As discussed in our February update, the Trump administration started its second term by announcing significant changes in the white-collar enforcement priorities of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). A brief recap: President Trump ordered the DOJ to pause Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigations and enforcement actions for 180 days. Attorney General Pam Bondi had signalled shifts in the DOJ's priorities towards the goal of "total elimination" of drug cartels and Transnational Crime Organizations (TCOs). Several of the Attorney General's memoranda at the time also alluded to potential deprioritisation of corporate enforcement in business-related national security cases and protection of US companies in particular. On the basis of these broad strokes directions, the DOJ had been directed to issue new guidelines.

Since then, the DOJ has released several guidelines and revised existing policies to align the department's priorities and practices with the Trump administration's earlier stated goals. Most notably, on 12 May 2025, Matthew Galeotti (Head of the Criminal Division) issued a new white-collar crime enforcement plan (Enforcement Plan) which emphasises "focus, fairness, and efficiency" in prosecutions. As part of the Enforcement Plan, the DOJ also introduced revisions to its Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Disclosure Policy (Revised CEP); updates to the Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program; and a memorandum on the selection of corporate monitors.

In addition, on 9 June 2025, the 180-day pause on FCPA enforcement was lifted with the introduction of new DOJ guidelines for FCPA investigations and enforcement (FCPA Guidelines). The policies reinforce the Trump administration's "America First" priorities in the white-collar enforcement arena by emphasizing protection of US corporate interests, public treasury, national security, vindication of victims' rights and combat against drug cartels.

White-collar enforcement plan

Focus areas for white-collar investigation and prosecution

The Enforcement Plan lists ten "high-impact areas" on which the DOJ's Criminal Division will primarily focus its resources and investigation or prosecution capabilities:

• Waste, fraud and abuse of – among other things – federal programs or public funds
• Trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion
• Fraud perpetrated through Variable Interest Entities
• Fraud that victimises US investors, individuals or markets, such as Ponzi schemes, investment fraud or elder fraud
• Threats to the country's national security, including the US financial system by gatekeepers, such as financial institutions that commit sanctions violations or enable cartels or foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs)
• Material support by corporations to FTOs, including cartels and transnational criminal organisations
• Complex money laundering, including Chinese Money Laundering Organizations
• Violations of the Controlled Substances Act and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, such as the unlawful manufacture and distribution of chemicals and equipment used for fentanyl laced pills or opioids
• Bribery and associated money laundering that impacts US national interests, undermine US national security, harm the competitiveness of US businesses and enrich foreign corrupt officials
• Crimes involving digital assets that victimise investors and customers, such as sanctions evasions or criminal activity involving cartels and TCOs

These focus areas indicate a shift to more traditional white-collar crimes that have a direct and high impact on the immediate interests of US citizens and companies. The areas also appear to align with the Trump administration's broader policy objectives involving trade, tariff and customs measures, as well as countering threats to national security posed by Chinese criminal organisations and Latin American cartels, among other entities.

The new focus areas are now also reflected in the Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, which was launched in March 2024. As part of the Enforcement Plan, DOJ added six new subject areas eligible for whistleblower awards, which include corporate violations relating to narcotics and cartels, immigration, sanctions, tariff fraud and procurement fraud.

Fairness in the prosecution of companies and individuals, including clearer guidelines and enhanced incentives for voluntary self-disclosure

In terms of accountability, the Enforcement Plan notes that the DOJ's "first priority" is to prosecute individual criminals, and that not all corporate misconduct warrants federal criminal prosecution. Instead, prosecutors are encouraged to consider alternative resolutions such as individual prosecution or administrative or civil remedies, particularly for low-level corporate misconduct.

The Enforcement Plan seeks to afford greater transparency to companies on what is expected from the DOJ and to expand benefits for self-disclosure, cooperation and remediation, through the Revised CEP. In introducing the Revised CEP, Galeotti remarked in a recent speech that a perception that the DOJ is "quick and heavy-handed with the stick, and stingy with the carrot" is ultimately detrimental to both the companies and the DOJ.

The Revised CEP now clarifies that companies that self-disclose and meet specific criteria are guaranteed a declination instead of what previously was a presumption of a declination. The DOJ also added a flowchart that clarifies the different paths available to companies depending on whether a company (1) self-disclosed, (2) fully cooperated, (3) timely and appropriately remediated and (4) had no aggravating circumstances. The Revised CEP also adds a path for declination even when aggravating circumstances are present, at the prosecutor's discretion.

Another notable revision establishes a specific approach for “near miss” cases where the company self-disclosed in good faith but did not meet all requirements of voluntary self-disclosure. In such circumstances, the Criminal Division shall provide an NPA with potentially a term of fewer than three years, 75% reduction of the criminal fine, and no monitor. Where companies do not self-disclose at all, prosecutors still have discretion to recommend a resolution of any form, with a three-year term, a monitor and up to 50% reduction in the fine. Relating back to fairness, this policy shows that the DOJ rewards "law-abiding companies and companies that are ready to acknowledge and learn [f]rom their mistakes".

Efficiency through streamlined investigations

The Enforcement Plan directs prosecutors to strive towards more efficient and streamlined corporate investigations by minimising the length and collateral impact of such investigations. This appears to address what Galeotti reflected on as "unchecked and long-running investigations that can be costly . . . and can unduly interfere with day-to-day business operations" of companies.

