Recalibrating Compliance Programs Under Trump 2.0

Nearly two months into his second presidential term, President Trump and his Administration have engaged in a flurry of activity, issuing over 80 executive orders (EOs), 20 memoranda, and a dozen proclamations, as well as making personnel adjustments and redeploying various federal resources. Together with his Cabinet members, President Trump has sought to swiftly roll out policy initiatives, many of which reflect a significant change in course from the United States’ prior approaches and create uncertainty and new risks across multiple sectors.  

This article summarizes developments in four areas relevant to corporate compliance and risk mitigation arising from the latest priorities announced by the Administration: (i) a “pause” in the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the FCPA); (ii) the designation of certain drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations as “foreign terrorist organizations;” (iii) the enhanced scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs; and (iv) the implementation of new or additional tariffs on certain imports.  

Areas of Interest

1. Anti-Bribery and Corruption Enforcement 

On February 10, 2025, President Trump issued an EO pausing enforcement of the FCPA for an initial period of six months, and potentially an additional six months if deemed appropriate by Attorney General Pamela Bondi.  Specifically, the executive order directed AG Bondi to: 

• pause initiation of any new FCPA investigations or enforcement actions, unless AG Bondi determines that an individual exception should be made; 
• review in detail all existing FCPA investigations or enforcement actions and, where applicable, take action to “restore proper bounds” on FCPA enforcement and “preserve Presidential foreign policy prerogatives”; and 
• issue updated guidelines or policies to prioritize US interests and competitiveness with other nations and the efficient use of federal law enforcement resources. 

The executive order was released several days after AG Bondi had issued a memorandum directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Division’s FCPA Unit to: (i) prioritize investigations of alleged foreign bribery that facilitate criminal operations of cartels and transnational criminal organizations, including, for example, bribery of foreign officials to facilitate human smuggling and drug trafficking, and (ii) shift enforcement focus away from investigations and matters that do not have such a connection.  

While the EO and DOJ memorandum signal a change from the longstanding focal points of FCPA enforcement, it is important to note that anti-bribery and corruption compliance remains important for several reasons, including: 

• The FCPA remains the law.  The executive order reflects the Administration’s stated enforcement priorities but does not legalize or immunize conduct prohibited by the FCPA.
• The statute of limitations applicable to FCPA violations (five years) extends beyond the four-year term of the current Administration.  The subsequent presidential administration may have different enforcement priorities and decide to investigate conduct that occurs during this Administration. 
• The EO and its accompanying “Fact Sheet” focus on leveling the playing field to the benefit of US companies.  DOJ may therefore prioritize investigations and prosecutions targeting non-US companies subject to US jurisdiction, particularly where circumstances suggest that such non-US companies may have engaged in corruption to gain strategic business advantages over US companies. 
• The EO does not apply to other regulators, such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission which has its own dedicated unit to investigate violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery and internal accounting provisions (though the SEC may also adopt new enforcement approaches if it elects to “follow the lead” of DOJ), and DOJ and other regulators may continue to enforce other laws with extraterritorial reach, such as money laundering statutes or economic sanctions laws.  
• International laws similar to the FCPA, such as the French Anti-corruption law (Sapin II) and the UK Bribery Act, continue to be enforcement priorities in the respective jurisdictions, leaving companies with global operations with ongoing anti-bribery and corruption risks and obligations.  Multilateral Development Banks have also established administrative sanctions systems to identify and punish misconduct, including fraud and corruption, in projects funded by such institutions.  There are also anti-bribery and corruption laws enacted by US states that may potentially be applied extraterritorially to conduct that also violates the FCPA, and such state laws are unaffected by the EO.  Moreover, violations of the FCPA, even if uncharged, may serve as predicate acts in civil cases brought pursuant to the federal RICO statute and potentially state RICO laws as well.  
• Contractual obligations to comply with anti-bribery and corruption laws and regulations also remain unaffected, and breaches of such terms could present commercial litigation risk. 

2. Newly Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations

In February 2025, the US government formally designated eight Latin American organized crime groups that also operate in the US as “foreign terrorist organizations” (i.e., Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists).  Such “terrorist” designations have historically been associated with groups like al-Qaeda and Boko Haram.  With the new designations, the US will treat certain drug cartels and criminal organizations as terrorist groups, including Tren de Aragua in Venezuela, MS-13 in El Salvador, and six cartel groups based in Mexico. 

These designations have potential legal and commercial implications for companies operating in Mexico and other Latin American countries where drug cartels are embedded in the local economies, and have also been alleged to control various aspects of society including trade routes.  For instance, according to a 2024 Business Security Survey from the American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico: (i) 12% of surveyed companies operating in Mexico reported that organized crime has taken partial control of the sales, distribution, and/or pricing of their goods; and (ii) 45% reported that they had received extortion demands for protection payments. 

