Navigating US congressional inquiries: Key considerations for non-US companies

United States congressional inquiries have become an important instrument to shape policy agendas, test industry practices, influence public opinion, and apply pressure on industries and companies seen as politically relevant.

Notably, non-US companies can face unexpected obstacles in these matters due to a number of factors, including cross-border considerations, conflicting laws, and cultural differences.

In this alert, we discuss practical challenges non-US companies may face in congressional inquiries and provide strategic considerations.

Background

Congressional requests can quickly evolve into high‑profile hearings in which congressional committees or subcommittees with oversight could issue subpoenas to demand testimony, documents, and information. In many cases, committee chairs have unilateral authority to issue subpoenas without a vote of the committee.

In general, committees’ procedures vary widely and can substantially differ from litigation and law enforcement actions. In some cases, these inquiries can catalyze parallel investigations by US enforcement authorities and regulators abroad. The potential reputational harm stemming from public congressional investigations – often amplified by media attention and influenced by politics – can be immediate and severe, regardless of whether any wrongdoing occurred.

For non-US companies, these matters carry complex legal, jurisdictional, and reputational risks – even where US operations are limited – that are magnified by cross-border considerations, including conflicting legal regimes (such as privacy regulations and blocking statutes), divergent privilege rules, and cultural gaps between the US adversarial style and civil law traditions.

To navigate this complex terrain, a company is encouraged to gain a clear understanding of the risks before crafting a deliberate strategy for managing them. Such a plan may include leveraging US attorney–client privilege to address overlapping investigation and public relations components.

Early, structured action that integrates a comprehensive legal and public relations strategy can meaningfully protect confidentiality and reduce exposure when Congress (or a congressional subpoena) comes knocking.

What to expect in congressional inquiries: Practical challenges for non-US companies

Congressional committees and subcommittees possess broad investigative authority as part of their legislative toolkit. In practice, inquiries often begin with a letter requesting documents, written responses, and interviews – and could escalate to subpoenas and public hearings. Each committee applies its own rules and practices, and timelines are typically compressed.

While committees frequently prefer voluntary cooperation, they can compel production and testimony; non-compliance risks contempt referrals and public confrontation. In this fast-paced and media-heavy environment, cross‑border complications can arise immediately for non-US companies when faced with congressional inquiries.

• Legal and jurisdictional conflicts: Congress may seek documents and testimony from non-US parent companies, but compliance with those demands may be prohibited by foreign domestic laws such as the French Blocking Statute (FBS), data protection regulations (like the General Data Protection Regulation), or works council obligations. Companies thus risk violating either US demands or local prohibitions, creating a classic legal dilemma. Should Congress and the Department of Justice (DOJ) align and seek to compel production, US subsidiaries of non-US companies could face the potential of criminal contempt charges for non-compliance.
  
  
• Conflicting privilege frameworks: Divergent privilege regimes amplify the risk that disclosures in one jurisdiction, including to a congressional committee, could waive protections in another, leaving non-US companies exposed in future enforcement or litigation.
  
  
• Negotiating the scope of burden: Congressional requests are frequently sweeping and politically motivated, requiring large-scale document productions under compressed timelines. For multinational organizations, coordinating across jurisdictions, languages, and data systems can be disruptive and expensive, with little room for error.
  
  
• Political and reputational risks: Congressional hearings are often designed for public consumption, including televised testimony, partisan questioning, and leaks to the press (including confidential documents), all of which can generate significant negative publicity and reputational damage, regardless of the facts. Intensive congressional questioning can also be an unfamiliar environment for non-US executives, leaving the potential for missteps.
  
  
• Risks of parallel proceedings: The public nature of congressional proceedings, and Congress’s ability to share information with US authorities, magnifies the risk of parallel inquiries by US authorities like DOJ, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and state attorneys general – or even foreign regulators. Competitors, investors, and plaintiffs’ lawyers may also seize on disclosures, compounding the risk of ancillary business and legal risks.

Strategic considerations for non-US companies facing congressional inquiries in the US

Following congressional inquiries, non-US companies may consider taking the below steps.

