Overview
The sweeping results of the 2026 US midterm elections, which gave Democrats control of both the House and the Senate, are likely to have significant implications for business and human rights and responsible business conduct (RBC) in the United States. While the election is unlikely to produce immediate changes in law, regulation, or enforcement policy, it will quickly reshape congressional oversight. The President retains the veto, federal agencies continue to control rulemaking and enforcement, and the courts will decide many of the administration's most consequential regulatory initiatives. But the incoming majorities will determine who issues subpoenas, which issues receive public attention, and which companies are called upon to explain themselves. Control of both chambers also brings leverage over appropriations and, in the Senate, over confirmations.
Business and human rights and RBC issues are particularly susceptible to this dynamic because they sit at the intersection of government policy, supply chains, labor practices, climate strategy, and investor expectations. Companies should expect heightened scrutiny of both their operations and relationships with government and politically connected actors.
I. How Companies Get Swept In
For Washington veterans, the pattern is familiar. A new congressional majority arrives in January and immediately begins investigating the administration's decisions, priorities, and relationships. Committees request documents, demand testimony, and hold hearings. Agencies and senior officials resist, citing executive privilege, deliberative process protections, and other institutional defenses. Congress responds by looking elsewhere for the same information.
That "elsewhere" is often the private sector. Companies routinely interact with government through permits, approvals, rulemakings, lobbying, contracts, settlements, and public-private initiatives, and often possess documents and communications that Congress cannot easily obtain from federal agencies.
As a result, companies may become involved in congressional investigations either because they possess relevant information or because their own activities become the subject of scrutiny. Hearings and committee reports frequently attract the attention of investors, customers, regulators, and potential litigants.
II. The Top 10
The ten issues below are among those most likely to attract congressional attention during the 120th Congress and present some of the most significant business and human rights and RBC risks for US and global companies.
A. Corruption, Transparency and Accountability
Congressional attention is likely to focus first on corruption, transparency and corporate accountability.
1. Administration-linked corruption and politically connected business relationships. Congressional scrutiny is likely to focus on alleged favoritism involving administration officials, family members, associates, contractors, grant recipients, and other politically connected entities. Companies that received contracts, subsidies, approvals, or other benefits may face requests for information and testimony, even absent evidence of wrongdoing. Risks include reputational harm, shareholder litigation, enhanced diligence by lenders and customers, challenges to government awards, and future enforcement scrutiny.
2. FCPA and foreign bribery enforcement. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prohibits bribery of foreign government officials and requires accurate books and records by publicly traded companies. Following the dismissal of numerous ongoing FCPA investigations in 2025, changes in Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement priorities, and a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that has brought few FCPA cases in 2025 or 2026, critics have argued that federal enforcement has retreated. Congress cannot compel prosecutions, but it can examine why investigations were closed and what investors were told about them. Companies should not assume closed matters are permanently behind them, particularly where limitation periods extend beyond the current administration.
3. Corporate political spending and influence. Congressional committees may examine corporate political contributions, trade-association memberships, lobbying activities, and alignment between public commitments and political spending. Companies that have taken public positions on human rights, climate, labor, or governance issues may face scrutiny regarding whether their political activities, and those of their associations, are consistent with those positions.
4. Corporate transparency. Beneficial ownership reporting is intended to identify the individuals who ultimately own or control companies, making it more difficult to conceal corruption, sanctions evasion, money laundering, or other misconduct behind opaque corporate structures. The August 2026 Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) rule exempts domestic companies from beneficial ownership reporting while continuing reporting obligations for many foreign companies operating in the US. Expect congressional oversight committees to examine the rationale for those exemptions and who benefits from them. Questions about who owns and controls a company can quickly become questions about investor diligence, government contracting, counterparty relationships, and perceptions of transparency.
B. Human Rights, Supply Chain and Emerging Risks
Congressional scrutiny is also likely to focus on labor rights, supply chains, climate, and emerging technologies.
