With every change in administration, organizations and individuals face changes in the types of conduct the federal government focuses on in its investigations, enforcement, and criminal prosecutions. Hinckley Allen is monitoring the new developments and policies that impact our clients and is actively assisting its clients in understanding the new rules, ensuring compliance, and responding to enforcement actions. We highlight what we have seen thus far and provide proactive steps to mitigate risks.
Overview of Department of Justice Changes
Since being confirmed as the Attorney General (“AG”) of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Pamela Bondi has issued more than 14 memoranda identifying DOJ’s new priorities, which closely align with Executive Orders issued by President Trump. On March 5, 2025, Todd Blanche was confirmed as the Deputy Attorney General (“DAG”). On March 14, 2025, AG Bondi and DAG Blanche spoke about the changes made at DOJ since President Trump’s inauguration and its accomplishments. These memoranda, remarks, and DOJ’s press releases over the last two months signal a clear shift in priorities that may transform the corporate enforcement landscape.
AG Bondi identified DOJ’s top priorities as combatting illegal immigration, eradicating drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations, protecting national security, dismantling malicious cyber operations conducted by foreign actors, eliminating unlawful DEI practices, and fighting fraud. Although AG Bondi has changed and redirected certain DOJ priorities such as de-emphasizing traditional enforcement of foreign corruption and bribery charges, DOJ will continue to aggressively investigate and prosecute terrorism-related offenses, money laundering crimes, export control and sanctions violations, and fraud perpetrated against any government agency.
During her confirmation hearing, AG Bondi pledged to defend the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, and will likely expand its use by DOJ to fulfill many of Trump’s priorities. The FCA is a powerful tool for DOJ that not only prohibits the knowing submission of false claims for payment to the government, but also imposes liability when a person or company:
- “knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government;” or
- “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government.”[1]
The FCA provides for treble damages and, in 2024, DOJ recovered more than $2.9 billion in FCA settlement and judgments.
We expect that DOJ will use the FCA itself and strongly incentivize private parties to avail themselves of remedies under the FCA in its efforts to investigate and penalize illegal DEI practices, antisemitic policies, and noncompliance with tariffs, cybersecurity requirements, and reporting requirements for federal grants and contracts. Indeed, Section Three of President Trump’s January 21st Executive Order 14173, entitled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (“EO 14173”), requires the head of each agency to include in every federal contract or grant award a certification that “compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decision for purposes of” the FCA. Further, in February, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael Granston confirmed that AG Bondi’s DOJ plans to “aggressively” use the FCA to target fraud as well as evasion of tariffs.[2]
Below is a description of five of DOJ’s top priorities and what types of enforcement actions we expect over the next four years:
-
Immigration
One of DOJ’s highest priorities under AG Bondi is immigration-related crime.[3] On March 17, 2025, DOJ made clear that it “is prosecuting every possible immigration violation, including first-time illegal entry cases, and is seeking a meaningful prison sentence in every possible case.”[4] Indeed, DOJ has already charged hundreds of defendants with immigration offenses and the Trump administration appears to be contemplating worksite enforcement actions. On March 22, 2025, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Internal Revenue Service and immigration officials were close to reaching a deal under which the IRS would share tax records with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.[5] Such data could be used “to build cases against work sites.”[6] Further, AG Bondi is requiring any U.S. Attorney’s Office to report to DOJ’s leadership any declination of immigration-related offense through the Urgent Report system and intends to closely track statistics regarding the prosecution of immigration-related offenses. This supervisory focus on any declined immigration prosecution highlights how important this area is to the current administration.
This policy shift at DOJ potentially affects organizations of all sizes and types – private and public – as well as academic institutions. Indeed, many of our clients, including employers and academic institutions, have already begun navigating the complex issues surrounding immigration enforcement under this new set of policies. For example, there is a real risk of criminal exposure and even charges related to concealing or harboring “aliens” or undocumented individuals, engaging in unlawful employment practices or immigration document fraud, engaging in a scheme to defraud the U.S. Government, conspiring to violate any U.S. law, and obstructing federal investigative actions and immigration removal proceedings. Knowing your obligations when federal agents come to your company or institution is critical to ensure you are not inadvertently running afoul of these laws. Employers should create policies and procedures to ensure their employees are prepared and trained to properly respond.
