News creators are filling a void left by mainstream media that has left the younger generation unconvinced and unmoored. So that we can better advise our clients on how to engage and work with this increasingly influential group, Edelman has developed a list of the 100 top news creators, including Mosheh Oinounou of the Instagram feed and podcast Mo News, which we regularly update. We also do this because we see most of our competitors doing paid relationships with “influencers” who become part of their Paid flywheel distribution strategy, exactly contrary to the spirit of the creator in giving an unvarnished interpretation of facts that establishes personal connection and credibility of the content. And we know from the Edelman Trust Barometer that 70 percent of respondents identify as insular, unwilling to trust anyone with different media sources, solutions to societal issues or backgrounds.

Kenny Gold has been in his role as Edelman’s Global Chief Creator Officer for ten weeks. He was attracted to Edelman because of our 26 years of research in trust. He wants to forge a new compact between PR and creator based on three fundamental concepts. First, influence no longer flows top-down; in fact, it is built from the bottom up, with creators as a critical part of fact-finding and truth-telling. Second, the image of a brand or company is built in the public square, argued and settled in the continuing dialogue between interested parties. Third, the creator can be an employee, a CEO, a public official or a journalist (Kyla Scanlon has just signed on at CNN; she has one million followers across TikTok, Instagram and Substack, also a bestselling author).

Here are some of the key characteristics of the top 100 U.S. news creators:

Frequency of Posting—Just over half publish at least once a day (52 percent).
Platforms—71 percent are newsletter, 60 percent podcast, 61 percent Instagram, 60 percent X , 55 percent YouTube, 37 percent TikTok.
Focus Areas—Politics and Government 32 percent, Technology 14 percent, Business and Markets 11 percent, Marketing/Advertising 7 percent, Social Issues 6 percent, Health and Medicine 5 percent, Entertainment 4 percent and Fashion 3 percent.
Political Stance—For the one third who are in politics, the ideological break is quite even, with slightly more on the left than the right or middle.
Age—Three quarters are 25-44 years old, only 4 percent under 25.
Length of Post—Just over half are long form (53 percent) meaning over five minutes, 18 percent are short form under three minutes, the other 30 percent mixed.
Use of Third-Party Experts—Just over half use guests or outside experts.
Location—The largest concentration is in NY (34 percent), followed by California (30 percent), Washington, D.C. (12 percent)
Relationship with Brands—75 percent have a brand connection but largely outside of traditional ad formats. Trust is their key asset, so creators monetize through podcast ads, newsletter sponsorships or speaking fees.
Modern News Consumption—According to the recent Reuters Institute Digital News Report, 27 percent of respondents said that they get their news from creators.

Edelman will be compiling a global list of news creators for September from key markets including India and the UK. We do this because we observe the “deglobalization of culture” to quote a recent article in The Economist. The magazine asserts, “New technology is pushing the globalization of entertainment in reverse…nine of ten most streamed tracks in Denmark in 2025 were by Danes….96 of the top 100 songs on YouTube Brazil were Brazilian…as streamers push deeper into foreign markets, local subscribers beyond the elites who might have been happy with American fare...nine of ten of the top shows in Japan and Korea are local fare.”

We believe the same holds true for news creators, hence our strategy of local and global. This creator push at Edelman is consistent with our earned-first strategy that differentiates us from the holding companies, with earning trust as the core proposition for brands and corporations alike.

Richard Edelman is CEO.

I met with the Edelman interns a week ago for an hour long Q&A session. It reminded me of my own internships in the 70s, a walk down memory lane. I worked at the Adlai Stevenson Institute of International Affairs at the University of Chicago, Paschen Construction, Noonmark Magazine, Adlai Stevenson for U.S. Senate, Standard Oil of Indiana, First National Bank of Chicago, Bell & Howell and Swift & Company during high school, college, and business school summers. Here are a few lessons that I learned from those internships:

