Regulatory Recalibration: What Trump’s FCPA Pause and DAG Blanche’s June 9 Memo Mean for Corporate Counsel
President Trump’s February 10, 2025, executive order initiating a 180-day pause on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement marked the most significant shift in U.S. anti-bribery policy in over two decades. The order instructs the Attorney General to suspend the initiation of new FCPA investigations, conduct a comprehensive review of the statute’s application, and revise Department of Justice policies to better align with U.S. national interest, economic competitiveness, and foreign policy objectives. Importantly, it also required any future enforcement action to receive explicit approval from the Attorney General.
While the FCPA itself was not repealed, the enforcement posture of the U.S. government has begun to shift almost immediately. Attorney General Pam Bondi redirected DOJ’s enforcement priorities toward anti-corruption efforts that have clear links to cartel activity, transnational organized crime, or threats to national security, effectively deprioritizing routine or technical FCPA violations in the interim.
The June 9 DAG Blanche Memo: A Narrower Path Forward
Yesterday, June 9, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a pivotal memorandum clarifying DOJ’s enforcement direction following the President’s temporary freeze. Blanche confirmed that FCPA enforcement will resume, but on a narrower and more strategic basis. His memo outlined a leaner enforcement infrastructure, with the DOJ’s FCPA unit reduced in size to reflect the department’s more targeted approach. According to other sources, the number of prosectors assigned to work exclusively on foreign corruption cases has decreased from about 40 to 25 during the Trump administration.
Under the new guidelines, DOJ prosecutors are instructed to pursue FCPA cases only where there is a demonstrable connection to one of several high-priority categories: national security interests, critical infrastructure, threats posed by transnational criminal networks (including cartels), or where bribery may distort global markets in ways that disadvantage American businesses. Consequently, the DOJ will refocus its enforcement resources on cases that align with broader strategic priorities.
Blanche noted that department prosecutors are bound by the Principles of Federal Prosecution, Justice Manual §§ 9-27.001, et seq., which require consideration of the nature and seriousness of the offenses and the deterrent effect of prosecution, among other factors. Consistent with a related policy announced in May, the DOJ will resolve cases with fewer corporate monitorships. When monitors are used, they will be time-limited and their scope tailored to address only the most serious compliance failures.
Implications for SEC Civil Enforcement
While the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is not bound by the President’s executive order, the Commission’s enforcement strategy has subtly shifted to parallel that of the DOJ. In the months following the DOJ pause, the SEC scaled back civil enforcement of FCPA-related violations, particularly in cases where the DOJ had suspended or declined to proceed. The rationale was partly institutional coordination, and partly a practical acknowledgment that the SEC rarely pursues standalone FCPA matters without DOJ participation.
Although the SEC has not issued a formal policy change, recent public statements from senior officials suggest a more restrained posture. Specifically, the SEC appears more willing to issue declinations in cases involving prompt self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation. Corporate issuers are also seeing longer review timelines, fewer subpoenas, and more frequent pre-enforcement resolution discussions.
Still, the SEC continues to monitor public company disclosures, books-and-records compliance, and internal control systems, and it remains an active backstop. Its civil enforcement tools, particularly in the accounting and controls space, continue to present risk for companies, especially if the DOJ’s revised enforcement criteria do not apply.
Looking Ahead: FCPA Enforcement Trajectory and Strategic Predictions
Although some companies may view the DOJ’s retrenchment as a reprieve, the long-term enforcement landscape is far from static. Based on current trends, several themes are likely to define the future of FCPA compliance and enforcement.
First, FCPA enforcement is entering a more strategic and targeted phase. Rather than pursuing every violation, the DOJ will focus on matters that implicate core U.S. interests. particularly those involving national security, geopolitical strategy, or critical industries. This will likely reduce the volume of cases while increasing scrutiny on high-stakes transactions and politically sensitive jurisdictions.
Second, a leaner DOJ FCPA team signals a slower, more deliberate pace of investigation and prosecution. While this may reduce the pressure of simultaneous parallel investigations, it could also extend resolution timelines for open matters. Fewer cases will move forward, but those that do will carry greater institutional and reputational weight.
Third, the DOJ’s increased emphasis on cooperation, remediation, and self-reporting suggests a compliance-forward approach to enforcement. Companies that voluntarily disclose misconduct, swiftly remediate deficiencies, and fully cooperate with investigators may receive significantly more favorable outcomes, including declinations or reduced penalties. In this environment, a robust internal compliance infrastructure becomes not only a risk mitigation tool, but a strategic asset in negotiations with the government.
Fourth, while DOJ criminal enforcement becomes more selective, the SEC is unlikely to abandon its mandate entirely. Instead, expect the SEC to act more as a regulator than a prosecutor, prioritizing disclosure, corporate governance, and financial controls over aggressive civil penalties. But when companies fail to self-report or cooperate, the SEC still retains significant enforcement discretion.
Finally, this strategic pause may ultimately lead to a more durable, clearly articulated enforcement framework. DAG Blanche’s memo is expected to be followed later this year by revised DOJ guidance formalizing the new criteria for initiating and pursuing FCPA cases. Once issued, that guidance could form the basis for a long-term recalibration of anti-bribery enforcement across administrations.
Practical Recommendations for Corporate Counsel
For general counsel, chief compliance officers, and legal advisors, the current environment presents both opportunity and risk. Now is the time to reassess anti-corruption programs, especially in high-risk jurisdictions or industries.
Corporate compliance teams should ensure that internal reporting mechanisms, training programs, and third-party due diligence systems are well-documented and defensible. Voluntary disclosure protocols should be updated, including clear triggers for escalation and criteria for remediation. In-house legal departments should also evaluate their outside counsel’s readiness to handle nuanced interactions with the DOJ’s leaner and more selective FCPA enforcement unit.
In parallel, companies listed on U.S. exchanges must continue to ensure rigorous adherence to the SEC’s accounting controls and disclosure requirements. The SEC remains a potent enforcement actor, and its scrutiny of internal control failures may only intensify as its criminal counterpart narrows its focus.
The Trump administration’s suspension and reassessment of FCPA enforcement, followed by DAG Blanche’s measured restart—mark a turning point from a volume-driven model to a risk-prioritized regime. For legal advisors and compliance professionals, this shift offers breathing room, but not immunity. FCPA enforcement is evolving and for companies operating in global markets, a proactive compliance posture remains the best defense.
About the Authors:
John P. Rowley is a former federal prosecutor with extensive experience in FCPA investigations and other high-profile white-collar matters. Lionel André is a former federal prosecutor and Deputy Chief of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section. Together, they help lead SECIL Law’s white-collar defense practice, representing clients in complex investigations, prosecutions, and parallel enforcement actions.
John and Lionel can be reached at jrowley@secillaw.com and landre@secillaw.com respectively.
