4 ways communicators can prepare for post-midterm reputation risks

The 2026 midterms could bring new political pressure and stakeholder demands for companies, leaving comms teams to handle some tricky situations.

Mara Hedgecoth, chief communications and marketing officer at APCO, anticipates a shift in what employees, customers and other stakeholders expect from companies, particularly when business and politics overlap.

The challenge will be deciding which issues matter to the organization, spotting when they become a reputational risk and making decisions before an issue arises, she said.

“Regulation moves on its own timeline and pressure to speak publicly ebbs and flows with the news cycle, but what employees, customers and investors expect from a company has been shifting for years, and midterms tend to accelerate that shift,” Hedgecoth said.

Join Hedgecoth for a deep dive look at what this means for your organization during Ragan’s Future of Communications Conference here.

Here’s what communications teams should be preparing for.

Understand when an issue becomes a business problem

Communicators also need clear signals for when something has gone from a political debate to a reputational or operational risk, Hedgecoth said.

Watch for changes in employee questions, customer behavior, market value and online conversations about the brand, she said.

One signal might require a wait-and-watch approach while several appearing together should trigger a larger response.

“More than one happening at the same time means you’re no longer in ‘monitor’ mode,” she said.

Another warning sign is a growing gap between what a company says and what stakeholders think it is actually doing.

This is where comms teams can provide more context. Rather than waiting for leaders to come to the team and ask for a response, communicators should bring stakeholder sentiment, media coverage and reputation concerns into the decision-making process early through frequent check-ins.

“The goal is to catch those signals early, before the organization gets forced into a reactive position,” Hedgecoth said.

Don’t let the loudest stakeholder make decisions for you

Political issues can also create another problem. Different audiences may want completely different things and one group may be more outspoken.

Employees might expect one response, while customers and policymakers want something else, Hedgecoth said. But companies need to be careful they’re not prioritizing whichever group applies the most pressure.

“It shouldn’t turn into a contest over which group is loudest,” she said.

Instead, leaders should determine what is materially at risk and make a decision that can be explained consistently across audiences, she said.

Not everyone has to like the answer. But the organization should be able to clearly explain why it made that choice and how it connects to its business, values and long term strategy.

Change how you think about responses

Companies have already become more selective about weighing in on political and social issues. Hedgecoth doesn’t see this trend fading away.

The question now is not whether to speak, but how the company should respond.

“There is much less appetite for commentary that appears performative,” she said.

APCO’s 2026 Pulse Check survey found that 72% of Americans respect companies that maintained their existing practices and commitments despite political pressure.

This means consistency is more important than releasing a statement about every hot button issue.

Evaluate a situation based on three things: relevance, credibility and impact. Is it connected to the company’s business, values, employees or customers? Does the organization have a legitimate role to play? And will speaking actually accomplish anything?

Sometimes the right reaction should happen outside public view, Hedgecoth said.

“Sometimes listening, supporting employees internally or engaging policymakers directly is the more effective move than a public statement,” she said.

And when an organization does speak publicly, words won’t be convincing enough. Back it up with action, she said.

“If you do decide to speak, you need to be ready to explain what you’re doing about it, not just what you believe,” Hedgecoth said.

Build a response process before you need it

An organization’s prep strategy should have little to do with predicting which political issue will dominate after the election, Hedgecoth said.

Think instead about how to speed up internal decision-making.

Hedgecoth said the traditional model of government relations, legal, HR and communications separately assessing an issue before coming together is usually too slow.

“By the time those teams get in the same room, the external conversation has often already moved on,” she said.

Establish who monitors emerging issues, who needs to be consulted, who decides whether the organization responds and who gives final approval in advance.

Breaking these silos down will become critical as companies face different policy developments at the federal and state levels, including around issues like AI, data privacy and labor, she said.

“The most valuable preparation isn’t predicting the next issue,” Hedgecoth said. “It’s making sure the organization can make a thoughtful decision quickly once that issue, wherever it comes from, actually arrives.”