It’s easy to get angry at the disruption caused by a large, fire-breathing squirrel. But just because you don’t like the squirrel doesn’t mean they are to blame for your problems.
So, I’d like to thank the Trump Administration for helping the association sector see the flaws in its current advocacy business model. Without Trump, many associations would still think they were doing advocacy correctly.
Today, in From My Seat at the Bar, I’m taking a more serious note as we use our most recent sector data from Looking Forward® Challenges to identify what threatens the association business model.
Today? It’s the advocacy model. Is it Dead, on life support? Do we even know?
My first association job was in advocacy at the Iowa Medical Society.
Most of what I remember were AMA-sponsored legislative junkets, open bars, and my first cell phone, which worked as long as I was within sight of who I wanted to talk to.
The current association advocacy business model is built on time-tested (and predictable) assumptions that would be easily recognized by 21-year-old Dean West (future thought leader).
However, while the model has remained relatively constant, the environment in which it needs to be successful has changed dramatically.
Yesterday’s Assumptions are Obsolete
For decades, the strategic assumption underpinning advocacy, particularly at the Federal level, was that the government was a conservative institution in behavior and process regardless of which party was in power.
Policy development takes time. Associations could engage gradually, cultivating relationships, offering expertise, and navigating rulemaking through methodical, precedent-driven channels.
This stable environment rewarded those with long memories and a patient strategy. Advocacy was a chess game.
Then, the world changed.
A Federal Government Unafraid to Make Decisions (whether you like it or not)
The evolution of federal government behavior—catalyzed (I love that word) by the Trump Administration—has created a policy environment marked by speed and unpredictability, characteristics that do not favor the traditional association advocacy business model.
The Trump Administration is playing by different rules. Consider the following.
- They oppose deficit spending and government “overreach”. (DOGE)
- They aggressively use perceived Executive Branch authority. (Executive Orders)
- They are moving more quickly.
- They are more unified.
- They change direction frequently and without apology.
- They are pursuing a broad policy agenda, the notable “flood the zone” strategy.
- They have sufficient political support from the people who elected President Trump.
- Their opponents are disorganized (perhaps too polite a description).
Association leaders decry the environment as chaos, but they’re actually upset because their advocacy business model can’t keep up.
Associations that built advocacy infrastructure for a world of consensus and slow reform now find themselves outpaced and outmaneuvered.
The more your members rely on the federal government (directly or indirectly), the more exposed your association becomes. If the federal government can do it, so can your state government.
The Trump Administration is not creating problems with the association advocacy business model; it is revealing them.
Looking Forward® Challenges tests association challenges across 10 different domains, including advocacy.
In 2025, 41% of association leaders (up from 18% in 2024) are concerned about advocacy.
There is a strong research-based consensus on the issues facing association advocacy.
Trends that began long before President Trump was elected are now taking shape.
- Policy development is slow, misaligned, and often misinformed.
- Elected officials and agency staff often lack a deep understanding of the industries and professions they regulate.
But within this changing landscape lies an opening: associations can become critical translators of complexity.
Associations can create or rebuild influence in new ways by providing insight and education to new or under-informed policymakers.
Specifically, a new set of strategic assumptions needs to guide advocacy planning.
- Federal and state spending and taxing may face disruptions.
- Gridlock can be seen as a victory depending on perspective; opponents are inevitable.
- Advocacy voices will increase, but the number of policymakers will stay the same.
- Expect more scrutiny of tax-exempt status as the government seeks revenue.
- The media environment is not conducive to objective, independent, and fact-based discussion.
- Special interest groups will act like special interest groups – their interests, not societies.
- Decision time and impact on policy are limited.
Changing assumptions will influence adaptation, perhaps a revolution in the association advocacy business model.
What Must Change in Association Advocacy
Here’s what a 21st-century advocacy infrastructure must prioritize:
- Agility: Static government relations teams must become scenario-based strategists who can pivot quickly in response to shifting political winds.
- Proactivity: Rather than waiting for legislation or regulation, associations must preemptively educate and frame issues before they’re misunderstood.
- Credibility over volume: In a media environment shaped by mistrust, facts and clarity carry more weight than rhetoric.
- Speed of engagement: Traditional deliberation processes—position statements, board approvals, multi-month committee feedback—must accelerate to meet the pace of policy change.
Perhaps it’s time to Reallocate Advocacy Resources
Advocacy is about aggregating the voice of your members to talk to someone. You need to know who you want to talk to and what you want to say.
Historically, advocacy meant “lobbying” your state legislature or Congress. Resources were overwhelmingly allocated to these policy channels. Wealthier associations might add in a regulatory contact or participate in some level within the judicial system but traditional lobbying represented the bulk of time, money and energy.
Well, what if that’s the wrong place to spend it?
Association Laboratory’s research into the advocacy environment demonstrates several arenas beyond traditional lobbying where the association might have an impact.
Emerging Roles in Advocacy (Cross-Industry Framework)
- External advocacy roles that benefit the public or other constituencies external to the association.
- Intra-professional roles address issues unique to the needs of individuals within the same profession or industry.
- Inter-professional roles where individuals from different professions work together toward a common goal.
- Professional—institutional roles that address the relationship between professionals and their employing organization to create and sustain mutually beneficial relationships.
- Professional – industry roles that address the relationship between professionals, industry participants, and their representatives to improve that relationship.
Why spend all that money on lobbying firms when speaking directly to the top 3 or 4 companies in your sector will yield better results? Just because Congress doesn’t listen doesn’t mean someone else won’t.
Last Call from My Seat at the Bar
I began my association career as a grass-roots coordinator and then as a state lobbyist for the Iowa Medical Society. Nearly 40 years later, the business model is effectively the same, just with some different tools.
Unfortunately, as the Trump Administration is teaching us, the assumptions that shaped yesterday’s advocacy environment no longer hold.
Associations were built to aggregate the power of your members’ voices. Today, that role is more vital than ever—but the model for advocacy must change to reflect a new world and new assumptions.
BONUS CONTENT – Check out the Looking Forward Dashboard to investigate these issues, developing (God forbid) your own conclusions.
Just some thoughts From My Seat at the Bar