Take on the Tough Work—I was low man on the totem pole on the construction crew at the Federal Building project in downtown Chicago. In my first week, I was sent into the elevator shaft with a shovel to clean up the waste that had been collecting, before the Porta-Potties reached the site. It was eight hours of shoveling and tossing detritus, but I was not going to be intimidated into quitting. I kept at it, and eventually, I gained the foreman’s respect and got better tasks for the rest of the summer. If you're willing to do the difficult, unglamorous work well, people notice and trust you with bigger opportunities.
Phone Skills—I was a trip planner for the Amoco Motor Club, which meant that I took phone calls from drivers planning cross-country trips. I became familiar with the important routes, the motels, even the gas stations. I was Google Maps before such existed, with my yellow marker and big folding map of the country. I learned to manage the happy and hysterical with a measured tone. Technical knowledge matters, but people remember how you make them feel: Learn small talk; ask about the kids or school; find a way to satisfy the customer.
Find a Mentor—My favorite mentor was Doug Grey, a rising executive at Swift & Company, the legendary meat-packing company. I would show up to work at 7am and have a half hour with him, asking questions about pricing, new products, and connections with retailers. He entrusted me with a divestiture analysis of a kill-floor blood collection technology that took me to packing plants for on-site understanding of the process. The biggest career accelerators are often the people willing to invest in you. Ask questions, show up early, and earn opportunities that are well beyond your job description.
Assess the Future Competitors—I worked at a technology company that was facing Japanese competition for the first time. Bell & Howell made projectors, cameras and other electronic units. These were being challenged by foreign products offering similar quality and lower prices. The same thing was happening to U.S.-based television manufacturers Magnavox and Zenith. The question for management was to out-source manufacturing to Mexico or Asia versus continuing their production in the U.S. All these companies are now gone. No company is immune to disruption. Leaders have to honestly assess competitive threats and adapt before the market forces the decision for them.
Retail Politics—I was assigned to canvassing duties on the weekend, trying to register voters who could tip the balance for Democratic Senate candidate Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. I dutifully went with my clipboard and registration information from house to house. I learned the value of quick reactions at one house, where I was met by a German Shepard barreling through the screen door, targeting my rear end. Regaining my composure, I completed my neighborhood and even registered three new voters. This was far preferable to the interminable licking of stamps and envelopes for mailers. Campaigning also taught me resilience. Not every interaction will go as planned, but perseverance and showing up consistently are often what produce results.
Manage the Personalities—My boss at the First National Bank was into meditation and would have “alone time” in his office for an hour a day, while my bosses at Bell & Howell mostly conversed with me on the basketball court at the YMCA after work. Understanding what motivates people and meeting them where they are is part of becoming an effective colleague and leader yourself: Go where they go, eat what they eat, listen, and learn.
Fearless Salesman—I was the publisher of a prep school literary magazine. In short, my job was to sell ads. I learned how to pitch, define my audience, the art of the first contact via letter, the in-person visit to close the deal, the thank-you note that may lead to further opportunities. Selling isn't just about products; it's about preparation, relationships and understanding the person across the table. Those skills have served me throughout my career, regardless of the role.

I hope that this year's Edelman interns have had a great summer and that many of them choose to build rewarding careers helping shape the future of our industry.

Richard Edelman is CEO.

The Reuters Institute Digital News Report, which surveyed nearly 100,000 people across 48 countries including Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas, concludes that the media environment has splintered, with attention, trust and influence no longer sitting in the same place. Reach has moved to platforms, trust has fragmented, video is ascending, creators are interpreting and AI chatbots are a new force. Here are the important findings:

Social Media and Video Networks Pass News Organizations — 54 percent of respondents said that they use social media and video networks to access online news compared to 51 percent who use the news organizations’ own websites and apps. This is the first time that third-party intermediated news access is higher than direct use of sites owned by the media, effectively the “platformization” of news consumption according to Reuters Institute Director Mitali Mukherjee.
Video Now the Dominant News Format — 77 percent of respondents consume online news videos each week. More people now watch online news videos than broadcast TV news in 45 of the 48 markets. Growth in use of third-party platforms for video news is concentrated among Facebook at 43 percent, YouTube at 34 percent, TikTok at 20 percent and Instagram at 26 percent.
Trust in Media Continues to Ebb — Trust declined in half of the countries surveyed, leaving trust in news overall at 37 percent, the lowest level since Reuters began its study. The largest declines in trust occurred in the Philippines, Thailand, Peru and Poland. The common thread is political instability, divisive elections and a fragmented information environment. Only 32 percent trust news in search engines, 22 percent trust news in social media and 20 percent trust news in AI chatbots.
Decline in Interest in News — One quarter of respondents describe themselves as passive news users, consuming news only once a week, down ten points from a decade ago. The proportion of those describing themselves as very or extremely interested in news has declined significantly, with the UK showing a 33-point decline in the past five years from 70 percent to 37 percent. Forty-two percent of respondents say that they often or sometimes avoid the news.
Big Jump in Fears of Misinformation — Deep fakes, AI slop and politically motivated fake news are of special concern (more than 75 percent of respondents) in Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa, plus major developed markets such as the U.S., UK and Australia. The fear levels are highly correlated to the use of social media and video networks for news.
Creators Now Part of the News Ecosystem — 27 percent of respondents said that they get their news from creators. Forty-seven percent of those relying on creators say that they feel satisfied with this as their sole news source (the equivalent of 13 percent of the total population). But the Reuters study contends that only 3 percent of respondents rely solely on creators for news, making this a complementary aspect of the news ecosystem. Creators rank very high for ease of understanding, entertaining and relatable content, but much lower on trustworthiness and impartiality.
Rising Use of AI Chatbots — Use of AI chatbots increased from 7 percent to 10 percent over the past year, driven largely by adoption in developing markets across Asia and Africa. Predictably this is driven by youth using chatbots for news (17 percent), three times the level of the oldest age group, though the biggest growth in the past year is among 25–44-year-olds. Almost a third of those using chatbots report using them several or 10+ times daily. The primary uses include interpretation of a story, summary of a story and making stories easier to understand. Reuters also notes a significant trend for mainstream media: chatbot users are much less likely to click through to original news sources than traditional Google Search users.

Edelman is committed to winning communications strategies that combine trusted earned media, platform-native storytelling, deep involvement with news creators, AI visibility through strong proof points on owned channels and the use of paid amplification. We know that trust is earned through truth well told, thoroughly sourced, fact-checked and updated with the latest developments.

Most organisations are no longer asking whether AI matters. They are asking a more urgent question: Are we AI ready?

That’s the challenge behind AI readiness. It is not just about access to tools: it is about whether your organisation has the leadership alignment, workforce confidence, governance and ways of working needed to turn AI into real business value.

