Why corporate America needs one playbook for a divided Washington after November
The article argues that companies should prepare for a divided Washington after the midterm elections by coordinating their communications and government affairs teams. A Democratic gain in Congress would not mean that President Donald Trump has lost control of federal agencies or executive powers, and companies risk misreading public opinion if they treat election results as a mandate on every issue.
The author points to past presidents who continued to shape policy after their party lost Congress, and says Trump is likely to keep using executive authority. The article also cites data centres, where community opposition reportedly slowed 40% of projects due to open this year, as an example of companies winning official support while overlooking local stakeholders. It argues that issues such as diversity policies also need joined-up planning for employees, communities, regulators and elected officials.
- A changed Congress would not remove Trump’s executive power.
- Companies should align communications and government affairs teams.
- Data centre opposition reportedly slowed 40% of planned openings.
New here? Start with this
In the United States, the president leads the executive branch, which includes federal agencies, while Congress makes laws and oversees the government. Midterm elections take place halfway through a president’s term and can change which party controls Congress, but they do not replace the president or automatically change the powers of the office.
Companies deal with government through teams that handle public communications and relations with officials. Their decisions can also affect workers and local communities, whose views may differ from those of national politicians. Data centres, which need land, electricity and infrastructure, illustrate how local objections can affect business plans even when officials support them.
The issues at stake include regulation, workplace policies and where companies build. Understanding how decisions are made across the federal government, Congress, communities and workplaces helps explain why businesses may need to consider these groups together.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Companies may need a coordinated approach across communications and government affairs because divided government does not remove presidential control over executive agencies or powers. Planning across employees, local communities, regulators and elected officials can help firms avoid mistaking an election result for broad public consent, as reported resistance to data centre projects illustrates.
The case against
A single playbook could oversimplify a changing political landscape and blur the distinct responsibilities of communications and government affairs teams. Companies may be better served by issue-specific plans that respond to differing local and national concerns, while avoiding the assumption that election outcomes or opposition in one sector predict views on others.