What Companies Get Wrong When Congress Changes Hands

Washington is entering a familiar season: companies are preparing for the Congress they may face tomorrow while still operating under the administration in power today.

Republicans currently control the White House and both chambers of Congress, but Democrats are already building an investigative record of corporate interactions with the Trump administration—including private financing of the White House ballroom, government equity stakes in strategic companies, and pharmaceutical pricing agreements. The November 2026 elections could turn today’s minority inquiries into tomorrow’s subpoenas.

The Risk of Rewriting the Record

 It is therefore unsurprising that companies are broadening their teams to prepare for a possible shift in congressional power. Bringing in advisers who understand the priorities and investigative approach of a potential new congressional majority is prudent preparation. The risk arises when prudent preparation becomes political repositioning—when a company reacts by trying to fit the politics of the moment.

The risk is not unique to either party. Whenever political power shifts, companies can be tempted to recast old decisions to fit the priorities of those newly in power.

As companies prepare for greater scrutiny, the desire to demonstrate cooperation can create a different risk. A company may be tempted to adopt an investigator’s characterization of events, distance itself from prior decisions, or speculate about government motives in ways the underlying record does not support. But an answer that solves an immediate political problem can create a legal, regulatory, or credibility problem later.

There are at least four ways “doing too much” can create new exposure.

First, companies can create an inconsistent record. Statements prepared for investigators may later be compared with submissions to regulators, representations to investors, board materials, contract documents, and prior public comments. These discrepancies have a funny habit of appearing on a poster board and easel for a dramatic reveal during a high-stakes congressional hearing.

Second, disclosing material beyond the scope of an inquiry can unnecessarily expose business partners, employees, and internal deliberations. Companies do not receive extra credit for volunteering information that leads to the next line of inquiry.

Third, companies can undermine their credibility by appearing to reposition themselves in response to a new political environment. A response that looks opportunistic can invite skepticism from investigators, policymakers, employees, investors, and other stakeholders. A high tolerance for political hedging is not among Washington’s forgiving qualities.

Lastly, companies can create needless friction with officials in an administration that still possesses substantial authority over their business. Officials in the executive branch will continue making regulatory, enforcement, procurement, sanctions, and licensing decisions. Publicly disavowing an agreement—or recasting a prior decision as simply the product of political pressure—can complicate those relationships and create new questions about the company’s prior conduct.

The Institutional Approach

A company can cooperate with a congressional investigation without adopting either party’s framing. It can answer the questions asked, provide responsive information, and explain its decisions while remaining anchored in the facts and its documented rationale.

The right approach is institutional, not partisan. Companies should prepare now by developing a verified chronology, identifying the business and policy rationale for key decisions, mapping legal and reputational vulnerabilities, and establishing a single factual record that can withstand scrutiny from Congress, regulators, investors, employees, and the media.

They should also pressure-test every proposed response against two questions: Does this answer what was actually asked? And could we defend the same answer to today’s administration and tomorrow’s congressional majority?

Retaining advisers who understand both parties—their priorities and their political incentives—is valuable in a changing environment. But a company should not recast its conduct through either party’s political lens. The best counsel helps a company understand the politics around it without allowing those politics to rewrite the company’s position.

Companies should prepare for the next gavel. They should not swing it at themselves.

Devin O'Malley is a Partner at Narrative, bringing a wealth of experience in crisis response and management. Devin manages high-stakes reputational and public policy campaigns across clients of all industries. Devin previously served as a senior communications strategist on Governor Glenn Youngkin's campaign and as Press Secretary to Vice President Pence. To continue the conversation, reach out to domalley@narrativestrategies.com.

Jim Secreto is a Managing Director at Narrative. Jim previously held senior roles at the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. He served as Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary Gina Raimondo and Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs in the Biden White House. Want to continue the conversation? Reach out to jsecreto@narrativestrategies.com.