Across organisations, AI adoption is moving fast, but often unevenly creating siloes. Some teams are ‘AI superusers’, experimenting and making AI part of everyday work, and others are still unsure where to start, barely using AI at all. This inconsistency is where enterprise AI adoption efforts begin to stall.

The result is a gap between AI ambition and AI readiness, between investment and impact, and between isolated use cases and organisation-wide change.

What is AI readiness, and why does it matter?

AI readiness is the ability of an organisation to adopt AI effectively, responsibly and at scale. It is the foundation for sustainable AI business transformation. It brings together strategy, skills, culture, governance and operating model decisions so AI can improve how work gets done.

Many organisations are investing in AI tools without knowing whether the business is ready to use them well. Knowing your AI readiness is becoming a priority. It helps leaders understand what is enabling AI adoption, what is slowing it down and where to focus first.

Our own Trust Barometer research suggests that only a third of employees are confident that AI will positively shape their future in the workplace. That confidence gap matters. Without trust, clear leadership and practical support, AI adoption rates remain patchy and returns stay unclear.

So how do you know if your organisation is AI ready? How do you measure AI readiness in a way that shows whether your strategy can deliver lasting impact?

Introducing the Edelman AI Readiness Assessment

We built the Edelman AI Readiness Assessment to give leaders a practical view of where their organisation stands today and what needs to change next. Developed by our in-house AI, Digital, Workplace Advisory and Design specialists, it is designed to support stronger AI adoption and a more confident path to enterprise AI transformation.

Our AI Readiness Assessment is a practical benchmarking tool that helps measure AI readiness across your workforce and ways of working. It shows whether your organisation has the conditions in place for AI adoption to grow, whether barriers to AI adoption are getting in the way, and where targeted action will unlock more value across five areas:

Clarity for leadership alignment, direction and decision-making
Capability for AI skills, learning and development, and confidence in use
Culture for trust, experimentation and AI adoption in the workplace
Compliance for governance, guardrails and responsible AI use
Conversion for turning AI ambition into measurable outcomes and adoption strategy

AI Readiness and AI Maturity: What’s the difference?

AI readiness is about whether the right foundations are in place now. AI maturity is about how advanced and embedded AI has become over time.

In simple terms, readiness comes first. Maturity follows. Most organisations do not fail because they chose the wrong technology. They struggle because the business is not ready to adopt it consistently, confidently or at scale.

Low trust and uncertainty about how AI should be used
Inconsistent leadership narratives and weak change management
Gaps in capability, AI literacy and practical support
Operating model, governance or workflow barriers that slow adoption

That is why an AI Readiness Assessment matters. It gives you a clear view of the foundations for adoption before you invest further, scale further or expect more from the technology.

Our approach is deliberately human-centred. We focus on how people understand, adopt and integrate AI into their day-to-day work, because that is where AI readiness becomes real and where AI maturity starts to build.

How to measure AI Readiness and move from insight to action

Our own Trust Barometer research shows that people are significantly more likely to embrace AI when they feel confident in how change is being managed and optimistic about their future. That makes AI change management a critical part of any AI adoption framework. Without confidence and trust, adoption stays fragmented and the value of AI remains limited.

The Edelman AI Readiness Assessment gives you a practical starting point:

A clear snapshot of your current AI readiness and adoption baseline
Insight into strengths, risks and barriers to AI adoption
A foundation for action, from skills building to AI operating model decisions

It also opens the door to deeper support, from workflow redesign and leadership alignment to AI workforce transformation, capability building and culture change.

For your organisation and your people, it creates clarity, momentum and a stronger basis for AI business transformation.

Build AI readiness before you scale AI

The organisations that benefit most from AI will not simply be the ones with access to the latest tools. They will be the ones that build trust, develop skills, strengthen governance and create the conditions for enterprise AI adoption across the business. That is what AI readiness means in practice.

Want to understand your AI readiness score and where to act next? Take the free assessment now.

Lex Rees is Associate Director, Workplace Advisory.

I will give the opening address at the Edelman Trust Institute’s Trust Summit tomorrow. My remarks are a summary of our studies on trust over the past year, noting the progression from Polarization (a political division) to Grievance (an emotional divide including hostile activism) to Insularity. Insularity is the next crisis of trust. It describes a society in which people increasingly retreat into communities that reinforce their own values, information sources and views of the world, making trust across differences far more difficult. This is a global phenomenon, evident not only in lower-trust developed markets but also across many of the higher-trust developing markets.

I will describe five divides that have prompted Insularity.

The first is the Mass-Class divide, in which the top quartile of income earners have a much greater average trust level across institutions than those in the bottom quartile. The divide began in 2012 in countries such as the U.S., UK and France, then has grown over the last decade to over twenty points in nations such as Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. The bottom quartile has flat-lined while the top quartile has accelerated, coincident with greater income divides, stock market and real estate gains.

The second divide is the Geopolitical chasm, the rise of Nationalism. There is a huge difference in consumer trust between companies headquartered in their home market and foreign companies competing in that market. The domestic trust advantage is 31 points in Canada, 29 points in Germany and Japan, 25 points in the UK and nearly 20 points in the U.S. and China. Two thirds of respondents told us that it’s important, or even a critical deal breaker, that when buying or using brands, they are made by companies headquartered in their market.

