Containment, Crumbled

/in

HERE’S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW…

The American bunker-busters hit more than Iran’s nuclear sites last Friday — they crumbled the old geopolitical playbook. The U.S. strikes signal a broader strategic inflection point that has been building quietly since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attacks. For public affairs professionals navigating an increasingly unpredictable global environment, the implications are profound.

The contours of this new reality aren’t defined by partisan politics or headline-grabbing moments.  This signal is a shift in the fundamental approach to foreign policy from containing instability to confronting it decisively. Here’s what you need to know about the new mindset this shift demands to manage risk and reputation on the world stage.

The U.S. Didn’t Start the Fire—And Neither Did Israel

To understand the significance of the recent Iran strike, we have to begin with context. The Islamic Republic of Iran has spent more than four decades cultivating a global network of terrorist proxies—from Hezbollah to the Houthis—designed to inflict damage while shielding Tehran from direct retaliation.

The October 7 massacre in Israel, orchestrated by Hamas and enabled by Iranian training, funding, and coordination, was not an isolated incident. It was a continuation of a 40-year strategy that includes the 1983 bombing of U.S. Marines in Beirut, attacks on American forces in Iraq, and missile strikes that have disrupted global shipping through the Red Sea.

But this time, Iran miscalculated. Its assumption that operating through proxies would insulate it from direct consequences proved false. The Israeli response was immediate and punishing. The American response—culminating in the first combat use of Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities—was equally significant. Iran found itself isolated, even among adversaries like Russia and China, and facing a more direct and credible form of deterrence than it had encountered in years.

How October 7 Changed the Strategic Calculus

Just as 9/11 forced the United States to rethink its national security doctrine, October 7 shifted Israel’s entire posture—from managing instability to eliminating threats. The days of tolerating low-level rocket fire and negotiating with bad-faith actors are over. In this new paradigm, proximity and hostility are treated as intolerable risks.

That shift is reverberating far beyond the Middle East. Ukraine has ramped up cross-border drone strikes inside Russia. Japan is reinterpreting its pacifist constitution to allow for expanded military capabilities. Even the U.S. strike on Iran signals a break from the past: no more tolerating delays in diplomacy while uranium is enriched behind closed doors.

These are not isolated policy decisions. They are symptoms of a broader international move away from ambiguity and toward assertiveness—a pattern public affairs professionals cannot afford to ignore.

Same Stated Goals, New Unwritten Rules

Many of the strategic objectives now shaping global affairs aren’t new. For years, U.S. policymakers across administrations have called out Iran’s nuclear ambitions, pressed NATO allies to shoulder more of the defense burden, and warned of growing risks from an ascendant China. But what’s changed—dramatically—is the method of pursuit.

The Trump administration’s response to Iran is emblematic of this shift. While presidents before him expressed concern about Tehran’s provocations, few took the kind of direct action that might carry unpredictable geopolitical consequences. Authorizing strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, deploying massive ordnance penetrators, and telegraphing a willingness to escalate reflect not just policy conviction, but a new tolerance for confrontation over consensus.

This playbook extends beyond the Middle East. From the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, to tariffs and tech restrictions aimed at China, to calls for NATO reforms and stricter immigration enforcement—Trump has acted in ways others wouldn’t (for good or ill). The message to allies and adversaries alike: the U.S. is no longer bound by incrementalism.

Other nations are following suit. Japan is rearming. India is strengthening strategic ties with the U.S. Saudi Arabia is continuing normalization talks with Israel, despite regional tensions. Across the board, global leaders are abandoning the assumption that diplomacy must always be slow and consensus driven.

For companies with exposure to these geopolitical shifts, the lesson is clear: don’t mistake strategic continuity for operational predictability. What looks like a familiar objective on paper may play out in radically unfamiliar ways.

Navigating an Era with Fewer Geopolitical Guardrails

In this new reality, public affairs teams should expect more surprises—and fewer guardrails. Assumptions about diplomatic de-escalation or the resilience of multilateral frameworks are increasingly unreliable. The guardrails that once bounded international behavior are breaking down in a structural shift in how states respond to provocation, assert influence, and define strategic red lines.

That has direct implications for business leaders and the teams advising them. Traditional risk frameworks that relied on predictability and de-escalation are proving outdated. Companies operating in or exposed to global markets must be prepared for faster-moving, higher-stakes developments—from drone strikes and proxy escalations to economic realignments and regulatory retaliation.

In a post-containment world, public affairs professionals need to move beyond reactive crisis comms. What’s needed now is strategic foresight—an ability to detect weak signals, anticipate geopolitical triggers, and help leadership teams stress-test plans against a broader range of scenarios.

Delve Research helps clients stay ahead of that curve — arming decision-makers with the intelligence they need to navigate a world where the old playbooks no longer apply. Because, as the era of containment gives way to confrontation, those who can’t see what’s coming next risk being caught flat-footed in the fallout.

Premature Preemption?

/in

HERE’S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW…

While the Musk-Trump feud grabbed most of the tech world’s attention the past few weeks, there’s a provision in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” that will have a longer-term impact on tech policy than their war of tweets:  a ten year moratorium on most state-level AI regulation.

For those not paying close attention, the provision shows how fast Washington’s thinking on AI regulation has gone from avoiding “mistakes of the past” to ensuring we can “win the future.”

When Generative AI first appeared on the scene, Big Tech was under big scrutiny. Policymakers on both sides of the aisle vowed to ensure this new technology had guardrails they believed social media lacked for too long. Now, just two and a half years later, the debate has shifted dramatically.

While the Trump Administration is leading the charge, this shift is bigger than just one administration. Here’s what you need to know to understand why this shift is happening and what it means for everyone from new AI startups to incumbent industries integrating AI into their operations.

HOW WE GOT HERE

Less than two years ago, our first public risk assessment of AI policy focused on the bipartisan eagerness to regulate first and ask questions later on AI. Many policymakers lamented the hands-off approach to regulating the internet in the 1990s — and again with the emergence of social media platforms in the 2010s. Eager to avoid these “mistakes of the past” — policymakers took a more proactive stance on generative AI.

Talk of “responsible AI” and “AI safety” was everywhere, with even OpenAI CEO Sam Altman urging lawmakers to take the issue more seriously. New working groups and bipartisan interest in regulating AI signaled legislative momentum. Yet Congress remained in gridlock while the Biden Administration took (easily undone) executive actions. Even the tidal wave of AI legislation at the state level largely failed to reach enactment’s shores.

