Insights

On August 11, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it had unsealed an indictment against two Mexican businessmen for alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). DOJ asserts that the defendants, both Mexican nationals living in Texas, paid bribes to officials at Petróleos Mexicanos (“PEMEX”), and its subsidiary, PEMEX Exploración y Producción (“PEP”) to secure contracts worth an estimated $2.5 million. These charges come amidst a period of uncertainty regarding FCPA enforcement following the Trump administration’s temporary pause on FCPA enforcement and the subsequent issuance of new investigation and enforcement guidelines.

On July 29, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued new guidance to all federal agencies entitled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination” (“Guidance”). The Guidance purports to “clarif[y] the application of federal antidiscrimination laws to programs or initiatives that may involve discriminatory practices, including those labeled as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (‘DEI’) programs.” It declares that “[e]ntities receiving federal funds . . . must ensure that their programs and activities comply with federal law and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or other protected characteristics,” and identifies a series of “‘Best Practices’ as non-binding suggestions to help entities comply with federal antidiscrimination laws and avoid legal pitfalls.” The Guidance is the most comprehensive articulation of the Administration’s view of what constitutes unlawful DEI released since President Trump’s Executive Order, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, issued on January 21, 2025.

Current political priorities in Congress will continue to push many industries under the microscope of Congressional investigations, including universities, tech companies, entities that receive federal funds, and energy-sector companies. When the chambers of Congress and the executive branch are controlled by the same party, Congressional oversight of the executive branch is less intense and instead public and private sector, state, and local entities are more likely to find themselves in the crosshairs. If a chamber of Congress changes hands in the midterm elections, the focus of the oversight may shift to reflect the policy priorities of the moment and include more executive branch oversight, but even the executive branch is often contending with requests for information that may implicate their dealings with third parties; for example, there is a risk that agency oversight triggers requests for privileged material belonging to a government contractor or grantee. The topics and industries of highest interest may play musical chairs, but entities across sectors would do well to incorporate a few best practices that will mitigate their risk should they end up in the hot seat, either directly or through a government partner.

Briefing. The Trump administration continues to raise the stakes for importers and other actors in the international trade space. Bloomberg Law reports that the Department of Justice has tasked its MIMF (Market Integrity and Major Frauds) Unit with investigating fraud schemes by companies dodging U.S. tariffs. The MIMF Unit is already well-versed in financial fraud investigations, is set to grow significantly with the addition of prosecutors previously assigned to consumer protection matters, and now is shifting resources to tariff evasion cases.

On July 8, 2025, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division announced a new program to provide rewards to individuals who report antitrust violations related to the Postal Service. This is the first program of its kind to provide a monetary reward to individuals who assist in the prosecutions of antitrust crimes. Under the new initiative, whistleblowers will have the opportunity to receive up to 30% of any criminal fines recovered for violations affecting the Postal Service, its revenues, or its property. 

 

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.

The Supreme Court last week blessed a broad reading of the federal wire fraud statute, resolving a circuit split over whether economic loss is an element of fraudulent inducement and bolstering the Government’s future enforcement of procurement fraud. In Kousisis et al. v. United States (unanimous in judgment), the Court upheld the conviction of a government contractor for falsely representing compliance with disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) requirements in contracts awarded by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), despite completing the contracts to PennDOT’s satisfaction. The Court held that a material misrepresentation used to deceive someone into parting with money or property is sufficient for a federal wire fraud conviction, regardless of whether the victim suffered any economic loss.

On May 13, 2025, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) formally rescinded the Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion interim final rule published by the Biden Administration, on the basis that it stifled innovation, was overly complex, and undermined U.S. diplomatic relations.

Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater of the Department of Justice, and Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Mark Meador of the Federal Trade Commission, have each looked to the history of conservative voices to chart a path forward for antitrust enforcement in the second Trump Administration. Within the last three weeks, AAG Slater delivered remarks to the University of Notre Dame Law School, Chairman Ferguson delivered remarks at the International Competition Network Annual Conference, and Commissioner Meador shared his policy aims in an FTC paper and a speech to George Washington University. The enforcers emphasized the need for robust antitrust enforcement to break private monopolies and other anticompetitive arrangements. These enforcers appear to align on priorities, though differing slightly in methods, grounding their rationale in what they describe as traditional conservative values, while at the same time distancing themselves from previous Republican administrations which have emphasized anti-cartel policies and an otherwise preference for limited intervention in markets.