The third divide is around Information. Insularity has prompted a deliberate narrowing of the world view. Only 39 percent of respondents told us that they get news from sources with a different political leaning at least weekly. There has been a massive decline in consumption of alternative views, down double digits in markets as diverse as the Netherlands, Spain, Indonesia and South Korea in the past year. The battle for truth is being won by those outlets that provoke and combine opinion with news.

The fourth divide is in the Workplace, which has been the refuge for respondents seeking rules-based discussion of difficult topics. Now we find that 42 percent of employed respondents say that they would rather switch departments than work for a supervisor with different political opinions and one third say they would put in less effort if they disagreed with the boss on political beliefs. This is tragic given that My Employer is the most trusted institution, well ahead of business overall.

The fifth divide is the Social Divide. The Mass-Class divide, Geopolitical chasm, Information divide and Workplace divide all point to the same conclusion: people are becoming less willing to engage with those who see the world differently. Seven in ten global respondents now identify themselves as insular, meaning they are unwilling or hesitant to trust people with different values, backgrounds, approaches to solving societal problems or sources of information. This mindset cuts across income, gender and age, and is evident in both developed and developing markets. Polarization divided us politically. Grievance divided us emotionally. Insularity now divides us socially, making it the defining trust challenge of our time.

There are significant consequences from the descent to insularity. We observe problems for the technology and health sectors. We also find that insularity has penetrated the consumer consciousness with important implications for marketers.

The first consequence is resistance to innovation. AI is viewed as Globalization 2.0, with major risks of downward economic mobility and job loss. Nearly half of respondents in the U.S., UK and Germany are against implementation of AI, with more than half of those in the bottom income quartile believing they’ll be left behind by AI. In fact, resistance to AI is comparable to the fear of genetically modified food.

The second consequence is the devaluation of expertise. This is most evident in the food and health sectors. Only around forty percent of respondents believe that such canards as raw milk being healthier than pasteurized (43 percent) or fluoride in water being a public health risk (36 percent) are false. It is stunning to see that those who believe in at least one of six presented health myths have higher rates of news consumption on a monthly basis than those who believe all six are false, and that there is no difference in rate of belief between those with college degrees and those without college degrees. We believe that this muddying of truth and fiction is a legacy of COVID.

The third consequence of insularity is for brands. Insular consumers are over twice as likely to say they are unwilling to buy from brands that are used by people who are different from them. Consumers exact a trust penalty from brands that sell to people with different core values compared to brands in general, with a trust gap of 23 points in markets as diverse as France, Germany and South Africa, which matters now more than ever as trust is in an equal position as a purchase criterion with price and quality. This penalty is a self-limiting proposition for brands seeking to move beyond their core consumer base. Brands also have a particular relevance problem with insular consumers when it comes to providing identity reflection and community connection (26- and 21-point gaps between insular consumers saying these are important for brands to be relevant vs brands are doing these well).

The purpose of our Trust Summit is to gather corporations, media, academics, NGOs and government leaders for an open discussion of the way forward. We see an increased likelihood of institutions needing to function in a time of prolonged uncertainty. The worst option for leaders is to mimic the turtle and withdraw into a shell until the storm passes. We will push our theory of Trust Brokering, which is bringing together parties with very different views for a constructive debate which aims to Disagree Better. This is my favorite day of the year, full of passionate expressions of views. To the participants, bring your best game. We must find a better way forward.

Richard Edelman is CEO.

Latin America Electoral Report: July 2026

Latin Americaʼs electoral landscape continues to evolve amid heightened political polarization, fragmented party systems, and growing challenges to governance. In Colombia, right-wing candidate Abelardo De La Espriella was officially elected president after defeating Iván Cepeda by a narrow margin in the most competitive runoff since the introduction of the two-round system, marking the beginning of a political transition that will require coalition building in a fragmented Congress. In Peru, Keiko Fujimori secured an irreversible victory in the presidential runoff, although the post-electoral environment remains tense as her opponent continues to challenge the results with fraud allegations despite electoral authorities rejecting any evidence of irregularities. While Fujimori will lead the largest congressional bloc, her administration will also depend on legislative alliances to advance its agenda. Meanwhile, Brazilʼs 2026 presidential race continues to consolidate around President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Senator Flávio Bolsonaro. Recent polling shows Lula opening a ten-point lead while both campaigns intensify efforts to broaden their electoral appeal ahead of an increasingly polarized contest shaped by economic policy, social programs, and opposition realignment.

This monthly report by Edelman compiles key developments, insights, and updates on the regionʼs main electoral processes, featuring analysis developed by our Public & Government Affairs Thought Leadership team in Latin America. Its goal is to provide a concise, strategic overview of the political dynamics shaping the regionʼs future.

Download here

Impact no longer sits at the edge of business. As companies become more intentional about defining impact and deciding where it should influence decisions, leaders are rethinking how the work is led across the enterprise.

That became clear during a recent Edelman convening in Dallas, where impact leaders gathered to discuss how their work is changing. Perhaps the strongest sign of that evolution was who was in the room. Practitioners responsible for crisis and issues management, employee engagement, HR, marketing, customer strategy, and corporate affairs all described how impact now shapes decisions within their own functions.

Despite the diversity of roles represented, the conversation kept returning to the same conclusion: for impact to be effective – in an environment of increased polarization and continued pressure on the bottom line – it must be integrated.