Relatedly, employers should expect increased scrutiny and be prepared for audits of their employee records as federal law enforcement focuses on immigration enforcement. Companies are legally required to respond to request for immigration-related documents and act at their own peril if they are not prepared to assemble and produce those documents when requested. Employers should proactively perform I-9 audits. Our Labor & Employment group can provide guidance in this process.
-
National Security
President Trump has made national security a priority for his administration by expanding the definition of international terrorism, calling for increased sanctions and a maximum pressure campaign against Iran, and making clear that he intends to build on the actions of his first administration to stop China’s espionage, theft of U.S. intellectual property, and hacking operations. Organizations need to closely monitor such actions as new sanctions and export restrictions will impact financial transactions, the export of U.S. goods and technology, and federal research activities and joint collaborations.
President Trump expanded the definition of national security to include the “total elimination” of international drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations designating, among others, Tren de Aragua (“TdA”) and La Mara Salvatrucha (“MS-13”) as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (“FTO”) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists. This means that any person or entity that provides any support to these organizations could be prosecuted for providing material support to a FTO, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2339B, and face stiff civil penalties. In 2022, DOJ brought its first corporate material support for terrorism prosecution against Lafarge S.A., headquartered in France, and its Syrian subsidiary resulting in $778 million in fines. Accordingly, companies that do business, operate, or have manufacturing facilities in Latin America, including Mexico, should increase their controls and due diligence measures to ensure compliance and avoid conducting transactions that violate these new restrictions.
Additionally, AG Bondi has established a Joint Task Force concerning the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas, a task force charged with investigating and prosecuting acts of terrorism, antisemitic civil rights violations, and other federal crimes committed by Hamas supporters in the United States, including on college campuses. Failing to stop others’ wrongful conduct can also create legal exposure for educational institutions. This was clearly demonstrated by the Trump administration’s March 7, 2025 federal funding cancellation action against Columbia University. DOJ along with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Education and the U.S. General Services Administration announced the immediate cancellation of approximately $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University due to the school’s alleged inaction in the face of harassment of Jewish students.[7]
On February 4, 2025, President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum proclaiming that his administration intends to impose maximum pressure on Iran, deny Iran all paths to a nuclear weapon, and counter Iran’s malign influence. Over the span of less than two months, Trump’s Department of Treasury has announced four rounds of new sanctions against Iran targeting its oil trade and missile programs. These sanctions not only target Iranian entities and persons, but also designate numerous Chinese entities. Businesses should expect to see increased sanctions enforcement with respect to Iran and the implementation of financial measures to detect and prevent evasion.
Lastly, like the first Trump Administration, concerns about China and specifically, the actions of the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”) are again a priority. These national security concerns have wide bi-partisan support in Congress and on March 19, 2025, the House Select Committee on the CCP sent requests for information to six universities regarding the enrollment of Chinese national students in advanced STEM programs and their involvement in federally funded research. The Trump Administration has not yet reinstated the “China Initiative” from President Trump’s first term, although Senator Rick Scott introduced a bill to establish “the CCP Initiative Program” in DOJ’s National Security Division in February 2025. Earlier this month, DOJ charged 10 Chinese nationals with a large-scale hacking scheme directed and sponsored by the Chinese government. Regardless whether DOJ publicly announces such an initiative, DOJ will again be cracking down on the Chinese government’s espionage activities, theft of intellectual property, illegal procurement of U.S. origin goods and sensitive technology, and hacking operations. As part of this effort, federal agencies have already begun more closely scrutinizing ties between federal research grant recipients and the Chinese government, including funding from Chinese government related organizations, joint collaborations with Chinese researchers, and travel to China. The failure of grant recipients to disclose such activities could provide the basis for criminal and civil liability.
