The New Balance of Power: What It Means for Your Brand

The next Congress and statehouses across the country will bring new political dynamics, shifting priorities, and new pressures on brands. Here's what organizations should be watching as Washington and state capitals prepare for 2027.

Last night's election was another reminder that people want leaders who will look out for them.

Americans are worried about the cost of living, uncertain about their economic futures, and thinking about what all of this means for their families. We've seen that frustration building for years, both in the United States and around the world.

For brands, there's a lot to take away from the results. Many companies look like incumbents at a time when voters are questioning the status quo. In other words, businesses risk being seen as part of the economic problems at the root of Americans' desire for change. And as the next Congress and statehouses across the country take shape, the way lawmakers choose to use their power could have significant consequences for brand reputations.

But there's also some welcome clarity. We can now see further into the future than we have been able to in years. Brands have a better sense of the political forces shaping 2027 and the road to 2028, giving them an opportunity to plan ahead with more confidence.

Three dynamics are especially worth watching: the growing influence of populism in both parties, the political focus on affordability, and the expanding reputational consequences of congressional oversight.

1. Populism is changing the traditional rules of engagement

The relationship between business and Washington is becoming more complicated, and party affiliation alone offers an increasingly incomplete guide to where brands will find support or opposition.

Populist voices in both parties are challenging established assumptions about brands and their power, although they approach the issue from different directions.

• On the Democratic side, populist priorities have centered more heavily on affordability, corporate pricing, market concentration, and worker protections, with particular attention to how corporate decisions affect household costs.
• On the Republican side, economic populism places greater emphasis on domestic manufacturing, American jobs, energy independence, and supply chain security. Companies may face questions about where they invest, whom they employ, and how their operations support U.S. economic interests.

While their priorities differ, they share a skepticism of established institutions and a belief that political and economic systems aren't adequately serving Americans.

These priorities can sometimes lead to scrutiny of the same industry or company, even when lawmakers disagree about the underlying problems or solutions.

For brands, longstanding assumptions about which political leaders will support their interests may prove less reliable. Building relationships across the political spectrum remains important, but those relationships need to reflect what different policymakers value and how companies can demonstrate meaningful benefits for their constituents.

2. Affordability is becoming a defining test for business

The debate over affordability extends across healthcare, housing, energy, technology, and trade, prompting heightened public and legislative scrutiny of the role companies play in everyday economic life.

The parties are approaching these concerns from different directions. BPI's analysis of 2026 campaign advertising shows healthcare as the leading issue in Democratic ad spending, while taxes topped the list for Republicans. Both offer a window into how economic concerns are being framed politically.

For companies, this creates potential scrutiny of business decisions that may previously have attracted limited political attention.

Data centers are another example of an issue getting wrapped up in the affordability debate. The growth of AI infrastructure has brought questions about electricity demand, utility costs, water resources, and community impacts into debates that once focused primarily on innovation and economic investment.

Dynamic pricing illustrates a similar trend. A business practice developed around efficiency or revenue optimization can become politically controversial when viewed through the lens of consumer costs and fairness. With new leadership in Congress and statehouses across the country and regulatory priorities taking shape, pricing practices could face even greater scrutiny in 2027.

AI presents an even broader challenge. While some policymakers and Agenda Setters highlight its potential to drive productivity and economic growth, others are raising concerns about its implications for jobs, energy demand, economic inequality, and public safety.

For companies, understanding where their business operations intersect with these broader economic concerns will be increasingly important. Brands that can demonstrate tangible benefits for workers, consumers, and communities (particularly when it comes to affordability) can help inform more credible engagement with policymakers and the public.

3. Congressional oversight is becoming a larger reputational consideration

Tuesday's election has reshaped the congressional oversight landscape. With Democrats taking control of both chambers, the Trump administration will face greater scrutiny, and companies and industries with ties to the administration could find themselves in the spotlight.

New committee leadership will bring new investigative priorities, putting brands on notice that their decisions and relationships may attract attention in the next Congress.

That creates consequences for companies even when an investigation produces no legislative or regulatory change. A business can become a prominent example in a broader argument about affordability, corporate influence, market competition, or accountability.

And legislative and regulatory scrutiny now unfolds in a communications environment where political narratives can develop independently of the formal proceedings. Advocacy organizations, industry critics, political commentators, and online communities may interpret the same inquiry through very different lenses.

This environment also creates opportunities for issues originating outside of Washington to gain national attention. Local disputes, consumer concerns, or questions about corporate conduct can become part of a congressional agenda when they connect to broader political priorities.

The same scrutiny will grow at the state level. Democratic gains in state legislatures and governors' offices, including some sweeps and the loss of Republican veto-proof majorities in elsewhere, will bring new attention to corporate practices in blue, purple, and traditionally red states alike. State lawmakers will use hearings, investigations, and legislation to put companies in the spotlight, often over the same affordability and accountability concerns driving debate in Washington.

For organizations, this calls for closer coordination among government affairs, legal, and communications teams. Understanding the political motivations behind an inquiry, anticipating how different audiences may interpret it, and engaging credibly with policymakers are increasingly interconnected responsibilities.

The next political risk may be the story Washington tells about your business

Brands have traditionally assessed political risk by looking at the potential impact of elections, legislation, and regulation. Those considerations remain essential, but they tell only part of the story.

In an environment shaped by competing agendas, affordability concerns, and fast-moving political narratives, brands must also understand how their corporate decisions and operational practices could become part of a larger argument.

A company's size, pricing decisions, investments, political relationships, or use of emerging technology can become a symbol in debates that extend far beyond its own industry. By the time those debates lead to legislation or congressional inquiries, public perceptions may already be taking shape.

The next Congress and statehouses across the country will help determine the rules under which brands operate. It will also help shape how Americans think about business itself.

Now is the time for companies to act strategically to tell their story, anticipate risks, and get ahead of a new group of Agenda Setters. How organizations manage this moment can mean the difference between being seen by the public and targeted for exacerbating problems, or celebrated for contributing solutions.