US CEO Uncertainty: A Policy-Driven Investment Risk in 2026

The clearest signal of a unique investment risk in the US market is a stark divide in executive sentiment. American CEOs are far more concerned about economic uncertainty than their global peers, with 43% ranking it as a top threat compared to just 29% of CEOs globally. This isn't a minor difference in worry levels; it's a structural gap that points directly to a volatile, policy-driven environment.

The source of this heightened anxiety is a rapidly shifting regulatory landscape, particularly in trade and investment. Over the past year, the US has seen unusually rapid shifts in international trade and investment policy, driven largely by executive action. This has created a climate of operational instability, forcing companies to constantly re-evaluate supply chains, compliance strategies, and long-term investment plans. For global businesses, this creates a persistent friction cost, as they navigate a policy environment that is transactional in tone and shaped by evolving national security priorities.

This policy turbulence is compounded by the immense pressure to deliver tangible returns from transformative technology. The focus on artificial intelligence has sharpened this tension. While CEOs worldwide are grappling with AI's business value, US leaders are most adamant about measuring it. 46% of US CEOs say their top AI priority is improving data quality to measure ROI, the highest share globally. This specific focus underscores a deep-seated need for concrete business impact in an era of high-stakes, uncertain investment. It signals that the usual runway for experimentation is being compressed, with executives demanding faster, more visible payoffs from innovation.

The bottom line is that US CEOs are navigating a dual pressure: a policy environment that is itself a primary source of uncertainty, and a technological imperative that demands immediate, measurable results. This combination creates a unique investment risk-one where strategic planning is constantly disrupted by external forces, and the payoff from transformative bets is under intense, immediate scrutiny.

The Investment Conundrum: Delayed Capital and Stunted Growth

The policy-driven uncertainty gripping US executives is not merely a mood; it is actively reshaping corporate behavior. When managers lack clarity on the future path of trade and investment rules, the rational response is often to delay or scale back investment until the fog lifts. This is the direct cost of uncertainty: a paralysis that stunts long-term capital deployment and, by extension, economic growth. For firms considering expensive, irreversible moves like reshoring production to avoid tariffs, the "wait and see" posture becomes a default strategy if they cannot forecast whether the current regime will persist.

This creates a stark tension. Even as US CEOs are the most worried about uncertainty, 58% of CEOs globally expect global economic growth to increase over the next year. This optimism is a global consensus, yet it is not translating into synchronized investment. Instead, the dominant corporate playbook is one of defensive recalibration. The Fortune/Deloitte survey reveals a clear pivot toward short-term resilience, with 80% of CEOs planning cost-cutting measures and 64% planning to raise prices. This pattern-cutting costs while hiking prices-suggests a focus on protecting margins and cash flow in the near term, not on funding expansion.

The bottom line is a market in two minds. On one hand, there is widespread confidence in the macroeconomic backdrop. On the other, there is a deep-seated caution that is freezing capital. This disconnect is the investment conundrum of 2026. It means that while the global growth outlook may be stable, the engine for that growth-the willingness of firms to commit to new projects, hire aggressively, and innovate at scale-is being throttled by policy friction. The result is a fragile setup where corporate balance sheets are fortified, but the long-term trajectory of productivity and expansion is left on hold.

The 2026 Policy Catalysts: A Landscape of Uncertainty

The CEO sentiment divide is not abstract. It is a direct response to a specific set of high-impact policy developments that are actively shaping the business environment in 2026. Three catalysts stand out, each creating a distinct but overlapping layer of uncertainty that is driving the cautious corporate posture.

First is the persistent and evolving threat of tariff policy. After being the dominant tax-and-trade story of 2025, tariffs are unlikely to disappear, but their uncertainty is the real cost. Firms face a landscape of changing tariff rates, shifting implementation dates (and delays), exemptions and the potential for retaliation. This volatility has a tangible economic effect: it tends to delay or scale back investment until the fog lifts. For executives, the rational choice becomes "wait and see," which directly undermines the policy's goal of inducing firms to move production to the US. The potential for a Supreme Court decision on the administration's unilateral tariff authority adds another layer of legal uncertainty, further freezing capital deployment.

