In this article, we lay out how we expect Congressional investigations of companies to intensify, the likely areas of focus, and the importance of proactive preparation for in-house counsel and corporate leadership, in order to manage legal exposure, reputational risk and operational disruption.
By Alexander H. Southwell & Daniel P. Smith
A dramatic expansion of congressional oversight and investigations is coming in the increasingly likely event of a control shift in one or both chambers of Congress resulting from the upcoming midterm elections. During a time when legislative output has been constrained—which will likely continue with a divided government—investigative activity can become a primary instrument of political influence and policy advocacy. Companies will be in the cross-hairs and preparedness is critical to managing risk from the coming wave of Congressional scrutiny from Democrats.
Although robust oversight has characterized prior periods of Democratic-controlled Congressional bodies, several developments suggest the next cycle of investigations may feature heightened scrutiny of private corporations. Below we lay out how we expect Congressional investigations of companies to intensify, the likely areas of focus, and the importance of proactive preparation for in-house counsel and corporate leadership, in order to manage legal exposure, reputational risk and operational disruption.
Why Corporate Investigations May Intensify
Two dynamics are shaping the anticipated investigative landscape.
1. Corporate Conduct will be a Proxy for Executive Branch Scrutiny
A number of Congressional Democrats have voiced concerns about certain corporations and industries having developed relationships with the Trump Administration that warrant examination. Such statements have focused on sectors including digital assets, energy, and companies subject to antitrust review.
In this environment, investigations of private companies will serve a dual purpose: direct examination of corporate practices and indirect investigation of alleged executive branch favoritism or misconduct. Investigative demands for documents and ultimately testimony directed at companies may thus serve industry oversight, but also a broader inquiry into the Trump Administration.
2. Strategic Lessons from Prior Investigative Standoffs
During the second half of the prior Trump Administration, Democratic-led Congressional investigations into executive branch actions were frequently delayed by Administration resistance to document production and assertions of executive privilege. Protracted litigation over subpoenas resulted in extended timelines, and—in some instances—effective rebuffing of the investigations.
That experience will likely lead to a strategic recalibration. Rather than relying exclusively on agency-directed subpoenas and investigative activity, which may become mired in privilege disputes and judicial review,
Democratic committees are likely to also pursue third-party sources, particularly corporations. Such entities have materially different legal defenses and often respond more quickly to congressional process than executive agencies engaged in institutional privilege battles. As a result, companies with even tangential connections to controversial Trump Administration policy areas may find themselves drawn into investigations aimed at illuminating executive branch conduct.
Issues and Sectors Likely to Attract Scrutiny
Based on publicly articulated priorities, several issues industries appear especially likely to receive heightened oversight:
- Algorithmic and Dynamic Pricing: Retailers, airlines, rideshare platforms, delivery services, and consultants advising on pricing strategies may face scrutiny regarding the use of algorithms and potential consumer price impacts.
- Healthcare: Insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare providers may be examined with respect to affordability, drug pricing, and Medicare Advantage practices.
- Digital Assets and Cryptocurrency: Regulatory treatment of crypto firms, political donations, and potential conflicts of interest are likely focal points.
- Utilities and Energy: Rate increases and billing practices may be framed as consumer protection issues.
- Trade and Tariffs: Allocation of tariff exclusions or trade benefits could be scrutinized for favoritism.
- Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies: Data governance, employment effects, algorithmic bias, and safety frameworks remain active areas of bipartisan concern, though often for different reasons.
Companies operating in these sectors—or with indirect exposure to them—should anticipate requests for internal analyses, communications with regulators, and materials reflecting interactions with policymakers. Importantly, companies should not assume that risk is confined to one political party’s agenda. If control of Congress is divided, corporate actors may face simultaneous and potentially inconsistent demands from different chambers. Republican members may initiate inquiries of their own, particularly where companies are perceived to have modified positions or commitments made during earlier periods of Republican control. The possibility of parallel investigations—sometimes touching the same underlying subject matter—creates the risk of being caught between competing narratives and political objectives.
Such preparedness will necessarily depend on the particular risk profile and activities of a company, but should include consideration of the following:
1. Conduct a Congressional Risk Assessment
Companies should identify areas where their business operations intersect with publicly articulated priorities of key committees and members. This includes: Reviewing recent hearings, press releases, and investigative letters; Ensuring complete understanding of jurisdictional authority across relevant committees; Assessing prior Congressional oversight trends in the sector.
2. Evaluate Mitigation Options
Where feasible, companies should consider whether operational, governance, or compliance adjustments would reduce exposure or strengthen defensive narratives in response to scrutiny. Changes that enhance transparency, fortify internal controls, or clarify decision-making processes may carry both legal and political benefits. However, such steps must be carefully evaluated to ensure they align with long-term business objectives and do not have unintended consequences.
3. Develop an Integrated Response Protocol with a cross-functional team
Congressional inquiries often trigger immediate media attention, and indeed are often started through press releases. Companies should in advance: Establish a clear internal response process, with clear lines of authority and decision-making, including protocols for board notification and involvement; Ensure a standing response team is identified, with coordination across legal, communications, compliance, and government affairs functions; Develop, or test, procedures for coordinating outside counsel, communications advisors, and government affairs professionals; Ensure spokespersons and surrogates are designated and prepared, and messaging frameworks developed; Develop, or confirm, a document preservation protocol tailored to Congressional inquiries. The first 24–72 hours following the initiation of an inquiry frequently shape the narrative that follows.
4. Consider Constructive Engagement Before Escalation
Letters from ranking members can evolve into a compulsory process once committee leadership changes. Proactive engagement—where appropriate—may resolve issues or avoid full committee investigations. Early dialogue can also clarify misunderstandings, narrow the scope of potential requests, and demonstrate good faith and cooperativeness. In certain cases, voluntary briefings or targeted document productions may mitigate the likelihood of formal subpoenas.
Conclusion
Congressional investigations of private companies will increase if there is a change in control of either Congressional chambers. These will likely bring particular intensity in that many investigative efforts will be proxies for scrutiny and oversight of the conduct of the Trump Administration that Democrats have been unable to bring to bear to date. Companies that prepare before receiving a letter or subpoena will be materially better positioned to protect their legal interests and preserve their reputations. Those who wait until process is served often find themselves reacting under compressed timelines and heightened public scrutiny. Now is the time to take preparation steps in order to manage reputational risk, operational disruption, and legal exposure.
Alexander H. Southwell is a Partner in McDermott, Will & Schulte. Daniel P. Smith is a Principal in Cornerstone Government Affairs.
Reprinted with permission from Corporate Counsel on March 6, 2026 © 2026 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.