The second Trump Administration’s first 100 days

The first 100 days of the second Trump Administration have been marked by a flurry of Executive Orders (EOs) and policy memoranda intended to advance President Donald Trump’s “America First” agenda. In the process, these actions have reshaped enforcement priorities and redirected resources toward new focus areas, while discontinuing or de-emphasizing some previous initiatives.

A few common themes in the developing enforcement posture of this administration include:

• The structure of federal enforcement authorities, as well as the approach and priorities of those organizations, are undergoing substantial changes at a level not seen in over 20 years.
• The level of regulatory and enforcement uncertainty has increased, and the environment is dynamic and regularly evolving.
• The major shifts in enforcement priorities will require companies to reassess and realign their risk exposure and risk management posture.
• Companies, their boards, and leadership may benefit from being engaged, deliberate, and nimble in responding to this changing risk environment.

These changes in the enforcement landscape place added pressure on compliance programs, particularly when government guidance is still pending in many enforcement areas. Companies are encouraged to reassess risk and adapt internal controls to align with the changes in enforcement priorities.

Much remains to be seen regarding the intensity and scope of enforcement actions going forward, and guidance is still pending on many enforcement areas. Some of the enforcement policies appear to be following the same historic patterns with slight variations up or down, while others are speeding quickly to new heights with dramatic curves.

DLA Piper teams have collaborated to highlight key updates and trends from US law enforcement authorities, as well as takeaways that companies may consider in minimizing the risks of noncompliance in the current enforcement landscape. DLA Piper is ready to help companies navigate these changes.

Organizational change at DOJ

Key enforcement updates

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has undergone significant changes under the current administration in policy, resources, and organization. These changes will likely impact both enforcement priorities and the capacity of the Department to pursue enforcement actions in a wide range of practices. Entire DOJ components have been closed, significantly reduced in size, or realigned to other functions, while others have undergone a substantial change in focus. Illustrative realignments include DOJ announcements to:

• Close the Consumer Protection Branch, which enforces laws related to “health, safety, economic security, and identity integrity”
• Substantially refocus the activities of the Environment and Natural Resources and Civil Rights Divisions, reassigning and removing many prosecutors and staff to focus on administration priorities, eliminating offices such as the Office of Environmental Justice, and freezing or terminating most ongoing litigation
• Disband certain national security-related units, including the National Security Division’s (NSD) Corporate Enforcement Unit, Foreign Influence Task Force, and KleptoCapture Task Force, instead reassigning prosecutors to the “total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations,” as discussed below, and
• Close the Tax Division at Main Justice, before back-tracking and instead planning to reallocate tax attorneys between the Civil and Criminal Divisions.

Takeaways

• Companies are encouraged to monitor statements and actions of leadership at Main Justice and United States Attorney’s Offices, which are strong indicators of the types of cases DOJ is likely to bring and those it will decline to pursue.
• Internal DOJ resources are being redeployed as administration priorities. Realignments of specific units and resources across the Department are indicative of both DOJ’s emerging priorities and capacity to pursue investigations related to particular subject matters.
• Enforcement decisions are likely to be less predictable and less structured around formal, published DOJ guidance.
• No formal announcements or changes have been made regarding DOJ’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program launched last year. Companies are encouraged to remain vigilant in developing and enhancing internal reporting mechanisms, as well as taking hotline or whistleblower reports seriously.

Waste, fraud, and abuse

Key enforcement updates

The Trump Administration has prioritized the identification of “waste, fraud, and abuse” during its first 100 days, and this focus is expected to continue, including through the continued actions of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The administration has broadly defined “waste, fraud, and abuse,” associating it with a misalignment of administration priorities and policy preferences. This interpretation has already resulted in the termination of a significant number of grants and government contracts, and the administration is actively reviewing programs, contracts, and grants to identify additional areas for termination.

While there has been no formal announcement, DOJ may shift prosecutorial resources to investigate and prosecute “waste, fraud, and abuse” – broadly defined. These efforts, perhaps following issues identified in the media, could manifest through several existing civil and criminal enforcement frameworks, including the False Claims Act (FCA), criminal fraud and false statements, reviews by Offices of Inspectors General (OIG), and agency-specific civil and regulatory proceedings.