Then, DeepSeek’s breakthrough provided what many viewed as a “Sputnik moment” — a jarring signal the U.S. was falling behind in the AI race. It galvanized concern in both Washington and Silicon Valley, reframing AI for many not as a risk to be tamed but as a competitive edge to be harnessed. Suddenly, the conversation shifted from cautious oversight to national urgency that complemented the incoming Trump Administration’s America First priorities.

WHAT’S DRIVING THE SHIFT

So, is this just a result of a shift in administrations? In part, yes, but there are deeper forces at work that anyone navigating the AI policy landscape needs to understand.

The national security and economic competitiveness threat of China: Even before the recent policy shift, advocates of American competitiveness – including Vice President J.D. Vance – argued the U.S. is in an AI arms race — one it must win to retain global leadership. This sense of urgency led to growing calls for a coordinated national strategy, with a U.S. congressional commission even proposing a “Manhattan Project-style initiative to fund the development of AI systems” built to fast track U.S. dominance over China in generative AI development. Proponents argue that only through bold, centralized efforts can America outpace China’s rapid advancements and maintain its competitive edge.

Trump’s “Tech Bro Orbit” arrived just as “Little Tech” found its voice: It’s not just that Trump brought Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and a pantheon of their “acolytes” to Washington, “Little Tech” is finding its voice in Washington more than ever before. Long overshadowed by Big Tech’s lobbying machines, there is a new wave of venture capitalists like Andreesen Horowitz and accelerators like Y Combinator becoming more vocal about shaping a regulatory framework that encourages innovation and supports decentralization. Now that Little Tech has secured a seat at the table, it’s not likely to give it up. With allies across party lines and momentum in both Washington and state capitals, this emerging coalition is here to stay and positioned to influence AI policy well beyond the Trump era.

Responsible AI got tangled in the culture war: Many AI safety efforts leaned on familiar frameworks from the same trust and safety teams behind content moderation and equity policies. But those frameworks were already politicized, and they brought the same blind spots. As well-intentioned initiatives drew backlash, “Responsible AI” became just another front in America’s ongoing ideological battles. Voices like Elon Musk and Senator Corey Booker amplified the divide, eclipsing real concerns. Now, AI accelerationists have momentum and the focus is on AI’s value rather than its risks.

PREPARING FOR WHATS NEXT

Trump began his term by removing Biden’s executive order on AI and preparing DOGE cuts to the AI Safety Institute (now renamed the Center for AI Standards and Innovation) while removing other guardrails viewed as hindering America’s AI advantages. All of this action has culminated in the House-passed “one big beautiful bill” that includes a 10-year moratorium on most state-level AI rules.

We often like to say that in politics, as in physics, every action has an opposite reaction. The difference is that in politics it’s usually unequal. As the Senate prepares to debate this bill, a cross-party clash is emerging between federal policymakers eager to assert national control and state officials determined to preserve local authority. This brewing standoff could test federalism in the AI age — and public affairs professionals should be watching closely.

As these opposing priorities come to a head, public affairs professionals need to be ready to navigate a fast-moving and fragmented political landscape — tracking the key players, narrative shifts, and regulatory moves as they develop.  If you or your team need help navigating this shift, Delve Research is here to help you see further, act faster, and navigate a volatile landscape smarter.

 

Panic Responsibly

/in

If the first 100 days of the Trump Administration has left your head spinning, you’re not alone. The biggest debates in Washington today aren’t just about policy. They’re about what’s real, what’s lasting, and what to respond to when everything feels like it’s changing at once.

No industry, no business, and no issue has been left untouched by President Trump’s executive actions, and there’s no sign the Administration will slow down. That means neither can your public affairs team. The good news? No CEO or boardroom is questioning the importance of a strong public affairs team. The bad news? It’s harder than ever to have the right answers when the C-suite calls.

If that call comes in a panic, adopt the mantra of certified Friend of Delve Katie Harbath to “panic responsibly” (there’s even merch!). To do so requires a new public affairs playbook.

Here’s what you need to know to ensure you don’t just keep the pace but set it.

“Swift and Relentless”

The first 100 days of President Trump’s second term stand in marked contrast to his first term. From record numbers of Executive Orders to rapid political appointments, the new administration is staffed, aligned, and executing.

“Swift and relentless” were the apt adjectives President Trump used to describe his first 100 days of policymaking. He signed 141 Executive Orders, unyielding in their breadth and depth of impact. They span numerous policy areas and assert federal authority across jurisdictions while proposing large revisions of federal departments and a reshaping of the broader federal workforce.

The response to Trump’s orders was equally swift: 217 lawsuits have already been filed.  The Administration’s legal creativity—from the Alien Enemy Act to the use of national security as a justification for tariffs on foreign filmmaking—will force public affairs pros to keep as close an eye on the courtroom as the White House briefing room.

Policy decisions are being made—and enforced—at a breakneck speed, with fewer traditional chokepoints or procedural hurdles. For public affairs professionals, this rapid pace makes it harder to distinguish meaningful shifts from temporary turbulence — but misreading either can have real consequences. The public affairs playbook that worked before no longer applies.

Empty Government, Second Term Edition

At this point in Trump’s first term public affairs professionals struggled with what we at the time dubbed the “Empty Government” in which far too many political appointments were unfilled. Today, the political appointees may be the only staff left in an office as the Administration rapidly restructures and lays off the federal bureaucracy.

Yet knowing the President’s political appointees may not solve your people problem. In this Administration, as agencies are dismantled or weakened, policymaking is concentrated in the Executive Branch while execution increasingly relies on task forces and new special government employees with broad remits. At the same time, the White House is giving special access to conservative influencers and even putting them in key policy forums where they may shape the conversation. Organizations focused solely on formal agency leadership structures risk missing where real influence is now exercised.

The result is the same as eight years ago. Many public affairs professionals report feeling frozen, uncertain how to navigate this new power map: who the real decision-makers are, who to engage to influence outcomes, and how agency missions, priorities, and personnel are shifting. It’s essential to move smart, anticipate blind spots, and find new pathways to influence before it’s too late.

This Too Shall Pass?

It’s a frequent Washington occurrence to declare a total realignment when a new wave of power hits the shores of the Potomac. Yet many moments that feel like a new trajectory end up being a mere tributary.

Today, many public affairs professionals are grappling with this question: how much of what’s unfolding under President Trump will remain when his administration ends?

It’s easy — and tempting — to dismiss new tariffs, DOGE, personnel turnover, and structural changes as temporary disruptions. But some of these changes may be less reversible than imagined: supply chains will be dismantled. When DOGE sunsets, its access will be passed to other Trump officials. Dismissed personnel will retire.