This reflects a broader shift in impact happening across clients and industries: many companies are increasingly deliberate about where they invest, how they measure progress, and how they operationalize the work.

Impact must drive business value.

For years, sustainability, CSR, ESG, and philanthropy often sat alongside the business. The work mattered, but it was rarely viewed as a core driver.

Today, impact is no longer one discipline – and those increasingly responsible for its success all share the same mandate: connect what the business does with what stakeholders expect from it. The most resilient initiatives are those that effectively ground impact in the priorities of shareholders, employees, customers, and communities.

A sustainability strategy connected to energy use, supply chain continuity, or product innovation will stand better than one framed only as a commitment. A philanthropic focus grounded in workforce development or market relevance is more credible than one siloed from the overall strategy.

Leaders must be able to translate impact initiatives into the language every management team and investment committee understand: cost, revenue, risk, return and long-term resilience.

Leadership is shifting from proclamation to proof.

Today’s executives are becoming more deliberate about when and where they take a public stand. In a more polarized environment, visibility can create both opportunity and risk.

At the same time, expectations haven't disappeared. Edelman's latest Trust research found that 81% of consumers say a brand becomes more relevant when it addresses societal problems that matter to them – yet roughly half believe brands are doing this well. In today’s environment, credibility comes from what communities experience and say about a company, not only what the company says about itself.

Companies earn the greatest trust when they lead in areas where they have clear credibility, operational relevance, and evidence they can deliver meaningful outcomes.

In Dallas, several leaders discussed how their companies are concentrating their impact strategies on areas where they have deep expertise and a clear connection to business, rather than attempting to address every societal issue. That discipline gives the work firmer footing in a politicized environment and keeps the scope narrow enough to execute in a meaningful way.

Local relevance drives global impact.

The same initiative can feel meaningful – or misaligned – depending on whether it reflects the needs and expectations of the community experiencing it.

That matters because relevance has become more personal and more place-based. Edelman’s research shows that the path to mass appeal has become more difficult as brands face a “rise of brand nationalism,” and as purpose shifts from doing good in the world to doing good “in my world.” Relevance is earned through people’s experiences with a company in their own communities.

Successful organizations are balancing global consistency with the flexibility to respond to local needs. One participant at the Dallas convening described a licensee model that empowers local partners to tailor community programs in hundreds of markets while staying anchored to a shared corporate purpose. It was a practical example of how impact works best when the strategy is intentionally built to reflect the breadth of the business, while remaining locally relevant.

The next challenge is integration.

For Impact leaders, the work ahead is less about defending a label than building the governance, coordination, and decision-making discipline around it. That means tighter coordination across teams and being more selective about where to lead publicly.

The organizations that succeed will be the ones that build impact into strategy and demonstrate its value through credible action that strengthens both business performance and trust.

Ann Clark, US Head of Social Impact & Sustainability and Market Lead, Dallas, and Nina Wilson, SVP, Special Situations & Investor Relations.

Colombia has elected a new president for a single four-year term, as reelection is constitutionally prohibited. This year’s electoral cycle unfolded in three main stages: legislative elections and inter-party primaries in March, the first presidential round in May, and the runoff election in June.

The process began on March 8 with the election of the new Congress for the 2026–2030 term, as well as three inter-party presidential primaries. In the Senate the Historic Pact, the current governing party, with a progressive ideology, consolidated its position as the most-voted political force, followed by the Democratic Center, a right-wing party and the main opposition force to the current government, and the Liberal Party. This outcome shaped a fragmented Congress with significant implications for the governability of the next administration.

The primaries were won by Paloma Valencia (right), Claudia López (center), and Roy Barreras (left), while Iván Cepeda consolidated his position as the sole candidate of the Historic Pact. The first presidential round, held on May 31, included 13 candidates and did not produce an outright winner. Abelardo De La Espriella, a right-wing candidate, obtained 43.74% of the vote, followed by Iván Cepeda, the left-wing candidate aligned with the current government, with 40.91%. These results showed that traditional political structures did not perform as strongly as in previous elections. In Colombia, when no candidate secures an absolute majority in the first round, the two candidates with the highest number of votes advance to a runoff election, which determines the new president.

The runoff took place in a highly polarized political environment. Electoral authorities and observation missions, including the OAS and the European Union, publicly reiterated the reliability of the process. On June 21, Colombia recorded the highest turnout in a presidential runoff since the mechanism was introduced: 26,344,960 votes cast, equivalent to 63.59% of the electoral roll. According to the preliminary count, Abelardo de la Espriella prevailed with 12,959,542 votes, or 49.66%, against Iván Cepeda, who obtained 12,708,712 votes, or 48.70%. The preliminary margin was 250,830 votes, equivalent to 0.96 percentage points.

Election Results: A Deeply Divided Electorate

TURNOUT	VOTERS	MARGIN	STATUS
63.60% of 41.4M eligible voters	26.3M votes cast	0.96 pp 251,854 votes	Completed

Colombia Election Results Chart According to the preliminary count from the National Civil Registry (with 99.99% of polling stations reporting), Abelardo De La Espriella received 12,959,542 votes (49.66%) and Iván Cepeda Castro received 12,708,712 votes (48.70%). The remainder corresponds to blank votes. This is a preliminary result: the legally valid figure will only be known once the official tally is completed.

