If next year begins with Democrats in control of one or both chambers of Congress, a new cohort of committee chairs will be inheriting gavels — and they’re already mapping out an aggressive oversight and investigations agenda. Companies shouldn’t assume the spotlight will stay on the administration. Don’t wait for the first letter from Capitol Hill to arrive.

The time to prepare is now. White House and agency oversight will undoubtedly be a priority for Democrats, but it’s likely to be slow and litigious. The administration has signaled that it will aggressively resist congressional requests and subpoenas, most recently in an opinion published by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that is certain to complicate battles over executive privilege.

The private sector, by contrast, will be an easier target: faster to produce documents, easier to haul in front of cameras, and often sitting on records a committee needs to build its story. Companies located in politically salient sectors — artificial intelligence, pharma, energy, media, financial services, and any company that cut a high-profile deal with this administration — could see letters arriving as soon as January.

Investigations are likely to come from all corners of Capitol Hill. Judiciary, Oversight and Energy and Commerce will drive some of the splashiest headlines, but they won’t be alone. Many other committee chairs will set aside a gridlocked legislative agenda to prioritize oversight, hire new investigative staff, and flex their jurisdictional muscles in new ways. Companies should treat the next few months as an opportunity to get ready.

The instinct to route a congressional letter solely to the litigation team is understandable but often wrong. Congressional investigations run on a fundamentally different logic than civil litigation or regulatory enforcement. A committee’s first letter may appear voluntary, but it often opens a negotiation over scope, timing, process and public narrative. The response can determine whether the matter stays with staff or escalates into subpoenas, hearings and executive testimony.

There is no judge overseeing the process. A committee largely decides for itself what is relevant to a “legislative purpose,” a standard that courts have read broadly. There is no neutral arbiter, ordinary discovery schedule, or proportionality rule to rely on. That makes the first negotiation with staff critical.

Voluntary cooperation is a strategic choice. Most committees prefer negotiated compliance to subpoenas. The way a company handles the first informal request can shape what follows, including whether a subpoena comes at all.

Privilege is not a guaranteed shield. Companies often assume attorney-client and work-product protections operate in Congress the way they do in court. They do not. Committees have long taken the position that common-law privileges are recognized only at the committee’s discretion, based on the committee’s assessment of its need for the information and the potential injury from disclosure. In practice, protecting privileged material usually depends less on winning a legal ruling than on negotiating accommodations with committee staff.

The press headline is often the real sanction. Contempt referrals and civil enforcement are serious, but in reality they are often slow, uncertain, and shaped by political will, a limited congressional calendar, and (non-)cooperation from the administration. The more immediate risk is that the company becomes the story. In congressional oversight, a legally defensible position can still be a reputational mistake.

Companies should take seven steps between now and January to prepare for the coming investigations.

Map political exposure, not just legal exposure. Identify where the business touches politically salient issues — not just where it faces legal exposure — including contracts, settlements, regulatory approvals, consumer complaints, workforce issues, public controversies, or sectors already drawing Capitol Hill letters. Companies should also monitor the “fire alarms” that often trigger oversight, including investigative reporting, whistleblower complaints, Inspector General reports, Government Accountability Office findings, advocacy campaigns, state enforcement actions, and viral controversies.

Extend preservation protocols to congressional risk. Many companies’ litigation-hold triggers are keyed to filed or reasonably anticipated lawsuits. A congressional inquiry has different triggers — a public letter, a press report naming your company, a committee announcement — and preservation protocols should catch them.

Build an internal escalation path before you need it. Decide now who gets looped in when Congress calls. That could include team members from legal, government affairs, communications, business leadership and the board.

Treat minority oversight as real oversight. Minority members may not control subpoenas, but they can send letters, build public records, coordinate with watchdogs, elevate whistleblower claims, request work by inspectors general and the Government Accountability Office, and tee up issues for Day One action if control changes. Democrats’ voluntary letters now are a roadmap for potential subpoenas next year.

Pressure test your voluntary-cooperation posture. Decide in advance how the company will approach informal requests, including how to maintain constructive staff relationships while narrowing overbroad demands.

Revisit privilege. Companies should think now about which categories of documents they would fight hardest to protect, and build that judgment into their document review protocols before an inquiry forces the question under deadline pressure.

Retain outside counsel with congressional experience. Congressional investigations are not just another species of litigation, and the learning curve is steep once a committee letter has arrived. Counsel who have worked with or inside congressional committees can help anticipate how staff are likely to frame the request, which accommodations are realistic, when voluntary cooperation is strategically useful, and when a firmer line is warranted. Experienced counsel can also coordinate legal, government affairs, communications, and board-facing responses before the company is reacting under pressure.

Most companies already have the underlying muscle for investigations: custodian identification, preservation technology, cross-functional coordination — the same infrastructure that runs a litigation hold. What’s often missing is the congressional-specific playbook layered on top of it.

The gavels may not change hands until January, but the window to prepare is starting to close.

Sandeep Prasanna is counsel at Miller and Chevalier Chartered. He previously held senior House and Senate staff roles and managed congressional oversight at the Department of Justice.