With the return of President Donald Trump to the White House came a new approach to enforcement of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). In February 2025, President Trump issued an executive order "pausing" most FCPA enforcement for a period of 180 days. Then, in June, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued new guidelines for FCPA enforcement, effectively lifting the pause while signaling the types of criminal FCPA violations on which the DOJ would and would not focus its attention.
So far this year, neither the DOJ nor the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has announced any new FCPA enforcement actions. Some previously initiated FCPA prosecutions against individuals have been dropped, as others have moved forward. On the corporate side, some compliance monitorships and deferred prosecution agreement terms have ended early and certain investigations of corporate misconduct reportedly have closed, though others reportedly remain open.
Below, we highlight significant policy and case developments concerning the FCPA and other federal laws used in bribery cases, along with a few anti-corruption updates from around the world.
FCPA Enforcement in the Trump Administration: Back With a Twist? DOJ Issues New FCPA Guidelines Following Trump Executive Order
On June 9, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the Guidelines). These new
Guidelines came on the heels of a February 10, 2025 Executive Order
by President Trump Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement
to Further American Economic and National Security. Although
the Guidelines do not officially lift President Trump's 180-day
"pause," they suggest that FCPA enforcement now may move
forward, albeit in a manner consistent with the
administration's priorities and new DOJ procedures.
At a conference on June 10, 2025, the Head of DOJ's Criminal
Division, Matthew R. Galeotti, summed up the "through-line" of the
Guidelines as "requir[ing] the vindication of U.S.
interests." Indeed, the Guidelines attempt to tailor FCPA
enforcement to limit "undue burdens" on U.S. companies
operating abroad and to prioritize enforcement actions involving
conduct that "directly undermines U.S. interests." To
that end, the Guidelines provide a "non-exhaustive" list
of factors that prosecutors must consider when evaluating whether
to pursue FCPA investigations and enforcement actions, many of
which track DOJ's stated white-collar enforcement priorities. Galeotti
made clear that DOJ's FCPA considerations are not limited to
the enumerated factors, and that "[n]o one factor is necessary
or dispositive."
Key focus areas of the Guidelines include:
- Elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations, consistent with prior directives from President Trump and Attorney General Bondi
- Safeguarding U.S. companies' competitiveness, including by prioritizing the prosecution of FCPA violations that harm U.S. businesses and enforcing the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act, which criminalizes the receipt of bribes by foreign officials (i.e., the "demand side" of foreign bribery)
- Threats to U.S. national security, such as when "corruption occurs in sectors like defense, intelligence, or critical infrastructure"
- Misconduct that bears strong indicia of corrupt intent tied to particular individuals, "such as substantial bribe payments, proven and sophisticated efforts to conceal bribe payments," rather than "alleged misconduct involving routine business practices or the type of corporate conduct that involves de minimis or low-dollar, generally accepted business courtesies"
The Guidelines require that all new FCPA investigations and
enforcement actions be authorized by the head of DOJ's Criminal
Division or by a more senior DOJ official. Additionally, the
Guidelines emphasize that prosecutors should "proceed as
expeditiously as possible" and "consider collateral
consequences, such as the impact on a company's employees,
throughout an investigation, not only at the resolution
phase."
SEC Chair Paul Atkins told a U.S. Senate subcommittee in June that
the SEC is not "directly affected" by the DOJ's new
FCPA Guidelines. However, earlier in the year, the Acting Deputy
Director of SEC's Enforcement Division suggested that new
leadership within the Enforcement Division may follow the DOJ's
lead with respect to FCPA enforcement. Public reports by companies
under FCPA scrutiny suggest that both DOJ and SEC have taken the
president's executive orders into account in their handling of
investigations this year.
DOJ Ends Corporate Compliance Monitorship, Deferred Prosecution Agreements Early
In April, DOJ terminated the three-year independent corporate
compliance monitorship for Glencore, a global commodity trading and
mining firm that had pleaded guilty in 2022 to conspiracy to
violate the FCPA, among other charges, in connection with business
in multiple African and Latin American countries.