Takeaways

• Enforcement targets may continue to reflect administration priorities and announced policy positions, perhaps with input from political appointees and DOGE personnel.
• The scope of investigations is likely to expand beyond the traditional evidentiary basis, and may reflect new administration priorities. This could mean that in addition to identifying areas for cuts, the administration may be investigating “fraud, waste, and abuse” in the performance of government contracts and grants for action under the False Claims Act. Companies – particularly government contractors – are encouraged to assess their potential exposure and compliance programs, and consider developing risk mitigation and response strategies in their areas of greatest exposure.
• Companies are encouraged to ensure that they are promptly and thoroughly evaluating any hotline reporting related to potential “waste, fraud, and abuse” – broadly defined.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion

Key enforcement updates

The Trump Administration’s January 21, 2025 EO on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) directed the executive branch “to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.”

Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi was directed to prepare guidance within 120 days of enforcement, and agencies were required to identify civil compliance investigations across public, private, commercial, and nonprofit entities.

AG Bondi’s guidance is anticipated in May 2025, which will mark the conclusion of the 120-day period. However, agencies have already taken action to implement the DEI EO, and the Trump Administration has issued new EOs targeting specific institutions.

As discussed in our prior client alert, examples of enforcement to date include:

1. EOs targeting specific law firms and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission letters to 20 law firms requesting information about their DEI practices
2. Closure of government offices and termination of employees associated with what the administration has identified as DEI-related activities, as well as cancellation of DEI-related programs, grants, and contracts
3. Federal Communications Commission investigations of various media companies, and
4. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights investigations into approximately 60 colleges and universities.

Takeaways

In anticipation of AG Bondi’s potential enforcement recommendations for the DEI EO, companies may consider:

• Engaging in an assessment of their specific risks through systematic review and assessment of their internal and external DEI materials, policies, and programs
• Monitoring for new developments in an increasingly uncertain enforcement landscape, and
• Preparing to take appropriate steps in the event of an investigation or inquiry.

Tariff-related enforcement

Key enforcement updates

As discussed in prior client alerts here and here, the Trump Administration has imposed sweeping tariffs, with some having been reciprocated, lifted, reimposed, modified, or still subject to negotiations.

Although the contours and impact of tariffs are rapidly evolving, there is a clearer picture from the enforcement lens. In particular, DOJ has suggested utilizing the FCA and antitrust laws (including collusion) as key enforcement tools for ensuring that international businesses comply with tariffs. DOJ may also pursue criminal violations of tariffs when companies make willful false statements to the government as part of import declarations (or conspiring with a non-US importer to deceive its government), as well as under statutes related to criminal smuggling, violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), wire fraud, or conspiracy for any of the foregoing, all of which may result in significant criminal or civil penalties.

US Customs and Border Protection, part of the Department of Homeland Security, will likely serve as the front line and refer FCA and criminal conduct to DOJ, at the same time overseeing its own administrative enforcement mechanism.

Takeaways

Given the public significance of the tariffs program to the Trump Administration, enforcement actions relating to tariff evasion, collusion, and false statements will likely become high-profile to create a broader deterrent impact.

• Companies engaged in international trade are encouraged to take steps to assess and implement trade controls that are robust enough to weather the frequently changing tariff schedules, including (1) conducting adequate due diligence upon parties in the company’s supply chain, including suppliers and freight forwarders, and (2) ensuring that companies have established hotlines and reporting channels to identify potential violations.
• In addition, non-US companies are encouraged to take particular care to ensure that they are prepared in case they are identified for a potential enforcement action.
• Companies are encouraged to ensure that they have reasonable controls to ensure that data regarding imports (and exports) is entered into electronic government systems accurately.

AI-related enforcement

Key enforcement updates

As discussed in a previous client alert, the Trump Administration is charting its course on regulation and enforcement priorities after issuing an EO calling for departments and agencies to revise or rescind all artificial intelligence (AI) policies issued under the Biden Administration.

The EO also calls for the development of an “AI Action Plan” by July 23, 2025, with the goal of advancing American AI dominance. While the specific contours of the emerging national policy direction on AI are not yet clear, the potential consequences of the Trump Administration’s approach are an accelerating patchwork of state-level laws and enforcement actions aimed at filling the void.