5. China, forced labor and supply-chain resilience. Forced labor allegations connected to Xinjiang remain one of the most significant business and human rights risks facing multinational companies. Congressional concern is unlikely to diminish, particularly where companies source goods, raw materials, or components from high-risk regions or rely on complex supply chains with limited traceability. Enforcement itself will be on the agenda. The value of shipments detained under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) has fallen sharply since 2024, prompting a bipartisan request for a DHS briefing, even as the administration added 43 entities to the UFLPA Entity List in August 2026 and imposed Section 301 forced labor tariffs in July. Senator Ron Wyden, who led the Senate Finance Committee's 2024 investigation of automakers' Xinjiang-linked parts, is expected to chair the committee with jurisdiction over customs enforcement. Lawmakers in both parties are also likely to examine broader dependencies on China for critical minerals, battery materials and other strategic inputs. The practical consequences include import restrictions, supplier investigations, investor scrutiny, reputational damage, and questions regarding the effectiveness of supply-chain mapping, human rights due diligence and forced-labor compliance programs.
6. Climate disclosure and sustainability commitments. Federal requirements may be fading, but state and international reporting regimes remain. The result is a fragmented compliance environment in which lawmakers may examine whether companies' sustainability commitments, disclosures, and lobbying positions are consistent. For companies, the principal risks include misstatement claims, shareholder litigation, customer demands for emissions information, and scrutiny of inconsistencies between lobbying and sustainability messaging.
7. Critical minerals and responsible supply chains. The transition to advanced technologies, defense systems, and renewable energy has made critical minerals a strategic priority for the United States. Lawmakers are likely to scrutinize how government financing, subsidies, and partnerships are allocated and whether mining and sourcing decisions adequately considered environmental and human rights impacts. Companies with government funding arrangements should expect questions about how those arrangements are structured, along with scrutiny of Indigenous rights concerns, supply chain diligence, and sourcing decisions.
8. Immigration enforcement and migrant workers. Increased immigration enforcement, including audits of employment eligibility (known as I-9 audits) and workplace investigations, creates direct compliance risks for employers. At the same time, lawmakers are likely to focus on industries that rely heavily on migrant labor, particularly where questions exist regarding labor recruiters, recruitment fees, housing conditions, contractor oversight, or worker treatment. Congressional scrutiny may also extend to companies involved in detention services, border infrastructure, and related government contracting. Companies in affected industries may face labor shortages, enforcement actions, human rights due diligence concerns, and scrutiny of labor practices.
9. AI, surveillance and worker rights. Companies increasingly rely on AI to make decisions affecting workers and consumers. Congressional concern is likely to focus on workplace surveillance, hiring tools, discrimination risks, child safety, and other social impacts of AI deployment. While comprehensive AI legislation is unlikely, hearings and investigations may pressure companies to explain how AI systems are developed, tested, and monitored. Exposure spans product liability, employment claims, privacy concerns, customer contractual requirements and growing expectations around AI governance.
10. Corporate governance and board oversight. Congressional investigations increasingly focus not only on what companies did, but also on what boards and senior executives knew, when they knew it, and how they responded. Where controversies arise involving corruption, supply chains, forced labor, climate commitments, AI, workplace practices, or government contracting, lawmakers are likely to examine board oversight, committee structures, escalation procedures, and risk-management systems. Hearings may probe whether directors received adequate information, whether management identified and addressed material risks, and whether public disclosures accurately reflected internal discussions. The debate could affect derivative litigation, shareholder demands, regulatory scrutiny, and questions regarding the effectiveness of governance processes.
III. Practical Next Steps
The 120th Congress can investigate more easily than it can legislate. There are steps companies can take now to prepare. A few are below:
- Map your exposure. Inventory interactions involving the company, senior executives, key suppliers, and customers with the Administration since January 2025, and assess how those relationships align with likely congressional priorities.
- Stress-test your disclosures. Review sustainability, human rights, climate, supply-chain, governance, and public policy disclosures for consistency with internal practices, lobbying positions, and prior statements. Congressional scrutiny often focuses on gaps between what companies say and what they do.
- Keep the board informed. Ensure directors are regularly briefed on congressional-investigation risks and related business and human rights issues. Congressional scrutiny often extends to what boards knew, when they knew it, and how they responded.
- Know the committees. Understand the chairs, subcommittee leadership, and oversight agendas most relevant to your business before information requests or subpoenas arrive.
- Watch the news. Congressional investigations often follow major press reports, NGO campaigns, whistleblower allegations, or emerging controversies. Today's headline can become tomorrow's hearing.
- Build a response team. Align legal, government affairs, communications, investor relations, and outside counsel before an investigation begins.
- Prepare your narrative. Identify key documents, likely witnesses, and the messages the company would want to communicate to Congress, investors, regulators, employees, and the public.