Public affairs professionals can no longer rely on precedent to predict permanence. Monitoring which policies become embedded — and would require major unwinding — and tracking personnel placements and movements is critical to determining what’s here to stay and what’s a passing fad. It’s also key to know what may have cross-partisan support.

In short, don’t just ask whether today’s changes will pass. Prepare as if they won’t — while staying nimble enough to adjust if they do.

What Now? Your Playbook to Panic Responsibly

In today’s Washington, the old playbooks no longer work. To keep pace with rapid policymaking and shifting power, public affairs teams need a new approach—driven by intelligence, guided by strategy, and built for speed.

  • Track Real Power, Not Just Titles: Delve maps where decisions are actually being made—from task forces to outside influencers—so you engage the right players before others even spot them.
  • Focus on Signals, Not Static: With nonstop noise, relevance is everything. Delve Deep Learning’s AI surfaces what matters—and why—so your team spends less time sorting and more time acting.
  • Move from Insight to Action: Data without execution is a dead end. Delve turns intelligence into targeted strategy—whether shaping engagement, messaging, or identifying legal risk.

The pace of change isn’t slowing, but with the right intelligence tools, you don’t have to chase it. Delve can help your public affairs team panic responsibly, so you can move faster, see further, and lead with clarity.

The Media’s Noise Machine

/in

The votes have been counted, and Donald Trump is set for another term in The White House. The business community may feel echoes of 2016, but this second term brings even more intensity. The media frenzy that characterized Trump’s first term—where the media stirred controversy in his every action—is only set to increase. However, the landscape today is even more polarized, and the divisions run deeper.

What we’re entering isn’t just a repeat of 2016; it’s an amplified version where companies face entrenched tribal warfare between a populist-driven agenda and progressive resistance. Cutting through the noise will require companies to leverage new tools and analyze the right data to decode what’s really happening and how to respond effectively. Here’s what public affairs professionals need to know about helping their organizations navigate these next four years…

More Noise, Fewer Insights

In Trump’s first term, media coverage often centered on the sensational, with a focus on personality and pontification rather than policy. Today, we’re in the “podcast election” era, where commentary dominates and tribal media feeds echo chambers instead of balanced analysis. That means the news media no longer shapes public perceptions the way they once did, and they must compete harder for the public’s attention.

For business leaders, that means the media is part of a noise machine that makes it harder to stay focused on real impacts. These leaders must look beyond the noise and prioritize objective, actionable information about the policies that will directly affect their industries. With more than 4,000 political appointments to fill and agencies’ control at stake, business leaders need to pay close attention to how these appointees may shape regulatory landscapes. Trump’s second term will influence business environments not only through executive actions but also through these agency leaders’ priorities, requiring companies to identify real signals of policy direction obscured by the media frenzy.

Populism Becomes Policy

In 2016, Trump’s policies often aligned with traditional Republican approaches even if the accompanying rhetoric did not. This time, MAGA populism has become the defining agenda amidst party realignment. The November 5th election results culminate a shift in voting patterns: low-income voters turned out for Trump in large numbers, creating a populist mandate that focuses on working-class Americans over conventional corporate interests. For example, Trump’s 2024 tax priorities centered on eliminating taxes on tips and overtime rather than defending corporate rate reductions from his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).

For businesses, this shift means that labor and tax policies may prioritize populist goals that challenge long-held corporate assumptions. Leaders must stay alert to weak signals that might hint at these policy directions, such as early statements from advisors, proposals floated by Trump-world influencers, or legislative drafts, allowing them to adjust strategies in advance. Closely monitoring these indicators will enable businesses to prepare for policy changes before they disrupt operations.

Meet The Prepared Resistance

If Trump’s first term faced spontaneous resistance, his second will encounter organized opposition. Left-leaning groups inside and outside government are battle-tested and prepared for this moment, leading to an entrenched “tribal warfare” dynamic that may impact every policy move. While activist groups can bring pressure, government officials can do even more. As New York Attorney General Letitia James averred after the election, “We have been working both in my office and with other Democratic AGs across this country to make sure that we would be ready to respond.” As businesses learned since 2017, companies can become collateral damage in this political lawfare, in addition to the uncertainty they face from regulatory ping pong in which actions on one side meet fierce opposition from the other only to be reversed when political control shifts again.

Just as in physics, in politics, every action has an opposite reaction, but in a polarized system, these reactions are rarely equal. Too often, businesses get caught in the middle and suffer as a result. Companies must ensure they have the right strategic insight, removed from the emotion, hype, and agenda of the press, recognizing that policies may shift under pressure from opposing forces, or the company could face backlash over the policy positions it does (or does not) take. Detecting weak signals will be critical for anticipating these shifts early and preparing for outcomes that may not align with traditional expectations.

Leveraging New Tools to Stay Ahead

Since 2016, the tools available to track, interpret, and respond to political signals have become more sophisticated. AI and data analytics now offer businesses the ability to monitor legislative language, policy discussions, and subtle regulatory cues much more effectively. At my company we built a new AI platform to help companies detect these weak signals. This election cycle, the platform helped one major industry track the 6,476 other state and federal elections lost in the shuffle amidst the presidential race coverage, spot emerging issues across jurisdictions, and connect the dots between seemingly unrelated developments. To discern the policy reality from the political rhetoric coming from both sides and their media allies, companies will need similar innovations to gain crucial lead time in responding to policy shifts before it is too late.

In an era of information saturation and heightened tribalism, it’s easy to become distracted by the spectacle. By focusing on substantive policy developments and understanding the motivations behind them, companies can build resilience and thrive. Trump’s return to The White House may seem like a chaotic repeat of the past, but for companies that prioritize actionable insights, invest in advanced monitoring tools, and build teams with diverse perspectives capable of cutting through the noise of the media outrage machine will be best positioned to succeed.

Buck-lash

/in

It was a warning shot that went unheeded, and now it is costing major corporations dearly. Following a last year’s Supreme Court decision on affirmative action in higher education, 13 Republican state Attorneys General fired off a letter to Fortune 100 CEOs questioning their similar corporate policies. Now, many companies wish they’d paid closer attention.

In the past few months, conservative activist Robby Starbuck’s social media campaign has swept through major corporations wreaking so much havoc that companies have begun folding to his demands before they are even targeted. The result? Damaged market capitalizations, tarnished reputations, and ire and frustration from consumers and activists on both the Left and Right. Welcome to the latest manifestation of our post-Bud Light era in which every company remains a Target.

