Congressional Investigations to Take Center Stage in 2026

Over the past several weeks, committee leaders in the Republican majority have previewed aggressive oversight agendas, high-profile reports have reframed government spending as a political flashpoint, and lawmakers in both parties have signaled interest in probing foreign policy decisions, regulatory authority and private-sector conduct. Moreover, as Trump administration officials settle into their roles, coordination with their allies in Congress with respect to oversight priorities has come into greater focus. The result is an environment in which investigations are starting earlier, moving faster and playing out more publicly than in a typical congressional cycle.

At the same time, congressional Democrats are already signaling that oversight of the Trump administration—as well as the companies and other organizations that have appeared to align themselves with the Administration through “deals” or public political support—will be a key priority if they retake the House or the Senate. Organizations need to be preparing now for the possibility of Democratic control of at least one chamber of Congress—and the committee chairmanship gavels and legal authority to compel testimony and production of records that comes along with it.

Oversight Is the Strategy in an Election Year
With legislative margins tight, Congress has limited room to enact sweeping statutory change in 2026. Investigations fill that gap. They allow committees to demand information, spotlight perceived problems and influence Executive Branch behavior—all without the friction of the legislative process or, in many cases, input from the minority party.

Recent messaging from current congressional leadership reflects a deliberate effort to use oversight to advance themes that resonate with voters: government waste, regulatory overreach, energy security and the real-world economic effects of federal policy. At the same time, Democrats will use their megaphones to highlight their own investigative priorities should they take control of either chamber after November. The takeaway for companies is straightforward: oversight risk is increasing—and it is not tied to a single party.

The Pace and Tone of Investigations Will Be Different in 2026
Two features distinguish the 2026 oversight environment from prior years. First, investigations are likely to be front-loaded, with committees seeking to build records and generate public findings well before the midterm elections. Second, oversight is increasingly media-aware, with hearings, letters, social media posts and interim reports timed to coincide with broader political debates.

For companies, this environment compresses response timelines, heightens reputational risk, and requires earlier and closer coordination among legal, government affairs and communications teams. It also reflects a more aggressive oversight posture, increasing the likelihood that committee leaders will more readily seek to invoke their subpoena authority and thereby introduce additional legal, procedural and operational hurdles even at early stages of an inquiry.

Potential 2026 Oversight Priorities
Based on early 2026 signals, companies and institutions in the following sectors should anticipate heightened congressional scrutiny as congressional Republicans continue their tenuous control of Congress through the end of the year:

• Federal Contractors and Grant Recipients. Companies, nonprofits and research institutions receiving federal funds are all likely to face congressional scrutiny in 2026. Likely focus areas include use of funds, pricing and cost allocation, internal controls, subcontracting practices and compliance with program requirements.
• Health Care, Life Sciences and Research Institutions. Hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, laboratories and federally funded research entities may face scrutiny related to pricing, reimbursement, public health programs, research funding and interactions with federal agencies.
• Nonprofits and Foundations. Charitable organizations, advocacy groups and foundations—especially those receiving federal grants or engaging in policy-adjacent work—may be scrutinized for funding sources, program use and alignment with statutory authority.
• Higher Education Institutions. Colleges and universities face elevated risk tied to federal funding, research grants, foreign funding, campus policies, athletics governance and compliance with education and civil rights statutes. In particular, investigations focused on campus DEI and admissions policies could be at the forefront of congressional interest.
• Energy, Natural Resources and Commodities. Companies involved in energy production, trading, transportation, mining or commodity markets—particularly those with international exposure—may be pulled into oversight related to sanctions, foreign policy, oil and gas revenues, and energy security.
• Technology, Data and Platform-Based Businesses. Technology companies across sectors—not just large platforms—face scrutiny tied to market conduct, algorithms, pricing models, content moderation, data governance and perceived coordination with regulators.
• Financial Services and Payments. Banks, fintechs, crypto-related businesses, asset managers and payment processors may see inquiries into regulatory compliance, consumer protection, sanctions exposure and financial system risk.

• ESG, Sustainability and Climate-Focused Businesses. Companies with prominent ESG disclosures, climate commitments or sustainability-linked financing may face oversight focused on fiduciary duties, disclosure accuracy and the role of policy pressure in corporate decision-making.
• DEI Programs and Corporate Governance. Employers with formal DEI initiatives or related disclosures may be asked to justify governance structures, metrics and alignment with business objectives, particularly where federal funds or contracts are involved.
• Consumer-Facing Companies. Businesses in retail, food and beverage, transportation, housing and services may face oversight tied to pricing, fees, supply chains, advertising claims and consumer harm narratives.
• Supply Chain–Dependent Manufacturers. Companies with complex domestic or international supply chains may face questions related to sourcing, labor practices, trade compliance and reliance on foreign suppliers.
• Cost-of-Living, Pricing and Affordability Across Essential Goods and Services. Rising health care, housing and food costs are increasingly shaping congressional oversight priorities. Public pressure driven by sustained inflation, consolidation across key industries and concerns that federal policies and corporate practices are contributing to affordability challenges is prompting committees in both parties to signal early information-gathering efforts. Likely areas of focus include price transparency, market competition and the effectiveness of federal consumer protection and subsidy programs, with election-year politics amplifying scrutiny of perceived contributors to consumer cost pressures.

Preparing for Scrutiny from Either Direction
Companies should plan now for the possibility that investigative priorities could shift quickly after November. If Democrats regain control of the House or Senate, oversight is likely to pivot sharply—from a focus on government waste and regulatory overreach to accountability, ethics, transparency and corporate influence over Executive Branch decision-making. Preparation strategies that assume only one political outcome are therefore unlikely to hold.

