Introduction
In 2025 in the United States, the only certainty is uncertainty – and the need to manage it.
At their core, crises are defined by (i) the total impact they could have on an organization’s reputation, credibility, shareholder value, future ability to operate, and financial performance, and (ii) whether they necessitate a rapid, but effective, response.
While not every crisis can be avoided, the good news is nearly all can be anticipated and prepared for with a comprehensive and sober look at the business, its footprint, and the landscape, expectations, and risk framework within which the organization operates.
This section outlines some of the leading US trends that will impact crisis management in the current dynamic and unpredictable environment. The focus here is on stakeholder engagement and reputation defense, as opposed to organizational management or business continuity, and on how best to prepare for and manage an uncertain future.
Leading US Crisis Management Trends and Developments
Several key trends are influencing what companies must consider as they operate a business, engage with key audiences, and manage issues and crises in 2025.
A shifted and divided information landscape
Effective crisis management today is even more complicated due to unprecedented media fragmentation and a dwindling reliance on what used to be commonly shared sources of information. In October 2024, a Gallup poll revealed that more Americans have “no trust” in the media (36%) than have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust (32%). Instead, according to Pew Research Center, over half of American adults get some news from social media, a trend that continues to rise. With traditional media outlets losing not only trust but also readership and viewership, companies and organizations must now be vigilant about ensuring (or, where necessary, creating) accurate sources of truth that reach all their key stakeholder audiences – either by actively monitoring for and correcting misinformation or incomplete information on widely viewed platforms, or by building and maintaining their own platforms and communications channels. This also may require engaging with outlets not previously considered of importance to the organization.
Further, following the latest US presidential election, organizations with litigation, investigative or regulatory matters before the federal government need new approaches to reach and influence the new administration. Simply placing stories in the mainstream news media will no longer suffice. Many in the President’s evolving and often unorthodox circle of advisors, along with a growing share of any given organizations’ stakeholders, do not get their news from The Wall Street Journal, Good Morning America or even Fox News. As demonstrated in the most recent election, they consume from an entirely different set of information funnels, including podcasts run by former professional wrestlers and right-wing social media platforms. In this fast-evolving environment, a company that wants to persuade the new administration to terminate a government enforcement action or argue for or against a mission-critical policy change must seed its themes in the new “newsfluencer” ecosystem.
An unpredictable new administration
Prior experience with a Trump Administration unfortunately offers limited assurance of what to count on in the Trump 2.0 era, other than ongoing political divisiveness. While the President’s key priorities have been repeated throughout the 2024 campaign and early days of the administration, the details of the government’s legal and policy moves, or how they will be prioritized or executed, are uncertain. Maximalist rhetoric from the White House and its allies can make it hard to differentiate bona fide proposals and initiatives from opening negotiation positions.
For example, near-term competition policy, including government challenges to M&A deals and other allegedly anti-competitive conduct, is yet to be defined. While no dramatic departure from the Biden Administration’s robust challenges to M&A activity and antitrust enforcement is expected, the Trump Administration is expected to be more transactional and less predictable, including with respect to the sectors of focus or what business countermeasures might effectively mitigate scrutiny. Similar questions surround where exactly the chips may fall on issues like trade and tariffs, tech regulation, tax policy, labour relations and government contracting. Navigating this terrain – and avoiding the associated reputational land mines – will require careful thought, risk analysis, and preparatory scenario planning, along with early relationship development and coalition building.
Protectionism and economic nationalism
One theme that is predicted to resonate throughout the new administration is a prioritization of American economic interests against perceived threats from foreign adversaries and influences. Protection and growth of American jobs, domestic manufacturing and exports, and US energy and mineral production, as well as the guarding of national territorial, economic and data security, have been announced as priorities. This is likely to influence policy and enforcement related to such areas as international trade, foreign direct investment and ownership, M&A and joint ventures with foreign partners, and immigrant labour matters.
To avoid negative attention or other consequences on these fronts, organizations will need to fully assess their supply and distribution chains as part of any reputational risk assessment. They will need to examine and tread carefully regarding any existing or planned relationships with states that may be deemed a national security threat like China, or even with historically friendly nations in Latin America or Europe who have or may come under government scrutiny for allegedly impeding American interests on trade, immigration or other topics. And they will need to contingency plan for potential economic retaliation from countries and markets threatened or adversely impacted by US policy.