Starbucks’ campaign and the Attorneys General scrutiny that preceded it are part of the growing right-wing backlash to corporate America’s post-George Floyd embrace of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices. It is just one area in which companies are finding it hard to avoid political pressures in today’s stakeholder economy. Here’s what public affairs professionals need to know to help their companies navigate the increasingly heated culture wars of our tribal era.

The Summer DEI Turned Ugly

Leading this charge is conservative activist Robby Starbuck, whose campaigns against corporate DEI efforts have forced several major companies to quietly retreat. He led a full-blown digital assault against Harley-Davidson, leveraging his social media reach to accuse the company of straying from its core, blue-collar values. Harley-Davidson caved, dialing back its diversity programs. Next in line was John Deere, the agricultural giant known for embodying rural America. Starbuck’s campaign amassed millions of views, and the company retreated on its DEI initiatives. Seeing the wreckage, Molson Coors, Ford, and Lowe’s preemptively reduced their diversity efforts to avoid Starbuck’s crosshairs.

These aren’t isolated incidents. What started as a weak signal—the occasional conservative critique—has now turned into a full-fledged backlash. Tractor Supply, for instance, initially embraced DEI as part of a broader modernization strategy, but scaled back its efforts after being targeted by one of Starbuck’s campaigns. The retreat wasn’t driven by internal concerns over DEI’s effectiveness but by external pressures. Starbuck’s use of social media, dripping out just enough content over time to keep the pressure rising, has been a devastatingly effective strategy leaving companies from every sector fearing that staying the DEI course could cost them dearly.

Companies’ Complicated Embrace of DEI

Companies first leaned into DEI as a response to a profound cultural shift. The killing of George Floyd galvanized a movement for racial justice, and businesses, driven by both moral imperatives and strategic necessity, integrated DEI into their operations. Companies like Harley-Davidson, Nike, and John Deere were among the most visible in championing these efforts, aligning their brands with social progress and gaining public praise in the process.

What many of these organizations failed to foresee was the emergence of a powerful counter-narrative. On the surface, DEI seemed apolitical—focused on long-overdue fairness, inclusion, and representation. However, to conservative critics like Robby Starbuck, these initiatives represented a broader ideological shift that encroached on corporate neutrality. Companies that embraced DEI became vulnerable to accusations of wading too far into progressive politics, opening themselves to opposing pressure campaigns that can significantly damage their reputations and business models.

As we’ve pointed out before, DEI efforts are too often shaped and driven by a broader progressive agenda that itself is not always that inclusive. Plus, for many companies, the embrace of DEI has been more rhetoric than results, with little real progress towards stated goals of elevating under-represented populations in company ranks – particularly at higher levels. That’s left companies stuck between unsatisfied progressives and angry conservatives.

In Politics, Every Action Has An Unequal And Opposite Reaction

Starbuck’s playbook reveals a deeper truth about today’s political dynamics. DEI, which quickly became viewed as a corporate best practice, is now seen by many on the right as synonymous with “wokeness”—a label that carries significant risks in today’s polarized environment. What some companies initially saw as distant concerns have turned into high-pressure reputational crises and many prominent libertarian and conservative voices in the business world are now pushing companies to embrace an alternative: Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence (MEI).

This new reality brings significant legal implications, with lawsuits alleging reverse discrimination on the rise and politicians pushing legislative and enforcement actions. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis spearheaded efforts to dismantle DEI with the “Stop WOKE Act” in 2022, which restricted how race and gender topics are taught in schools and workplaces. In 2023, he expanded these efforts by defunding DEI programs in higher education, labeling them as political indoctrination. His actions set a precedent for other Republican governors, with states like Texas, North Dakota, and North Carolina advancing similar policies.

In many ways, DEI has become a proxy for larger ideological battles, and companies are increasingly caught in the crossfire. As Starbuck’s campaigns continue to gain traction, businesses that once felt pressure to do more on a range of social issues from the left are now feeling the same sort or pressure from the right—and not all of them understand how they got here or what it means as our cultural warfare continues.

Navigating the Tribal Divide

As the stories of Harley-Davidson, John Deere, and Tractor Supply illustrate, the decision to step back from DEI initiatives isn’t always about rejecting diversity itself but about managing the complex realities of political and reputational risk. Even firms like Nike, a well-known and ardent supporter of progressive social causes, has tempered its public messaging in recent months.

The DEI blowback we’re witnessing today is a reflection of deeper societal divisions, ones that are now playing out across corporate America. Public affairs professionals need to understand this battle isn’t just about DEI—it’s about the role activists and politicians on both sides of the divide expect businesses to play in shaping cultural narratives.

In this new era, companies must navigate an ever-shifting landscape where political and cultural allegiances can determine success or failure. For those in government relations and public affairs, staying attuned to these tribal dynamics will be critical in helping organizations anticipate and manage the next wave of blowback—or hopefully avoid it all together.

The Rise of Tribes

/in

What an election season it has been! And while the main event is just getting started, it has already overturned much of the accepted wisdom for public affairs professionals. We have a Republican nominee convicted of felonies and indicted for more and a Democratic nominee who received not a single vote in a single primary and spent the past three years viewed largely as an incapable politician.

Yet, despite both nominees shifting their positions on some of their respective bases’ orthodoxies, neither faced meaningful resistance in securing their nominations and both bases are showing marked enthusiasm for November. So how did we get here and what does it mean for public affairs professionals navigating their organizations or clients through the electoral chaos and whatever follows?

Tribalism has overtaken politics and policy, in which group identity and belonging trump political inputs and policy outputs. That means effective advocacy must begin with an understanding that policy influence is now deeply intertwined with navigating the complex and shifting dynamics, totems, and world views of the respective political tribes. Here’s what you need to know to adapt your organization to this new reality.

Political Tribalism 101

While many agree tribalism has taken over American politics, there’s less consensus on why. Some commentators reflexively lump tribalism in with the rise of Donald Trump, but more nuanced takes point to deeper root causes. These include group identity dynamics, the rise of moralized identities, heightened emotion in politics, social media, and more.

Whatever the cause, what matters for public affairs professionals is understanding how deeply rooted these new dynamics have become. In this tribal environment, political stances have turned into moral battles, making common ground harder to find. The media’s own side-taking only adds fuel to the fire, ensuring each tribe can broadcast its message to followers and keep them in an echo chamber.

