White Collar and Enforcement Outlook 2025

Within hours of her US Senate confirmation on February 5, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued 14 memoranda to all DOJ employees, shifting the DOJ’s focus toward national security priorities and reallocating investigative resources and personnel. These memoranda largely implement directives set forth in executive orders issued in the first days of the Trump Administration.

The DOJ’s new enforcement priorities include illegal immigration, human smuggling, and transnational crime organizations (TCOs), gangs, and cartels. In support of these priorities, the DOJ will prioritize Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) actions with connections to TCOs, gangs, and cartels, although it remains to be seen whether this prioritization will be to the exclusion of other enforcement actions, and if so, to what extent. In furtherance of the DOJ’s new priorities, Attorney General Bondi eliminated several task forces and enforcement units that were drawing resources elsewhere, including the National Security Division’s Corporate Enforcement Unit, the Foreign Influence Task Force, the KleptoCapture Task Force, and the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative.

In light of the DOJ’s new priorities, corporations should take the time and opportunity to reassess their (1) hiring and employment practices, particularly recordkeeping policies to ensure compliance with federal immigration laws; and (2) compliance programs to make sure strong internal controls are in place to detect terrorism financing, money laundering, and high-risk transactions in order to mitigate potential legal and financial risks.

The DOJ Sets Its Sights Beyond the Border With New National Security Priorities

Attorney General Bondi set forth a number of directives and initiatives to combat transnational organized crime, cartels and gangs, illegal immigration, and human trafficking and smuggling.

Transnational Organized Crime, Cartels, and Gangs

The focal point of the DOJ’s new priorities is its “ambitious and historic mission” to eliminate MS-13, TdA, and international drug cartels. The DOJ’s prioritization of TOCs, cartels, and gangs follows President Trump’s Executive Order 14157, “Designating Cartels and other Organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists,” issued on his first day in office, which creates a process to designate cartels and TCOs as terrorists.[1]

To achieve “total elimination” Attorney General Bondi issued a “Total Elimination of Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organization Directive” that provides guidance on charging decisions, removes “bureaucratic roadblocks,” directs prosecutors to focus on FCPA and FARA investigations with connections to TCOs, gangs, and cartels, and shifts resources.

Charging Priorities and Removal of “Bureaucratic Roadblocks”: Attorney General Bondi suggests it is prudent to deport, rather than prosecute, low-level investigative targets, and that it may not be worthwhile to seek foreign arrets and extraditions of targets eligible for safety-valve relief or minor role adjustments. For the 90 days following the directive, to enable aggressive prosecutions, the Attorney General suspended: (1) mandatory pre-indictment review for capital-eligible offenses for those alleged to be members or associates of cartels and TCOs; (2) approval requirements administered by NSD for the most serious terrorism charges and International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) charges; and (3) approval requirements administrated by the Violent Crime and Racketeering Section of the Criminal Division for filing racketeering charges and charges of violent crimes in aid of racketeering, targeting all cartels and TCOs.

FCPA and FARA Enforcement: The Attorney General directed the Criminal Division’s FCPA Unit to “prioritize investigations related to foreign bribery that facilitates the criminal operations of Cartels and TCOs,” such as “bribery of foreign officials to facilitate human smuggling and the trafficking of narcotics and firearms.” Attorney General Bondi called for US Attorneys’ Offices to “have full and immediate access to the most serious and broad charges that Congress has made available” and US Attorneys’ Offices no longer need to obtain approval from the Criminal Division for an FCPA investigation or prosecution if the case relates to foreign bribery associated with TCOs and Cartels.[2]

Attorney General Bondi also instructed the DOJ to limit and minimize its enforcement of violations of FARA unrelated to the goal of combatting cartels and TCOs. She directed FARA prosecutors to both limit the “[r]ecourse to criminal charges under the [FARA] and 18 U.S.C. § 951 to instances of alleged conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors” and to also “focus on civil enforcement, regulatory initiatives, and public guidance” rather than criminal prosecutions.[3]

Similarly, the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS) was directed to prioritize investigations, prosecutions, and asset forfeiture actions that target the activities of cartels and TCOs.