While oversight of the Trump administration itself—particularly around transparency, ethics and accountability—would be a major focus, Democratic investigations are unlikely to be limited to the Administration alone. Based on current signaling, private-sector entities—companies, universities, nonprofits and other institutions—would play a central role in Democratic investigations, often as the factual backbone for broader inquiries into government conduct.

If Democrats take power, the following sectors should anticipate heightened scrutiny:

• Companies Engaging Directly with the Trump Administration. Businesses that entered into high-profile deals, settlements, enforcement resolutions, regulatory approvals or contracts with the Trump administration may face scrutiny over whether those outcomes reflected ordinary agency processes or political favoritism. This includes companies that received favorable terms, accelerated approvals, discretionary relief from enforcement or regulation, or that made large political donations or other significant financial contributions to Trump-aligned committees, candidates or affiliated entities in proximity to key government actions.
• Companies Involved in Government Equity Stakes or Revenue-Sharing Arrangements. Companies that entered into arrangements with the Trump administration involving direct or indirect government equity stakes, profit-sharing, revenue participation or other ownership interests may receive questions or scrutiny. Democratic oversight may examine the legal authority for such arrangements, valuation and governance terms, conflicts of interest and precedent-setting implications.
• Federal Contractors and Grant Recipients. Companies, nonprofits, universities and research institutions receiving federal funds may be scrutinized for how and why awards were made, whether procurement or grant processes deviated from normal practice, and whether political considerations influenced awards, renewals, pricing or enforcement discretion.
• Universities and Research Institutions. Colleges and universities may be scrutinized for their administration of federal research funding and perceived concessions made to Trump administration requests, particularly around campus policies, treatment of foreign students and civil rights.
• Nonprofits and Foundations. Charitable organizations, advocacy groups and foundations—especially those operating in policy-adjacent spaces—may be examined for donor influence, coordination with administration officials, use of nonprofits as policy intermediaries, and whether activities aligned with statutory missions or served as vehicles for political influence.
• Technology, Data and Platform-Based Businesses. Technology companies may face oversight related to data privacy, civil liberties and national security risks, as well as the nature and extent of their relationships with the Trump administration. This includes scrutiny of companies that have entered into contracts, data-sharing arrangements, enforcement settlements, advisory roles or other close collaborations with federal agencies; companies perceived as providing platforms, tools or services that advance Administration priorities; and companies whose executives have taken prominent public or advisory roles. Oversight is also likely to focus on algorithmic decision-making, content governance, and whether government influence affected company policies or enforcement decisions.
• Cryptocurrency, Digital Asset and Blockchain Companies. Cryptocurrency and digital asset companies may face heightened scrutiny related to regulatory treatment under the Trump administration. Democratic oversight is also likely to focus on political donations, fundraising activity, and personal or advisory relationships between crypto executives and Administration officials, as well as any instances in which crypto firms received favorable treatment, exemptions or access while traditional enforcement or rulemaking was curtailed. Additional areas of focus may include consumer harm, market manipulation, use of crypto in sanctions or anti-money laundering evasion, and whether federal policy choices disproportionately benefited specific firms or platforms.
• Energy, Climate and Environmental Impact Companies. Companies involved in energy production, natural resources or environmentally sensitive activities may be scrutinized for benefiting from regulatory rollbacks, enforcement discretion, permitting decisions or sanctions carve-outs, particularly where those actions departed from prior agency practice or affected climate or environmental justice outcomes.
• Consumer-Facing Companies. Businesses in housing, health care, transportation, financial services, retail and other consumer-facing sectors may face oversight tied to pricing decisions, fee structures, access issues or practices alleged to disproportionately harm vulnerable populations, especially where federal agencies declined to act or reversed prior enforcement positions.

What Companies Should Be Doing Now
In 2026, the goal is not just to respond well to congressional scrutiny—it is to stay out of it where possible.

That starts with how companies engage Congress day to day. Maintaining credible working relationships with Members, relevant committees and staff—particularly those with jurisdiction over or interest in an organization’s industry—can make a real difference. When relationships exist, questions are more likely to come quietly before they come publicly.

Companies should also avoid surprising Congress. Major announcements, restructurings, pricing decisions or actions tied to federal programs or politically sensitive issues can quickly attract attention if lawmakers learn about them through the press. Where appropriate, advanced outreach to relevant offices can help frame decisions and prevent misunderstandings from escalating into investigations or other forms of public scrutiny.

Additionally, companies should pressure-test how their actions might look outside the boardroom. In an election year, even ordinary business decisions can be reframed as political statements or regulatory failures. Being able to explain—clearly and simply—why decisions were made, and how they align with legal obligations and business goals, can be the difference between staying off the radar and becoming the example.

Finally, organizations should closely monitor key public policy developments and other high-profile news with a political impact that could subject them to scrutiny. Congressional investigations are routinely derived from news coverage that attracts public interest—or that stakeholder organizations are purposefully promoting to attract such interest. Reporting in a conservative publication or on a conservative-leaning TV network often yields oversight by congressional Republicans, just as enterprise reporting in The New York Times or The Washington Post on matters relevant to public policy is often the precursor to oversight activity by Democrats.

Moreover, key congressional Democrats are already telegraphing their oversight priorities if they retake control of Congress by sending letters to the Trump administration and/or to private entities or issuing reports pertaining to alleged malfeasance or other issues of concern. If Democrats retake a congressional chamber and suddenly have the legal authority to compel cooperation with a committee investigation, the harshly worded request for information contained in a letter this year could be refashioned as a compulsory demand for such information—possibly in the form of a subpoena, if not addressed effectively—in 2027. Organizations would be well advised to work with their advisors in Washington, DC, to effectively monitor and gather intelligence related to potential Democratic oversight priorities in 2026 and have a plan for avoiding or responding to scrutiny if Democrats retake control of part or all of Congress in 2027.