Observations from the Hill: Preparing for the Oversight Landscape in the 120th Congress

Congressional investigations are designed as much for political effect as they are for legislative fact-finding. Few understand this better than those who have sat in leadership. Holland & Knight Partner Christopher M. Jaarda, who recently served as Senior Policy Advisor and Counsel to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), offers the following observations on what a Democratic House majority would likely target in 2027 and 2028 – and what at-risk parties should be doing now.

Voters have often used the midterm elections to balance power in Washington and impose a check on the president. This occurs when the electorate gives majority control of the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate to the party other than the president's.

Since 1850, when the two current major political parties came to prominence, a change in House control has occurred in more than one in three midterms, including four of the last five. The midterms have also seen the Senate majority change hands to the party opposite the president on seven occasions dating back to 1946.

The House, and possibly the Senate, may once again change hands following this year's midterms. For the past several months, Polymarket has been predicting an extremely high probability that Democrats will control the House in the 120th U.S. Congress.

How could the November elections affect the oversight landscape in Washington in 2027 and 2028? Holland & Knight broke down the wide range of Democratic oversight priorities in a March 2026 alert, "Warning Signs: Congressional Investigations in 2026 and Beyond." This alert focuses on the specific risks facing individuals and companies posed by a potential incoming Democratic majority and the steps they can take to prepare.

Congress' Investigative Power

Congress' ability to conduct investigations, including the power to compel the production of records and testimony, is well established and flows from its power to legislate. This investigative power does not permit Congress to conduct inquiries about individual wrongdoing merely for the sake of doing so but is tied directly to its need to find facts that may inform legislative efforts. Though future Democrat-led congressional oversight may appear to be investigating specific actors for political reasons, the efforts are likely to be justified as necessary to inform potential legislation over conflicts of interest, public corruption or the management of the executive branch.

In the 120th Congress, a Democratic majority in either chamber is likely to use these powers to examine:

• entities or individuals who received special access or favorable government decisions or uniquely benefited from the Trump Administration's actions
• parties with financial ties to administration officials or their families, such as those who contributed to fund the construction of the new White House ballroom, funded renovations at The Kennedy Center, contributed to a legal defense fund benefiting the president, invested heavily in the $TRUMP meme coin or frequented Mar-A-Lago
• federal contractors, especially if they were awarded no-bid contracts, are a new startup without a proven track record of success, have close ties to administration officials, have executives who heavily supported Trump-aligned campaigns or otherwise are viewed as having inappropriately curried favor with the administration
• parties perceived to have bent to administration pressure to make changes in business practices or personnel policies
• business relationships that have already been subject to state legislative or regulatory action – such as proposed mergers, investment by private equity in healthcare or financial services investments – could face federal-level scrutiny.
• former administration officials and individuals with close business ties to high-ranking administration officials and their families

How Should Organizations and Individuals Prepare?

Undertaking a Preliminary Risk Assessment

Parties concerned with the potential for an investigation would be wise to retain the services of an experienced team with a proven track record of navigating complex and contentious congressional investigations. These professionals should undertake a preliminary risk assessment to identify potential areas that might become the subject of an investigation. This assessment should include legal counsel to ensure that discussions and documents are protected by attorney-client privilege.

Conducting an In-Depth Audit

If the initial assessment identifies high-risk relationships or activities, the next step would be to undertake an in-depth audit under privilege to determine the scope of risk and any advisable mitigation efforts ahead of an investigation. This audit should also utilize government relations professionals and congressional investigations counsel. Depending on the nature of the relationships or activities, this audit review can vary widely in scope. For government contractors, this may include:

• analyzing all relevant documents, including agency requests for proposal, proposals, bids and communications related to contract negotiations
• evaluating and documenting what the company or individuals did, and did not do, to identify and resolve any legal objections, questions or concerns and describing what was done to seek clarification
• reviewing contracts and any modifications to ensure the parties have met their legal and ethical responsibilities
• evaluating billing policies and practices, invoices and payment records to ensure the parties have followed standard policies and practices
• evaluating the cost structure for any government contracts to ensure that these contracts were not marked up in price compared to contracts with private sector customers
• assessing compliance with any applicable anticorruption laws and regulations, including laws related to campaign finance, prohibitions against political kickbacks and favors, lobbying disclosure rules, foreign agent registration, financial disclosure and conflict-of-interest requirements, as well as compliance with any other ethics laws or internal ethics policies

Determining If Corrective Action Is Appropriate

Following the audit, parties should engage in ongoing discussions with their government relations and legal team about whether corrective action is needed. It is worth keeping in mind that even sincere, well-meaning efforts to address areas of concern can be manipulated to create a political narrative suggesting a change in approach is evidence of prior improper conduct. For this reason, serious discussion should occur as to how a potential response might be publicly misperceived. The following are examples of the types of actions that should be discussed:

• taking steps to document how business relationships are working in practice – for example, if a government contract has been modified verbally, consider reducing that understanding to writing
• instituting proper training to educate employees who interact with federal officials, ensuring employees understand and meet their legal obligations and responsibilities
• discussing whether any risk or harm prevention policies should be adopted or modified, including data-handling policies, security protocols, civil and human rights policies, and whistleblower policies
• assessing how company actions and individual conduct could be misconstrued and politicized, taking steps to address the potential for reputational harm

Engaging in Ongoing Reviews

While preparing for a potential congressional oversight investigation, parties should also keep the following in mind:

• Congressional oversight does not occur in a vacuum. Federal and state agencies will still retain oversight and regulatory authority. There also remains the potential for civil litigation and criminal prosecution.
• Reputational risk is real. If internal communications are provided to Congress, expect those to be released publicly, subjecting the parties and their communications to heightened scrutiny.
• Be sure to follow established document retention practices. Do not delete or destroy documents, even if they might be embarrassing. Depending on the circumstances, destruction could be criminal.
• Moving forward, parties should ensure emails, texts, and other communications are professional in nature. If someone does not want their memo, email or text message to go viral, don't write it and don't click send.
• Consider whether to retain a public relations specialist with experience in crisis communications.
• Parties might consider whether to obtain a professional liability policy to mitigate risk stemming from legal acts taken in good faith.
• It is also important to track what happens on Capitol Hill. Committee activity, members' speeches, press releases and social media can serve as an early warning system to identify what issues might become future oversight targets.

Summary

At-risk parties can take meaningful steps today by assembling the right team, evaluating risk and considering corrective actions to protect against fallout from a potential congressional investigation. Holland & Knight's government relations professionals and congressional investigations counsel are available to assist organizations and individuals in navigating this evolving oversight landscape.