Diverting Resources and Dissolving Task Forces: Attorney General Bondi redirected resources, and directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to shift resources from alcohol- and tobacco-related enforcement to “widespread illegal immigration, dangerous cartels, [and] transnational organized crime.” This push to reallocate resources resulted in the dissolution of several DOJ task forces and enforcement units, including (1) the National Security Division Corporate Enforcement Unit, established during the Biden Administration to investigate corporate economic sanctions and export controls violations; (2) the Russia-Focused KleptoCapture Task Force and the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, created following the Russian invasion of Ukraine to enforce sanctions and export control restrictions on Russian oligarchs evading certain measures; and (3) the Foreign Influence Task Force, which was created in 2017 to police disinformation campaigns.

Immigration Enforcement

Immigration enforcement also promises to be a key aspect of DOJ’s new priorities. Attorney General Bondi instructed the DOJ to use “all available criminal statutes” to combat illegal immigration and to pursue charges related to criminal immigration-related violations when appropriate, consistent with “the core principle of pursuing the most serious, readily provable offenses.” She further instructed US Attorneys’ Offices to investigate any state and local actors who resist, obstruct, and otherwise fail to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests, and to assess potential prosecution, such as for obstructing federal functions. Each US Attorney’s Office is now required, on a quarterly basis, to report the number of immigration-related cases referrals, pending investigations and prosecutions, convictions, sentencings, and removals, and are also required to disclose any declination of immigration-related offenses.

Under Attorney General Bondi’s “Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives” “sanctuary jurisdictions” will not receive federal grants administrated by the DOJ. “Sanctuary jurisdictions” are defined to be “state or local jurisdictions that refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, refuse to certify compliance with § 1373, or willfully fail to comply with other applicable federal immigration laws.”[4] The memorandum calls for a review of grants subject to compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a), and funding agreements with non-governmental organizations that “support illegal aliens.” The memorandum also encourages enforcement actions against jurisdictions that impede lawful immigration operations and that facilitate violations of immigration laws.

Human Trafficking and Smuggling

The Attorney General also identified human trafficking and smuggling as a priority for the DOJ, and elevated the Joint Task Force Alpha, created to enhance enforcement efforts in Central and South America, to the Office of the Attorney General. Joint Task Force Alpha will support investigations and prosecutions and will deploy to US Attorneys’ Offices on the southern border.

On the Bench: SCOTUS Cases to Watch

With two highly anticipated decisions in Kousisis v. United States[5] and Thompson v. United States[6] coming this term, the Supreme Court may add to its growing list of rulings narrowing the scope of federal criminal fraud statutes[7], resolving two circuit splits along the way. Both cases could have significant implications on the scope of the federal fraud statutes.

Kousisis v. United States

In Kousisis, the Supreme Court is once again considering the scope of the wire fraud statute. The petitioners in Kousisis were charged with various counts of wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy, and false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349, and 1001, respectively, arising out of allegations of false statements made with respect to compliance with certain conditions of a government contract. According to the government, the petitioners fraudulently induced the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) to award, and pay under, two lucrative contracts that included a condition requiring participation of a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE). Even though the petitioners performed the work as promised, they did not comply with the contracts’ DBE requirements, and thus committed wire fraud, among other things. The petitioners argued that the government received the benefit of the bargain, and the only alleged harm — frustration of the government’s interest in promoting diversity through DBE contracting programs — is not a traditional property interest to support a wire fraud charge.

