DOJ’s New FCPA Guidelines Shifts Enforcement Priorities to Focus on National Security and Economic Competitiveness

On June 9, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice released a memorandum titled “Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA),” formalizing an anticipated realignment of federal anti-corruption enforcement priorities. Issued by the deputy attorney general pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order 14209, the new guidance redefines DOJ’s approach to FCPA investigations and prosecutions, prioritizing national security and economic competitiveness, and focusing the use of federal law enforcement resources. This shift follows a 180-day pause on new FCPA matters imposed in February 2025, during which the DOJ conducted a top-to-bottom review of its FCPA enforcement practices. The June memorandum now indicates the administration’s conclusions from that review, marking a sharp departure from past enforcement norms.

Realigning FCPA Enforcement With National Priorities

The first and most sweeping change in the new guidelines is the prioritization of FCPA cases targeting cartel-linked and transnational criminal organization (“TCO”) corruption. In alignment with a January 2025 executive order designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, the DOJ instructs prosecutors to focus their efforts on cases where foreign bribery schemes are tied to criminal organizations that pose a direct threat to the United States. This includes misconduct involving bribes paid to foreign officials who facilitate cartel operations, cases involving shell companies and money laundering conduits linked to such entities, and efforts to finance or conceal the activities of TCOs. The DOJ explicitly de-emphasizes cases that lack such a connection, indicating that enforcement resources will steer toward dismantling corrupt networks that enable broader criminal threats to national security, foreign policy, and the “international order in the Western Hemisphere.”

Second, the DOJ clarifies that a central purpose of FCPA enforcement going forward will be to safeguard fair economic opportunities for U.S. companies. The memo acknowledges that corrupt actors who use bribery to obtain government contracts and commercial advantages often distort markets and disadvantage honest American competitors. Therefore, the DOJ will assess whether foreign bribery schemes resulted in identifiable harm to U.S. entities or individuals. If a bribe “deprived specific and identified U.S. entities of fair access to compete and/or resulted in economic injury to specific and identifiable American companies or individuals,” that case is more likely to be investigated or charged. Prosecutors are also directed to apply a similar framework to cases under the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act, which criminalizes the conduct of foreign officials who solicit bribes, particularly when their conduct affects U.S. businesses.

Addressing national security concerns forms a third pillar of FCPA enforcement. According to the guidelines, foreign bribery schemes that involve “defense, intelligence, or critical infrastructure” (such as rare earth minerals or deep-water port access) will receive heightened scrutiny. DOJ prosecutors are directed to prioritize actions that affect key national interests and may hinder the United States and its companies from sustaining strategic global advantages.

Finally, the DOJ carves out a distinction between “serious misconduct” and “routine business practices in other nations.” The guidelines emphasize that the DOJ should not direct enforcement efforts at “de minimis or low-dollar, generally accepted business courtesies” occurring in many foreign markets. The FCPA’s statutory exceptions and defenses regarding the facilitation of payments, bona fide business expenditures, and compliance with local law should be recognized and respected. Instead, enforcement should focus on high-dollar, deliberate bribery schemes, especially those involving sophisticated efforts to conceal payments, engage in fraud, or obstruct justice.

Structural and Procedural Reforms

The memo also includes structural guardrails to ensure compliance with the new enforcement philosophy. Going forward, all new FCPA investigations and prosecutions must be authorized by the assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division or a more senior DOJ official. Such centralized oversight will likely increase the consistency in how DOJ implements the guidelines. Additionally, prosecutors are now required to consider collateral consequences, including business disruption, harm to employees, and economic impacts, at all phases of the case, not just at resolution. This represents a departure from the earlier enforcement model, where such factors were typically weighed only at the penalty or settlement stage.

The memo also reaffirms the importance of prosecutorial discretion and the relevance of other internal guidelines, including the Principles of Federal Prosecution. Importantly, the DOJ notes that it retains the authority to continue, modify, or terminate pending matters based on the totality of the circumstances and considering the new guidance.

Implications for Ongoing and Future Cases

The most immediate consequence of the new guidance is on the DOJ’s ongoing review of all active FCPA enforcement matters. EO 14209 required the DOJ to examine each case initiated before the February pause, and the memo confirms that matters inconsistent with the new priorities may be closed or significantly narrowed. Companies currently under investigation should expect that prosecutors will revisit whether the alleged misconduct meets the newly articulated criteria for enforcement, resulting in the possibility of declinations, non-prosecution agreements, or more favorable resolutions for matters that are low in dollar value, not linked to TCOs, and lack a clear national security or economic injury nexus.

Companies can also expect a lower risk profile for certain types of international operations. The DOJ’s de-prioritization of routine hospitality, facilitation payments, and customary business courtesies suggests that multinational companies may want to refocus their compliance efforts on higher-risk conduct, particularly in geographies and sectors of national interest. However, companies operating in strategic industries — such as defense, energy, ports, and infrastructure — should prepare for heightened scrutiny and more aggressive enforcement. In particular, companies in these industries should increase their compliance efforts, particularly with respect to due diligence of their overseas business partners.

More broadly, the memo signals a return to a more tempered enforcement model. Companies that maintain robust compliance programs, document legitimate business expenditures, and respond proactively to internal issues may find the DOJ more willing to exercise discretion. But those who operate in high-risk jurisdictions, rely on opaque third-party intermediaries, or fail to investigate red flags remain at risk.

Prepare for DOJ Enforcement

The June 2025 memorandum reflects a significant departure from prior enforcement practice, aligning anti-corruption policy with the administration’s broader priorities of national security, economic growth, and streamlining law enforcement. While this approach will narrow the scope of traditional FCPA prosecutions, it also raises the stakes for companies operating in strategic sectors or in regions dominated by organized crime. Companies would be wise to reassess their risk profiles, reallocate compliance resources accordingly, and seek legal counsel to determine whether their current anti-corruption policies and procedures remain fit for purpose.