• FCPA realignment injects uncertainty, selective enforcement, heightened compliance risk
• Western Hemisphere focus signals selective scrutiny of foreign competitors
• European enforcement cooperation grows, yet resource constraints limit effectiveness
• Shifting political priorities can turn temporary leniency into long-term liability

Released in December, the White House 2025 National Security Strategy (“NSS”) marked a clear break from decades of US foreign policy that tied American power to globalization, democratic norms, and stewardship of a rules‑based international order, instead defining America First leadership in narrowly economic and transactional terms.

This strategic shift has extended to a reassessment of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), the world’s first and most influential foreign anti-corruption law, which has become a cornerstone of a globalized economic system by promoting fair competition and democratic governance.

On 10 February 2025, President Donald J Trump paused enforcement of the FCPA, and ordered a Department of Justice (“DOJ”) review of its guidelines and enforcement policies.

The Trump administration’s skepticism of FCPA enforcement reflects a belief that anti-corruption norms constrain US leverage rather than advance national interests. The new approach to FCPA enforcement can be understood as a further movement away from the post-Cold War liberal order of international cooperation towards a transactional, case-by-case approach to international engagement that is far more unpredictable for companies operating across borders.

The recent special military operation that extradited Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from Caracas to New York City reflects this assertive America First posture in the Western Hemisphere, signaling a willingness to sidestep traditional international norms and raising questions about the credibility of continued US leadership on anti-corruption enforcement.

This new paradigm and the reorientation of the FCPA enforcement priorities raise immediate business and compliance risks by injecting uncertainty into the regulation of the global economy, especially in markets where US economic interests and geopolitical priorities intersect.

These risks include emboldened bribe-takers, inconsistent compliance standards, exposure to targeted enforcement, and the potential for corruption to undermine market integrity, public trust, and political stability if misconduct is exposed.

The Revised FCPA Guidelines

On 9 June 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche published a memorandum entitled “Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the FCPA,” building on Attorney General Pam Bondi’s earlier America First enforcement directives memo. The new guidelines outlined four factors that should be considered when evaluating whether to pursue FCPA investigations and enforcement:[1]

1. Total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (“TCOs”)
2. Safeguarding fair opportunities for US companies
3. Advancing US national security
4. Prioritizing investigations into serious misconduct

The updated guidelines referenced in the Blanche memo imply a sharper focus on foreign companies, especially those deemed to be undermining American competitiveness or national security. It also reemphasizes a strategic focus on combatting cartels or TCOs as part of the administration’s priority to secure its influence over the Western Hemisphere.

While the memo maintains that enforcement decisions will not be tied to a violator’s nationality, the focus on protecting opportunities for US companies demonstrates the DOJ’s intention to investigate markets of strategic interest where foreign companies may be using bribery to gain an edge on US competitors.

The guidelines also imply a more limited enforcement scope that aims to curb “overbroad and unchecked” enforcement of white-collar crime, including investigating low-dollar routine business practices, that “burdens US businesses and harms US interests.”[2]

Logistically, initiating an FCPA investigation will now require approval from the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division or a more senior DOJ official who will work to ensure that resources are focused on cases that fit America First priorities.

At the conference, representatives from the DOJ insisted that the FCPA was not going anywhere and that enforcement will remain a priority but under a recalibrated America First orientation focused on cartels, TCOs, and national security threats. They also outlined a framework prioritizing individual accountability, voluntary disclosure, and cooperation over corporate monitorship.

For companies operating in high-risk jurisdictions, an immediate concern is whether the pause and subsequent shift in FCPA enforcement will embolden potential bribe-takers to escalate their solicitation efforts.

In the past, deferring to compliance with the FCPA became a useful excuse to dismiss bribery requests.

Will companies that previously maintained a zero-tolerance stance on bribery view the new enforcement guidelines as an opening to engage with government officials in ways they would not have considered before?

Key Changes, Consequences, and Risk Areas

1. Reorientation of U.S. Enforcement in the Western Hemisphere

The NSS clearly articulates the realignment of US resources towards the Western Hemisphere, and enforcement of the FCPA should be expected to focus on bribery and associated money laundering in tandem with military assets in Latin America as a matter of national security.

