After months of speculation and a noticeable lull in FCPA enforcement, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has made a significant announcement with a new policy statement. In a recently released memorandum titled “Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the FCPA” (FCPA Memo), the Deputy Attorney General (DAG), Todd Blanche, has sent a clear message that FCPA enforcement remains alive under the Trump Administration. However, it will now focus on new areas, including cartel disruption, national security, US business development, and leveling the global playing field for U.S. companies.
This two-part blog post series breaks down, in Part 1, the key compliance takeaways from this important policy pivot, and in Part 2, offers practical insights on how you, the compliance professional, should respond.
1. Cartels, Corruption, and Competitive Disadvantage: The New Enforcement Trifecta
The Trump Administration has refocused DOJ enforcement on cartels and transnational criminal organizations. This FCPA memo formalizes that commitment by tying cartel activity directly to FCPA enforcement. If a foreign company bribes officials in a jurisdiction where cartels thrive, think Mexico or Colombia, this administration sees a compelling hook for the DOJ to act. It is not just about corruption in isolation; it is about rooting out the business practices that enable criminal ecosystems.
More provocatively, the FCPA Memo explicitly prioritizes cases where corruption places U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage in the business world. That is undoubtedly a reframing of the FCPA’s historical mission. Historically, the US and other uneducated critics have claimed that the FCPA penalizes US companies more harshly than their foreign counterparts. That has never been true, as even in 2025, more than half of the top ten largest FCPA enforcement actions of all time have been against foreign-based companies. However, the DOJ’s message now is that if your foreign competitor is winning contracts by bribing officials, the US government may well be interested in investigating them, not just because it is illegal, but also because it harms American businesses.
Compliance Takeaway: If your company is aware of unfair practices by foreign competitors, this may be the ideal time to take action. The door is open for whistleblower complaints even against non-U.S. entities, primarily where jurisdictional hooks exist. Expect more aggressive cross-border enforcement. Consider strengthening your third-party due diligence in regions where cartels or known corruption are prevalent.
2. Expedited Investigations: A Welcome Burden or a New Headache?
The FCPA Memo calls on prosecutors to “proceed as expeditiously as possible” in investigating and resolving FCPA cases. On its face, this sounds like good news—long, open-ended probes can paralyze business operations and drain resources. But what does this mean? More pressure on prosecutors? More pressure on internal investigations? More pressure on internal reporting and triage? More pressure on getting it right? (Hint: It’s all of the above.)
FCPA investigations are complex. They require cross-border data collection, permissions from foreign authorities, and interviews with key personnel who often have full business calendars. Now, there is added pressure to accelerate timelines, which may involve compressing review cycles, reducing interview preparation time, and making quicker judgment calls.
Compliance Takeaway: Compliance teams should rehearse their internal investigation protocols. Do you have the right tech stack for document review? Can you mobilize your legal team quickly? Is your board informed about high-risk regions and prepared to respond quickly? If not, now’s the time to prepare.
3. Collateral Consequences and Business Disruption: A Balancing Act
The memo notably instructs prosecutors to consider “collateral consequences,” the potential disruption to lawful business operations, and the impact on innocent employees. This language expands the typical resolution-phase considerations into the investigative phase itself.
This could play out in several ways. Investigations may be more narrowly scoped, targeting business units directly implicated in misconduct rather than company-wide fishing expeditions. It may also lead to greater leniency in imposing fines or monitorships where such measures would significantly impair innocent stakeholders. It certainly provides defense counsel with more arguments to present to the DOJ to limit or narrow the scope of any investigations.
Compliance Takeaway: If your organization finds itself under DOJ scrutiny, be prepared to advocate for the operational integrity of your business early and often. Document how cooperation, remediation, and disruption mitigation are being handled throughout the investigation. Use this framework as a proactive tool in early dialogue with prosecutors.
4. National Security Interests Continue to Take Center Stage
Building on the Biden Administration’s policy on Anti-Corruption, the Trump Administration has woven national security into FCPA enforcement priorities, highlighting sectors such as defense, software, artificial intelligence, critical minerals, and deepwater infrastructure. This means more cases involving cobalt mining, chip manufacturing, satellite communications, and cyber tools will fall within the DOJ’s line of sight. In essence, the DOJ is saying, “If your business, or your competitor’s business, touches sensitive sectors with national implications, we care.”
Compliance Takeaway: Compliance professionals in industries even tangentially connected to national security should conduct fresh risk assessments. Are you sourcing from high-risk jurisdictions? Using agents in resource-rich areas? Working with state-owned entities abroad? If so, those red flags now carry more weight.
5. Corporate Structures vs. Individual Misconduct: Back to Basics
One curious phrase in the memo warns against attributing “non-specific malfeasance to corporate structures.” At first glance, it’s a head-scratcher. However, upon closer inspection, it reinforces a longstanding principle: corporations are liable when individuals commit crimes, not due to vague failures in internal controls. This is essentially a reaffirmation of the longstanding DOJ position that it will not prosecute internal control violations absent extraordinary circumstances. (This has been left to the SEC.) This prosecutorial philosophy has defined the DOJ’s FCPA enforcement over the last decade. It is not enough for the DOJ to find a company that had weak controls; you need to show that someone crossed the line.
Compliance Takeaway: This is good news for companies with mature compliance programs. But it also raises the stakes for effective training, monitoring, and investigations. Your internal audit function must be able to identify and document actual misconduct, not just control failures. The DOJ stated that it will focus on crimes rather than paperwork errors.
6. The Focus on Serious Misconduct: Clearing the Docket
The DOJ has also clarified that it will deprioritize routine or “de minimis” FCPA violations, such as small gifts, modest travel perks, or isolated hospitality expenses. These will no longer be the centerpiece of enforcement actions unless they are accompanied by more serious wrongdoing. Although prominently stated in the FCPA Memo, the prosecutorial reality is once again that such violations have never been part of DOJ FCPA enforcement actions.
That does not mean your corporate compliance program should collectively fail to meet expectations. Excessive gifts or travel can still be part of the fact pattern in larger bribery schemes and may be cited in SEC books-and-records charges, even if the DOJ declines to pursue criminal prosecution.
Compliance Takeaway: Your policies on gifts, travel, and entertainment remain relevant, but you should right-size your compliance efforts. Focus your highest controls and resources on areas where real business decisions are being made, such as third-party relationships, government tenders, and public-private partnerships.
7. Foreign Prosecutions and Global Coordination: Sharing the Stage
The memo closes with an acknowledgment that foreign enforcement matters. Prosecutors are instructed to weigh whether other jurisdictions may prosecute before launching their actions. This appears to affirm the DOJ’s commitment to international collaboration rather than signaling retreat. Expect more joint settlements, coordinated raids, and synchronized prosecutions. But do not count on the DOJ stepping aside, especially in high-stakes cases.
Compliance Takeaway: If your company is under investigation abroad, don’t assume you’re out of the DOJ’s reach. Transparency and cooperation with global authorities will still be key. And make sure your disclosures in one country don’t conflict with your representations in another.
Join us tomorrow for Part 2, where we consider some responses you should take now.