At the federal level, enforcement authorities are leveraging existing statutes to prosecute the misuse of AI. This includes the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) use of existing securities laws to police misrepresentations of AI capabilities and/or use to investors, DOJ’s wielding of the FCA to prosecute misrepresentation of AI capabilities, and DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) use of antitrust and consumer protection laws to prosecute algorithmic collusion and harm to consumers caused by AI misuse.

At the other end, enforcement authorities are increasingly relying on AI as part of their investigations to identify fraudulent conduct. At the state level, state Attorneys General have brought enforcement actions regarding the misuse of AI on the basis of state consumer protection laws and Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices authority.

Takeaways

The absence of federal US legislation may portend uncertainty for companies navigating AI adoption and a patchwork of state laws.

• As pressure mounts from organizations seeking clarification on how AI is regulated in the US, and as states seek to control the potential risks AI poses to their constituents, it is likely that greater state-level regulatory activity will emerge to provide direction to legislative developments in the absence of success at a federal level.
• Companies with US operations are encouraged to continue to assess the use of AI within their business operations and how it could prompt an inquiry from US federal or state law enforcement authorities.
• Companies that use or rely on AI-generated inputs, directly or indirectly, may also consider integrating expectations and guardrails regarding the company’s positions on the use of AI as part of its compliance programming.
• Where AI is a developing legal frontier not only in the US, companies are encouraged to monitor regulatory developments in the countries in which they operate and work closely with counsel to mitigate the risks of AI-related enforcement actions, including via DLA Piper’s focus page on AI.

False Claims Act

Key enforcement updates

As described above and in a previous client alert, FCA cases are likely to play an important role in the Trump Administration – expanding beyond traditional areas of focus for enforcement, healthcare, and defense cases, and into other areas aligned with administration priorities.

The FCA may be applied in connection with customs enforcement and the circumvention of tariffs. The Trump Administration could also use the FCA to incentivize compliance among government contractors and other recipients of federal funds. It may do so by requiring contractors to comply with federal antidiscrimination laws as a “material” condition of payment and certify that they do not operate programs that promote DEI and violate applicable antidiscrimination laws. Finally, the administration may also rely upon the FCA in its pursuit of “waste, fraud, and abuse,” as discussed above.

Takeaways

• Companies are encouraged to closely evaluate the terms of any federal contracts or grants, any new certification requests, and any existing representations and certifications (including through SAM.gov) to ensure compliance and proactively identify risks.
• Companies are encouraged to assess and strengthen robust internal reporting channels and whistleblower policies.
• Early identification of issues and their potential scope and remediation are key. In certain cases, self-reporting to DOJ may be in the company’s best interest.
• Given the administration’s policy priorities, companies may consider reinforcing compliance policies applicable to federal contractors and recipients of federal funds, as well as practices related to the import of goods and payment of customs duties and tariffs.

Antitrust

Key enforcement updates

New leadership at DOJ’s Antitrust Division and the FTC has promised an “America First” antitrust agenda and signaled that criminal and civil antitrust enforcement will span both existing priorities (labor markets, AI/algorithmic pricing tools, and the technology industry) and new priorities, such as novel theories of collusion involving environmental, social, and governance (ESG), DEI, and content moderation. Senior officials at both agencies also have publicly cautioned that “tariffs should not be interpreted as a green light for price fixing.”

The administration has shown its focus on workers, with the FTC creating a Joint Labor Task Force (JLTF) to “root[] out and prosecut[e]” a wide range of practices that the agency claims “negatively affect workers across all types of industries by limiting their mobility and ability to earn a living.” In April 2025, DOJ heralded its first-ever wage-fixing criminal conviction by a jury, pledging to “zealously prosecute those who seek to unjustly profit off their employees.” DOJ and FTC addressed many of these practices in their January 2025 revised Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activities Affecting Workers.

