The Trump Administration 2.0’s FCPA Enforcement Strategy: What You Need To Know – Corporate and Company Law

On June 9, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released significant new
guidance outlining how it will pursue cases under the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), marking a reorientation in U.S.
anti-bribery enforcement (the “Guidance”). This highly
anticipated announcement follows the “Pausing Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National
Security” Executive Order, which called for a review of
existing FCPA enforcement guidance and a six-month pause on new and
existing DOJ FCPA enforcement matters pending the issuance of
updated DOJ guidance.

The June 9 Guidance is by no means a total retreat from FCPA
enforcement. Instead, the DOJ has recalibrated in what contexts it
chooses to act, refocusing DOJ FCPA enforcement through an
“America-first” and “national security” lens.
The Guidance directs prosecutors to “focus on cases in which
individuals have engaged in criminal misconduct and not attribute
nonspecific malfeasance to corporate structures; proceed as
expeditiously as possible in their investigations; and consider
collateral consequences, such as the potential disruption to lawful
business and the impact on a company’s employees, throughout an
investigation, not only at the resolution phase.” The Guidance
specifically emphasizes investigating cartels involved in foreign
bribery schemes, safeguarding fair opportunities for U.S. companies
to compete abroad, and protecting U.S. access to critical
infrastructure and strategic assets. All new FCPA investigation and
enforcement actions must be authorized by the assistant attorney
general or a more senior department official.

The implications for multinational companies are significant.
The DOJ’s FCPA enforcement, albeit more selective, is likely to
be more politically charged and in some cases more aggressive when
it zeroes in on misconduct that, in DOJ Criminal Division Head
Matthew Galeotti’s words,
“directly undermines U.S. national interests.”

Priorities of DOJ FCPA Enforcement

The DOJ has outlined four primary, non-exhaustive factors it
will use to evaluate and guide when FCPA investigations or
prosecutions should be pursued.

1. Eliminating Bribery Linked to Cartels and
TCOs

The DOJ will prioritize FCPA cases connected to cartels and
transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), because “the
benefits of eliminating Cartels and TCOs will redound to American
enterprise and the nation as a whole.” Specifically,
prosecutors are directed to consider whether the alleged misconduct
is:

• Associated with the criminal operations of a cartel or
  TCO.




• Involves money launderers or shell companies that engage in
  money laundering for cartels or TCOs.




• Is linked to employees of state-owned entities, or other
  foreign officials who have received bribes from cartels or
  TCOs.

This is a novel reframing of anti-corruption enforcement on
foreign bribery that enables or facilitates cartel or TCO organized
crime, with little past precedent. Actors operating in countries
with strong cartel or TCO presence — such as Mexico, parts of
Central America, and parts of West Africa — are thus more
likely to face heightened DOJ scrutiny.

2. Safeguarding Fair Opportunities

Another notable change to the DOJ’s enforcement priorities
is the DOJ’s emphasis on pursuing FCPA cases where foreign
bribery can be shown to harm specific U.S. companies. This
“America First” reframing casts the FCPA as a tool to
enforce a fair and level playing field for U.S. businesses abroad.
The Guidance also reminds prosecutors to use the “Foreign
Extortion Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1352, which criminalizes
the ‘demand side'” and “consider whether specific
and identifiable U.S. entities or individuals have been harmed by
foreign officials’ demand for bribes.” The Guidance,
however, is explicit that FCPA enforcement “will … not …
focus[] on particular individuals or companies on the basis of
their nationality” but will prioritize investigations of
“corrupt competitors [which] skew markets and disadvantage
law-abiding U.S. companies and others.” Per Galeotti,
“conduct that does not implicate U.S. interests should be left
to our foreign counterparts or appropriate regulators.”

The 2016 VimpelCom resolution may be instructive for
future enforcement actions to promote a level playing field for
U.S. companies. There, Amsterdam-based VimpelCom and its Uzbek
subsidiary admitted to paying over $114 million in bribes to a
government official, to secure access to Uzbekistan’s
telecommunications market. VimpelCom was found to have been given
an unfair advantage over competitors, including U.S. firms, that
entered the market lawfully. See also the Airbus
resolution mentioned below.

3. Advancing U.S. National Security: Bribery in Critical
Sectors

The DOJ also will focus its efforts on foreign bribery that
implicates U.S. national security, particularly illicit conduct
involving key national infrastructure and critical industries,
including telecommunications, ports, energy, defense, and
rare-earth minerals. The DOJ views this corruption as threatening
not only market integrity but also national stability. Per the Guidance,
FCPA enforcement therefore will “focus on the most urgent
threats to U.S. national security resulting from the bribery of
corrupt foreign officials involving key infrastructure or
assets,” thereby resulting in, per Galeotti, the
“vindication of U.S. interests.”

The 2020 Airbus resolution exemplifies the type of
competitor conduct that the DOJ will continue to target. In that
case, Airbus SE paid over $3.9 billion in penalties to U.S.,
French, and U.K. authorities for a global bribery scheme designed
to secure improper business advantages. Airbus admitted to
violating the FCPA by bribing officials and breaching U.S. export
controls laws by disguising bribes as commissions. In its press
release announcing the resolution, the DOJ noted that
“[i]nternational corruption involving sensitive U.S. defense
technology presents a particularly dangerous combination,” and
that “[t]hrough bribes, Airbus allowed rampant corruption to
invade the U.S. system.”