The impacts of the new designations could be far-ranging.  For instance, companies (especially those operating in Mexico and the Latin American region): 

• may face heightened risk of criminal liability for, among other things: (i) knowingly providing material support or resources—tangible or intangible—to a designated entity; and (ii) willful violations of the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations; 
• may be found liable for violations of US sanctions programs and potentially subject to criminal and civil penalties;
• may be exposed to civil liability via the Anti-Terrorism Act, which permits US nationals injured in acts of international terrorism to sue both the principal wrongdoers and those who aid and abet or conspire to commit terrorist acts, and similar statutes; and
• who are banks or payment processors, may be subject to civil penalties if they fail to identify, freeze, and report funds tied to such designated entities. 

3. DEI Policies and Programs

Several of President Trump’s EOs address DEI policies and reference federal agencies as well as the private sector.  Through these executive orders, President Trump ordered: (i) the termination of DEI-related programs in the federal government; (ii) the prohibition of using race, gender, and other factors in federal employment decisions; and (iii) every federal agency to develop strategies to deter unlawful DEI practices in the private sector. 

In addition, State Attorneys General (State AGs) have started to identify companies with DEI programs.  For instance, 11 State AGs sent a letter to certain financial institutions on January 23, 2025, requesting information regarding DEI programs, and the State of Missouri filed a lawsuit against an American multinational coffeehouse chain on February 11, 2025, alleging that the corporation violated federal and state laws by using DEI policies to discriminate against employees based on race and sex.  The State of Florida similarly filed a lawsuit against an American retailer on February 20, 2025, alleging that the corporation engaged in securities fraud by concealing risks related to its DEI initiatives that provoked customer backlash and erased billions of dollars from the corporation’s market value. 

Although the DEI-related EOs and similar State AG actions are being challenged in courts, they have already complicated related compliance efforts, especially so for those companies facing competing or divergent disclosure and DEI regimes in Europe and elsewhere. 

4. Tariffs 

President Trump has directed his Administration to determine how the US might impose additional tariffs across a number of sectors, with the stated goal of curbing “threats” posed by illegal aliens and drugs, and to boost US manufacturing and protect jobs, raise tax revenue and grow the US economy. 

Among other actions, the current Administration has, for example, announced tariffs on certain imports from China, from Canada and Mexico, and of steel and aluminum.  Many of these tariffs have been amended following their respective announcements, and certain have been temporarily suspended pending further review and international negotiations.  Affected countries have threatened or imposed counter-tariffs, and the EU has similarly signaled that it will respond “firmly and immediately” should the US impose tariffs that are “unjustified barriers to free and fair trade.” 

The scale and scope of these new tariffs and counter-tariffs has resulted in significant uncertainty regarding the future of global trade and potential compliance risks associated with evasion or other business pressures in responding to disruptions to international supply chains. 

Compliance Takeaways

As enforcement priorities and regulations continue to evolve under the Trump Administration, it is prudent for companies to regularly assess potential impacts of such changes on their risk profile, and whether compliance resources should be directed towards different enforcement priorities.  Below are several steps that companies may consider in light of shifting regulatory and corporate enforcement priorities in the US, as well as elsewhere around the world given the changing geopolitical landscape: 

• Conduct ongoing assessments of legal and compliance risks to business operations in light of these new enforcement priorities, so that corporations may deploy compliance resources appropriately, particularly where there may be differences in applicable laws, policies and enforcement priorities across different jurisdictions relevant to multinational corporations (e.g., with regard to anti-bribery and corruption, DEI, and international trade and sanctions). 
• Evaluate existing due diligence processes and KYC protocols, and whether any such processes should be amended to reflect evolving priorities, including for instance:
  • enhancing due diligence of vendors, suppliers, and other third party intermediaries in Mexico and other Latin American countries to address potential exposure to sanctioned parties including newly designated terrorist organizations; and 
  • reviewing global supply chain due diligence and monitoring processes, particularly relating to suppliers located in jurisdictions that have been targeted by recently announced tariffs. 
• Enhance compliance policies and trainings for relevant employees in jurisdictions or business functions potentially subject to increased risk, such as by providing specific training for identifying and mitigating potential risks associated with conducting business operations in Latin American countries and along trade routes where recently designated terrorist organizations (cartels and transnational criminal groups) are perceived to be embedded in the local economies.  
• Update compliance hotlines and internal communication pathways so that relevant stakeholders may raise any concerns, and legal and compliance teams may promptly and appropriately triage, investigate, and address such matters.  

*****