Enforcement of procurement-related actions is also expected to remain consistent across administrations, with continued focus on allegations of “waste, fraud, and abuse” in federal, state, and local procurements leveraging the now-mature Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF). Consistent with the Trump Administration’s “America First” focus, more antitrust actions are anticipated for cases involving international dimensions. Antitrust enforcers have also signaled that they would leverage new investigative techniques, including putting more individuals into grand juries and pursuing international defendants in coordination with the newly launched fugitive reporting portal with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Separate from federal enforcement, but potentially responsive to shifts in federal resources and priorities, state-level developments could also change the US criminal antitrust enforcement landscape, with new legislation, reorganized enforcers, and ambitious state attorneys general pledging investigations.

Takeaways

Although there may be some adjustments in policies at both DOJ and the FTC, overall, changes under the Trump Administration may not result in significant differences for the majority of investigations and/or enforcement actions.

• Companies are encouraged to avoid collusive conduct with competitors as they consider changes to their pricing – including surcharges or fees – in response to tariffs.
• Businesses may assess whether their workforce practices carry antitrust risks – and determine possible steps to address them.
• Government contractors are encouraged to prioritize compliance with antitrust laws and exercise good “bid hygiene” when involved in competitive contracting processes. This may involve training on antitrust issues, periodic auditing of contracts to detect potentially anomalous patterns, and reviewing non-compete and exclusivity requirements in teaming agreements and contracts.
• Theories of collusion regarding ESG and DEI are largely uncharted territory, and companies are encouraged to continue monitoring enforcement developments and coordinate with counsel to ascertain enforcement risks in these areas.

SEC enforcement

Key enforcement updates

Paul S. Atkins was sworn into office as the 34th SEC Chairman on April 21, 2025, returning to the SEC after serving as a commissioner from 2002 to 2008. Under an Atkins-led Commission, crypto policy (a heavy focus and priority of the prior Commission) is intended to take a different approach from the previous regime.

On February 20, 2025, the SEC announced the establishment of the Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit (CETU). Replacing the former Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit, CETU is comprised of approximately 30 fraud specialists and attorneys from various SEC offices. This announcement is in line with the SEC’s change in position regarding crypto, and a move away from regulation by enforcement.

As stated by the SEC, CETU aims to combat cyber-related misconduct and protect retail investors from fraudulent activities in emerging technologies such as AI, cybersecurity, and digital assets. The SEC is not ceding enforcement of fraud in connection with blockchain technology and crypto assets; rather, it is refocusing its resources to investigate potential harm to retail investors in clearly fraudulent behavior.

The CETU’s 2025 priorities are similar to the Cyber Unit’s 2017 priorities from the first Trump Administration. One primary focus of the CETU will be on fraud committed using emerging technologies, such as AI and machine learning, explained in greater detail here. Another key priority of CETU focuses on regulated entities’ compliance with cybersecurity rules and regulations and fraudulent disclosures by public issuers related to cybersecurity.

The SEC’s 2024 climate disclosure rules and related litigation are in a period of stasis following the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to grant a Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance in Iowa v. SEC – the case challenging the rules. While the SEC under President Trump may continue to voluntarily stay enforcement or formally rescind the rules through the Administrative Procedure Act, the Eighth Circuit’s decision leaves open the possibility that the rules could be revived under a future administration.

In the meantime, companies assessing climate-related risks and disclosures are encouraged to refer to the SEC’s 2010 guidance on climate-related matters. As reinforced by Acting SEC Chairman Mark T. Uyeda, climate and other ESG-related issues will be viewed through a “materiality” lens to determine whether such information would be important to a reasonable investor when deciding to buy, sell, or vote securities. While it is unlikely that the SEC will continue to scrutinize public companies’ disclosure in the form of detailed climate-related comment letters similar to those issued by the SEC under the Biden Administration, the SEC may continue to pursue material misstatement and fraud claims, reaffirming the significance of assessing the strength and rigor of the sustainability-related disclosures and disclosure controls and procedures.