In a May 12, 2025 speech that signaled both a recalibration of and recommitment to prosecuting white-collar crime, Matthew R. Galeotti, the newly appointed Head of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, said that the Division is “turning a new page” and embracing an enforcement approach that aims to elevate efficiency, predictability, and fairness. The changes he outlined aim to incentivize self-reporting, narrow corporate monitorships, and refocus whistleblowers.

On 24 April 2025, the UK Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) unveiled its new External Guidance on Corporate Co-Operation and Enforcement in relation to Corporate Criminal Offending (the “Guidance”)[1]to enhance corporate compliance, transparency and cooperation in combatting fraud, bribery and corruption in the UK. This comprehensive guidance is critical for both UK-based entities and international companies operating under UK jurisdiction.

The Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”) appropriated hundreds of billions of dollars in grants, loans, and other funding to facilitate clean energy and infrastructure deployment, advance Environmental Justice policy objectives, and address climate change concerns. While many companies, non-profits, and other recipients have reaped the benefits of those programs, they may also now be exposed to increased risks from Congressional investigations; enforcement actions; inspector general reviews; terminations for alleged waste, fraud, and abuse; and in extreme instances, potential exposure to criminal liability.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement has been fairly predictable for many years as the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has maintained exclusive authority over investigating claims and bringing enforcement actions in federal courts across the country. President Trump’s recent pause on FCPA enforcement, the first of its kind since the statute was passed in 1977, has created significant uncertainty for individuals and businesses operating internationally regarding the future of FCPA enforcement. While DOJ is in the process of assessing what the future of FCPA enforcement, state attorneys general are stepping in. On April 2, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a Legal Advisory (the “Advisory”) to California businesses explaining that violations of the FCPA are actionable under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The announcement signals a shift in FCPA enforcement where states may take the lead and pursue FCPA enforcement through their state unfair competition laws.

In a recently published Corporate Counsel article, “Conducting Investigations and Discovery in China: What Companies Need to Consider in Preparing for New Policies,” Crowell’s John E. Davis and the Zhong Lun Law Firm’s Gary Gao (Jun Gao) discuss the need for companies with operations and data in China to prepare for increased governmental scrutiny and civil actions, and provide tips for effectively responding to cross-border demands for data in such pressurized circumstances.

On February 20, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced the formation of the Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit, known as “CETU,” which will replace the Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit (“CACU”).

United States Attorneys’ Offices recently announced a number of False Claims Act (FCA) settlements arising out of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). These settlements reveal several trends that PPP loan recipients should be aware of.

FY 2024 saw continued growth in False Claims Act enforcement, with a record year for new qui tam and government-initiated actions, and the highest total recovery in three years. Enforcement of pandemic-related fraud and cybersecurity noncompliance increased, and health care, procurement, and small business fraud violations were again priority areas. A groundbreaking opinion from the District Court for the Middle District of Florida may have teed up a potentially landscape-shifting decision about the viability of the qui tam mechanism in the not too distant future. And a landmark administrative law decision at the U.S. Supreme Court may impact many FCA cases to come. Significant decisions regarding retaliation, excessive fines, the first-to-file rule, and the public disclosure bar were also handed down by courts of appeals. Crowell attorneys discuss these highlights and others in a “Feature Comment” published in The Government Contractor.

The new Trump administration is focusing intensely on “cartels” and other transnational criminal organizations, particularly in the Western Hemisphere. Many of the entities designated as FTOs today are active in Latin America and the United States, and sometimes seek to extort money or have other dealings with legitimate businesses operating in their territories. The State Department’s designation of eight such entities will not only raise the pressure on the entities designated, but also will create new risks and pressures for companies operating in areas where these FTOs are active. Below, we summarize the recent developments and the ramifications of these designations for businesses.

On February 18, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” that directs independent agencies (as well as Cabinet Departments and their sub-agencies) to route all “proposed and final significant regulatory” and budgetary actions through the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. If implemented to its full extent, this action will significantly strengthen the authority of the White House by weakening the political autonomy of these independent agencies. As an assertion of the President’s inherent powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, it also stands to weaken congressional influence over these independent agencies, both through the appropriations and confirmation processes.