As the “Donroe Doctrine” builds on the logic of the Monroe Doctrine to assert American primacy in shaping outcomes throughout the Western Hemisphere, FCPA enforcement will fit into this strategy that combines military pressure with economic coercion in pursuit of broad national security objectives.

Under this framework, enforcement tools traditionally associated with market integrity – such as the FCPA – can function as a source of leverage in the broader pressure campaign to influence political and economic alignment in the region. The administration has framed instability, migration, and cartel activity in the Western Hemisphere as national security threats, and anti-corruption enforcement may increasingly intersect with efforts to influence the behavior of governments viewed as uncooperative or resistant to US interests. The willingness to pursue unilateral measures, as seen in the recent military action in Venezuela, suggests that legal and regulatory tools may be deployed selectively to advance US objectives rather than sustain predictable regulatory expectations. For companies operating in these environments, this shift blurs the lines between compliance risk and geopolitical risk.

In addition, Trump’s designation of cartels and TCOs as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (“FTOs”) represents a significant increase in legal and compliance risks: companies could face liability for materially supporting a terrorist organization, even if unintentionally.[3] Standard due diligence will often be insufficient in these environments, and companies must rely on local knowledge and robust investigative practices to identify red flags, such as opaque ownership structures, unexplained wealth, and extortion payments disguised as routine business expenses or charitable donations.

Conference participants highlighted that cartels in Mexico are deeply integrated into the local economy, ranking as the country’s fifth-largest employer, making exposure to these organizations nearly unavoidable in certain regions of Mexico.

It should also be understood that within the FCPA unit, any case involving a cartel touchpoint will command significant attention and enforcement would be viewed as a victory for the administration.

2. The FCPA as a Foreign Policy Instrument

The guidelines also shift investigatory resources toward foreign government officials through the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act while inviting US companies to help build cases against foreign officials. Could the guidelines’ wording suggest that enforcement – or the decision not to enforce – against foreign companies and officials might hinge on advancing US policy objectives?

The FCPA has been used by previous administrations to advance policy goals including by President GW Bush, who used the FCPA to combat terrorism financing as part of the war on terror, and President Obama, who oversaw ramped up FCPA enforcement in developing countries in line with his human rights agenda.

The conference also touched on using the FCPA to combat terrorism financing during a panel that discussed the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, noting that post-war and conflict zones often attract significant investment but remain highly vulnerable to corruption.

How the Trump administration assesses post-conflict environments, such as Ukraine or other war or disaster-affected areas, will likely define the scope and intensity of FCPA enforcement. Perceived value factors such as investment opportunities and broader economic or geopolitical significance could determine whether corruption is aggressively policed or largely tolerated.

Compliance officers warned that business-driven actors might interpret Washington’s tone as a signal that influence-seeking practices are no longer the serious regulatory risks they once were.

They acknowledged that enforcement of smaller, “retail-level” gift-giving would likely be relaxed but cautioned that loosening compliance standards in response makes it challenging to implement consistent protocols across large, multinational organizations. The audience was also reminded of the standard five-year statute of limitations for FCPA violations.

3. International response

With the DOJ narrowing its focus on FCPA enforcement, the United Kingdom, France, and Switzerland formed the International Anti-Corruption Prosecutorial Task Force in March 2025 to leverage shared resources and expertise The UK’s Serious Fraud Office recently received additional resources, expanding its crypto-related investigation and enforcement capabilities, despite its government’s tight fiscal environment. French and Swiss resources are comparatively less robust, with France’s National Financial Prosecution Office being comprised of about 20 people that mostly investigate tax evasion.

While the sharing of practical information will surely enhance investigatory capabilities, representatives from the taskforce present at the conference recognized that it was still finding its footing and would not immediately fill any void left by the US DOJ.

Some panelists offering an outside perspective were skeptical that the countries making up the task force would truly “link arms” to enforce anti-corruption and questioned if they have the resources to pursue the task force’s goals in a meaningful way. After the NSS explicitly called on European nations to devote more of their budget to defense spending, it could be expected that resources for the agencies that the task force depends on will become even more limited.