It remains to be seen if institutional investors and proxy advisory firms such as ISS and Glass, Lewis & Co. will continue to push for ESG-related disclosures and policies in companies’ SEC filings, but such efforts may be discouraged by the SEC’s new Staff Legal Bulletin 14M (SLB 14M) and its revised Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations on Section 13(d) and Section 13(g) of the Exchange Act. SLB 14M rescinds the SEC’s November 2021 Staff Legal Bulletin 14L, which limited a company’s ability to exclude ESG-related stockholder proposals (those with “broad societal impact”) from proxy statements, and reinstated pre-November 2021 SEC guidance on the scope of the “economic relevance,” and “ordinary business” exclusions under Exchange Act Rule 14a-8. New staff guidance on Section 13(d) and (g) stated that Schedule 13G may not be available for a shareholder who “exerts pressure on management to implement specific measures or changes to a policy” that “may be ‘influencing’ control over the issuer.”

Overall, the SEC may change the focus of its enforcement actions, which may not necessarily result in a reduction of enforcement activity. In addition to the reorganization of the regional office structure and reductions in staff by nearly 25 percent, the SEC has also removed authority from the formal order of investigation process, which has been in practice since 2009.

Takeaways

Due to staff reductions and removal of delegated authority, a slowdown of new enforcement investigations is expected in the short-term, but SEC staff may increase enforcement in the second half of 2025 – focusing on the new priorities and traditional enforcement efforts, such as insider trading and disclosure misrepresentations and omissions.

• Companies are encouraged to continue prioritizing the assessment of their cybersecurity compliance and controls, as compliance lapses resulting in investor harm may result in SEC scrutiny.
• As more companies incorporate AI and machine learning into their business operations, regulated entities and issuers are encouraged to evaluate the risks associated and ensure that public disclosures, marketing materials, and public representations are accurate and complete.

Sanctions, anti-money laundering, and countering the financing of terrorism

Key enforcement updates

There have been significant shifts in the composition and organization of DOJ’s NSD since President Trump’s inauguration. These have included the disbanding of the NSD Corporate Enforcement Unit, Kleptocracy Team, Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, and Task Force KleptoCapture (the latter two were joint initiatives among NSD and DOJ’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS).

As described in a prior client alert, numerous policy memoranda issued by DOJ have conveyed the Department’s national security enforcement priorities, including:

1. The 10-7 Memorandum establishing a Joint Task Force October 7 (JTF 10-7), focused on investigating and prosecuting individuals and entities that facilitate or fund Hamas, and
2. The “Total Elimination of Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organizations” memo (Cartel/TCO Memo) directing DOJ enforcement resources to the “total elimination” of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs).

The Cartel/TCO Memo is in effect at least until May 8, 2025, at which point it may be renewed or made permanent. Under both memos, DOJ is anticipated to leverage existing criminal frameworks to pursue the enforcement targets.

President Trump’s EO lays out a procedure for designating cartels and other organizations as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) and/or specially designated global terrorists (SDGTs). The potential breadth of the cartel and TCO designations could create compliance challenges with countering the financing of terrorism (CFT), the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), anti-money laundering (AML), and US trade and economic sanctions requirements.

Consistent with these priorities, FTO and SDGT designations are already underway by the US State Department in consultation with the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), with particular focus on Latin American organizations. Sanctions enforcement actions brought by both OFAC (civil) and NSD (criminal) are expected to mirror these priorities outlined in the Cartel/TCO Memo.

The Cartel/TCO Memo also suspended NSD approval requirements for filing most terrorism charges and sanctions-related charges under IEEPA. This facilitates US Attorney’s Offices around the country to be more aggressive in bringing sanctions and export control cases with fewer bureaucratic hurdles. This, combined with the 2024 extension of the statute of limitations for IEEPA violations to ten years, may result in more criminal enforcement actions.

The Trump Administration has taken several actions aimed at increasing the use of economic sanctions administered and enforced by OFAC, the Department of State, and DOJ to achieve foreign policy and national security objectives. On February 21, 2025, President Trump issued the “America First Investment Policy” memorandum that directs, among other things, an increased use of blocking sanctions and Chinese military-industrial complex sanctions on Chinese companies “to further deter United States persons from investing in [China’s] military-industrial sector.”