A surge in complex litigation and investigations
Everyone is under investigation, it seems, and litigation is rampant in this market. There continues to be a rise in government investigations across every corner of the regulatory landscape and a notable increase in complex commercial disputes. Companies are preparing for this litigation and investigative onslaught by expanding legal budgets – including to finance communications and reputation-defense activities surrounding and supporting legal events. They understand these matters require specialized communications advisors who are well-versed in the underlying law and procedure, and they often are arming themselves with this expertise well before a crisis hits.
In one emerging trend, lawsuit financing by private equity firms and other asset managers, and even by law firms themselves, is transforming the market, pumping billions of dollars into litigation activity and driving up the volume. This further fuels growth in litigation, as more parties have access to capital that allows them to file patent, antitrust and other competitor versus competitor lawsuits. Another implication is litigation financing to fund mass torts against companies or even entire industries, as well as responsive legislative and advocacy efforts to restrict such financing. The upshot is more money coursing through the legal system, enabling more lawsuits to be brought and maintained to and through trial and increasing the odds that any given organization can become caught up in high-stakes, high-profile and longer-term litigation.
Backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)
Following the US Supreme Court’s decision to end affirmative action in higher education, and in response to demands by activist shareholders, there has been a wave of actual or threatened litigation, investigations and enforcement, along with other pressure campaigns, taking aim against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the workplace and elsewhere. And that was before the Trump Administration moved to declare DEI effectively illegal across all of American society. Several companies and other organizations have settled lawsuits or made changes to their DEI policies and programs, including dropping, narrowing or rebranding them, to reduce litigation exposure and reputational risk related to “reverse discrimination” charges from the administration or activists.
It is expected that these challenges to DEI programs will continue, with many companies, educational institutions and non-profits left uncertain about next steps and whether their programs comply with the law. It is no overstatement to say the controversy over DEI is transforming US business culture and practice. How organizations respond to the competing views and demands of employees, customers, investors, government officials, activists and the general public, while attempting to implement (or modify) their stated values and commitments regarding diversity and inclusion, is a complex challenge that will continue to have a huge impact on legal vulnerability as well as reputational standing and trust among stakeholders.
Cybersecurity and AI-driven risk
Today, every company is a data company. Businesses’ and organizations’ executives and boards remain increasingly concerned about the continually evolving nature of cybersecurity risk and the threat of “digital crises” in general. When a cybersecurity incident occurs, the method of attack, threat actor and ultimate scope are entirely unpredictable, making cybersecurity a particularly costly and inconvenient threat facing enterprises of all kinds. Moreover, between tightening national and international requirements for disclosure of cyber-incidents and increasing interest from mainstream media outlets, particularly in those incidents that affect large, well-known companies and brands, navigating cyber crises continues to be a complex, high-stakes event. Preparing for and anticipating the risk of a potential cybersecurity incident is thus critical to maintaining not only business continuity, but also trust and credibility among a company’s most important audiences.
Supercharging this area is the growing introduction of generative AI, which complicates the picture, but can ultimately present an opportunity to better manage a highly complex landscape. The use of generative AI by threat actors to produce sophisticated, realistic audio/visual deepfake content poses a new and distinct level of risk, and the tactic has already been deployed in attacks against several major businesses. The increasing scale of attacks and the emergence of new threat actors are making it increasingly difficult to predict future behavior. On the other hand, companies and their information security teams are also harnessing the benefits of AI-enabled threat detection and response to better protect their organizations and data. These processes can include AI tools to measure public sentiment regarding an attack and leveraging these insights to inform the organization’s communications response to a cybersecurity crisis.
Managing Crises and Reputational Risk in Today’s Environment
As has been seen, reputational and operational risks are everywhere, emerging from disruptive and ever-shifting politics, public policy and economic conditions, as well as growing anxiety around contentious issues like geopolitics, immigration, war, and diversity and inclusion. We are living in a polarized society where trust has eroded in government, media and other social institutions that previously have been among the most respected and influential – even revered. Companies are increasingly being called on to speak to – or even to lead on – issues and events that may or may not directly impact them or their operations, but could affect their stakeholders, whether they want to or not. This is all in addition to the traditional operational incidents; health, safety, environmental, customer relations or labour issues; litigation; government investigations; regulatory actions; or business conflicts that have the potential to knock an organization off course.
Crises come in all shapes and sizes and can stem from any one or a combination of these factors.