Source: National Electoral Council and National Civil Registry, official count completed on June 25, 2026.

On Wednesday, June 24, the CNE’s National Canvassing Commission officially declared De la Espriella and his running mate, José Manuel Restrepo, elected for the 2026–2030 term. With the official canvass completed, De La Espriella received 12,960,166 votes, while Cepeda obtained 12,708,312, resulting in an official margin of 251,854 votes. Compared with the preliminary count, De La Espriella gained 624 votes, while Cepeda’s total decreased by 400.

The result confirms that both campaigns significantly expanded their vote totals between the first and second rounds, in a context shaped by both the redistribution of May’s electorate and higher voter mobilization. De La Espriella rose from 10,361,499 votes in the first round, equivalent to 43.74%, to 12,960,166 in the final canvass, adding 2,598,667 votes. Cepeda grew even more in absolute terms, increasing from 9,688,361 votes, or 40.90%, to 12,708,312, adding 3,019,951 votes. This growth was partly driven by higher turnout, which rose from 57.88% to approximately 63.6%, an increase of about 5.7 percentage points between rounds.

Geography of the Vote

Colombia Election Results Map Voting patterns reveal a pronounced regional divide rather than a uniform national shift. Support for De La Espriella was concentrated in the central Andean corridor, Antioquia, the Coffee Region (Caldas, Quindío, and Risaralda), the two Santander departments, Boyacá, Cundinamarca, Tolima, Huila, Meta, Casanare, Arauca, and Guaviare, departments that account for much of the country’s industrial, agro-industrial, and services activity. Support for Cepeda was concentrated on the periphery: the Caribbean coast, the Pacific coast, the capital Bogotá, and the southern border and Amazonian departments, historically more rural regions, with higher relative poverty and a stronger presence of Afro-Colombian and Indigenous communities.

Methodological note: simplified territorial classification by macro-region (not an exact department-by-department margin), based on aggregated preliminary count results released by the National Civil Registry and reported by Edelman Colombia.

Regional trends: in Antioquia, a De La Espriella stronghold, the candidate received 2,185,834 votes (64.4%); in Bogotá, the capital and the city with the most voters in the country, Cepeda outpolled De La Espriella by 2,235,514 votes to 1,933,243 (a narrow margin given the capital’s historical lean to the left); and in Amazonas, in the far south, Cepeda won with 61.9% of the vote.

Who Will Govern: President-Elect and Vice President-Elect

Abelardo De La Espriella
PRESIDENT-ELECT 2026–2030

Born in Bogotá on July 31, 1978 (47 years old), and raised mainly in Montería, Córdoba, De La Espriella holds a law degree from Universidad Sergio Arboleda, with specializations in criminal law and administrative law, and a master’s degree from a Spanish university. He holds triple citizenship: Colombian, American, and Italian.

He built his public profile as a high-visibility litigator in widely covered judicial cases and is the founder of a law firm based in Colombia and Miami. He has also ventured into the liquor, fashion, and media businesses. An outsider to traditional politics, he is known by the nickname “El Tigre” (“The Tiger”), is leader of the Defensores de la Patria movement, and received early, public, and repeated backing from US President Donald Trump.

He will take office as President on August 7, 2026, succeeding Gustavo Petro, for the 2026–2030 term.

José Manuel Restrepo Abondano
VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT 2026–2030

Restrepo is an economist from Universidad del Rosario, with a master’s degree in economics from the London School of Economics, executive management studies at INALDE, and a doctorate in Higher Education Institution Management from the University of Bath (United Kingdom).

He has built his career between academia and public administration: he served as rector and vice-rector of Universidad del Rosario, rector of CESA and Uniempresarial, and most recently rector of Universidad EIA, a post he resigned in March 2026 to join the vice-presidential ticket.

Under the government of Iván Duque (2018–2022) he served as Minister of Commerce, Industry and Tourism and later as Minister of Finance and Public Credit. His arrival in the vice presidency is widely read, including by credit rating agencies and the business sector, as a signal of technical continuity in the new government’s macroeconomic management.

Institutional Framework: Public Order and the Registry’s Challenge

Public Order

Voting on Sunday, June 21, proceeded normally across the country, according to the National Police and the National Civil Registry. Authorities reported 2,815 citizen complaints through the official electoral complaint system, including 2,643 in Colombia and 172 abroad, as well as 78 additional reports through the government’s anti-corruption reporting channel. Only three arrests were directly linked to the electoral process, while authorities also reported 73 unrelated arrests under a separate public-security operation and 863 citations for behavior disrupting public order.

The picture changed that same night, once the preliminary count results became known. In Bogotá, unrest was reported in the Usme and Kennedy districts, including an attempted attack on a police station, with the temporary closure of 22 TransMilenio stations affecting roughly 183,000 users. In Cali, the Puerto Rellena / Puerto Resistencia area saw barricades set on fire, at least four traffic enforcement cameras destroyed, and damage to the MÍO transit system; authorities reported one fatality whose direct connection to the unrest is still being verified and offered a reward of 200 million pesos for information on those responsible. The mayor’s offices of Bogotá and Cali, together with the Valle del Cauca Governor’s Office, declared the situation under control by the early morning of June 22.