On February 4, 2025, President Trump issued National Security Presidential Memorandum-2 (NSPM-2) stating that US policy is to “impose maximum pressure on the Iranian regime to end its nuclear threat, curtail its ballistic missile program, and stop its support for terrorist groups.” Among the several directives, NSPM-2 directs the Department of the Treasury to “immediately impose sanctions or appropriate enforcement remedies on all persons for which the Department has evidence of activity in violation of one or more Iran-related sanctions,” and to “implement a robust and continual sanctions enforcement campaign.” President Trump specifically directed the Department of the Treasury to “evaluate whether financial institutions should adopt a ‘Know Your Customer’s Customer’ standard for Iran-related transactions to further prevent sanctions evasion.”

Despite early indications of sanctions relief on Russia in exchange for a peace deal with Ukraine, economic sanctions against Russia remain intact, and any changes, along with their related enforcement actions, remain uncertain. President Trump has suggested increasing sanctions on Russia if a peace deal with Ukraine fails to materialize, and enforcement of compliance with Russian sanctions remains a top priority for OFAC.

As discussed in a prior alert, NSD is also working to implement the bi-partisan Data Security Program (DSP) which generally establishes export controls that prevent foreign adversaries from accessing US government data and Americans’ bulk sensitive personal data. On April 11, 2025, NSD issued FAQs, a compliance guide, and an implementation and enforcement policy, under which NSD will exercise temporary enforcement discretion and will not prioritize civil enforcement actions for violations of the DSP against companies who are working in good faith towards compliance through July 8, 2025.

Takeaways

Companies, particularly those involved in financial services, industrials, technology, and professional services, are encouraged to be prepared to respond to law enforcement inquiries and visits.

• Financial services, global trade and logistics, and other companies with operations, customers, or supply chains in Latin America or the Middle East may expect the US government to continue to use sweeping sanctions, export controls, and AML regulatory tools in tandem with criminal investigations and charges.
• Entities may consider increasing their counterparty due diligence efforts, sanctions screening, ongoing transaction monitoring, risk-based sanctions, and AML/CFT programs, and are encouraged to consult with counsel with respect to the sensitive and challenging considerations involved in terminating relationships with counterparties who fail to adequately respond to due diligence requests due to the risk that they could be affiliated with cartels, TCOs, or Hamas.
• Financial institutions are encouraged to closely monitor the Department of the Treasury’s determination with respect to the “Know Your Customer’s Customer” standard, which could meaningfully increase the burdens on financial institutions in their global business.
• Companies with exposure to Mexico or other countries where cartels operate are encouraged to consider a risk assessment of potential indirect cartel relationships.
• US and foreign companies are encouraged to swiftly come into compliance with the new national security DSP requirements before the 90-day period of enforcement discretion expires in July 2025.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Key enforcement updates

As we have detailed here, DOJ enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) remains under a 180-day pause, with updated guidance anticipated (but not guaranteed) in August 2025. The SEC continues to follow DOJ’s lead, also pausing their FCPA enforcement activities.

To date, both DOJ and SEC have taken targeted actions to terminate certain ongoing investigations, and to modify select existing resolutions, but these actions are limited in scope. There have been substantial changes in leadership in both DOJ and SEC’s FCPA units, with retirements and reassignments of long-standing career enforcement personnel, which may impact the capacity of DOJ and SEC to pursue existing and new FCPA cases.

As detailed in this client alert, when the new guidance is ultimately released and enforcement restarts, companies may expect the administration to prioritize US economic interests. This may result in less enforcement against US companies and increased focus on non-US companies, particularly those operating in sectors that are considered strategically important to the US economy.

Further, an increase in US enforcement actions against non-US companies may prompt international enforcement agencies to investigate US companies with greater frequency and intensity to fill any gaps that may arise from decreased DOJ focus. Additionally, state attorneys general have recently indicated that they may step in for any gaps in federal enforcement of international corruption.

Takeaways

While bribery remains illegal, FCPA enforcement largely remains on hold at both DOJ and SEC, and revised guidance is still pending.

• The FCPA remains in effect, has a minimum five-year statute of limitations, and companies still have enforcement risk related to corruption from enforcement authorities in the US and other jurisdictions.
• Companies are encouraged to continue to reassess and update their corporate compliance programs as needed.
• While FCPA enforcement may not have the same focus as in the past, effective corporate compliance programs may bring substantial operational and legal benefits, beyond mitigation of regulatory enforcement risks specific to the FCPA.
• Auditors, business partners, and shareholders will likely expect high-quality and effective financial hygiene, including maintenance of accurate books and records and effective internal controls.

