Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Lite Shouldn’t Corrupt Your Thinking

The United States (U.S.) Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which came into being in 1977, “prohibits bribery of foreign officials by individuals and companies with a U.S. nexus to obtain business advantages.”[1]  It was enacted in following investigations into bribery of Asian and European officials by companies such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop, and Mobil Oil.[2]  The act established American leadership in anti-bribery enforcement, encouraged other countries to adopt anti-corruption laws, and became “a powerful deterrent” against corporate misbehaviors.[3]  On February 10, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order to pause the FCPA and revise its enforcement.  He stated the law was “a disaster…[and] has made it very hard…to make deals.”  The White House said the FCPA makes U.S. companies “less competitive, putting them at a disadvantage in critical minerals and other infrastructure sectors.”[4]  The order was to be in effect for 180 days, during which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorney General would develop updated enforcement guidelines.[5]

The day after Trump issued his EO, the international non-governmental organization (NGO) Transparency International (TI) called it “a major blow to the fight against foreign bribery worldwide.”  It pointed out that since the FCPA was internationalized in 1997 with countries adopting the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Anti-Bribery Convention, the U.S. halt on the FCPA enforcement would jeopardize its commitments to the Convention and the United Nations (UN) Convention against Corruption.[6]

U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued revised FCPA guidelines on June 9, 2025.[7]  They ordered prosecutors to focus on those cases which “(1) involve cartels or transnational criminal organizations, (2) show direct economic harm to identifiable American companies, (3) threaten U.S. national security, or (4) show clear evidence of individual corrupt intent.”[8]  These essentially directed prosecutors to work on cases that advance U.S. national interests.[9]  

Public Citizen criticized the new guidelines, saying it formalized DOJ’s “retreat from enforcing the law when American corporations violate” the FCPA, and “[this] gift from the Trump administration to corrupt multinational corporations would be an outrage at any time, but it is particularly heinous that these authoritarians are simultaneously legalizing corporate crime.”[10]

Matthew Galeotti, former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Criminal Division, noted FCPA enforcement was “still ‘in the mix’” though it “may not be ‘a priority.’”[11]  Not a priority indeed!  Between February and June, the DOJ did not announce any enforcement actions, dismissed at least four cases on its books, and cut the prosecution team’s resources.[12]  Moreover, the administration gutted the government’s ability to investigate and prosecute cases.  The DOJ’s FCPA Unit headcount dropped from 32 prosecutors in 2024 to 22 in 2025.[13]  The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced in April 2025 that it was implementing a “targeted reorganization” of the Division of Enforcement which had a FCPA Unit.[14]

Business executives should not assume the U.S. government’s relaxed stance makes it safe to give cash filled envelopes!  After all, the U.S. Congress is closely watching.  Evidencing this, on February 11, 2025, Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on China) sent a letter to the American Chamber of Commerce in China, warning its member companies not to bribe officials in China.[15]  He stressed the FCPA provides a five or six-year statute of limitations, depending on the nature of the offense, and Congress will investigate any corruption by companies that may try to take advantage of the enforcement pause.[16]  This March, a group of U.S. Democratic senators introduced Senate Bill 4029 to strengthen the FCPA’s enforcement by extending its statute of limitations to 10 versus the current 5 years.[17]  S.B. 4029 would ensure that a future administration would have time to investigate and prosecute violations that take place “during the current period of reduced enforcement.”[18]

Aside from the U.S. Congress, state officials are keeping an eye out.  For example, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a formal legal advisory on April 2, 2025, reminding firms operating in the state that violations of the FCPA remained subject to prosecution under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).  Under the UCL, the California Attorney General could seek civil penalties, restitution, injunctive relief, and disgorgement. Attorneys in other states have expressed a willingness to “fill perceived enforcement gaps.”[19]

Non-compliance with the FCPA and anti-corruption statutes can be quite costly as a few examples make vividly clear.  In 2016, Brazilian petrochemical firms Odebrecht and Braskem pleaded guilty to paying hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes and agreed to pay at least $3.5 billion in penalties.  Four years later, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. agreed to pay over $2.6 billion in association with an investigation into bribes paid to Malaysian and Abu Dhabi officials to obtain lucrative business deals.  The French aerospace company Airbus SE also has been fined under the FCPA, with it having to pay more than $3.9 billion in damages related to using third-party business partners to bribe officials and non-government airline executives in China.[20]

There are other downsides to reduced strictures and dirty dealings.  As for the former, industry experts Rohitesh Dhawan and Suneeta Kaimal note that, without the FCPA, U.S. mining firms could become targets for bribery demands more than other foreign firms.  As for the latter, research shows bribery “drives up costs, slows down production, delays projects, and wreaks havoc with employee and community relations,” instead of helping governments or companies dominate markets and win more deals.[21]  In short, don’t let FCPA Lite Corrupt Your Thinking!

