2026: A year of synthetic crises?

Crisis communication is currently undergoing a fundamental transformation.
Not because organizations are getting into trouble more often, but because crises today emerge differently: faster, more complex, and deliberately manipulative.

What used to take hours or days now escalates within minutes.
What used to be verifiable can now be generated in a deceptively realistic way.
And what was once the exception is becoming structural normality in 2026.

Many leaders sense this. But only few are prepared for it.

AI is not the risk – lack of preparation is

In my work with boards and leadership teams, a recurring pattern becomes apparent:
Concern about AI-driven manipulation is high. Organizational and communicative maturity, by contrast, is low.

Almost all decision-makers now cite disinformation, deepfakes, and synthetic content as a relevant risk. At the same time, three central foundations are missing in many organizations:

• clear responsibilities: Who decides whether content is real or manipulated?
• robust escalation paths: Who responds when – and with what posture?
• a coordinated communication logic: internally, externally, and toward the media.

The topic is often reflexively assigned to IT. But that falls short. So the real risk does not lie in the technology, but in how it is handled. In the gap between recognizing and acting.

2026 means: no more isolated crises, but crisis cascades

A deepfake rarely remains an isolated incident. Manipulated videos or a fake CEO call quickly develops into:

• a cybersecurity issue
• a legal matter
• an HR issue
• and, within a very short time, a real-time reputational risk.

In conversations with organizations, however, I continue to encounter silo thinking: communications, IT, legal, and HR react alongside each other rather than with each other.
Synthetic crises cannot be managed along departmental boundaries.

Organizations that remain capable of action in 2026 are not those with the most extensive crisis manuals. They are those that are prepared interdisciplinarily, train together, and communicate consistently.

We know what helps – and still practice it too rarely

A finding that has been confirmed for years and continues to intensify:
Everyone knows that practice is crucial. But only few practice consistently.

Crisis simulations often do not take place at all or only under unrealistic conditions:
theoretical, without time pressure, without emotional dynamics – and mostly without AI or deepfake scenarios.

Synthetic attacks do not behave rationally or fairly. They are emotional, personalized, and highly credible. Their target is trust.

Trust is becoming more fragile – and at the same time more central

Many leaders tell me:
Maintaining trust today is significantly more difficult than it was just a few years ago.

The reasons are obvious:
Disinformation across all channels, fragmented publics, expectations of immediate responses, and a declining baseline trust in institutions.

And yet, in many organizations, trust is not managed systematically, not measured, and not communicatively protected. It is talked about – but not managed.

In an AI-shaped crisis, trust determines whether an organization is heard or goes under.

What leadership must deliver in 2026

The role of leaders is changing noticeably.
In 2026, it is no longer sufficient to be only a spokesperson, decision-maker, or strategist.

What is needed are leaders who can:

• classify information strategically
• integrate across functions
• make technologically informed decisions

Not in order to master everything themselves, but to ask the right questions, demonstrate stance, and provide orientation.

Why we wrote “We Are Fake”

We Are Fake is not a technology book and not alarmism.
It is a leadership book for a manipulated reality.

It explains how disinformation works, why deepfakes are so convincing, and why our brains respond to them. Above all, it shows what leaders can concretely do to remain capable of action.

Don’t be paranoid, but prepared.
Not hostile to technology, but reflective.
Not reactive, but resilient.

My conclusion for 2026

The gap between perceived threat and real preparation is growing.
But it can be closed – with clear stance, trained communication, and interdisciplinary preparation.

Because one thing is certain: the next fake is coming.
What matters is not whether it appears, but how well you can recognize and classify it.

Yours,
Dr. Nikolai A. Behr
Media Trainer | Executive Coach | Crisis Communication Advisor
DIKT GmbH – German Institute for Communication & Media Training