The question before the Supreme Court is, “Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme.”[8]

During oral argument on December 9, 2024, the Justices grappled with the bounds (or lack thereof) of the Government’s theory of the case. Petitioners argued that the government’s interpretation would be limitless, criminalizing everyday white lies, puffery, and other fraudulent promises to induce people to enter into transactions, even if there is no monetary loss. The Government pointed to the text of the statute where a financial-loss element is “nowhere to be found,” countering that the petitioners’ theory would eliminate the government’s ability to prosecute “paradigmatic fraud,” whereby people are deprived of their property based on fraudulent misrepresentations. Ultimately, the Justices appeared divided on the question as both sides were peppered with probing questions and difficult hypotheticals, the answers to which appeared satisfactory to no one. Whatever decision the Court reaches, it will likely have wide-ranging implications on the scope of the federal fraud statutes.

Thompson v. United States

In Thompson, the Supreme Court is set to answer “[w]hether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a ‘false statement’ for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.”[9]

Thompson was convicted with two counts of making false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1014. Between 2011 and 2014, Thompson took out three distinct loans from Washington Federal Bank for Savings, totaling $219,000. When the bank failed, a lending company sent Thompson an invoice for his total balance plus interest. In disputing the balance, Thompson stated that he had “borrowed $110,000” without mentioning the other amounts he had borrowed on the two additional loans.

Thompson argued that 18 U.S.C. § 1014 criminalizes only false statements, and that his statements were “misleading” but not “false.” In an unexpected turn during oral argument on January 14, 2025, the Government agreed that 18 U.S.C. § 1014 criminalizes false statements, not misleading ones. The Government instead argued that the Thompson case is about the definition of “false.” While some Justices suggested this was beyond the scope of the question presented, others entertained the question and attempted to clarify the implications of what it means for a statement to be “false,” “literally false,” “false in context,” and “misleading” under 18 U.S.C. § 1014. Thompson advocated for an objective definition of falsity, while the government argued that falsity is context-specific and the circumstances surrounding the statement should be considered, including what information the listener was seeking and what impression the speaker intended on giving when making the alleged false statement.

In light of the government’s concession that 18 U.S.C. § 1014 does not criminalize misleading statements, the Court’s ruling on the question presented should be straightforward, but whether the Court goes further and decides that falsity is a context-specific assessment will be one that could have broad implications for false-statements prosecutions in the future.

The DOJ’s DEI/DEIA Policies: Diversifying Areas of Enforcement

President Trump issued key executive orders aimed at Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEI/DEIA) programs. For example, Executive Order 14173 mandates that federal contractors and grantees certify they do not operate DEI/DEIA programs that violate federal anti-discrimination laws and directs the Attorney General to develop a strategic enforcement plan targeting private sector DEI/DEIA programs believed to be unlawful. Executive Order 14151 requires federal agencies to terminate all “equity-related” contracts and grants introduced, as well as any “illegal DEI” activities within the federal government.

Consistent with President Trump’s executive orders, the DOJ has prioritized efforts to dismantle DEI/DEIA initiatives in the private sector and at educational institutions that receive federal funds. Attorney General Bondi tasked the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and Office of Legal Policy to prepare a report by March 1concerning recommendations for enforcement actions against DEI/DEIA practices, including the proposal of criminal and civil compliance investigations. The DOJ also emphasized its commitment to eliminating what it deemed internal “illegal” DEIA policies and rescinding materials supporting race- or sex-based preferences.

Out With the Old: Rescission of Prior DOJ Guidance; In With the New: Working Groups and Task Forces

In addition to effectuating many of President Trump’s Executive Orders, Attorney General Bondi reinstituted prior Trump Administration guidance and established task forces and working groups.

Rolling Back Environmental Justice Policies

As part of the Trump Administration’s overall shift in environmental policy, it released the Executive Order entitled “Initial Rescission of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions” and revoked previous Executive Orders[10] deemed by the Trump Administration to be promoting “climate extremism.” In support, Attorney General Bondi issued a memorandum rescinding prior memoranda, guidance, and directives that implemented the Biden Administration’s “environmental justice” initiative.

