Winning on Capitol Hill: How to Succeed When Testifying Before Congress

Practical and tested communication guidance for individuals and organizations preparing to testify before Congress.  

In today’s hyper-political and sensitive environment, congressional hearings have evolved into high-stakes events that necessitate a comprehensive and integrated response across legal, communications, government relations, and executive leadership. They have become headline-driven, polarizing spectacles, often more focused on scoring political points and creating viral moments than actual oversight. For executives, university leaders, or industry experts called to testify, the stakes are incredibly high. A poorly executed appearance can cause major reputational harm, significant operational or business impact, and even job loss. Conversely, a confident and disciplined performance can rebuild credibility and reassure your key stakeholders.  

The audience has never been larger. Axios notes that these hearings have become a “point of fascination” since President Trump’s first term, reflecting the nation’s increasing political polarization. Viewership is soaring into the tens of millions. Twenty million people watched the first January 6th hearing in June 2022, nearly 20 million followed Brett Kavanaugh's hearing in September 2018, and 19.5 million viewed James Comey's testimony in June 2017, just to name a few. The coverage extends beyond television, as lawmakers increasingly use social media to share clips and testimony, shaping the narrative. 

The Reality of Hearings 

Having prepared dozens of individuals for congressional hearings during my career in the Executive Branch and now in the private sector, I believe it’s critical to prepare for how members of Congress will use the substance of the witness’s testimony and expertise to promote their own political agendas and ambitions. The MO of these members is clear: they use their time to badger witnesses, provoking them to say something off script or falter under pressure. Once the hearing is over, they share the clip on their social media account, send out a press release and an email about the hearing, and fundraise. Depending on the public interest, they may continue to press for days or weeks to come.  

This requires a great deal of adaptability and flexibility. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to prepare an executive for a high-stakes hearing before a subcommittee known for its thorough and rigorous questioning. There were two panels. The first featured victims connected to the issue at hand, strategically positioned to evoke emotion in the room. The second consisted of industry executives, who were brought in after the victim's testimony set the tone. Upon observing the first panel, it was clear that members intended to press industry witnesses for an apology. We quickly adjusted our approach and advised the client to open with a direct apology, rather than waiting to get asked about it. That one change completely shifted the tone and flow of the hearing for our client, putting them on their front foot. It was a clear reminder of how a single moment, a single audible, can define the trajectory of a hearing, for better or worse. 

One stand-out example worth highlighting is the April 2024 House Education and Workforce hearing with then-Columbia President Nemat “Minouche” Shafik. Committee Republicans pressed Shafik about her handling of antisemitism on campus after the October 7 attacks. Shafik struggled to define the line between free speech and student safety, to determine what steps the University had taken, and to ascertain whether faculty members who made inflammatory statements were still employed. She gave evasive answers, leaving lawmakers unsatisfied and unconvinced that Columbia was taking serious, decisive action.   

The fallout–protests, faculty unrest, and increased scrutiny–led to her resignation that August, echoing similar results from months earlier after the same committee heard from the presidents of Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Pennsylvania in another hearing, where two of the presidents also resigned. The lesson: how you respond and prepare under questioning where there is little room for error, answering in an unprepared, unsatisfactory way can overshadow your entire effort and become the defining narrative for how you handled the issue. 

Common Faults 

Too often, witnesses fall victim to common mistakes that are likely to give the lawmakers the exchanges and clips they exactly want: 

• Dodging or rambling. Avoiding direct answers or overexplaining may indicate that you are trying to conceal something. This is a quick way to lose the room’s trust. 

• Lack of preparation. Lack of preparation can leave you scrambling for answers or, worse, lead you to say something inaccurate or misleading.  

• Ambiguity. You may not be able to answer every question specifically but be prepared with some concrete examples or actual steps your organization has taken to support your claims. Otherwise, members will press harder, and you will lose credibility. 

• Contradictions. Inconsistencies in your testimony will leave you piling on untrue statements. It is non-negotiable for legal, comms, and others on the team to align on messaging prior. 

• Verbal or Emotional Slip-ups, Combativeness. Whether it is a moment of anger or a mispronunciation, one slip-up could overshadow the entirety of the hearing, no matter how well you do the rest. 

• Endurance: Hearings can last a long time. The answers given 90 minutes in can be just as important and scrutinized as those provided within the first 10 minutes. It can be easy to lose focus or stray from key messages over the course of an hours-long hearing.  

Recipe for Success 

There are several steps that both organizations and the principals involved can take to prepare for a congressional hearing. Strong performances are a product of being well-prepared, well-disciplined, and well-mannered: 

• Plan with precision. Build a precise timeline leading up to the hearing. This includes the schedule of prep sessions, ownership of various items, the hearing day plan, and other relevant details. 

• Define team roles. Legal, communications, and government affairs, as well as other team members, must be in sync on what is ahead and what is expected of everyone. Nobody works in a silo. 

• Message development. Developing clear and concise talking points that the witness can use as a guide in their responses is critical, utilizing research and insights when applicable. 

• The intangibles. Tone, posture, attire, and composure matter as much as the witness’s words. Respect and credibility can be instantly established or ruined before the witness opens their mouth. 

• Practice, practice, practice. Simulate as many situations as possible - the likely, the unlikely, the good, the bad, and so on. The prep team needs to press the witness until the talking points become repetitive by nature. 

• Repeat, repeat, repeat. Repeat key messages until they become instinctive. 

Conclusion 

Congressional hearings carry the power to either reinforce an individual's or organization's credibility or inflict lasting reputational damage in a single session. Achieving a successful outcome is not accidental—it demands thorough preparation, consistent discipline, and absolute control over the messages conveyed. 

Drawing from extensive experience preparing individuals for appearances before Congress—including my tenure at the Department of Justice and the Treasury, where I assisted nominees and government witnesses, as well as my work developing our firm's crisis practice and guiding private sector leaders—I have found that the objective extends far beyond mere survival.  

The objective measure of success lies in finding the right balance: presenting yourself as a credible and authoritative witness while avoiding overexertion, proactively shaping the narrative instead of merely reacting to events, and ultimately exiting the process in a more resilient and respected position.