We’re in the silly season of analysis, hot takes and commentary on what happened in Election 2024. Some argue there’s a dramatic and lasting realignment of the Republican coalition, some are skeptical of the GOP mandate, and Democrats are engaged in deep self-reflection (and finger pointing).

DDC stands by the mantra that “all politics is local,” but currently, the political zeitgeist is undeniably national, rooted in Washington, DC (or, arguably, Palm Beach). Through this lens and as a first step, businesses must now re-evaluate their priorities: Has feasibility shifted? Have decision-makers changed? Has the sphere of influence evolved? Should your understanding of stakeholder beliefs and behaviors be re-evaluated?

Beginning with stakeholders, it seems, for now and maybe forever, identity politics has receded. Voters acted based on personal values, concerns, and unique ways of receiving and processing information, not solely by demographics. For businesses, this should be a flashing red light to reassess their stakeholder engagement strategies. Like voters, employees, customers, suppliers, and investors don’t act as categories, they act as individuals, and companies must respond and engage accordingly.

So, while the political pundits deliberate, the most strategic businesses are heeding that flashing red light. They are critically examining their stakeholder strategies, aiming to gain a much deeper understanding of their key audiences and their intersections with the business. They’re focused on building sustainable, long-term engagement and alignment with the groups that hold the most power over their outcomes—regardless of the political moment we are living in. (And, yes, most of that happens at the local level so our mantra holds.)

This kind of stakeholder work is critical as businesses confront potentially substantive policy changes, depending on where the Trump Administration focuses its efforts before the Midterm election cycle. A (likely) Republican-controlled House and Senate will face voters in 2026 in what will likely be a referendum on whether—and how—Trump and the Republicans deliver on their campaign promises. This sets the stage for businesses to be navigating a complex environment balancing their core priorities with potentially divergent stakeholder concerns.

The upcoming Lame Duck session will focus on government funding, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Farm Bill, disaster relief, and judicial confirmations. Although the number of incumbents losing seats in 2024 is about average, those combined with the 53 retiring members—far above the historical average of 39—could drive more bipartisan actions on key issues like funding and defense. However, some partisan clashes may also emerge as Democrats push to advance priorities ahead of a likely Republican trifecta in 2025.

From there, the Trump Administration will move swiftly in 2025 to make good on key aspects of his agenda.

Tax Policy: The Administration faces the challenge of balancing campaign promises to make the 2017 TJCA permanent and introduce more tax cuts with broader fiscal realities. Businesses will, once again, be in a tricky stakeholder situation as corporate interests may or may not align with the individual stakeholder interests of employees, consumers, and others. During the campaign, Trump offered targeted tax cuts to niche constituencies (no tax on tips, overtime or Social Security) that will likely come into conflict with business tax policy once the analysis is done.

The business community will be heavily scrutinized as the push to make the cuts permanent creates tension with broader fiscal realities, including rising deficits and demands for public spending on infrastructure, healthcare and education. Corporate advocacy will require a strategic approach to align financial interests with public trust, balancing corporate gains with reputational considerations, as stakeholders increasingly scrutinize corporate stances on public policy.

Trade Policy: Trump has signaled his intention to impose significant tariffs on imported goods to boost domestic manufacturing. Whether Trump fully moves forward with these intentions or uses them as a negotiating tool remains to be seen, but either way, businesses face a complex landscape, balancing potentially higher costs and disrupted supply chains with investor expectations and consumer demand. While some sectors may see short-term growth, broader challenges could persist if trade tensions and retaliatory tariffs increase.

Stakeholders will experience varied impacts and voters have demonstrated little patience for short term pain/long term gain propositions. Consumers may face higher prices, manufacturing workers might see job gains, but employees in cost-sensitive sectors could face insecurity. Farmers risk losses from retaliatory tariffs on exports, potentially straining rural economies. Policymakers will navigate diplomatic tensions with trade partners, potentially leading to increased government spending on subsidies for affected industries.

Overall, businesses will need to work aggressively to engage in the process within and beyond the Beltway so to capitalize on favorable impacts, mitigate business risk and minimize negative consequences for their core stakeholder audiences.

Immigration: Completing the border wall, mass deportations, and the reinstatement of strict immigration policies played a central role in Trump’s campaign. As the Administration maps its immediate and longer-term actions, reactions are likely to be polarized, reflecting deep divisions on immigration. Supporters see these measures as necessary for job protection and security, while opponents warn of labor shortages, inflation, and social disruption. Businesses reliant on immigrant labor, especially in agriculture, hospitality, construction, and tech, may face labor shortages, higher costs, and regulatory strain, while some firms in deportation services could benefit. To adapt, companies should evaluate workforce needs, explore automation and U.S. workforce development, and prepare for wage and inflationary impacts. Alongside consistent and transparent communications with broad stakeholder universes, businesses should monitor policy shifts and engage with industry groups to help navigate compliance and workforce challenges.

Energy: The Trump Administration’s energy policies prioritize fossil fuel expansion, streamlined permits, and reduced support for renewable energy through potential changes to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This is likely to benefit fossil fuel industries and support domestic energy production, which in turn supports manufacturing and other heavy industries. However, renewable energy sectors could face hurdles, and environmental advocates will focus on increased emissions and setbacks in sustainability. Electric utilities that rely on coal, oil, and natural gas could see lower short-term costs, however, utilities focused on clean energy may face challenges due to reduced subsidies and potential cuts to renewable energy support, which could slow the shift toward affordable renewables. As businesses work to shape a policy environment that may not reflect all of the realities of the ongoing energy transition, it’s essential for businesses to engage stakeholders by emphasizing specific regional or local connections: job growth, community investment and energy independence, long-term economic and environmental value of clean energy, along with bipartisan support for local job creation under the IRA. Centering on and amplifying discreet, local stakeholder concerns will be crucial as these policies reshape the energy landscape and determine the contours of the ongoing energy transition.

Healthcare: Policy changes are likely to shake things up for businesses, especially in healthcare and insurance. With a push toward deregulation, changes to Medicare and Medicaid, and potential tweaks to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), companies might see reduced compliance costs and new revenue opportunities. On the flip side, ACA-reliant and Medicaid-focused businesses might face some uncertainties. In addition, potential cuts to Medicaid and adjustments to the ACA, may widen health disparities. Low-income and rural communities could face reduced access to care, while changes affecting pre-existing conditions and insurance subsidies may raise costs for vulnerable groups. These shifts will affect a range of stakeholders—patients, providers, insurers, pharma companies, and investors—who could experience changes in market demand, funding, and regulations. Businesses navigating these potential policy changes should engage their stakeholder audiences to authenticate and humanize their priorities in the context of what will likely be a contentious and extended debate.

A lot is likely to happen in Washington, DC that could have significant impact on businesses to say nothing of what are likely to be spirited state legislative sessions in states reacting—one way or the other—to the national political scene and their own priorities within that.

But, in this environment, it’s wise for businesses to take a pause. Over the past decade, many have struggled to calibrate shifting expectations around political engagement, often making serious and costly mistakes. The outcome of this election introduced what will be robust policy debates and even more uncertainty for businesses as voters signaled a desire for change. Rather than reacting to this political moment (or the next one) and spinning to decipher what “change” means, businesses need to center their focus on their own priorities while proactively—and very thoughtfully—managing how these priorities intersect with politics and affect their stakeholders.

Navigating Election Uncertainty for Business Leaders