The Registry’s Institutional Challenge

Colombia’s electoral system separates two functions: the National Civil Registry organizes the vote and releases the preliminary count, a fast but legally non-binding figure; the Judicial Branch (judges and notaries) and the National Electoral Council (CNE) carry out the official tally and declare the winner.

Against that backdrop, a specific institutional tension persists: outgoing President Gustavo Petro has publicly questioned the National Civil Registry’s technical integrity for months, and on election night again alleged on social media that the agency had removed traceability mechanisms from the E-14 form lookup portal. National Registrar Hernán Penagos and the agency responded point by point: the timestamps of when files were digitized and downloaded are recorded in the files’ metadata and in internal logs, and the hash verification mechanism remains active, both to certify document integrity and to protect the platform from automated attacks; both are auditable by campaigns, oversight bodies, and observation missions.

This is not an isolated episode: the dispute between the Government and the National Civil Registry over how the forms are filled out dates back several months. It also takes place against a considerable institutional backdrop: more than 1,150 accredited international observers and more than 15,000 national observers, around 850,000 polling station officials and 400,000 electoral witnesses, with monitoring from the OAS, the European Union, The Carter Center, and Colombia’s Electoral Observation Mission (MOE)—none of which has reported evidence of result manipulation.

The First 100 Days: Five Priorities Shaping the New Administration

Abelardo De La Espriella’s victory marks the start of a political transition in which the new government will need to send early signals of governability, economic stability, and execution capacity. During the first 100 days, the attention of markets, investors, and political actors will focus on five priority fronts.

1. Restoring fiscal and market confidence. The first issue will be the sustainability of public finances: the new government will need to present a credible strategy to reduce the deficit, comply with the fiscal rule, and preserve the confidence of investors, credit rating agencies, and multilateral organizations. The composition of the economic team, with José Manuel Restrepo as a signal of technical continuity, and its first fiscal policy messages will be decisive.

2. Addressing the health system crisis. The financial situation of the health system is one of the most immediate urgencies: financing for the EPS health insurers under intervention, access to health technologies, the review of the UPC (the per-capita payment unit that funds health coverage), and the coordination of the mixed public–private system. The new government’s ability to stabilize the sector will be one of the first tests of its management.

3. Building governability and advancing the legislative agenda. De La Espriella will take office with a fragmented Congress and no automatic majority. Building political agreements will be key to advancing economic reforms, reviewing initiatives inherited from the previous government, and ensuring institutional stability. The makeup of the governing coalition will be one of the main indicators of political strength at the start of the administration.

4. Resetting security and international relations priorities. The new government will face pressure to show early results on security and the fight against drug trafficking and territorial control. At the same time, it will seek to rebuild and deepen the relationship with the United States, reinforced by Donald Trump’s public backing during the campaign, on trade, security cooperation, and foreign investment, in a regional context marked by geopolitical tensions.

5. Regulatory review of Petro’s legacy. The incoming administration will need to decide how to handle a significant set of decrees and regulations adopted during the outgoing government, particularly in health, energy, the environment, and labor. The review, modification, or eventual repeal of these measures will be closely watched by the private sector and markets as one of the first signals of the real scope of the new government’s policy changes.

For companies operating in Colombia, the most useful indicators at this stage will be fiscal decisions, the final composition of the economic team, the first regulatory decisions in strategic sectors, and signals about the relationship between the new Government, Congress, and the private sector.

Stakeholder Reactions

Preliminary results from the presidential runoff triggered swift reactions from political actors, business associations, regional leaders, and international stakeholders. While several sectors acknowledged Abelardo De La Espriella’s victory and conveyed messages of support for the incoming administration, some voices from both the government and the opposition called for awaiting the final official count or raised concerns regarding aspects of the electoral process.

Collectively, these reactions offer an early indication of the administration’s sources of support, potential areas of scrutiny, and forthcoming governability challenges.

International Reactions

“I have spoken with President-elect Abelardo De La Espriella to congratulate him on his electoral victory. The US administration looks forward to working closely with his government to strengthen cooperation on regional security, address irregular migration, and deepen economic ties between our countries.”

Marco Rubio
US Secretary of State

“I congratulate Abelardo De La Espriella, President-elect of Colombia, on his electoral victory. This marks the beginning of a new phase aimed at strengthening security and prosperity in the country.”

José Antonio Kast
President of Chile

“I congratulate Abelardo De La Espriella on his victory and extend my best wishes as he assumes leadership of his country. Panama reiterates its commitment to strengthening bilateral relations in areas of cooperation and development.”

José Raúl Mulino
President of Panama

“I spoke with Abelardo De La Espriella to congratulate him on his historic victory. The Colombian people have spoken, and the institutions responsible for organizing the election demonstrated a high level of professionalism and effectiveness.”

Bernie Moreno
Republican US Senator

For decades, MedTech marketers have sought to build awareness, relying on the assumption that when people understand a health issue and learn what action to take, behavior change and improved outcomes will follow. Today, awareness remains necessary, but it is no longer the primary barrier to better health outcomes. The challenge is increasingly one of trust and confidence.

The reality for patients is far more complicated. People have access to more health information than ever, yet many struggle to know what to trust. Edelman's latest Trust and Health findings show that people's confidence in their ability to find answers to health questions and make informed health decisions has fallen significantly. This growing confidence gap has important implications for MedTech companies. Patients are not simply looking for more information. They are looking for trusted guidance that helps them navigate increasingly complex decisions. Patients increasingly turn to creators, peers and others with lived experience to help them sift through conflicting guidance and gain confidence in their decisions.

