The Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has signaled a narrower approach to enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), focusing on cases that involve clear and substantial threats to U.S. interests. While the practical effects are still evolving, this shift likely means a meaningful contraction—or at least reprioritization—of U.S. anti-bribery enforcement.
As the U.S. steps back, non-U.S. regulators are increasingly positioned and eager to take the lead in fighting global corruption.
Cross-border anti-corruption enforcers gain muscle
When DOJ reduces its prosecution in certain areas, state attorneys general and other regulators often step in. This familiar pattern is now playing out internationally.
Foreign anti-corruption regimes have grown stronger and more sophisticated. Brazil’s Clean Companies Act is now central to the country’s anti-corruption efforts. French authorities, empowered by the Sapin II Law, have aggressively pursued foreign companies with modest links to France and continue to refine their approach to corporate oversight and resolutions. Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act is producing more sophisticated cases, supported by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s International Anti-Corruption Unit. German prosecutors, especially at the state level, are increasingly assertive and collaborate closely with EU and international partners. The U.K. Bribery Act remains one of the toughest anti-bribery laws and is central to the Serious Fraud Office’s cross-border enforcement.
International anti-corruption efforts are developing not only doctrinally but also through investigative alliances across borders. As the U.S. reduces enforcement, foreign regulators have both the incentive and the jurisdictional runway to pursue cases once mainly handled by DOJ. Less U.S. pressure does not eliminate misconduct risk; it simply shifts enforcement to other countries.
Multinational investigations also offer foreign authorities political and financial benefits. For Brazil, France, Canada, Germany, and the U.K., assuming a larger role in global anti-bribery enforcement is feasible and strategically advantageous.
Eagerness to pursue U.S. companies
As enforcement becomes more multipolar, foreign regulators are increasingly willing to pursue investigations involving U.S. companies. Expanded jurisdictional theories, enhanced coordination, and growing enforcement confidence mean that multinational companies face sustained scrutiny even if DOJ activity declines.
Parting thoughts
Companies should not conflate DOJ’s reduced FCPA enforcement with diminished global risk. Instead, compliance programs, third-party oversight, internal investigation protocols, and cross-border reporting mechanisms must be recalibrated to address a more complex, multipolar enforcement environment.
Even if the Trump DOJ scales back FCPA enforcement and adopts a more protectionist approach, international prosecutors stand ready to keep the global anti-corruption landscape active and unforgiving.
More in-depth analysis can be found in the article “Anti-bribery and Corruption Compliance Programs” from The Complete Compliance and Ethics Manual (CCEM).