In addition, Attorney General Bondi issued a memorandum that: (1) reinstated the prohibition on improper third-party settlements; (2) rescinded the May 5, 2022, Memorandum from the Attorney General entitled “Guidelines and Limitations for Settlement Agreements Involving Payments to Non-Governmental Third Parties”; and (3) rescinded the July 28, 2023, Memorandum from the Assistant Attorney General for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division entitled “Community Service Payments in Environmental Crimes Cases.” Attorney General Bondi’s memorandum signals a realignment with the previous Trump DOJ initiatives prohibiting such third-party settlements.

Rescinding Reliance of DOJ Guidance Documents

Attorney General Bondi also rescinded a Biden-era policy that allowed DOJ attorneys to utilize agency guidance documents in furtherance of enforcement actions. This change is aligned with a 2018 memorandum issued by Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, that prohibited the DOJ from using guidance documents, or noncompliance with guidance documents, as the basis to initiate enforcement actions.

Establishment of Working Groups

Attorney General Bondi established the Joint Task Force October 7 (JTF 10-7) to seek justice for victims of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack in Israel, in part by pursuing criminal charges against the perpetrators and those responsible for funding Hamas. The memorandum suspends Justice Manual § 9-13.525, which required prior approval from the DOJ’s Office of Internal Affairs before issuing subpoenas or other unilateral compulsory measures regarding evidence or information located abroad. This directive will allow the JTF 10-7 to issue administrative subpoenas to foreign banks with correspondent accounts in the United States without prior approval from Main Justice in Washington, DC.

Additionally, Attorney General Bondi established the Weaponization Working Group to “identify instances where a department’s or agency’s conduct appears to have been designed to achieve political objectives or other improper aims” over the last four years. The memorandum enumerates objectives to examine, including improper investigative tactics and unethical prosecutions related to the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack; a review of Special Counsel Jack Smith and his staff related to search warrant execution at President Trump’s home; and the extent of federal cooperation with New York officials in their pursuit of President Trump, and his family and businesses.

Key Takeaways

• In light of the DOJ’s focus on immigration, corporations should assess their current hiring and employment policies and practices and remain vigilant to ensure that such policies and practices comply with federal immigration law. Corporations should also make sure that their recordkeeping policies provide for the preservation and retention of relevant documents, such as Form I-9 policies.
• Corporations operating in regions believed to have a strong presence of TCOs and cartels, such as Mexico and certain areas of Latin America, should remain vigilant in their direct and indirect interactions, engagements, and transactions with foreign officials and entities, given the history of allegations concerning the intersection between cartel members and the government and other legitimate industries.
• Corporations, particularly financial institutions, need to ensure they have an adequate due diligence and compliance program with strong internal controls to detect terrorism financing, money laundering, and high-risk transactions in order to mitigate potential legal and financial risks. Such a compliance program should include risk-based programs and assessments; a BSA/AML and terrorism financing compliance program; a robust consumer identification program, like Know-Your-Customer; due diligence and enhanced due diligence; suspicious activity monitoring and reporting; transaction-based and surveillance systems; and sanctions screening procedures and sanction control compliance program.
• Although it remains to be seen whether the DOJ’s prioritization of FCPA cases connected to TCOs and cartels will be to the exclusion of traditional FCPA prosecutions, all global companies should ensure that they have strong compliance programs, internal controls, policies, and measures in place to both prevent and detect involvement with foreign corruption and also to comply with foreign agent registration laws. The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has civil enforcement authority under the FCPA, and as of now, the SEC has not issued any guidance directing changes to its enforcement priorities. Plus, the FCPA’s statute of limitations is five years, and, as a result, violations could be pursued if there is a shift during the Trump Administration or by subsequent administrations. Finally, conduct that violates the FCPA could also give rise to False Claims Act liability, and companies are still bound by the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act, which was designed to supplement the FCPA.