The Trump Administration 2.0’s FCPA Enforcement Strategy: What You Need to Know

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.

If you have questions about the FCPA or the current U.S. administration’s enforcement priorities, reach out to the authors or your Foley & Lardner attorney.