All Aboard the 2024 Tribalism Train

Today’s tribal leaders, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, represent just how divorced our politics have become from the old ways. These leaders aren’t just politicians; they represent intense, unshakeable loyalty that eclipses shared ideology and policy and survives political punches that would have knocked out past candidates. The examples are many:

 Despite multiple indictments and a felony conviction, Donald Trump’s supporters remain steadfast, driven by animosity toward their opponents. Not only did his conviction hardly register in polling data, but many voters say they would support him even if they believed he has committed his alleged crimes. When it comes to who they trust in the first place, Trump voters believe Trump more than they believe their “friends and family or religious leaders,” the very sort of people you’d expect to be in a typical person’s tribe. Add Trump’s ability to shift on mainstay Republican issues, like embracing electric vehicles or reversing his stance on banning TikTok, and the picture of Trump as a deep-rooted tribal leader becomes more clear.

On the other side of the aisle, Kamala Harris’ quick ascent reflects her own side’s deep tribal loyalty. Remember when Democrats had concerns about her viability as a candidate and her image? Or the moment when Democrats expected the chance to vote on Joe Biden’s replacement at the convention? These qualms were quickly washed aside when Biden dropped out and anointed Harris his heir. Even green groups who pressured Biden throughout his tenure now want to ensure they don’t “sabotage her.” Harris, too, is flipping on mainstay progressive positions like fracking and immigration without serious pushback (possibly because voters remain unconvinced of the shifts).

Pick a side—the middle ground is quicksand. The so-called “moderate middle” is hard to find these days among voters and even harder to find among elected officials. Inadequate loyalty to your tribe results in increasing isolation. Just ask Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, or former Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. The wave of over 50 congressional retirements in the 2024 election cycle also reflects growing dissatisfaction with the polarized climate driven by the tribal warfare.

How to Run a Business in a Tribal Environment

For businesses, understanding these dynamics is crucial. Tribal loyalties are unpredictable and prone to sudden shifts, as they aren’t grounded in consistent ideology or policy. Accommodating these loyalties can lead businesses down a complicated path with unanticipated consequences. Instead, public affairs professionals must help their companies navigate the nuances of this divided environment, focusing on strategies that maintain broad appeal without getting swept away by the shifting tides of tribalism. Here are some pointers:

Traditional election indicators have lost their meaning. Metrics like economic data and unemployment rates no longer predict election outcomes or voter behavior as reliably as they once did. Even more subjective questions asking voters if the country is on the wrong track or if they approve of a President’s job approval are less helpful in determining which party is likely to prevail. Instead, public affairs professionals now need to pay attention to a host of other indicators—from fundraising to grassroots infrastructure to momentum shifts to swing-state developments—as they try to discern who will come out ahead on election day, even while recognizing their best efforts to predict may not matter in the era of photo finishes.

Beware embracing coded language that forces you toward one team and away from the other team. These days, specific words, phrases, and slogans are not just forms of communication—they are markers of where individuals and groups stand on the political spectrum, even if they seem like reasonable principles on their surface. Phrases like “Make America Great Again” or “Black Lives Matter” encapsulate entire worldviews, designed to evoke strong emotional responses. While these slogans can effectively mobilize a base, they can also alienate those outside the group, leading to increased polarization. So your company’s embrace of “diversity” or “merit” for instance, could unintentionally associate you with progressive or conservative values. Language has become shorthand for a broader set of beliefs and values, allowing individuals to quickly identify friend or foe.

You’re either with them, or against them. If your marketing campaign, product launch, or hiring policy cross the behavioral norms of one of the tribes, you’ll quickly find yourself at odds with that tribe—which is a big problem if that tribe is part of your consumer base. Just ask Bud Light, Chick-fil-a, Harley-Davidson, and many other companies who have faced tribal backlash. Political debate is even bubbling up within companies themselves, despite employers trying to keep the workplace politics-free.

Ride the Tribal Tide

As we head into the 2024 election and beyond, the complexities of political tribalism will only intensify, making it essential for businesses to stay informed and adaptable. The old playbook for navigating political landscapes is outdated; instead, companies must learn to ride the tribal tide, recognizing the deep-seated loyalties driving public sentiment. Understanding the full range of your stakeholders and which tribes they call home is key to survival. At Delve, we’re here to help you guide your organizations through these challenges, offering the insights and intelligence you need to respond effectively to these tribal forces. Together, we’ll help you anticipate the election’s outcomes and their broader implications, ensuring your business remains resilient and responsive in a rapidly shifting political environment.

Decoupling Disconnect

/in

For years, U.S. presidents stumbled to adequately describe the U.S.-China relationship, unclear whether it was cooperation or competition. In the past decade, the messaging has shifted again. Now, China is viewed as a threat. From ratcheting up tariffs and restricting semiconductor exports to banning social media apps and stymying outbound investment, today’s political landscape for U.S.-China relations is vastly different.

Companies across a broad range of industries find themselves playing catch up with policymaking and public sentiment, and mixed messaging over whether the U.S. aims to decouple or just de-risk doesn’t make it easier. Even as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was in China averring it is neither practical nor desirable to completely sever economic ties with China, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel was chastising a U.S. Chamber of Commerce delegation’s friendly-seeming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Meanwhile, President Biden signed legislation forcing a sale of a China-linked social media app and U.S. states aren’t waiting for federal action to crack down on what they view as the threat of Chinese intrusion on their vital interests.

It can all be more dizzying for public affairs professionals than the latest TikTok dance craze as the shifting debate impacts their companies’ ability to raise or invest capital, secure critical minerals and components necessary for the energy transition, utilize emerging advanced technologies, and maintain reliable supply of crucial drug and medical components. Here’s what you need to know to stay ahead of the changing China debate.

Tech-No Dance

If you thought you could skip the U.S.-China tech showdown since you don’t have a TikTok account, good luck. This clash goes deeper than a doom scrolling gen-Zer at 2 AM. Start with semiconductors. The Biden Administration has spent the last two years trying to prevent advanced computer chips from reaching China, even as China attempts to build their own chips and global chipmakers warn that decoupling the global chip supply chain from China would be “extremely difficult and extremely expensive.” Now some in the West worry Beijing could dump legacy chips and DRAM—a type of memory chip used in computers—into global markets, undercutting prices in the West and threatening the viability of non-Chinese producers already under pressure to decouple their global supply chain from China.

That decoupling pressures is being felt across the tech industry. Politicians are calling out venture capitalists for financing tech that eventually ends up in the hands of the Chinese military. Intelligence officials are raising alarm over the threat of China’s intellectual property theft. American universities and companies trying to innovate have to dance around their ties to China, including the very personnel they hire. The increasingly chilly conditions across the tech supply chain will impact every company in the global economy.