-
Cybersecurity
Less than one month after President Trump was inaugurated, DOJ announced its first cybersecurity False Claims Act Settlement. On February 18, 2025, Bondi’s DOJ reported that Health Net Federal Services Inc. (“HNFS”) of Rancho Cordova, California and its corporate parent, St. Louis-based Centene Corporation (“Centene”), agreed to pay $11.25 million to resolve claims that HNFS falsely certified compliance with cybersecurity requirements in a contract with the U.S. Department of Defense to administer the Defense Health Agency’s TRICARE health benefits program for service members and their families.[8] By failing to abide by its contractual obligations and submitting false certifications to the government, DOJ claimed HNFS and Centene Corporation jeopardized the security of sensitive information of the nation’s service members and their families and violated the FCA.
Acting Assistant General Brett Shumate, the Acting Head of Justice Department’s Civil Division and presidential nominee for this position, made clear in the press announcement of this settlement that DOJ “will continue to pursue knowing violations of cybersecurity requirements by federal contractors and grantees to protect Americans’ privacy and economic and national security.” This statement dispels any doubt as to whether cybersecurity compliance will be a priority for the second Trump Administration, a question some had when initial administration priorities did not reference cybersecurity.[9]
-
International Trade Compliance
As noted above, we expect DOJ to continue to aggressively investigate and prosecute export control and sanctions violations, especially those that involve the illegal procurement of advanced technologies that could enhance the military capabilities of China and Iran. Moreover, similar to the first Trump Administration, Bondi’s DOJ will use the FCA to combat tariff evasion. We have seen in the past that, when tariffs are in place, companies or their agents have created false documents—or rerouted shipments—to avoid those tariffs; these types of activities will lead to criminal investigations given the new tariffs and increased attention to trade issues. Federal investigators are increasingly using AI tools to detect fraud. In the area of trade and customs violations, this means that AI tools are being used to identify false representations regarding the country of origin of imported goods as well as suspicious and circuitous shipping routes and transshipment schemes.
Engaging in tariff evasion and noncompliance may result in both criminal and civil liability. For instance, during the first Trump administration, in September 2020, Linde GmbH and its U.S. subsidiary Linde Engineering North America LLC (Linde) agreed to pay the United States more than $22.2 million to resolve allegations that Linde violated the FCA by knowingly making false statements on customs declarations (i.e., misrepresenting the nature, classification, and valuation of imported merchandise) to avoid paying duties owed on the companies’ imports.
More recently, in December 2024, Hector Samuel Esquijerosa, a resident of Miami, pled guilty to conspiring to smuggle merchandise into the United States by means of presenting false and fraudulent invoices to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. At his Rule 11 guilty plea hearing, Esquijerosa admitted that he conspired with others, including brokers, suppliers and wholesalers of truck tires located in China, Canada and the United Kingdom to evade tariffs applicable to truck tires manufactured in China that his companies illegally imported into the United States and sold to customers in the United States. In order to conceal the true origin of the imported truck tires, Esquijerosa and his co-conspirators caused the Chinese-origin truck tires to be transshipped to the United States through third countries, including Canada and Malaysia. Esquijerosa and his co-conspirators then filed, or caused to be filed with CBP, documents that falsely and fraudulently represented that the Chinese truck tires originated in countries other than China. Numerous federal laws prohibit this type of scheme, including 18 U.S.C. § 545, which carries a potential sentence of imprisonment of 20 years.
Accordingly, companies should be prepared for increased civil and criminal enforcement actions for tariff noncompliance and evasion.
-
Unlawful DEI
President Trump has issued two broad-reaching EOs on DEI that have impacts not only for the federal government, but also federal contractors, grant recipients, the private sectors, and institutions of higher education. These are covered in detail in our prior articles.[10] In terms of the private sector, EO 14173 requires specific steps from the heads of all agencies, with the assistance of the Attorney General, to take “all appropriate action with respect to the operations of their agencies to advance in the private sector the policies of individual initiative, excellence, and hard work.” This includes issuance of plans with specific steps and measures to deter DEI programs and principles “that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.” The plan from each agency must identify “up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars.”