4. De-Prioritizing Low-Level Bribery

Finally, the DOJ signaled that it will focus on serious
misconduct and less on low-level bribery offenses. The Guidance
specifically reminds prosecutors to avoid penalizing U.S. citizens
and companies for “routine business practices or the type of
corporate conduct that involves de minimis or low-dollar, generally
accepted business courtesies.” Perhaps for the first time, the
DOJ publicly cited the FCPA’s “facilitation payment”
exception in favorable terms and also referred to the
“affirmative defenses for reasonable and bona fide
expenditures and payments that are lawful under the written laws of
the foreign countr[ies].”

This reflects an enforcement shift in the name of prosecutorial
efficiency, allowing the DOJ to channel its resources toward
high-impact cases. Prosecutors are directed to prioritize
investigations of “serious misconduct” involving
“strong indicia of corrupt intent tied to particular
individuals,” such as large payments, concealment of bribes,
fraudulent conduct in furtherance of a bribery scheme, and
obstruction of justice. And when prioritizing cases that warrant
investigation by U.S. authorities, prosecutors must consider the
likelihood that a foreign law enforcement authority will
investigate and prosecute the same misconduct.

In turn, the DOJ will likely dedicate fewer resources to
prosecuting allegations of improper hiring of sons and daughters of
foreign officials (so-called “princeling hires”), bribery
allegations connected to the provision of business courtesies,
charitable donations purportedly intended to influence foreign
officials, and smaller payments by U.S. companies seeking to
expedite regulatory approvals in foreign countries. While such
conduct technically remains within the statute’s reach, the
guidance makes clear that DOJ will be more selective in deploying
its FCPA enforcement tools.

That said, companies should not interpret the DOJ’s shift in
enforcement priorities as a license to ignore lower-dollar or
lower-profile risks. Allegations involving princeling hires,
questionable charitable donations, or other forms of subtle
influence may still draw scrutiny — particularly if they
reflect broader compliance failures or are part of a pattern of
misconduct. As described below, companies should continue to
maintain robust internal controls, compliance policies, and
training programs not only to mitigate legal risk but also to
reinforce a culture of integrity that can help deter more serious
violations.

Notwithstanding DOJ’s updated guidance and priority focus
areas, companies continue to face significant FCPA investigation
and enforcement risk. First, the FCPA remains U.S. law and carries
a statute of limitations of five years, which means any alleged
corrupt payments made today may be investigated under a different
DOJ administration. Second, the DOJ guidelines are not exhaustive
and prosecutors must still follow other applicable policies and
factors. Third, the Securities and Exchange Commission, which also
enforces the FCPA’s civil provisions, is not bound by the
DOJ’s revised enforcement priorities and may apply additional
factors and considerations when investigating and prosecuting FCPA
cases. Fourth, global anti-bribery regulators, including those in
the UK, France, and Brazil, have their own laws to enforce and, for
example, do not share the same tolerance for facilitation payments
and other low-level bribery. And lastly, any investigation of
alleged bribery — no matter how small — by any
regulator disrupts business and may cause reputational, audit, and
shareholder damage, particularly for publicly traded or heavily
regulated companies.

What Companies Should Do Now

Given DOJ’s updated Guidance, companies should take the
following steps to reassess their ethics and compliance
programs:

1. Reassess Geopolitical Risk Maps

The revised framework makes it clear that who is being paid, and
what they are being paid for, is a key consideration in deciding
whether to pursue an FCPA case. Companies operating in high-risk
jurisdictions connected to TCOs or strategic U.S. assets must
review their geopolitical risk maps and, if necessary, enhance the
due diligence of business partners, vendors, and other third
parties.

2. Align Compliance Strategy with Foreign
Regulators

Although the DOJ has adjusted its standards, companies should
ensure that their anti-corruption compliance programs meet global
laws, standards, and expectations for even minor improper
payments.

3. Don’t Read Too Much into The
“Low-Dollar” Bribe Language

The DOJ’s comments on facilitation payments should not cause
companies to relax their ethical standards or compliance programs.
Companies should continue to maintain a strong tone at the top
disavowing bribery at any threshold and ensure corporate policies
and procedures prohibit even minor bribery, require employees to
report any allegation of bribery, and protect employees from
retaliation.

In short, the DOJ’s new FCPA enforcement guidance narrows
the scope (for the current administration) but sharpens the stakes.
For some U.S. companies, particularly those operating in low-risk
jurisdictions or engaged in routine and unregulated commercial
activity, this shift may reduce exposure to peripheral enforcement.
But U.S. public companies that touch cartels or TCOs or operate in
heavily regulated industries continue to be at risk and must comply
with current anticorruption laws; non-U.S. companies operating in
cartel-influenced regions, competing directly with U.S. businesses,
or involved in strategic industries will face intensified scrutiny
by the DOJ and other U.S. regulators. Companies therefore must
remain vigilant and ensure that their ethics and compliance
programs are adequately resourced and effective in preventing,
investigating, and stopping alleged foreign bribery.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.