The Big (Re-)Shore

The growing tech clash is only the leading edge of a broader shift in the global supply chain that began even before COVID, when policymakers—including those on the right—began pushing for ways to secure strategic resources closer to home and ensured American workers could share in the prosperity of producing those resources. COVID accelerated this trend, especially for critical goods like pharmaceuticals, and initiatives like the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act extended the push to semiconductors, AI models, and key components for the energy transition like EV batteries, solar panels, and critical minerals.

Yet reshoring is far from easy, and every company with a stake in the global economy will feel the bumps in the road. Even as the U.S. and Europe try to reclaim their manufacturing prowess, China is flooding global markets with a glut of goods. The tension will likely spur further tit-for-tat escalation, as we’re seeing with President Biden’s calls for higher steel tariffs on China and the EU’s investigation of Chinese electric vehicles. But the supply chain shuffle isn’t only a political chess game—there are practical challenges in decoupling that industry and politicians will soon run into headlong. Or already have. The Biden Administration is figuring out that the critical minerals and metals needed for the technology at the heart of their aspirational energy transition, like solar panels, wind turbines, and battery technologies, are largely stuck under Chinese soil or control while remaining off limits to mine here at home. Meanwhile, American solar panel producers are pressuring the Administration to enforce the tariff regime meant to protect them from Chinese dumping.

Ties That No Longer Bind

The pressure to de-risk and decouple is starting to fray economic ties between China and the Western world, leaving some companies with hard choices about which side they’ll take. Foreign direct investment in China has dropped to a 30-year low, and scrutiny on outbound investments has led venture capital firms to split off their China operations, while companies with long-time research ties to China are re-thinking their collaboration. Adding to these pressures in the looming threat of military conflict in Taiwan or further encroachments in the South China Sea, both of which could increase scrutiny of any and all business ties between U.S. companies and China.

Washington, meanwhile, has spent the last few years building capacity to legally sever economic ties, from bolstering the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to restricting U.S. funding of emerging tech in China to recent laws that restrict the import of goods made with forced labor in Xinjiang. But the targeted approach has left many holes to plug in the would-be blockade and politicians among other stakeholders are eager to highlight the shortcomings and address them.

States’ Red Scare 

Like many of today’s heated debates, the wrangling over U.S.-China relations is playing out well beyond Washington. State and local officials have raised alarm over land purchases by Chinese companies, and their efforts to deter these purchases sometimes reach far beyond China, impacting buyers even from friendly countries. Many local officials are also pushing through bans on TikTok. Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin scuttled a planned EV battery factory over Chinese ownership, in Michigan, voters sacked local officials who signed off on a local Chinese battery facility—both blows to U.S. auto manufacturers’ hopes to blend China’s advanced battery technologies with local production.

The rise of geopolitics at the grassroots level marks an important shift for companies trying to stay ahead on national security issues. While geopolitical watchers keep an eye on world capitals for their smoke signals, today those signals are just as likely to come from state capitals and even town halls, adding a new complexity to an effective geopolitical public affairs operation.

Derisk Your Derisking

Whether your company prefers de-risking, decoupling, or just delaying the inevitable, navigating this new operating landscape requires public affairs professionals to be smart and nimble. Policy attitudes on China aren’t the only area in which conventional wisdom can be overturned in a seemingly rapid manner. If you identify the right stakeholders and understand how to watch them for meaningful but weak signals that the ground may shift. Doing so ensures you not only stay ahead of the curve but shape it. As always, Delve is your partner in building the right information advantage to protect your interests and advance your business and policy objectives, whether they span the globe or are right at home.

The First AI Election?

/in

If you read the news then you’ve noticed the many, many articles these past few months warning that the first AI election in the United States will be an untamable swirl of disinformation that threatens our democracy. The narrative, which a Biden deepfake in the New Hampshire primary strengthened, has captured the minds of numerous policymakers and policy advocates who are pushing legislation across the country to restrict campaign deepfakes and urging regulators to consider new rules around the use of AI in elections.

So are robots replacing the Russian troll factories in spawning out-of-control deepfakes, and will that really shift the outcome of the election? Misinformation, whether driven by bots or not, has become a fixture of campaign cycles for some time. And AI could actually be a boon to campaigns that would otherwise struggle against well-funded opponents. That reality won’t stop the rush to regulate, or the media’s fixation on any instance confirming their bias. Here’s what public affairs professionals preparing to navigate their first AI election need to know.

Lawmakers Rush to Regulate

Whether AI-fueled disinformation is a game-changer or not, many policymakers are hoping they never have to find out. State lawmakers are rushing to regulate the use of deepfakes in elections, with 11 states already enacting laws and another 27 considering legislation. Yet this issue isn’t new: it follows efforts in several states intended to combat election disinformation, starting in California in 2018 and gaining steam after the 2020 presidential race. Federal lawmakers, meanwhile, have introduced their own proposals to limit deceptive deepfakes, and policymakers and activists alike want the FEC to update their regulations to cover deceptive AI uses. Local election officials, meanwhile, are asking Congress for resources to help them combat AI threats.

Will New Deepfake Rules Matter?

The specter of misinformation and disinformation policymakers are racing to contain has haunted us for a number of election cycles. Remember Pope Francis’ alleged endorsement of Donald Trump in 2016? The sprawling pizzagate conspiracy? In 2016, the average American saw one or more fake stories on social media leading up to the election. Indeed, fake photos and videos have long been possible without today’s AI technologies, and simple tools like Photoshop have been effective in duping voters in the past.

Of course, generative AI makes fake content even easier to spin up at scale—especially in the hands of bad actors. But an increase in the supply won’t necessarily change the demand-side economics of election news, like how much election-related content voters consume, how much they care about that content, or how willing they are to be persuaded by anything outside of their partisan bubble. Plus, the hype around the AI threat this year has spurred tech giants to promise more vigilance in their policing of fake content. In other words, fake content may be everywhere this election cycle, but will its impact on election outcomes be noticeably more significant than fake information of years past?

Even if the intensity and scale of disinformation increases due to AI, there’s another side to the equation. Generative AI tools can be a force multiplier for the very people who are supposed to influence the outcome of an election: campaigns themselves.