Export controls

Key enforcement updates

At the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS) annual Update Conference on Export Controls and Policy, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated that BIS would seek a “dramatic increase in enforcement and fines” for violations of US export control laws.

Export controls and enforcement priorities include matters involving:

1. Foreign adversaries, including China, Iran, Russia, and certain military end users, and
2. Sensitive technologies, such as semiconductors, AI, quantum computing, hypersonics, autonomous systems, and biotechnology, as well as related industries like critical minerals.

BIS officials have also highlighted diversion as an ongoing enforcement focus, particularly concerning the diversion of goods via China and Hong Kong to Russia, Iran, and North Korea. BIS officials are also likely to leverage export control policymaking and enforcement in support of other administration priorities, such as stopping the flow of fentanyl and integrating export control requirements into trade agreements.

President Trump’s January 20, 2025 “America First Trade Policy” directs the Commerce and State Departments to review the US export control system and make recommendations to close “loopholes in existing export controls – especially those that enable the transfer of strategic goods, software, services, and technology to countries to strategic rivals and their proxies.” These changes may lead to more robust enforcement of export controls, particularly concerning the export of advanced technologies to, or for the benefit of, China.

Takeaways

BIS is poised to take aggressive actions to investigate and enforce violations of US export controls that align with the Trump Administration’s broader policies related to China, other foreign adversaries, and sensitive technologies.

• Penalties in the coming months for export control violations may send a strong message about the importance of compliance. The Commerce Department has been increasing enforcement efforts, with hefty fines and penalties for companies found violating export controls.
• While much remains to be seen with respect to the scope and intensity of enforcement actions, companies are encouraged to take steps to assess, strengthen, and invest in their internal export controls compliance policies and procedures, particularly by implementing tools to identify diversion risk.
• Companies are also encouraged to ensure a responsive, well-functioning process in the event they receive subpoenas or targeted requests from BIS’s Office of Export Enforcement.
• Export compliance investment is especially warranted for companies that deal in sensitive technologies, cutting-edge computing, or military-adjacent industries.

Leak investigations

Key enforcement updates

On April 25, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memorandum (News Media Memo) rescinding regulations that were issued during the Biden Administration that restricted the use of compulsory legal process to secure information from the media, so long as the media was acting within the scope of newsgathering.

Previously, DOJ prohibited the use of compulsory process in only a few instances, such as to prevent imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm or if consent had been provided. All such restrictions have now been removed under the News Media Memo, noting that “this Justice Department will not tolerate unauthorized disclosures that undermine President Trump’s policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people.” As such, a compulsory legal process may be pursued against media actors regarding leaks of not only classified information, but of “privileged and other sensitive” information that is allegedly “designed to sow chaos and distrust” in the government. DOJ is expected to provide additional guidance through the adoption of more detailed rules.

This News Media Memo followed activity in Congress and within federal agencies that raised the specter of increased enforcement activity around government leaks. Earlier this year, the US Congressional Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement launched an investigation into the leak of information outlining the capture and deportation of undocumented migrants, citing the risks that the leak created for law enforcement. Media reports also indicate that in recent weeks, the FBI, national security agencies, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense have been using polygraph tests as a means of identifying alleged leakers.

Takeaways

DOJ, in partnership with a range of federal agencies, as well as Congressional committees, is likely to initiate and aggressively pursue investigations relating to the unauthorized disclosure of information to the news media.

• Members of the media and companies or individuals involved in the newsgathering process are encouraged to be aware of the heightened scrutiny of the current landscape and plan accordingly (eg, seeking to limit discoverable information).
• Foreign companies engaged in the newsgathering process (and who have US operations) are encouraged to pay particular attention to the changing enforcement landscape in the event they may face unpredictable enforcement in connection with leak investigations.
• Members of the media and companies or individuals involved in the newsgathering process are encouraged to closely monitor DOJ pronouncements with respect to anticipated guidance and regulations concerning compulsory processes in leak investigations.

For more information, please contact the authors or your DLA Piper relationship attorney.