1. Conduct an early case assessment: Upon receipt of a request or demand from a congressional committee, quickly identify a team with experience navigating both congressional investigations and related white collar matters. The real objectives and political dynamics of an inquiry may not be readily apparent. Experienced counsel can help a company quickly identify the purpose of the inquiry, why the company has been targeted, and what potential downstream risks exist. Counsel also can help to target risks and develop a coordinated response plan and media strategy. Consider conducting a rapid, but thorough, assessment that is structured under legal privilege into the subject matter of the inquiry to identify potentially relevant facts, anticipate the committee’s potential focus areas, and prioritize a response or remediation plan accordingly. Based on this initial assessment, a company may choose to conduct further internal inquiries into the subject matter to avoid surprise and inform a broader response strategy.

2. Balance cooperation while protecting rights: Demonstrating good-faith cooperation with a congressional inquiry could help avoid escalation, but companies need not surrender legal protections. Identify the committee and subcommittee rules and informal practices that govern the inquiry. Establish counsel‑to‑counsel communications with staff; propose an orderly schedule; and negotiate scope, sequencing, search parameters, rolling productions, and timelines, as well as protective treatment for trade secrets and personal data. To encourage productive negotiations, 1) make focused objections grounded in privilege, confidentiality, and conflicts with local law, as applicable, and 2) propose practical accommodations to meet the information needs of the inquiry, while preserving legal rights and protecting business interests.

3. Align across jurisdictions: Discrepancies between US subsidiaries and foreign parents may be easily exploited in public forums. To help mitigate this risk, centralize oversight of the response and coordinate across legal, compliance, communications, and government relations teams to ensure consistent positions and messaging across the company’s global organization and US affiliates. Early identification of legal conflicts could also help avoid inadvertent violations in other jurisdictions. Where possible, tailor productions to minimize cross-border transfers, leverage data minimization and redaction, and consider secure on-site review or localized data hosting. Additionally, present such cross-border legal impediments transparently to congressional staff and offer practical alternatives to avoid standoffs.

4. Protect privilege proactively: US attorney–client privilege and work product protections can be potent defenses for companies under investigation or public scrutiny, but congressional committees may not recognize attorney–client privilege in the same form that US courts do. Also, practices that are routine in civil law jurisdictions may lead to waivers in the US. Engaging experienced global counsel early to manage privilege issues across borders may help to prevent potential privilege missteps. Define who is within the scope of privilege, document the role of counsel, and maintain careful distribution controls. Prepare detailed privilege protocols and privilege logs as part of production and anticipate congressional challenges to or frustrations with privilege claims before they arise.

5. Prepare for public and political scrutiny: Congressional inquiries are inherently public and often partisan. To counter these risks, calibrate a joint legal, communications, and government affairs strategy. Documents and testimony can be excerpted, leaked, or selectively framed by congressional members and staff. Evaluate documents for reputational risk as well as legal risk before production (as they may be shared publicly) and prepare executives for questioning and media scrutiny via simulated sessions. Leverage a government affairs strategy to align sympathetic voices on Capitol Hill and educate critics. Prepare a rapid response plan to manage communications efforts before, during, and after any significant event, such as a public hearing.

6. Ensure accuracy and completeness: All committee interactions are official government proceedings. False statement, obstruction, and perjury provisions apply to letters, interviews, depositions, and hearings. Precision in written responses and testimony is non‑negotiable; implement rigorous fact‑checking and validation procedures. Non-compliance with subpoenas can lead to civil litigation and referrals to DOJ, possibly resulting in criminal investigation and indictment. Even short of contempt, disputes can become public and damage credibility. Be prepared to justify objections, document efforts to cooperate, and offer reasonable alternatives.

7. Plan for parallel risks: Always consider how actions taken as part of a congressional inquiry may lead to or influence other legal proceedings: Will statements to Congress mirror or conflict with statements to US law enforcement? Are documents due to be produced relevant to potential private litigation on this or related topics? Does a subpoena request information protected by data privacy laws of the company’s home jurisdiction?

Bottom line

Congressional inquiries represent a unique intersection of law, politics, and public opinion. For non‑US companies, the added complexity of cross‑border legal regimes, divergent privilege rules, and cultural differences heightens both risk and opportunity. With early and structured assessment under privilege, productive negotiations, cross‑border coordination, and integrated communications planning, non-US companies and multinationals can meet congressional demands while protecting legal positions and corporate integrity – and limit collateral exposure before law enforcement, regulators, litigants, and the court of public opinion.