[1] Alice Johnson, “Trump’s ‘America First’ Stamp on Foreign Bribery Enforcement,” International Bar Association, September 25, 2025, https://www.ibanet.org/Trump%E2%80%99s-America-First-stamp-on-foreign-bribery-enforcement.

[2] Ahmad Syarif, “US Corporations and the Politics of Compliance in Southeast Asia,” East Asia Forum, March 28, 2025, https://eastasiaforum.org/2025/03/28/us-corporations-and-the-politics-of-compliance-in-southeast-asia.

[3] Johnson, “Trump’s ‘America First’ Stamp on Foreign Bribery Enforcement.”

[4] The former quote is from Johnson, “Trump’s ‘America First’ Stamp on Foreign Bribery Enforcement;” while the latter is from Syarif, “US Corporations and the Politics of Compliance in Southeast Asia.”  There might be more nefarious behind the administration’s FCPA softening.  Government ethics advocate NGO Public Citizen reported it dropped FCPA investigations against companies that made contributions to Trump’s inauguration.  These included Cognizant, Ericsson, Pfizer, and Toyota.  Public Citizen, “Trump’s Inauguration Donor Pool Includes $50 Million in Contributions from Corporations Under Investigation or Facing Federal Enforcement,” April 21, 2025, https://www.citizen.org/news/trumps-corporate-inauguration-donor-pool-littered-with-federal-investigations-enforcement-lawsuits.

[5] Ibid.;” and Dentons, “FCPA Enforcement Update,” Dentons, March 24, 2026, https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2026/march/24/fcpa-enforcement-update.

[6] TI, “U.S. Pausing of Foreign Bribery Enforcement will Harm Economies and Governance Worldwide,” February 11, 2025, https://www.transparency.org/en/press/us-pausing-of-foreign-bribery-enforcement-will-harm.

[7] Dentons, “FCPA Enforcement Update.”

[8] Richard Nephew, “A year Later – What Did the Pause on FCPA Enforcement Do?” Just Security, March 10, 2026, https://www.justsecurity.org/133481/year-later-fcpa-enforcement-pause.

[9] Dentons, “FCPA Enforcement Update.”

[10] Public Citizen, “DOJ Won’t Prosecute Corporate Bribery Schemes Overseas,” June 10, 2025, https://www.citizen.org/news/doj-wont-prosecute-corporate-bribery-schemes-overseas/.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Johnson, “Trump’s ‘America First’ stamp on foreign bribery enforcement.”

[13] Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, “FCPA Enforcement and Anti-Corruption Developments: 2025 Year in Review,” January 27, 2026, https://www.paulweiss.com/media/w3mhvyng/fcpa_enforcement_and_anti_corruption_developments_2025_year_in_review.pdf.

[14] Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, “FCPA Enforcement and Anti-Corruption Developments.”

[15] Select Committee on the CCP (Democrats), “Krishnamoorthi Warns U.S. Companies Not to Bribe Officials in China in the Wake of Executive Order Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement,” February 11, 2025, https://democrats-selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/media/press-releases/krishnamoorthi-warns-us-companies-not-bribe-officials-china-wake-executive.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Alexander Bolton, “Democrats eye extending foreign bribery statute of limitations,” The Hill, March 9, 2026, https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5775069-foreign-corrupt-practices-act-statute-limitations-democrats.

[18] Dentons, “FCPA Enforcement Update.”  They note that it remains to be seen, however, if the current Congress will pass the bill.

[19] Dentons, “FCPA Enforcement Update.”

[20] Madison A. Gregg and Alden Hey, “Top 5 Largest Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Cases,” Miller Shah, LLC, February 2, 2026, https://millershah.com/blog/top-5-fcpa-cases.

[21] Rohitesh Dhawan and Suneeta Kaimal, “Why pause in U.S. Anti-corruption Enforcement will Hurt Mining Firms, not Help Them,” Reuters, April 9, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/why-pause-us-anti-corruption-enforcement-will-hurt-mining-firms-not-help-them-2025-04-09.