On February 5, 2025, AG Bondi issued a memorandum entitled “Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences.” The memorandum made clear that the “Department of Justice is committed to enforcing all federal civil rights laws and ensuring equal protection under the law.” The memorandum requires DOJ’s Civil Rights Division to investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI “preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities” “[t]o fulfill the Nation’s promise of equality for all Americans.” This mandate applies to the private sector and educational institutions that receive federal funds.
Agencies have started to act on these mandates. For example, on March 14, 2025, the Department of Education announced that it is investigating 52 universities for alleged racial discrimination.[11] Attorney Generals of ten states warned major financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America that DEI actions could lead to enforcement actions[12] and the EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas sent a letter to 20 law firms requesting information about their DEI practices.[13] This, coupled with the certification requirement EO 14173, makes clear that DEI is a target of the new administration. Companies need to take proactive steps, specifically performing privileged audits of their DEI programs, initiatives, policies, procedures, etc., to ensure they are not engaging in what amounts to illegal preferences and discrimination under the law.[14]
Conclusion: Regardless of the priorities of the Trump administration, companies should implement and maintain robust compliance programs consistent with all applicable federal and state laws. Even in areas that may not currently be a priority or a focus for the Trump Administration such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the law remains in place. More importantly, perhaps, the standard federal statute of limitations extends beyond a single Presidential term and in the area of export control and sanctions, the statute of limitations were recently extended to ten years. Thus, the next administration could choose to penalize conduct that is not currently a DOJ priority. Organizations should regularly monitor rapidly changing legal developments, including national security regulations and sanctions, and conduct risk assessments to ensure their internal processes detect any potential fraud or suspicious transactions. It is essential that employees understand how to report potential violations and the importance of compliance responsibilities to avoid criminal and civil liability.
[1]See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G).
[2]See Daniel Wilson, “DOJ Official Flags ‘Aggressive’ FCA Approach under Trump,” Law360, Feb. 20, 2025, https://www.law360.com/articles/2300751/doj-official-flags-aggressive-fca-approach-under-trump.
[3]See AG Bondi’s General Policy Regarding Charging, Plea Negotiations, and Sentencing at 3.
[4]See DOJ Blog Post, Mar. 17, 2025, Office of Public Affairs | U.S. Attorneys for Southwestern Border Districts Charge More than 750 Illegal Aliens with Immigration-Related Crimes During the Second week in March.
[5]See Richard Rubin and Michelle Hackman, “IRS Nears Deal to Share Data for Immigration Enforcement,” WSJ, Mar. 22, 2025, IRS Nears Deal to Share Data for Immigration Enforcement – WSJ.
[6]Id.
[7]See https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2025/03/07/doj-hhs-ed-gsa-announce-initial-cancellation-grants-contracts-columbia-university-worth-400-million.html.
[8]See DOJ Press Release, Feb. 18, 2025, Office of Public Affairs | Health Net Federal Services, LLC and Centene Corporation Agree to Pay Over $11 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Liability for Cybersecurity Violations | United States Department of Justice.
[9]See also our discussion of DOJ’s prior FCA actions for cybersecurity noncompliance, including the civil complaint filed against Georgia Institute of Technology – The 2024 Year in Review: Cybersecurity, AI, and Privacy Developments – Hinckley Allen.
[10]See, e.g., What Now with DEI? Federal Court Declares Certain Provisions of Trump’s DEI Executive Orders Unconstitutional – Hinckley Allen.
[11]See Office for Civil Rights Initiates Title VI Investigations into Institutions of Higher Education | U.S. Department of Education.
[12]See https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Updated%20Paxton%20Financial%20Institutions%20Letter.pdf.
[13]See https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-acting-chair-andrea-lucas-sends-letters-20-law-firms-requesting-information-about-dei.
[14] For further recommendations and analysis on this topic see https://www.hinckleyallen.com/publications/trump-administration-targets-dei-in-federal-contracting-and-beyond/?utm_source=concep&utm_medium=alert&utm_campaign=2025_DEI; https://www.hinckleyallen.com/publications/trump-administrations-executive-orders-academic-institutions-federal-funded-research-community/.