AI Tech Can Be a Boost for Campaigns

Campaigns run on three things: people, money, and time. But the old campaign adage—that you can always find more people and money, but never more time—may be upturned this year by generative AI. The new tools available this cycle can supercharge much of the monotonous work that campaigns undertake, meaning they’ll need fewer people and fewer dollars to be competitive (our CEO unpacked the possibilities of generative AI in campaigns in an interview with University of Virginia’s Center for Politics last year). This AI boost comes just in time as campaigns struggle to hire and fundraise in this post-covid, politically burnt-out environment.

Generative AI can also help level the playing field among candidates, giving those with fewer resources the ability to create more content, connect with more voters, and better predict voter preferences even without a deep donor rolodex. Of course, for AI to be an equalizer of political opportunities and voices, it must be made available for candidates to use.

Yet if companies issue blanket bans on political use cases, as OpenAI did in their recently updated usage policies, those candidates who most benefit will be incumbents who have traditional financial resources at their disposal. The underdogs will lose out on AI’s force-amplifying technology, while the bad actors will simply turn to jailbroken models or download uncensored, publicly available models that can be trained to do their dirty work. It’s clear technology companies want to avoid getting dragged into another conundrum around liability and content moderation, but the answer to the AI accountability challenge can’t be to run away entirely from transparent, legitimate use cases by campaigns and other responsible actors.

Companies Stuck in the Middle

OpenAI isn’t the only AI company facing a tough decision this election season. Every company building AI models, deploying AI tools, or surfacing AI content to voters is squeezed between the demands of concerned policymakers and stakeholders on one side and those who hope to use AI in campaigns on the other—whether they be bad actors or honest ones. The AI obsession of this election cycle will bring greater scrutiny than ever before to these companies as lawmakers, stakeholders, and the public expect them to police gen-AI content. Expect large tech companies to continue trying to get ahead of the problem and for lawmakers to continue dropping proposals that would require industry to take action against AI misinformation.

Nor are AI companies alone—companies across every industry will need a plan to manage and address misinformation and disinformation as the election heats up and even after the votes come in. Whether your company or client is building an AI product that could be used to influence elections, tracking campaign tech policy issues that impact the bottom line, or using AI tools that could face new election-related rules, you’ll need a plan to survive both the hype and reality of AI’s impact on the campaign season this year.

Public affairs professionals can’t afford a wait-and-see strategy when it comes to the first AI election and how it could shape the policy landscape. Instead, they are deploying a smart playbook to ensure they stay ahead of the curve. At Delve, we can help you separate the policy signal from the campaign noise, whether it is coming from bots or Biden (or Trump or any of the other candidates up and down the ballot).

Rooting for the Insights Hero

/in

The worst day you’ll have as a public affairs professional is the day your CEO or client calls to ask why you missed something big. Your job was to catch the bill that dents the bottom line; to spot those culture war bullets from the left and right flanks; to counsel caution before the picketers line up outside. But you got surprised, and now your boss is on the other line, and you’re quoting your favorite pop star: “Hi, I’m the problem, it’s me.”

Swift lyrics aside, being caught off guard is a real threat for public affairs professionals. A recent survey found that nine in ten of them report either missing something important each year or not even knowing whether they missed anything at all. Today’s public affairs environment only makes the threat worse: primary season is stoking partisan fires, the Biden Administration’s shift into campaign mode leaving regulatory debris in its wake, and Trump a single rally or social media post away from unleashing a maelstrom your company or industry has to address.

Yet there’s a way to avoid the surprise, and the unwelcome phone call that follows. As our CEO Jeff Berkowitz outlines it in his latest Forbes column published today: Only robust, methodically rigorous competitive intelligence (CI) can provide the strategic roadmap organizations need to navigate the political roadblocks. But surprisingly, many companies that will invest significant resources in CI for everything from consumer trends and industry innovations to marketing campaigns skimp on such resources for their public affairs operation. Instead of ensuring their public affairs department has the right in-depth insights on the political and stakeholder dynamics affecting their business and policy objectives, the C-Suite ends up calling the department wondering why the company got blindsided.

There’s a way to be the public affairs hero of this story. Here’s what you need to know to ensure your organization makes a culture shift in the way it thinks about public affairs intelligence.

This Isn’t Your Father’s Competitive Intelligence

To convince your organization or clients that political risks are worth taking seriously, start with the bottom line. As Jeff notes in his column:

“In 2013, McKinsey estimated that up to 30% of corporate earnings are at risk ‘from government and regulatory intervention.’ In today’s even more polarized and politicized operating landscape, I think that figure is likely even higher. Ignoring political and reputational risks can be costly.”

Managing political and regulatory risks is especially challenging for today’s public affairs professionals, who face more information than ever before and are expected to respond faster than the refresh of a TikTok feed. Meanwhile, they need to track an ever-increasing set of issues and broadening field of stakeholder voices growing louder and cleverer by the day. Not surprisingly, the same survey noted above found “fear of missing something important” and the “high volume of issues” they need to track are two of the biggest concerns public affairs professionals have today.

This chaotic reality for public affairs professionals is what makes robust, methodologically rigorous CI necessary for every important business decision. Gone are the days when a public affairs old hand could spitball about the way Congress just is. Today’s CI for public affairs must follow trendlines and data spanning more jurisdictions and a wider array of stakeholders while including sources beyond basic legislative trackers and news updates.

The Culture Shift Needed to Leverage CI for Political Risk

To avoid the dreaded phone call about missing something big, you’ll need more than just some team members armed with Google. You’ll need an entire culture shift. Public affairs teams need to be armed with the right insights and know “how to leverage this intelligence in a proactive, strategic manner” that weaves it “into the fabric of decision-making.” A proactive, relevant CI program like this starts with four key steps, as Jeff details in Forbes:

  1. Assess the landscape. You need a comprehensive lay of the political and regulatory land—the opportunities and risks across jurisdictions—to even begin crafting the rest of a research strategy. That external analysis is key, but so is an internal examination of your organization’s vulnerabilities and opportunities.

“Whether it’s a tech firm grappling with data privacy regulations or a manufacturing giant navigating environmental policies, understanding what your risks are upfront is key to crafting a proactive, resilient strategy.”

  1. Map your stakeholders. You need to know the full range of allies, skeptics, and opponents in your political and regulatory battles.

“Effective stakeholder mapping identifies unexpected allies and exposes surprising opponents, then assesses their positions, motivations and the dynamics between them.”

  1. Get smart about friends and foes. Once you know which stakeholders and policymakers matter, it is time to develop a full understanding on them.

“Effective CI professionals dive deeper, ensuring businesses understand policymakers and stakeholders deeply enough to ensure they aren’t just reacting to stakeholders’ moves but proactively engaging with them.”

