On June 9, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ” or the “Department”) issued the highly anticipated guidelines for investigations and enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) (“FCPA Guidelines”),1 thereby ending the temporary FCPA pause announced in President Trump’s February 10 Executive Order. Following this issuance, the Head of the DOJ Criminal Division gave remarks at the American Conference Institute’s annual Global Anti-Corruption, Ethics, & Compliance Conference reinforcing the DOJ’s commitment to prosecuting cases under the FCPA; “Now is the time to get to work.”2
Since the February 10 Executive Order, the DOJ has rolled out a series of directives signaling a decisive shift in white-collar enforcement.3 The message is clear: under the Trump Administration, enforcement efforts will be driven by a firm mandate to protect and advance U.S. interests. Additionally, the FCPA Guidelines reaffirm the Department’s recently articulated priorities — dismantling cartels, targeting Transnational Criminal Organizations (“TCOs”), and advancing U.S. national security. The Department is zeroing in on high-impact cases, particularly if the misconduct harms American competitive interests.
New FCPA Guidelines
Pursuant to the FCPA Guidelines, “all current and future FCPA investigations and enforcement actions will be guided by the goals of (1) limiting undue burdens on American companies that operate abroad and (2) targeting enforcement actions against conduct that directly undermines U.S. national interests.” The Department will consider the following areas of focus when determining to bring a new FCPA matter. Significantly, the FCPA Guidelines, and the DOJ officials’ related speeches and commentary, make clear that these are priority areas, and are not exclusive.
- Cartels and TCOs: As with previous guidance, the FCPA Guidelines reflect administration directives to eradicate cartels and TCOs.4 Primary considerations for bringing a case include whether the alleged misconduct (1) is associated with the criminal operations of a cartel or TCO; (2) utilizes money launderers or shell companies that engage in money laundering for cartels or TCOs; or (3) is linked to employees of state-owned entities or other foreign officials who have received bribes from cartels or TCOs. This focus will likely bring increased enforcement to geographies such as Latin America, which has long battled with the presence of cartels, as well as Africa, China, and Russia.
- Continued Focus on American Interests: Prosecutors will consider whether the alleged misconduct deprived “specific and identifiable” U.S. entities of fair access to compete or resulted in economic injury to American companies or individuals. The FCPA Guidance also notes that in conducting investigations and prosecutions, the Department may leverage the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (“FEPA”) to target the demand side of foreign bribery, with a focus on bribery demands involving “key infrastructure or assets.” This could lead to increased scrutiny of non-U.S. companies, even as the Department has made clear that a company’s nationality or headquartered location is not a determining factor. The Department has emphasized that conduct unrelated to U.S. interests may not be overlooked. The Criminal Division will support foreign and domestic regulators in addressing such matters, enhancing collaboration among authorities.
- Sectors Impacting National Security: FCPA enforcement will also prioritize alleged misconduct that presents a threat to U.S. national security interests, which are broadly defined to include competitive advantages in strategic sectors such as critical minerals, deep-water ports, defense, energy, and key infrastructure. We can expect enforcement resources to be directed to combat bribery schemes that involve foreign officials in sectors with direct national security implications, although these categories are broad and will likely shift over time.
- “Big Ticket” Bribery: The Department is interested in bribes of substantial amounts, sophisticated schemes to conceal bribes, fraudulent conduct in furtherance of a bribe, and efforts to obstruct justice. While not stated in the Guidance, one possibility is that the DOJ will defer to the SEC to pursue certain control and accounting provision cases—though, to date, the SEC has generally signaled its intention to follow administration priorities. The DOJ’s de-emphasis on “generally accepted business courtesies” may read as a narrowing of focus, but it creates practical challenges for companies in defining and enforcing global standards across diverse cultures and business practices.
In the related commentary to the FCPA Guidance, DOJ leadership also broadly reinforced several key enforcement themes.
- Carrot and Stick of Self-Reporting. The FCPA Guidance and accompanying remarks emphasize the Department’s expectations that companies appropriately investigate and self-report issues, cooperate in a DOJ review, and remediate misconduct. Regarding the carrots of voluntary self-reporting, the DOJ reiterated that it will grant companies a declination in those circumstances, with some limited exceptions, and touted the benefits of being “first in the door” on issues that may impact multiple parties. On the stick side of the equation, the DOJ warned that companies who fail to self-disclose or cooperate effectively should expect the Department to “move swiftly and aggressively.”
- Continued Focus on Whistleblower Reports: The DOJ has continued receiving a steady flow of “robust tips” via its whistleblower hotline. These tips—including those submitted during the enforcement “pause”—are now being actively reviewed and may form the basis for new FCPA investigations and prosecutions.
- Accelerated Review: According to DOJ, companies under investigation, or anticipating scrutiny, should expect the DOJ to move quicker. Early engagement with the Department may also trigger expedited involvement from other regulators, including the SEC. Companies may welcome the increased focus and clarity this brings, as cases are less likely to drag on. However, it may also challenge corporate resources during compressed periods of intense review, highlighting the importance of investigating and remediating conduct swiftly before the government is involved.
Key Takeaways
The New Focus
The DOJ is prioritizing high-impact cases, whether measured by the size of the bribe or the benefit to the corrupt actor, particularly where a U.S. company is harmed by another company’s corrupt conduct. Cases involving TCOs, cartels, or national security concerns may jump to the front of the queue. While such cases may be relatively few, companies should expect increased scrutiny of their third-party management practices. If a TCO or cartel is later found in a company’s supply chain or among its business partners, the company may be required to demonstrate that it conducted appropriate due diligence and vetting.
Voluntary Self-Disclosure (“VSD”): Encouraged, But Still a Calculated Risk
DOJ clearly expects companies to maintain robust compliance programs, especially around speak-up culture and internal investigations, and to voluntarily disclose misconduct. While the new guidance offers added assurance around VSD, key challenges remain: limited DOJ resources may mean some misconduct goes undetected; exceptions to declinations still apply; and cooperating with federal investigations carry significant costs. As a result, VSD decisions remain complex and should be weighed carefully.
Enforcement Risks in a Whistleblower-Driven Environment
While DOJ has long received tips from competitors, the recent guidance emphasizes the critical advantage of being the first to come forward and creates a potential prisoner’s dilemma for companies handling matters involving multiple parties. If your competitor discloses misconduct before you do, the new guidance increases your risk of an enforcement action. Together with the SEC Division of Enforcement’s whistleblower program, whistleblower submissions are expected to continue fueling significant cases for both agencies. Companies will need to factor the new guidance into their voluntary self-disclosure decisions to mitigate potential enforcement consequences.
The Bottom Line
FCPA enforcement has evolved, but it’s back. Companies should anticipate a wave of new enforcement actions, particularly in the latter half of 2025, as the Department advances its pipeline of pending matters, including a potential backlog of unaddressed whistleblower complaints.