The practice of sharing FCPA settlement money with foreign regulators through coordinated resolutions may help explain the Trump administration’s skepticism about how the law was being enforced and whether it fits into an America First agenda. Given this shift in priorities, it may lead the Trump administration to be less interested in engaging in coordinated anti-corruption enforcement efforts that channel substantial penalty money to foreign authorities, especially if the money is coming from US companies.

4. Impact on future enforcement actions and recent cases learnings

The consensus of the conference was that despite the resumption of activity on a cadence in line with recent years, no distinct changes in enforcement policy could be gleaned from decisions made on current or recently closed cases. A panel of former FCPA prosecutors found it revealing that multiple high-level DOJ officials were present at the conference but were not convinced by the common refrain that operational changes at the DOJ were a “pivot not a sea change.”

DOJ officials touted its more robust voluntary self-disclosure procedures and for the first time highlighted the over 1,000 self-disclosures that had already been submitted in 2025. The FCPA unit chief, David Fuhr, while noting that bribery by a US company can undermine US interests, did not make predictions about how the new guidelines will impact enforcement actions. Also, considering the lead-up time necessary to resolve a case, most active cases were opened during the previous administrations, so it’s more difficult to identify a solidified philosophy from decisions made on them.

However, the case of Smartmatic illustrates that FCPA enforcement continues, but can be influenced by political considerations. Smartmatic, a UK-based election technology company, became an enemy of Trump and his base after Trump falsely accused the company of rigging the 2020 US presidential election. In October 2025, Smartmatic was indicted under the FCPA, after Trump’s chief Miami prosecutor terminated settlement talks, for allegations involving bribing government officials in the Philippines. The indictment also works to complicate Smartmatic’s USD 2.7 defamation lawsuit against Fox News related to the election rigging claims. This current FCPA case highlights how the new guidelines could allow enforcement to be guided by political dynamics and perceived loyalty or opposition to the administration.

Conclusion

As it approaches its 50^th anniversary, the FCPA is being reconsidered at a moment when the US is reassessing its role in the global economy, echoing the environment that shaped its original passage. Support for the law emerged in the aftermath of Watergate and a series of corporate bribery scandals in the 1970’s that revealed how corruption – once exposed – could destabilize governments, undermine institutional legitimacy, and damage US credibility abroad. In the years that followed, the FCPA represented a US commitment to restraining its own companies in order to preserve trust in global markets and democratic governance.

The second Trump administration’s America First approach reflects a different understanding of what the FCPA is meant to achieve and how US regulatory power should be exercised. Within a broader step back from its role as a steward of the international rules-based order, the administration appears to be positioning FCPA enforcement as a tool that can be applied selectively, with an emphasis on cases that align with strategic economic and policy objectives aimed at protecting American competitiveness.

This shift toward a zero-sum, America First posture for the FCPA motivated by foreign policy priorities over traditional anti-corruption principles only underscores why robust due diligence and risk assessment processes are so valuable. Companies exposed to industries that fall into the reoriented US geopolitical objectives, such as those with vulnerability to cartel/TCO touchpoints or exposure to critical natural resources cultivation, may find themselves subjected to heightened regulatory attention.

History suggests that periods of restrained enforcement are often followed by renewed scrutiny. A perceived softening of FCPA enforcement may embolden bribe-takers and influence-seeking, but such behaviour – once uncovered – has repeatedly prompted political backlash and intensified enforcement. For companies and investors operating across high-risk jurisdictions, short-term flexibility gained in a period of relaxed enforcement may carry long-term consequences as enforcement priorities, administrations, and global norms continue to evolve.

Blackpeak is trusted by top financial institutions globally, with a specialized due diligence approach to comprehensively assess risks; from discreet investigations to desktop research, industry interviews and site visits. We ensure each opportunity is leveraged for optimal outcomes and delivers to you actionable insights that drive informed decision-making.

Want to learn more about how Blackpeak can help you?

Get expert guidance now by connecting with one of our specialists.

[1]     https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1403031/dl

[2]     https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1400046/dl?inline

[3]     https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially-designated-global-terrorists/