In our most recent memorandum, we predicted that President Trump’s second administration would likely entail a significant overhaul of DOJ’s agenda and enforcement priorities. Although we are less than a month into the new Trump Administration, we have already seen the executive branch adopt an unprecedented and highly interventionist approach to criminal law enforcement generally, with significant implications also for white-collar and regulatory enforcement. These actions include 14 “first-day” directives issued by Attorney General Bondi, multiple Executive Orders, and, in one case, direct influence over a pending, high-profile prosecution. Four of the most extreme examples of this shift relate to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”), a pending prosecution in the Southern District of New York, and halting the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). Notwithstanding these new developments, companies should be cautious in how they respond.
FCPA Enforcement. On February 5, Attorney General Bondi issued a memorandum announcing a shift in DOJ’s FCPA enforcement approach, directing prosecutors to focus on cases involving cartels and transnational criminal enterprises, rather than traditional corporate bribery cases. This announcement was quickly followed by anExecutive Order titled “Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security,” which went even further in curbing conventional forms of corporate FCPA enforcement that have, over many years, been a common feature of DOJ investigative efforts in both Republican and Democratic administrations. The Executive Order directs DOJ to “pause” certain FCPA investigations while reassessing enforcement priorities and to issue new FCPA enforcement guidelines within 180 days.
Rollback of FARA Enforcement. Attorney General Bondi also announced a significant change in priorities with respect to FARA enforcement, reducing DOJ scrutiny of foreign lobbying and advocacy activities. In a February 5 memorandum, Attorney General Bondi instructed DOJ that criminal charges under FARA should be limited to instances of alleged conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors so that DOJ can allocate resources to other enforcement areas, including illegal immigration, international cartels, and transnational organized crime.
Dismissal of the Bribery Case Against Mayor Eric Adams. In an extraordinary move, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove issued a directive instructing prosecutors in the Southern District of New York to dismiss a high-profile public corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams that was set for trial in April. One of the rationales offered for the directive was that Mayor Adams’s support was needed in the Trump Administration’s battle against illegal immigration. This interference in a local U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecution for the stated purpose of advancing the new administration’s enforcement priorities well illustrates the dramatic changes that are underway.
CFPB. In the past few weeks, the Trump Administration has made significant strides toward effectively closing the CFPB, which has frequently partnered with DOJ in corporate enforcement actions. In early February, President Trump fired Rohit Chopra as director of the CFPB and installed acting directors who have halted essentially all of the agency’s open activities, including all rulemaking, communications, and enforcement litigation, cancelled the agency’s next funding draw, and ordered a closure of its main office. While CFPB employee unions have filed a lawsuit to forestall these changes, the future of the agency and its available resources remains uncertain.
While the Trump Administration’s enforcement strategies represent a dramatic break from the past, it is critical to emphasize that these changes reflect how the laws will be enforced and not changes to the underlying laws themselves. Companies should therefore be cautious in how they react to these changes and seek guidance before modifying their existing compliance policies, training programs, tone at the top or ethics and compliance infrastructure. Companies that react to the Trump Administration’s disinterest in white-collar enforcement may create additional, unnecessary risk. No company wants to become a test case for where the current administration will bring an enforcement action. And, finally, white-collar investigations frequently involve conduct spanning many years. A lax approach to compliance today could well create risk of enforcement action under a changed set of priorities during the current administration or some future administration that takes a more traditional approach to white-collar enforcement.
This post comes to us from Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. It is based on the firm’s memorandum, “Trump Administration’s Recent Actions Signal New White-Collar Enforcement Priorities,” dated February 11, 2025.