Another measure through which the DOJ wants to increase efficiency concerns the imposition of corporate compliance monitors. According to Galeotti, we can expect to see "fewer" monitors going forward and in limited circumstances where they can be valuable, they must be narrowly tailored. Under a new memorandum on selection of monitors, prosecutors must conservatively consider (1) the monitor's expense and its burden on the company compared to the misconduct, (2) the company's size and risk profile, (3) the availability of other independent government oversight and (4) the efficacy, testing and maturity of the company's compliance programme. The DOJ has also been reviewing existing monitorships to determine whether the monitor was still necessary in each case. As a result of this, several monitorships have been terminated early, including in the case of Glencore and Stericycle.

FCPA Guidelines

On 10 June 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued the FCPA Guidelines, ending the “pause” of FCPA enforcement ordered by President Trump on 10 February 2025. Further echoing the administration's previously stated priorities, the FCPA Guidelines emphasise "[limit] undue burdens on American companies that operate abroad" and "[target] enforcement actions against conduct that directly undermines U.S. interests". Several themes of the Enforcement Plan (mentioned above) are also repeated, including lessening the burden on companies by focusing on individual conduct and expeditious investigations, and consider collateral consequences for the companies' operations.

The FCPA Guidelines list four non-exhaustive factors that prosecutors must consider when evaluating whether to pursue an FCPA investigation:

• Total elimination of Cartels and Transnational Crime Organizations: To combat cartels and TCOs, the DOJ is pursuing their "eradication" by, amongst other measures, prosecuting corrupt associates and companies that are collaborating with or being used by criminal networks. Accordingly, in deciding on the continuance of FCPA investigations or enforcement actions, prosecutors must consider the association with criminal operations, money laundering, and government employees or officials linked to cartels or TCOs.
• Safeguarding Fair Opportunities for U.S. Companies: Prosecutors must consider "whether the alleged misconduct deprived specific and identifiable U.S. entities of fair access to compete and/or resulted in economic injury to specific and identifiable American companies or individuals." These considerations listed in the FCPA Guidelines must also apply in investigations and prosecutions of "demand-side bribery" under the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act.
• Advancing U.S. National Security: FCPA investigations should focus on corruption in sectors where American national security interests may be at stake, such as critical infrastructure, defence and intelligence services. This would include, for example, bribery of foreign officials involving key infrastructure or assets.
• Prioritizing Investigations of Serious Misconduct: Prosecutors must be mindful to not focus on US persons and businesses for alleged misconduct involving "routine business practices in other nations", or low-dollar, generally accepted business courtesies. Instead, FCPA enforcement should be focused on strong indicators of foreign bribery or corrupt individuals.

Observations and takeaways

Since our February update, we have already witnessed several of the priorities and policy changes as discussed above come into action in a number of DOJ cases. As a result of DOJ's review of existing matters, we have seen a large number of cases, investigations, corporate monitorships and settlement agreements that have been dismissed or terminated early since the FCPA Executive Order.

With the DOJ's priorities now being formally articulated in the new policies, the DOJ is expected to continue to critically assess each corporate resolution accordingly. Altogether, the Enforcement Plan, FCPA Guidelines and the other policy updates show a strong alignment with the Trump administration's "America First" policy goals. Takeaways from these policies include the following:

• Corporate resolutions will continue, with clearer and enhanced incentives for corporate self-disclosure, cooperation and remediation: The DOJ's commitment to overseeing corporate misconduct appears to remain largely unchanged, particularly in areas affecting US national security, such as sanctions and money-laundering. There is, however, more emphasis on incentivising corporate actors to come forward and to "learn from mistakes" as reflected in – among other things – the additional incentives provided under the Revised CEP, the addition of new categories of corporate misconduct to the Whistleblower Pilot Program, and endorsement of non-criminal resolutions for low-level misconduct. Companies can potentially expect a clearer, quicker and less burdensome path to a resolution including a declination, if they self-report and demonstrate efforts to remediate.
• Focus on misconduct affecting US companies: The new policies – most obviously the FCPA Guidelines – make clear that the DOJ will prioritise pursuit of US corporate interests, in particular by focusing on cases where the alleged misconduct deprived US companies of fair competition or caused economic harm to US companies or individuals ("The most blatant bribery schemes have historically been committed by foreign companies"). This could result in more investigations related to contracts awarded to non-US companies, high-risk jurisdictions or high-risk industries.
• Civil enforcement risks remain: In the FCPA arena, we have seen closures of FCPA investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) since the order of the 180-day pause, such as in the Calavo and Inotiv cases. However, the official position of the SEC remains to be seen as the chair of the SEC, Paul Atkins, recently stated that the SEC is not "directly affected" by the FCPA pause. Furthermore, the DOJ Enforcement Plan encourages prosecutors, where appropriate, to explore civil and administrative remedies for corporate misconduct over criminal enforcement. Companies should therefore be mindful that civil and administrative enforcement remains relevant.
• Risks for companies operating in Latin America: Since the designation of new FTOs on 20 February 2025, the DOJ has already charged several individuals for providing "material support" to FTOs. So far, we have not seen cases where corporations are facing material support charges. However, the Enforcement Plan specifies material support "by corporations" as one of the ten high-impact areas, which is now also eligible for whistleblowers award.
• Role of financial institutions as gatekeepers: Several of the new focus areas promulgated under the Enforcement Plan focus on threats to the US financial systems posed by hostile nation states, TCOs and terrorist organizations, and the role of financial institutions in enabling sanctions violations and money-laundering. Financial institutions, as well as corporates, will need to pay particular attention to Know-Your-Client procedures to prevent transactions with cartels designated as FTOs and SDGTs, Chinese Money Laundering Organizations and other parties that may be considered to pose a threat to US national security, such as those who have links to illegal drugs manufacturing and distributions.