DOJ also has allowed other companies to exit deferred prosecution
agreements (DPAs) ahead of schedule this year: Honeywell UOP, a
U.S.-based manufacturer and technology company whose DPA concerned
FCPA issues in Brazil; ABB Ltd., a Swiss-based technology firm
whose DPA concerned FCPA issues in South Africa; and Stericycle, a
U.S.-based waste management company whose DPA concerned FCPA issues
in multiple Latin American countries all had charges dismissed
months before their DPA terms were set to expire.
DOJ's move to curtail an FCPA compliance monitorship dovetails
with changes to the department's official policy regarding
monitorships. In May, the DOJ Criminal Division revised its monitor selection policy to narrowly tailor
— i.e., limit but not eliminate — the use of outside
monitors. The guiding principle of the revised monitor policy is
that the benefits of the monitor should outweigh its costs, in
terms of both monetary expenditures and burdens on a company's
operations. Prosecutors, therefore, must consider the following
factors when determining whether to impose a monitor: (1) the risk
of recurrence of criminal conduct that significantly impacts U.S.
interests, particularly national security interests; (2) the
availability and efficacy of other independent government
oversight; (3) the efficacy of the compliance program and culture
of compliance at the time of the resolution; and (4) the maturity
of the company's controls and its ability to independently test
and update its compliance program. If a monitor is imposed, the
monitorship must be tailored to be proportionate with the severity
of the misconduct and the company's size and risk profile; must
foster cooperation and collaboration among the monitor, company,
and DOJ; must mitigate against monitor overreach; and must ensure
appropriate DOJ oversight.
Some Individual FCPA Prosecutions Dismissed, Some Continue
Since the announcement of new FCPA enforcement policies, DOJ has
voluntarily dismissed some of its pending FCPA prosecutions against
individuals, while other prosecutions continue to move
forward.
For example, in April, DOJ moved to dismiss its case against former
technology company executives Gordon Coburn and Steven Schwartz,
who were slated to go to trial on FCPA charges related to their
alleged participation in a scheme to pay bribes to help their
employer build a campus in India. But also in April, DOJ notified a
federal judge in Pennsylvania that, following a "detailed
review" in accordance with President Trump's executive
order, the government still intends to proceed to trial against
Charles Hunter Hobson, a former coal company executive accused of
scheming to bribe Egyptian officials to obtain government
contracts. In July, federal prosecutors told a court that,
following a review, they obtained authorization to proceed to trial
against Carl Zaglin on FCPA charges related to a bribery scheme to
obtain lucrative contracts with the Honduran National Police. DOJ
also secured a guilty plea earlier this year from Christian
Patricio Pintado Garcia, who admitted to conspiracy to commit money
laundering in connection with bribes paid to officials at
Ecuadorian state-owned insurance companies.
State AG, U.S. Congressional Committee Signal Interest in Taking on FCPA Violations
Although only the DOJ and SEC have the power to enforce the
FCPA, other authorities in the United States have suggested that
they will step in to fill any enforcement gap that may result from
the new administration's policies.
In April, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a legal alert reminding businesses operating
in California that, regardless of the Trump administration's
priorities for FCPA enforcement, it is illegal under California law
to make payments to foreign government officials to obtain or
retain business. The California AG noted that violations of the
FCPA may be actionable under California's Unfair Competition
Law, which was "enacted to preserve fair business competition
and protect consumers, [and] prohibits unlawful, unfair, and
fraudulent business acts and practices."
In February, the ranking member of the U.S. House of
Representatives Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party sent a letter to the American Chamber of
Commerce in the People's Republic of China cautioning against
FCPA violations during any pause in FCPA enforcement by the
Executive Branch. The letter stressed that "Congress retains
full authority to investigate corrupt acts by U.S. businesses in
China" and stated that "any company contemplating relying
on the recent executive order to loosen internal policies or
procedures regarding improper payments to government officials in
the PRC should think twice."
Second Circuit Holds, in FIFA Case, That Honest Services Fraud Statute Can Cover Foreign Commercial Bribery
On July 2, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reinstated the convictions of two defendants who had been
acquitted, post-trial, of conspiracy to commit honest services wire
fraud in connection with the "notorious FIFA corruption
scandal."