  1. Build an early-warning system. You need to set up a robust system for monitoring the stakeholders and policymakers you identified in the first steps; a system that “anticipates what’s next, identifies trends and issues before it is too late and surfaces weak signals.”

“Make sure this monitoring program goes beyond the traditional news clips and social media listening, encompassing a broad range of sources like legislative actions and regulatory filings and other relevant materials that may not make the news until it is too late, or not at all.”

How to Be the Public Affairs Insights Hero

No company can afford to take a shoot-from-the-hip public affairs approach in 2024, when elections and AI and any number of black swan events promise to surprise even those with the most experience and best instincts. If you really want to avoid an angry call from your boss or your clients, convince them to invest in a rigorous CI program this year, with deep-dive research and extensive issue and stakeholder monitoring. That will make you the Insights Hero of public affairs.

If getting started feels overwhelming, Delve is here to help. For the past nine years, we’ve helped our clients gain the information advantage they need in their public affairs operations. If you’re interested in chatting with us about building a robust competitive intelligence program to help your company navigate 2024, feel free to reach out.

The Car Crash Election

/in

As the Mack truck of American democracy hurtles down the highway towards November’s election, more and more passengers see the coming pile up but cannot convince the drivers to swerve before it is too late. The two major political parties have seemingly misunderstood the assignment, set to nominate the two oldest men who are the most unpopular outside their bases in a re-match no one wants. The media is more obsessed with potential AI-powered disinformation than they are with getting their own stories straight. And the traditional barometers that tell both passengers and drivers if we’re on the right route are merely fogging up the windshield.

All of these factors present serious challenges to public affairs professionals’ ability to anticipate the outcome and navigate their organizations through the wreckage. In a year some are calling the Super Bowl of elections, the U.S. presidential race looks more like a demolition derby. The world is watching it most closely and struggling to understand its likely impact on the direction of policy at home and abroad. To cut through the noise of the campaign trail and spot the trends that will make or break your company’s future, here’s what you need to know.

Don’t Look Back to Look Forward

Objects in the rearview mirror may be farther from reality than they appear: Policymakers and prognosticators have long looked to traditional economic barometers such as the stock market and unemployment numbers to predict presidential elections. However, as we’ve said before, these indicators no longer match today’s economic reality. With much of the economy today in private rather than public markets and declining labor force participation rates masking job market stress, the CNBC news ticker no longer matches the way Americans feel about their pocket books. Adding to the uncertainty, the typical political barometers—presidential job approval, which party is trusted on key issues, and the generic Congressional ballot—have also lost their predictive power in recent elections. These indicators that were once the signal have become the noise. That’s in part because there are fewer and fewer swing voters as the electorate has become more nationalized as parties have become tribes.

Incumbent vs incumbent can’t be found on the road map: Incumbency was another strong predictor of presidential elections but, this year, it’s complicated. The last time America saw a rematch between two presidents was 1892, as certified Friend of Delve Matt McDonald noted in The Wall Street Journal. He points out that since presidential incumbents are already well defined in voters’ minds, they follow a well-worn path to re-election: define their challenger before they can define themselves. President Bush exposed Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopping narcissist with a record of poor national security decisions, and President Obama leveraged Mitt Romney’s private equity past and 1950s throw-back demeanor to make him unpalatable. But defining Donald Trump as anyone other than the star of his own reality show we’ve watched live these last eight years will be difficult for the Biden campaign. Instead, this year’s election will likely be won by the candidate who best activates their base’s ire against their opponent to drive turnout while everyone else stays home.

Swerving Right and Left on Hairpin Curves

The great party realignment continues apace: With the old rules out the window, you’ll need a new rulebook to interpret this election, and it starts with the huge shift underway in American politics. Here’s the short version: As populists have completed their ascendance on the right, wealthier, college-educated voters are shifting away, often to the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, many nonwhite voters without a college education, once a core voting bloc for Democrats, are being chased away by progressives pushing the Overton Window further leftward while Trump’s newly-populist Republican Party lures them in. This realignment is scrambling the state party calculus. Once robust Republican Party apparatuses in key electoral states like Michigan and Colorado have been torn apart as populists fill their ranks, with others like Nevada and Arizona thrown off course by MAGA-inspired controversies. While GOP state organizations aren’t alone in being disrupted, these developments could hurt GOP turnout mechanics in key battleground states.

Expect a debased election with a photo finish: With so many Americans depressed by choosing between a septuagenarian and an octogenarian, expect many to vote with their feet and stay home. That leaves the parties hyper focused on turning out their most loyal supporters. It’s why Biden made the “obviously political decision” to pause LNG export licensing, along with implementing an onslaught of other environmental regulations, all while shifting his rhetoric on the Gaza conflict. It’s also why the GOP is doubling down on border security demands and Ukraine funding. While it has been true for some time that just a few battleground states decide presidential elections, this year it will be even more true. Trump needs to flip key states that he lost in 2020 even as Democrats push abortion ballot measures to overwhelm his voting base in some of those same states. Companies will need to plan for how they handle the tight, and likely to be contested, results in the offing.

Can America count to three? Given the number of Americans pining for an alternative to Trump and Biden, many pundits wonder if this is finally the year a third-party or independent candidate breaks up the duopoly (we are, after all, in a new age of Trustbusting). The last such candidate to become a serious contender was Ross Perot in 1992, but he registered less than 20% of the popular vote with nary an electoral vote to his name. Another billionaire, Michael Bloomberg, spent millions of dollars studying the path to victory for an independent candidate and ultimately concluded the Democratic nomination was his best bet. If well-known billionaires lack resources sufficient to the task, what chance could a lesser-resourced candidate have? Any third-party candidate running in 2024—be it Robert F. Kennedy or No Labels’ version of a bipartisan dream duo—is more likely to be a Nader-esque spoiler than a real contender. No Labels itself has nearly admitted as much.

Your Political GPS Needs an Upgrade

Absent a black, or at least gray, swan event, Americans will elect either Joe Biden or Donald Trump the next President of the United States, likely in a photo finish. This unpredictability creates uncertainty for public affairs professionals who need a roadmap for the future policy direction of the U.S. and the world. With an election this year as unpredictable as driving in a dense fog, companies can prepare by building a strong understanding of the emerging debates and candidates, engaging quickly with the stakeholders who will shape the policy debate before and after the election, and deploying an early warning system to analyze and track the weak signals that foretell the risks or opportunities their companies will confront this year and beyond.