The FCPA Pause Is Over: Trump DOJ Issues Long-Awaited FCPA Investigations and Enforcement Guidelines

On June 9, 2025, U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued new Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement guidelines (“the Guidelines”). DOJ issued the Guidelines in response to the Trump Administration’s February 2025 Executive Order (“EO”), which paused FCPA enforcement pending the issuance of new guidance from the Attorney General. The new Guidelines resolve lingering doubts about the future of FCPA enforcement under the Trump administration and provide important insights into the key factors DOJ will consider when deciding whether to pursue FCPA investigations or enforcement actions.

In accordance with the EO, the Guidelines seek to (1) limit undue burdens on American companies that operate abroad, and (2) target enforcement actions against conduct that directly undermines U.S. national interests. To ensure that FCPA investigations and prosecutions are carried out in accordance with President Trump’s directive, all new FCPA investigations or enforcement actions must be authorized by the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (or the official acting in that capacity) or a more senior Department official. The Guidelines instruct prosecutors to focus on acts that strongly suggest individuals’ corrupt intent rather than attributing general misconduct to corporations as a whole, and to run investigations expeditiously. On the latter point, the Guidelines remind prosecutors that criminal investigations may carry significant collateral consequences for companies, such as the potential disruption to business operations and the impact on a company’s employees. The Guidelines instruct prosecutors to consider these collateral consequences not only at the time of potential resolution but also throughout any FCPA investigation.

Per the new Guidelines, before initiating FCPA investigations and enforcement actions, prosecutors must consider several key factors:

• Association with a cartel or Transnational Criminal Organizations (“TCOs”). To further President Trump’s goal of eliminating cartels and TCOs, prosecutors must prioritize investigations and enforcement actions where the alleged misconduct: (1) is associated with 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 foreign state-owned entities or foreign officials who have received bribes through cartels or TCOs.
• Harm to specific U.S. entities. To protect the competitiveness of U.S. businesses abroad, prosecutors must prioritize investigations and enforcement actions of misconduct that deprives identifiable U.S. entities of fair access to compete or that resulted in economic injury to identifiable American companies or individuals. Notably, the Guidelines make clear that DOJ will not focus on particular individuals or companies on the basis of their nationality, but rather on the conduct that most undermines these principles. In an accompanying speech given on June 10, 2025, at the American Conference Institute, Matthew Galeotti, Head of the DOJ’s Criminal Division, stated that where conduct does not implicate U.S. interests, it should be left to DOJ’s foreign counterparts or appropriate regulators. In those cases, Galeotti said that DOJ would work with those regulators to provide assistance for them to pursue those matters.
• National Security Interests. FCPA enforcement will focus on the most “urgent” threats to U.S. national security, with particular emphasis on bribery in the defense, intelligence, or critical infrastructure sectors.
• Serious Misconduct. Prosecutors are reminded to adhere to the established FCPA exception for facilitating or expediting payments, as well as the affirmative defenses for reasonable and bona fide expenditures and payments that are lawful under the written laws of the foreign country. In addition, the Guidelines direct prosecutors not to focus on misconduct involving “routine business practices” or low-dollar, generally accepted business courtesies. Instead, DOJ’s focus will be on misconduct involving strong indicia of criminal intent tied to individuals. By way of example, these could include substantial bribe payments, sophisticated efforts to conceal bribes, fraudulent conduct in furtherance of the bribery scheme, or efforts to obstruct justice.
• Additional Considerations. Adding to this list of factors, the Guidelines remind prosecutors that they are still bound by the Principles of Federal Prosecution, which instruct prosecutors to consider other factors such as the deterrent effect of prosecution and the nature and seriousness of the offense. The Guidelines further acknowledge that DOJ’s interests may differ between pursuing currently-filed cases or corporate resolutions as opposed to cases that have not yet entered the judicial process.

Compliance Considerations

As the Guidelines make clear, the Trump administration has no intention of permanently pausing FCPA enforcement, as some commentators had posited following the February FCPA EO. New enforcement actions and corporate resolutions are coming, albeit with a focus on conduct that most directly affects U.S. interests, including cartel and TCO involvement, and identifiable harm to U.S. businesses and U.S. national security.

As a result, businesses should bear in mind the following considerations:

1. Ensure Compliance Frameworks Account for DOJ’s Enforcement Priorities

The Guidelines’ focus on identifying and prosecuting misconduct that results in identifiable harms to U.S. businesses has implications for companies conducting business overseas, regardless of the industry. For example, if companies are participating in foreign government procurements in competition with a U.S. entity, a bribe to a foreign official in that procurement could be viewed as directly harming that U.S. entity. Similarly, if companies are in the defense, intelligence, or critical infrastructure sectors, or are at risk of being involved in activities connected to cartels or TCOs, the Guidelines put their activities involving foreign officials clearly in the crosshairs of FCPA enforcement.

Accordingly, companies should consider ways to assess and potentially augment existing compliance programs to ensure these priority enforcement areas are appropriately addressed. This could include updates to risk assessment processes, leveraging international trade screening lists to vet for designated entities connected to cartels or TCOs, or adjustments to questionnaires or other diligence mechanisms. Where companies are operating in locations or industries of increased risk related to cartels or TCOs, increased diligence regarding agents and business partners is more important than ever.

Notwithstanding the Guidelines and enforcement focused on the Trump administration’s current priorities, companies should be mindful of their legal obligations under the FCPA generally, and the potential for shifting DOJ enforcement priorities in the future. As an initial matter, the Guidelines do not provide a defense to any conduct. Further, the statute of limitations for recent violations of the FCPA and related federal criminal laws extends past this administration. Companies should continue to focus on FCPA compliance across the board to help prevent future enforcement issues.

2. Consider the Recently Enhanced Benefits of Self-Reporting

Although the Guidelines do not specifically address self-reporting, the recently updated DOJ policy providing for enhanced benefits to companies that self-report suggests that companies – both U.S. and foreign – should consider self-reporting when faced with potential FCPA violations.

Businesses that self-report potential criminal violations to DOJ will likely find themselves in a friendlier negotiating environment, as DOJ focuses on individual wrongdoers and seeks to tout the benefits of its new self-reporting structure. In his speech, Galeotti reiterated that under the new DOJ self-reporting regime, companies who voluntarily self-report and remediate “will receive a declination, not just a ‘presumption.’” Galeotti made clear, however, that DOJ was not only offering carrots. He stated that for companies that do not come forward despite the available benefits, DOJ would move aggressively and swiftly to bring charges against individuals and companies whose crimes undermine U.S. interests.