The Second Circuit ruled that the District Court was wrong to throw
out jury verdicts on the ground that the honest services fraud
statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1346, does not cover foreign commercial
bribery — here, bribes paid to international soccer officials
in exchange for media rights. The appeals court explained that
"the nature of Defendants' conduct (bribery), coupled with
the character of the relationship between the bribed officials and
the organizations to whom they owed a duty of loyalty
(employer-employee relationships), place the schemes presumptively
within the scope of § 1346." The court went on to say
that "the foreign identity of certain organizations"
— including FIFA and member associations — "does
not remove the schemes from the ambit of § 1346, especially
where, as here, relevant conduct occurred in the United States, for
the benefit of United States-based executives and organizations
..., and the victims were multinational organizations with global
operations and significant ties to the United States."
United States v. Lopez, 23-7183-cr (L) (2d Cir. July 2,
2025). This case serves as a reminder that while FCPA does not
proscribe commercial bribery, other U.S. criminal laws may.
DOJ Obtains Convictions in Domestic Bribery Cases
While the FCPA targets bribery of foreign officials, bribery of
domestic government officials is of course also illegal in the
United States. Despite dropping federal corruption charges against
New York City's mayor, DOJ has followed through on prosecutions
of both bribe takers and payers this year.
In January, former U.S. Senator Robert Menendez was sentenced to 11 years in prison for bribery,
foreign agent registration, and obstruction of justice offenses.
His wife, who also was convicted on related federal bribery charges,
awaits sentencing.
In February, a jury found Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan
guilty of bribery, conspiracy, and wire fraud in connection with a
scheme to help pass legislation favorable to Commonwealth Edison
(ComEd), an electric utility company. ComEd previously had admitted
to federal criminal and civil violations for having arranged jobs
and contracts for associates of Speaker Madigan. Speaker Madigan
has been sentenced to seven and a half years in
prison.
In June, DOJ announced four individual guilty pleas and two
corporate deferred prosecution agreements stemming from a
decade-long scheme to bribe a U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) government contracting officer in exchange for
help with the award of more than $550 million in USAID contracts.
Bribes funneled to the contracting officer included cash, laptops,
expensive tickets to an NBA game, a country club wedding, down
payments on residential mortgages, cell phones, and jobs for
relatives. The officer pleaded guilty to bribery of a public
official, while three businessmen pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
commit bribery of a public official, with one also pleading guilty
to securities fraud. Vistant and Apprio, Inc. — the two
contracting companies involved in the scheme — admitted to
bribery, conspiracy, and securities fraud as part of their
three-year deferred prosecution agreements. The companies also
resolved related Civil False Claims Act investigations with
DOJ.
International Developments
In March, following President Trump's directive limiting
FCPA enforcement, authorities in the United Kingdom, France, and
Switzerland announced a new task force to strengthen
collaboration on efforts to tackle international bribery and
corruption. The U.K. Serious Fraud Office (SFO) subsequently announced that it also had joined the
International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre. The SFO also
updated its guidance on corporate cooperation and deferred
prosecution agreements.
On the enforcement front, in April, the SFO charged U.K.-based United Insurance Brokers
Limited with failing to prevent international bribery in connection
with reinsurance contracts in Ecuador, and disclosed an investigation into Blu-3 and
former associates of the global construction firm Mace Group on
suspicion of bribes paid in relation to the construction of a data
center in the Netherlands. For more from the United Kingdom, see
Arnold & Porter's UK Economic Crime Group: Enforcement
Update.
Brazil's Comptroller General of the Union, a civil
anti-corruption enforcement agency, announced a decision to fine the Japanese
company Toyo Engineering and its Brazilian subsidiary the
equivalent of nearly $100 million for bribery and fraud related to
the "Operation Car Wash" corruption scandal involving
Brazil's state-owned energy company, Petrobras. The companies
have said they will challenge the decision.
In other news from around the globe, Chinese authorities, in the
first half of 2025, made revisions to the Anti-Unfair Competition
Law, China's primary law for regulating commercial bribery.
Their revisions include the introduction of long-arm jurisdiction
over conduct outside China's borders. Chinese authorities also
published a final version of Compliance Guidelines for Healthcare
Companies to Prevent Commercial Bribery Risks. For more
information, see Arnold & Porter's China Compliance Update.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