Whether public or private, companies and other organizations are entrenched in the fabric of society. Each of their decisions and actions will affect the people who invest in, buy from, work for, are served by, or essentially license their operations – in other words, nearly everyone. When an incident happens or an issue arises, all of these stakeholders look to the organization for the “right” response. They want prompt reassurance that the organization recognizes the issue, is truthful, is competently managing it, and will solve the problem. They also want to know that the brand they patronize shares their values. The conclusions that stakeholders draw from an organization’s response to a crisis will directly impact the organization’s reputation, oftentimes even more so than the nature or details of the crisis itself.
In this time of uncertainty and polarization, the best defenses are preparation and co-ordination. Some types of crises are foreseeable, based on the nature of an organization’s operations and where and how they operate, even if the likelihood may be low or the timing unclear. Others are a true surprise – or a “black swan” event. The key for organizations is not to try to predict the future with specificity, but to prepare by considering in a systematic way all relevant factors, variables and potential scenarios. It is also important for companies and organizations to recognize when a matter appears to be a crisis but, in fact, is not a crisis. In this instance it is important not to “pour fuel on one’s own fire” and over-respond when a situation feels dire, ultimately, and inadvertently, causing more harm than good.
Given the numerous evolving factors that must be considered when determining a crisis response strategy, it is important for organizations to prepare detailed communications plans for responding to crises, and then to test and update the plans as needed. The importance of this kind of advance work cannot be stressed enough – developing the internal infrastructure and external relationships that may be needed in a crisis, creating the plans and protocols to deploy if one hits, running simulations at all levels of the organization to practice and build that necessary muscle memory, and clearly communicating relevant values and policies before a crisis begins so they are well-known to stakeholders in advance and not being explained amid negative attention. A live crisis response should not start with a blank sheet of paper.
Whatever the nature of the crisis, effective management requires a careful balance between protecting the organization from legal exposure and preserving the organization’s reputation through transparency, co-operation, remediation, and an authentic reiteration of core values. Because these objectives sometimes can conflict, legal and communications advisors are often – and with good reason – at the centre of a crisis response and must act in close co-ordination. While senior leaders and subject-matter experts are always indispensable, the legal-communications partnership must remain the keystone of crisis management, supporting and connecting all other components of the effort and largely determining whether the response will be successful.
Thus, the ideal for crisis preparation or response is a tightly aligned legal and communications strategy led by a team of experts from each area who know how to execute together. This is the key to advancing legal objectives and preserving reputation in tandem, while avoiding new risk.
Some best practices for an effective legal-communications crisis management partnership include the following.
Getting the process right: the rapid response protocol and core crisis management team should be designed to involve legal and communications experts, among other relevant functions, who are empowered to respond quickly and robustly to developments.
Staying on the same page: legal and communications representatives must share information and their strategies before engagement so that each side understands the other’s objectives and all relevant perspectives can be considered.
Resolving differences clearly and quickly: to avoid paralysis or uncoordinated action, there must be clear methods for making decisions to resolve competing legal and communications priorities or recommendations, along with a mechanism for revisiting those priorities as the situation changes or new issues arise.
Confirming the facts: gathering and verifying the facts, and being disciplined in when and how they are shared, is critical to maintaining credibility and optimizing legal, reputational and business considerations.
Nailing the narrative: legal counsel and communications advisors must collaborate closely, along with subject-matter experts, to develop a strong narrative that tells the organization’s story effectively and simplifies complex issues, adapting the messages to specific stakeholder audiences and new developments.
Aligning the message: the organization must present consistent messages, in one voice, to all audiences, including media, courts and regulators, litigation counterparties, customers, business partners, employees and investors. Executives, lawyers and any other public spokespeople should be trained on how to deliver the messages and handle tough questions in a credible, harmonious and effective manner with the media and all potential audiences.
Maintaining constant communication: the crisis management team should stay in close contact throughout the crisis so that new developments can be factored into the response approach and messaging in a co-ordinated way.
There is no silver bullet to stopping a crisis quickly or with no damage, and crises often arise from surprising sources or unfold in unexpected ways. But with careful, thorough preparation and a disciplined, integrated legal-communications partnership approach, an organization can cut down on the angles of uncertainty and mitigate the impact an issue or incident will have on reputation, stakeholder relationships, and continuing operations, all while protecting the organisation’s legal position.
Originally published in Chambers and Partners' Crisis Management Guide 2025