The result is a more fragmented trust landscape, where people often validate information across multiple sources before deciding what to believe and how to act.

With this uncertainty, MedTech companies today are increasingly recognizing that information alone rarely drives consistent progress. The organizations making a difference for patients today are taking a different approach, pairing clinical credibility with authentic storytelling and cultural relevance that move people from awareness to action.

The most effective campaigns today are designed not simply to inform audiences, but to help them navigate decisions. That shift is particularly important at a time when patients play an increasingly active role in their healthcare decisions. Whether evaluating screening options, learning about diagnostic technologies or discussing treatment pathways with their providers, patients expect to be informed participants in the conversation and ultimate decision. They can no longer be viewed as a secondary audience reached through HCPs. They are critical stakeholders in their care journey.

Our recent support for Hologic's Ultimate Defense campaign illustrates what that looks like in practice. Despite decades of education campaigns and the availability of effective screening tools, cervical cancer continues to affect thousands of women in the United States each year. The challenge was not simply to tell women that cervical cancer is preventable or that Pap and HPV testing are important. We needed to find a way to make prevention feel personal enough to motivate action.

Ultimate Defense centered on WNBA player Erica Wheeler, who sadly lost her mother to cervical cancer. Wheeler’s commitment to sharing her family’s experience elevated the campaign beyond statistics and screening recommendations, reaching women on a personal level through lived experience. Her story created an emotional connection that helped make the issue relatable and the importance of screening more tangible.

Clinical evidence remains essential to support campaigns like these, but personal stories help people see themselves in the issue, creating the trust and emotional connection that make information resonate. Wheeler’s story carried credibility because it came from personal experience, not advocacy by proxy.

Information changes minds. Relevance changes behavior. The most effective health campaigns build on that trust by connecting important health issues to cultural conversations, communities and moments that already command attention. Culture has become one of the most powerful accelerants of attention, particularly as audiences become harder to reach through traditional awareness efforts alone.

For Ultimate Defense, that meant tapping into the powerful momentum surrounding women's basketball. Wheeler wasn't simply a spokesperson; she represented a meaningful connection between the issue, the audience and a cultural moment that was generating significant interest and conversation. The cultural momentum surrounding women’s basketball created an opportunity to introduce screening conversations to audiences that may not otherwise have engaged with the issue.

The final shift comes from how engagement itself is built.

Patients today consume overlapping and often conflicting information from a virtually unlimited range of channels and platforms. They move between earned media coverage, social content, creator voices, paid experiences and conversations with their doctors and nurses, often trying to validate information across multiple touchpoints before deciding what to believe and how to act. As patients become more engaged decision-makers, they increasingly expect information that helps them understand their condition, as well as the technologies and innovations shaping their care.

In this environment, consistency matters as much as creativity.

That reality demands a fully integrated approach. Ultimate Defense was designed as a connected ecosystem, with each piece of content and channel playing a distinct role in moving audiences closer to action. A post-campaign brand lift study demonstrated that women exposed to the campaign were significantly more likely to discuss screening with their healthcare provider.

Wheeler's story created connection with the women who most needed to hear the message. Cultural relevance accelerated the opportunity to earn attention. An audience-focused content strategy reflected today’s complicated information ecosystem and helped ensure we could meet women where they are.

For MedTech brands today, delivering on the promise to improve health outcomes and advance patient care requires a broader view of what drives behavior change. Generating awareness is a start, but lasting success comes from helping people navigate increasingly complex health decisions with confidence. As patients take more ownership of their health decisions, marketers have an opportunity and responsibility to engage them directly. The future belongs to organizations that can combine scientific credibility, human connection and cultural relevance to turn information into action.

Bryan Horner, Senior Vice President, Edelman Health.

25 Years of Trust

News Creators: Trusted Sources, Not Distribution Channel

Related Content

6 A.M.

My Summer Internships

6 A.M.

The Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2026

6 A.M.

Edelman Trust Institute Trust Summit

My Summer Internships

Related Content

6 A.M.

The Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2026

6 A.M.

Edelman Trust Institute Trust Summit

6 A.M.

The Lion in Winter

The Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2026

Related Content

6 A.M.

The Lion in Winter

6 A.M.

Obama Presidential Center

6 A.M.

My First World Cup

AI is moving fast. Adoption is not.

What is AI readiness, and why does it matter?

Introducing the Edelman AI Readiness Assessment

AI Readiness and AI Maturity: What’s the difference?

How to measure AI Readiness and move from insight to action

Build AI readiness before you scale AI

Edelman Trust Institute Trust Summit

Related Content

6 A.M.

The Lion in Winter

6 A.M.

Obama Presidential Center

6 A.M.

My First World Cup

Latin America Electoral Report: July 2026

The New Business of Impact

AI Readiness Assessment | Edelman UK

Colombia 2026–2030 Presidential Elections Results, Challenges, and First 100 Days

Election Results: A Deeply Divided Electorate

Geography of the Vote

Who Will Govern: President-Elect and Vice President-Elect

Institutional Framework: Public Order and the Registry’s Challenge

The First 100 Days: Five Priorities Shaping the New Administration

Stakeholder Reactions

Why awareness no longer drives patient action