Second is the deep, structural overhaul of social safety nets taking effect this year. Legislation enacted in 2025 is now delivering its impact, with deep cuts and major structural changes to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These changes are not theoretical; they are material. The Congressional Budget Office projects they will cause about 5 million people to lose health insurance and more than 2 million people to lose access to SNAP. For the sectors that serve these populations-healthcare providers, food retailers, and social services-this creates immediate regulatory and financial uncertainty. It forces recalibration of business models and customer outreach, adding another friction point to an already complex operating environment.

Third is the hyper-political landscape where business itself is on the ballot. As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the political environment for corporate America is shifting from traditional policy debates to a climate of skeptical voters and politicians across the spectrum. This creates a unique risk: the legislative agenda for the coming years is now inextricably linked to the outcome of a single election. The outlook is for a Congress that is expected to do less, even by election-year standards, with the House likely to be out of session for significant portions of the year. This political paralysis means that long-term planning is further complicated by the knowledge that the rules of the game could change dramatically in November, with the new Congress facing a potential Democratic takeover of the House.

Together, these three catalysts-tariff volatility, social program cuts, and a hyper-political election cycle-form the concrete policy landscape that is driving the CEO sentiment divide. They represent a convergence of economic, regulatory, and political uncertainty that is uniquely acute for US businesses, forcing a defensive recalibration that is the direct antithesis of the global growth optimism.

Catalysts and Scenarios: What to Watch for a Sentiment Shift

For corporate America, the path from policy-driven caution to renewed investment hinges on resolving three key sources of uncertainty. The current stalemate-where global growth optimism clashes with domestic capital freeze-will persist until clear signals emerge from these watchpoints.

First is clarity on the trade policy that is already chilling capital. The primary catalyst here is the Supreme Court's pending decision on the administration's unilateral tariff authority. As UNC Kenan-Flagler faculty note, a ruling that limits this power could reduce one source of policy uncertainty. More broadly, firms are watching for stabilization in the tariff regime itself. The cost of uncertainty is real: when managers lack a forecast, they tend to delay or scale back investment. A shift from volatile, unpredictable changes to a more predictable framework would directly address the core driver of corporate hesitation. The practical test will be whether this clarity translates into a measurable uptick in greenfield project announcements or reshoring commitments.

Second is the tangible payoff from artificial intelligence. US CEOs are uniquely focused on measuring AI's return, with 46% citing improved data quality to measure ROI as their top priority. This isn't just about internal efficiency; it's a bet on whether AI can demonstrably boost revenue and productivity. The sentiment shift here depends on early, visible success stories. Investors and executives alike will be watching for quarterly reports where AI-driven cost savings or new product lines are explicitly credited with moving the needle. Until that measurable impact becomes widespread, the focus on AI ROI will likely remain a high-stakes, high-pressure exercise that delays broader investment in the technology stack.

Third is the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections and the legislative agenda that follows. The political landscape is now a primary risk factor, with business itself on the ballot. As the election approaches, the outlook is for a Congress that is expected to do less, even by election-year standards. The key watchpoint is the House's legislative calendar. If it is indeed out of session for significant portions of the year, as anticipated, it will create a period of legislative paralysis. This would lock in the current policy status quo for a time, reducing one layer of uncertainty. However, it also means that the major policy shifts-on trade, healthcare, and social programs-will be deferred until after the election. The sentiment shift will be defined by this post-election clarity: will the new Congress pursue a reform agenda that provides stability, or will it introduce a fresh wave of volatility?

The bottom line is that a resolution to the CEO sentiment divide is not a single event, but a convergence of these three catalysts. It will be signaled by a sustained drop in the share of CEOs ranking uncertainty as a top threat, which has been 43% for US CEOs. Until then, the investment conundrum remains: global growth optimism is being held hostage by domestic policy friction.