporate, government, and academic settings on strategic communications, reputation management, and crisis response. Chris was previously the Deputy Director of Public Affairs at the Federal Trade Commission. To continue the conversation, please reach out to Chris at cbissex@narrativestrategies.com.