Published on Jun 27, 2026
By Ken Spain
In the past, when a company became the target of a political attack, there was usually time to formulate a response. Facts could be gathered, strategy set. Under the right circumstances, silence might allow the news cycle to move on. That playbook is now a relic.
The narrative often begins to take shape before they say a single word publicly–and long before they can formulate a balanced response.
Political attacks on businesses and elite organizations were usually broad and ideologically delineated: Democrats focused on big banks, pharmaceuticals, oil and gas. Republicans generally positioned themselves as defenders of the private sector, stepping in when industries like Big Tech became part of broader political fights. In the current environment, both parties see political upside and little risk in calling out specific companies by name, with those attacks often going viral.
The frequency, specificity, and bipartisan nature of political pressure on businesses are now defining features of today’s political environment. Companies no longer have the luxury of time or room to maneuver.
Narrative Strategies’ Nexus Survey, conducted ahead of this year’s midterm elections, found that 60% of voters recalled a political leader criticizing a specific company by name in the prior month. Of those, 25% said it happened at least weekly, and 16% said it happened daily.
Although this is an off-year election, the pace of criticism has not slowed. If anything, the attacks have become an even more reliable way to drive political agendas and energize voters.
Earlier this year, President Trump posted to Truth Social that Raytheon was “the least responsive to the needs” of the Pentagon and threatened to pull its government contracts. The world’s second-largest military contractor, with $43.5 billion in defense revenue in 2024, was drawn into a national story it had no role in starting, threatening the relationship with its largest customer and placing its government contracts at the center of a political tempest. Within weeks, RTX announced it would increase capital investment by $500 million and signed new production agreements with the Pentagon for five weapons systems.
The same pattern played out in California this spring. As gas prices climbed above $6 a gallon, Chevron pointed to state energy policies as a driver of the higher costs. Governor Gavin Newsom responded by publicly calling on drivers to avoid Chevron gas stations over Memorial Day weekend, citing a state analysis that claimed the company was charging 60 to 80 cents more per gallon than unbranded alternatives. The attack drew national attention to the company’s pricing and pulled it into a public political fight at the height of summer driving season.
Not every moment in the political spotlight is an attack, but businesses still have to manage the consequences. Earlier this month, Trump revealed on Truth Social that Apple had agreed to work with Intel to manufacture chips in the U.S, blindsiding the companies. Trump blurting out a deal that had been in negotiations for more than a year sent Intel’s stock up nine percent and left the company without control over the timing of the announcement or the risks that followed.
Politicians call out public companies for a simple reason: it works. And companies have become easier targets as sentiment about public companies and capitalism has shifted.
Republican-aligned voters’ favorability toward capitalism fell to 68% in the Narrative Strategies survey. Among Democrats, 52% now hold a favorable view of socialism. Only 3% of Americans say companies should focus primarily on delivering returns to shareholders.
Those attitudes make targeting individual companies a low-risk, high-reward political strategy, and two forces are accelerating them. The first is the cost of living, which remains the central political issue for American voters and makes large businesses convenient punching bags for economic frustration. The second is AI, which is amplifying that insecurity.
Two-thirds of voters see AI as critical to the country’s future, but only 40% trust the companies developing artificial intelligence to do the right thing. Americans identify businesses as the primary beneficiary of the technology, and employees as the group that benefits least. That combination of economic anxiety and technological disruption has caught companies flat-footed.
This vise is particularly difficult for companies in regulated industries because political pressure and legal scrutiny can show up at the same time. Antitrust reviews, merger challenges, and investigations create the kind of pressure that politicians on both sides are quick to use. In practice, regulatory and political exposure are converging into a single risk.
Politicians who have found that naming companies works will keep doing it, and that dynamic is unlikely to change even if power changes hands in Washington. Democrats angling for House gavels in 2026 have already signaled plans to use oversight authority against companies that have made deals with this administration. And populist pressure from the left and right shows no sign of easing and will only intensify as the presidential election approaches.
The old playbook assumed companies could choose when to engage. That assumption no longer holds. The fact that companies are being pulled into the story before they have a fighting chance to present their side of an instant controversy will remain true through 2028 and beyond. The only thing they can control is how prepared they are for the moment when their time comes.
Ken Spain is CEO of Narrative Strategies, a strategic communications and public affairs firm headquartered in Washington, D.C.
