Why the federal ‘big bill’ demands strategic communication
The “big bill” signed by President Trump on July 4 made conflicting headlines for its sweeping scope. For those working in the built environment sectors, its impact is less about politics and more about how the bottom line will be affected. Layered on top of this is the shifting landscape of tariffs, which continues to add uncertainty even amid clear signals of rising material costs. As tariffs fluctuate or are newly imposed – particularly on steel, lumber and electrical components – cost projections and contract assumptions can quickly become outdated.
With major shifts on the horizon for infrastructure priorities, federal incentives, permitting processes and materials costs, the initial reaction for those in the built environment sector could very easily be to hunker down and wait out the storm. But business development experts will tell you that waiting for certainty is precisely the wrong approach for those who want to grow and thrive. Indeed, rather than “going dark” in hopes of staving off what may seem an impossible chasm, now is the time for organizations to align on positioning at all levels, from leadership to interns, and proactively communicate this positioning with messaging that is consistent, straightforward and transparent.
It’s about more than just beating the drum. Team members, clients, vendors and community partners need assurances that what’s happening now on the policy front may merely be a bump on the road that will not impact the need or significance of the environment being built. Internal and external operational clarity will make way for understanding opportunities that the new legislation might open (like expedited permitting or public land access). The same clarity will lend understanding to past business models that may need to evolve (such as with the rollback of green building incentives).
But here’s the rub: “strategic communication” is often siloed within organizations, which makes it anything but strategic. In the AEC space, it typically sits within marketing or business development, and sometimes even at the project manager level. Ideally, strategic communication should be embedded across all levels of an organization, especially at the leadership table. When it is, those inevitable business pivots become far more streamlined and effective.
Take, for example, a firm considering a new market entry in response to land access changes under the new law. Communication professionals can play a critical role by interpreting the nuances of federal regulatory language and helping leadership understand what’s being communicated. This ensures the entire organization is speaking the same language from the start. As the shift takes place, messaging that aligns with the firm’s mission and identity can be crafted and consistently delivered across all audiences – team members, partners, legislators and the broader community. Consistency and authenticity in this messaging from day one will help ensure that what’s promised in the boardroom matches what’s delivered in the field.
This is about more than creating the right messaging; it’s about gaining advocates, protecting reputation, building consensus and anticipating resistance. In periods of legislative change, a lack of understanding of an organization’s position on the legislation can create ripple effects. Procurement teams may not be aware of changes to sourcing timelines. Estimators may miss a shift in material cost assumptions based on expired tax credits. Superintendents may make on-site calls without fully understanding new project constraints. This is why communication must be treated as infrastructure; it connects every operational layer.
Too often, communication planning is brought in after a major policy shift hits a project, which results in having to operate in crisis mode. Clear and transparent communication is about much more than damage control; while having a thorough crisis communication plan in place is imperative for when an emergency or unplanned change occurs, it needs to be thought of as more than just a safety net. In this significant moment of disruption, and future disruptions that are sure to follow, organizations that treat communication as a strategic function rather than a fallback or support role will be far better positioned to build trust, lead and prosper.
Another example of how the new law will impact the built environment is the rollback of sustainability incentives; this has put mission-driven firms in a bind. So, how do you talk about your commitment to low-carbon building when clients no longer see cost advantages in doing so? The answer lies in reaffirming values without overpromising outcomes. Rather than sidestepping the conversation, organizations can use this moment to be honest about the new challenges and creative about solutions.
“While federal incentives may have changed, our commitment to sustainable design remains as relevant as ever for future generations” is the kind of message that keeps a brand voice intact, even if the bid strategy must adapt. As sustainability goals collide with policy rollbacks, as federal permitting fast-tracks some projects and delays others, and as public resources are reallocated, what a firm says (and doesn’t say) matters for the long run.
Like it or not, proactive messaging around economic and policy volatility must be part of every firm’s playbook right now. Firms must closely track and communicate changes resulting from the new law clearly and promptly, both internally and externally. The risk of not being proactive is both financial and reputational – when surprises hit, trust suffers.
This is a moment to lead by example. Organizations that treat communication as part of their foundation – not merely a façade – will be the ones still standing strong when the next big shift arrives.
Originally published July 15, 2025 in the DJC Oregon.
