FCPA Enforcement Pause is a Cause for Rededication—Not Retreat On Bribery and Corruption Front

A recent announcement by President Donald J. Trump regarding the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) has sparked considerable debate among compliance professionals and corporate executives alike. The directive to temporarily pause FCPA enforcement—coupled with a broader shift in prosecutorial focus toward bribery that facilitates transnational criminal activity—has led some to question whether companies should reassess their compliance obligations in light of these changes. 

However, any perception that these developments justify a relaxation of internal controls is fundamentally misguided. The statutory prohibitions imposed by the FCPA remain intact, and past enforcement trends indicate that regulatory priorities are cyclical. Organizations that allow temporary policy shifts to dictate their approach to compliance may find themselves dangerously exposed when enforcement inevitably resumes.

Remaining Committed to Anti-Corruption

As a result, companies should remain steadfast in their anti-corruption commitments, recognizing that regulatory risk transcends immediate enforcement priorities and encompasses obligations under foreign anti-bribery regimes, contractual requirements imposed by business partners, and reputational considerations that cannot be easily mitigated once damaged.

Among other things, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has now been instructed to prioritize investigations where bribery facilitates organized criminal enterprises engaged in human smuggling, narcotics and firearms trafficking, hacking, and cybercrime. While this directive signals a shift in prosecutorial focus, it does not preclude the DOJ from pursuing traditional FCPA cases where egregious misconduct is uncovered. Companies with operations in high-risk jurisdictions must recognize that enforcement remains a distinct possibility, particularly where corporate misconduct intersects with these high-priority crimes. 

Moreover, the risk of enforcement is not confined to U.S. authorities. Regulatory counterparts abroad—including most notably the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”)—continue to aggressively pursue anti-bribery investigations, particularly in cases involving multinational corporations. The notion that a temporary shift in U.S. enforcement policy creates an opportunity for companies to scale back compliance efforts is not only legally unsound but also strategically shortsighted.

Looking Beyond the Short-Term

Issued on February 10, 2025, the President’s executive order directs the DOJ to suspend enforcement of the FCPA until further notice. While this measure may delay certain investigations and prosecutions, it does not alter the legal obligations imposed by federal statute. Companies must recognize that compliance failures occurring during this period will not be permanently insulated from scrutiny. If enforcement priorities shift under a future administration—or if regulatory authorities determine that past conduct merits retroactive action—organizations that have neglected their anti-corruption controls could face significant consequences.

Additionally, beyond government enforcement, companies must consider the contractual obligations imposed by commercial partners, many of whom require adherence to anti-bribery policies as a condition of doing business. 

Weakening compliance measures in response to short-term enforcement pauses may have unintended consequences, including the loss of key business relationships and increased scrutiny from investors and stakeholders.

In addition to the enforcement pause, the Attorney General has been tasked with developing new guidance intended to “promote American competitiveness” before FCPA enforcement resumes. The precise scope of this initiative remains unclear, and any assumption that it will result in permanent deregulation is premature. Historically, changes in enforcement policy have been subject to significant political and legal challenges, and compliance professionals should expect a degree of volatility in the coming months. 

While some companies may be tempted to interpret this announcement as an indication that compliance is no longer a pressing priority, such a view ignores the broader global enforcement landscape. Anti-corruption enforcement has become increasingly internationalized, and multinational corporations remain subject to a host of foreign regulations that impose stringent compliance obligations. 

Implications at the SEC

Although the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) is not directly affected by the Attorney General’s directive, recent procedural changes requiring a majority vote from SEC commissioners before initiating formal investigations could slow the agency’s ability to pursue FCPA cases. This development adds an additional layer of complexity to the FCPA risk equation, but it does not eliminate the SEC’s authority over corporate bribery cases that implicate securities laws. 

The SEC has long maintained a focus on corporate governance and internal controls, and companies should expect that any lapses in anti-corruption compliance will continue to attract regulatory scrutiny. Even in the absence of immediate enforcement actions, organizations must ensure that they are adequately documenting their compliance efforts, as failure to do so could present challenges in the event of a future investigation.

Navigating Uncertainty

Despite the current pause in enforcement, prudent organizations will continue to maintain robust anti-bribery and corruption policies and procedures. Compliance should never be viewed as a function dictated solely by immediate enforcement trends, but rather as a core component of a company’s long-term operational integrity. Companies that maintain strong internal controls will be better positioned to withstand regulatory fluctuations, avoid reputational damage, and mitigate the significant financial and operational risks associated with bribery and corruption. 

While the shifting enforcement landscape may create temporary uncertainty, history has demonstrated that regulatory priorities can change abruptly, often with little advance notice. Organizations that remain committed to ethical business practices will not only ensure compliance with existing legal frameworks but will also foster a corporate culture that prioritizes transparency, integrity, and sustainable growth.

In addition to regulatory considerations, companies should weigh the operational and strategic risks associated with weakening anti-bribery compliance measures. A failure to maintain adequate internal controls can increase the likelihood of unethical conduct proliferating within an organization—particularly in industries and markets where corruption risks are endemic. 

Employees and third parties often take cues from leadership, and any perception that compliance is no longer a priority may embolden those inclined to engage in misconduct. 

Moreover, voluntary disclosure remains a key factor in mitigating potential enforcement actions, and companies that fail to detect and remediate bribery-related violations may find themselves without recourse if the enforcement landscape shifts abruptly.

The recent procedural changes at the SEC may introduce delays in FCPA investigations, but this should not be misinterpreted as a justification for complacency. Instead, this moment serves as a cause for rededication—not retreat—on the bribery and corruption front, reinforcing the need for companies to strengthen, rather than weaken, their anti-bribery and corruption controls as critical safeguards for long-term commercial viability.