Trump Administration Rolls Out New DOJ Division for National Fraud Enforcement

Overview

On January 8, 2026, the Trump Administration announced the creation of a new Division for National Fraud Enforcement within the Department of Justice (DOJ). The division will be led by a newly appointed Assistant Attorney General (AAG), pending Senate confirmation, who will report directly to both the President and Vice President and operate out of the White House. Such a reporting structure is unprecedented in the history of the DOJ.

Creation of the new National Fraud Enforcement Division (New Division) and its novel reporting structure signals vigorous fraud enforcement, with nationwide implications—especially for entities involved in government programs or the use of federal funds in any respect. This development appears to stem from heightened attention on allegations of government-benefits fraud in Minnesota and suggests an intention to centralize and intensify fraud enforcement under increased executive oversight. 

In a press conference on January 8, 2026, Vice President Vance emphasized that the new AAG —who has reportedly been selected, though not named or formally nominated—will have “all the benefits, all the resources, all the authority of a special counsel, but…run out of the White House under the supervision of” President Trump and Vice President Vance. Vice President Vance claimed this structure is “constitutionally legitimate,” potentially sidestepping constitutional challenges associated with special counsel regulations.

Mandate

A White House fact sheet (Fact Sheet) elaborated on the New Division’s broad mandate to enforce both federal criminal and civil laws against “fraud targeting Federal government programs, Federally funded benefits, businesses, nonprofits, and private citizens nationwide.” According to the Fact Sheet, the New Division will spearhead coordination of multidistrict, multi-agency fraud investigations, provide advisory and directive support to U.S. Attorneys’ Offices on fraud-related matters, and propose legislative and regulatory reforms to combat systemic vulnerabilities.

Structure

According to media reporting, the New Division will operate alongside—rather than replace—the DOJ’s existing Civil and Criminal Fraud Sections.  Upon confirmation of the new AAG, the intention is to staff the New Division primarily with new hires, rather than drawing from current DOJ personnel.  Accordingly, it appears that current investigations and enforcement actions involving existing DOJ fraud sections may proceed without involvement of the New Division.  It further appears that those sections’ mandates may not be transferred to the New Division. However, the practicalities of integrating the New Division into the DOJ’s framework remain to be seen, including whether existing resources or staff from other divisions, such as the recently-dissolved Tax Division, might be repurposed.

Key Takeaways

• Broad enforcement mandate. The New Division will target a wide array of fraudulent activities, with a focus on coordinated, multiagency investigations. While the initial emphasis is on systemic fraud in Minnesota, a national approach is anticipated. While there are myriad criminal fraud statutes, the False Claims Act (FCA) is an obvious statutory tool for the New Division to use in pursuing fraud involving federal programs or attempts to defraud the federal government. As discussed in prior alerts, DOJ leadership has identified the FCA as the federal government’s primary weapon against government fraud, waste, and abuse, and the DOJ has announced its intent to utilize the statute in new enforcement areas including cases involving issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); gender-affirming care; and tariff evasion. However, it is not yet clear whether the New Division’s focus will extend beyond government-benefit fraud to other forms of fraud.
• Leadership and Authority: The AAG will be uniquely positioned, reporting directly to the President and Vice President from within the White House—a notable departure from DOJ precedent.  Given that the White House expects the New Division to be involved in multi-agency fraud investigations, it may be that the Civil Division and Criminal Division jointly investigate with the New Division, or in parallel to the New Division.
• Potential Opportunities and Risks for Enforcement Targets or Defendants: While the New Division’s reporting structure suggests more political involvement in potential enforcement, individuals and entities may have additional opportunities to appeal, or escalate, enforcement decisions to senior White House leadership, whereas in traditional DOJ investigations, such appeals are taken to the U.S. Attorney supervising the matter, or to the Deputy Attorney General (and in the rarest instances, the Attorney General).  Conversely, it remains to be seen whether the New Division will be subject to other DOJ policies and procedures, such as the Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy, or DOJ’s traditional approaches to resolution of False Claims Act cases.
• Policy and Reform Initiatives: The New Division is tasked with developing and setting national enforcement priorities and proposing policy and legislative reforms to address weaknesses within federal programs and to prevent future abuses. 
• Strategic Advisory Role: The AAG will provide counsel to senior DOJ officials on critical fraud-related issues, potentially influencing priorities across agencies.

Questions Remain

The White House’s announcement underscores a renewed commitment and “whole of government” approach to fraud enforcement and highlights the Trump Administration’s determination to tackle fraud on a national scale.  However, several questions remain:

• AAG’s authority and reporting lines. Further clarification is needed on the extent of the AAG’s prosecutorial authority and how direct reporting to the White House will affect DOJ’s traditional independence and objectivity in conducting investigations, enforcement, and prosecutions. 
• Impact on DOJ sections. What will be the practical impact on existing DOJ fraud sections — will their mandates remain completely distinct, or is there potential for reassignment or overlap?
• Distinction from existing fraud enforcement. How does the New Division’s mandate substantively differ from DOJ’s longstanding fraud enforcement efforts, and in what ways will coordination or conflict be managed between the New Division and existing functions?
• Setting prosecutorial priorities. It remains unclear whether prosecutorial decisions in fraud matters will emanate from the DOJ or the White House, or through a hybrid approach, and what will drive those decisions.

Implications for Clients in Heavily Regulated Sectors

In light of this announcement, entities receiving federal funds, or operating in sectors that receive federal funds, should expect additional scrutiny. Aggressive, multiagency tactics currently being deployed in Minnesota are expected nationwide, particularly in healthcare benefits, small business support, education, and housing assistance programs. It remains to be seen how the new AAG or the New Division will expand their priorities nationwide, or if it will be more targeted geographic enforcement.

The creation of the Division for National Fraud Enforcement represents an unprecedented approach to addressing national fraud issues. Organizations may wish to revisit their compliance programs around federal benefits or funds, prepare for increased federal oversight, and ensure executives and boards are being updated as to compliance changes in light of evolving enforcement priorities.