FCPA Enforcement Update: Strategic Shift, Renewed Focus

The Trump Administration’s approach to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement has continued to evolve during the first half of 2025. On February 5, U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi issued a memorandum that discussed the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) prioritization of “investigations related to foreign bribery that facilitates the criminal operations of Cartels and TCOs" (Transnational Criminal Organizations). President Trump then issued an Executive Order on February 10 imposing a 180-day halt on all new and ongoing investigations resulting from allegations of FCPA violations. These directives initially created some uncertainty about how the prioritization of cartel- and TCO-related investigations would affect the traditionally active white-collar enforcement landscape.  

Matthew Galeotti, Head of the DOJ’s Criminal Division, issued a subsequent memorandum on May 12 that clarified the priorities of the Administration. The memo emphasized crimes, such as those listed below, that threaten U.S. economy, national security, and financial integrity as the highest investigation focus for the DOJ.

- Financial institution or other gatekeepers’ facilitation of sanctions violations or enablement of transactions by Cartels, TCOs, hostile nation-states, and/or foreign terrorist organizations;

- Material support by corporations to foreign terrorist organizations, including recently designated Cartels and TCOs;

- Complex money laundering, including Chinese Money Laundering Organizations, and other organizations involved in laundering funds used in the manufacturing of illegal drugs;

- Bribery and money laundering that undermines U.S. national security and interests and enriches foreign corrupt officials; and

- Crimes involving digital assets to further facilitate other criminal conduct, such as money laundering or sanctions evasion, or harm investors and consumers.

The June 9 memorandum issued by U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche provided further clarity by including practical guidance that built on earlier DOJ communications. The memo outlines factors prosecutors should consider when pursuing an investigation or enforcement action involving cartels and TCOs, threats to U.S. national security, particularly in the defense, intelligence, and critical infrastructure assets sectors, and harm to the competitiveness of U.S. companies stemming from bribery and corrupt dealings with foreign officials. The memo indicated that the DOJ would be selective of the types of cases they prosecute and will prioritize general misconduct that “bears strong indicia of corrupt intent tied to particular individuals,” rather than matters arising from “routine business practices…[or] de minimis or low-dollar, generally accepted business courtesies.”

One day later, Galeotti publicly announced the Blanche memorandum and confirmed that the “pause” was officially over (GIR). Federal prosecutors will resume investigations with renewed focus, targeting the most egregious misconduct that threatens U.S. interests.

The developments described above signal a clear and strategic shift in the DOJ’s enforcement priorities, underscoring the need for companies to remain vigilant and proactive in managing FCPA-related risks.

SEC and State-Level Enforcement

The DOJ is not the only federal agency with enforcement authority in this area; the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can also bring civil enforcement actions under the FCPA’s books and records and internal control provisions. Antonia Apps, Deputy Director in the SEC’s Enforcement Division, stated that the SEC will likely “follow the lead” of the DOJ following the February 10 Executive Order (GIR). Acting Director of the SEC Enforcement Division, Samuel Waldon, also acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding regulatory enforcement at the annual SEC Speaks conference in May 2025, but noted that he does not anticipate the changes to be as “stark and pronounced as some are predicting.”

At the state level, attorneys general have clearly indicated they will continue to enforce anti-corruption actions. For example, shortly after the Executive Order’s release, the California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a legal advisory indicating companies remain subject to prosecution in California for FCPA violations. He warned companies that the FCPA is still a binding federal law and that violations are still actionable under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), a statute to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive business practices. If other states follow California’s lead and prioritize bribery and anti-corruption enforcement, companies will be faced with the increasingly complicated task of navigating both federal and state related laws.

What Companies Should Be Doing Now

With the current Administration’s concentration on the most serious foreign threats to the U.S., companies should remain poised to mitigate bribery and corruption, money laundering and sanctions risks through well-designed and effective compliance programs. In times of heightened regulatory scrutiny, it is even more important for organizations to:

- Stay abreast of regulatory changes in the jurisdictions in which they operate;

- Conduct regular risk assessments and supply chain analyses to identify areas where bribery, corruption, money laundering, and sanctions risks may arise, and implement appropriate controls to address them;

- Perform thorough due diligence on third parties—including customers, suppliers, intermediaries, and agents—to identify and manage elevated compliance risks;

- Monitor for potential exposure to corrupt foreign officials, cartels, TCOs, and hostile nation-states within business operations;

- Perform audits to detect areas of control weaknesses and potential violations; and

- Preserve thorough books and records to be prepared in the event of government inquiry.

The evolving state of FCPA enforcement in the U.S. introduces challenge in anticipating a company’s regulatory obligations. However, it is evident from the DOJ’s statements this month that there is a renewed commitment to rooting out corrupt individuals and entities, both foreign and domestic. Now, more than ever, companies must proactively establish compliance programs that are adaptable to change – and more importantly, align with the government’s highest enforcement priorities – to avoid or defend against FCPA enforcement actions.