On February 10, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order instructing the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to pause enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) for a period of 180 days. The order requires the United States Attorney General to review all existing FCPA investigations, and to issue updated guidelines or policies, as appropriate, for enforcing the statute that adequately promotes the President’s “authority to conduct foreign affairs and prioritize[s] American interests” and “economic competitiveness.” This executive order came just days after US Attorney General Pamela Bondi issued a memorandum instructing prosecutors to prioritize drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations in FCPA enforcement. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Enforcement at the US Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”), which has the authority to prosecute the FCPA civilly, stated publicly that the SEC is “obviously going to follow the lead of the DOJ.” In addition, the long-standing Chief and Deputy Chief of the SEC’s FCPA unit recently retired.
Since the announcement of the FCPA enforcement pause, the DOJ has taken differing positions regarding the advancement of existing FCPA actions. For example, on April 2, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss the FCPA case against two former executives in United States v. Coburn et al.,1 which the court granted.
Conversely, on April 9, in an FCPA case against two executives of a UK-based voting machine company and a Philippines election official, United States v. Bautista, et al.,2 the DOJ informed the court that it had conducted a “detailed review” and was prepared to proceed to trial. Similarly, on April 11, the DOJ confirmed that it would proceed to trial in two separate cases against company executives accused of bribery connected to state contracts in Egypt (United States v. Hobson)3, and Honduras (United States v. Zaglin)4 respectively.
SHIFTING ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES AT THE LOCAL, STATE AND INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
In contrast to the DOJ’s current FCPA enforcement pause, on April 2, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a Legal Advisory reminding businesses operating in California that making payments to foreign government officials to obtain or retain business remains illegal under California law. California’s announcement is also a reminder that numerous states prohibit bribery under state law, and that the DOJ could still potentially bring violations of state bribery law under the Travel Act.
On April 15, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced during a university panel discussion that his office is considering stepping up enforcement in areas of white collar enforcement from which the DOJ may retreat. DA Bragg noted that the Manhattan DA’s office has a long history of prosecuting domestic bribery and corruption cases and is now identifying new enforcement priorities that make the most sense for his jurisdiction, singling out cryptocurrency and the use of AI in fraud as possible priority areas.
Moreover, non-US jurisdictions have signaled that they will step up anti-corruption enforcement efforts. Recently, on March 20, the UK’s Serious Fraud Office, France’s Parquet National Financier and the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland affirmed their shared commitment to tackling national and international bribery and corruption. The institutions have founded a new taskforce to strengthen collaboration and existing operational relationships between these countries. This venture will encourage the sharing of insight, expertise and best practices to improve cross-border strategies and investigations.
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGNALS CONTINUED ENFORCEMENT OF ANTI-CORRUPTION LAWS
On April 2, on the heels of the FCPA pause, AG Bonta emphasized that violations of the FCPA remain actionable under California's Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The UCL broadly prohibits “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act[s] or practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” The statute allows the California AG to pursue civil enforcement actions against companies engaging in illegal business practices, potentially including those that violate federal laws like the FCPA. The UCL’s scope is intentionally broad, enabling it to “borrow” violations of other laws and to treat them as independently actionable unfair competitive practices.
POTENTIAL FOR INCREASED STATE-LEVEL ENFORCEMENT
AG Bonta’s Advisory signals a potential increase in state-level enforcement of anti-corruption laws. The Advisory makes clear that despite the federal pause, businesses must continue to comply with all provisions of the FCPA. Violations of the FCPA can serve as the predicate for UCL claims, allowing the California AG and private plaintiffs to pursue legal action. This development underscores the importance of maintaining robust compliance programs and internal controls to prevent and detect corruption.
IMPLICATIONS FOR BUSINESSES OPERATING IN CALIFORNIA
Businesses operating in California—which has the largest economy in the United States—should be aware that the state may step up its enforcement efforts in response to perceived gaps in federal enforcement. The California AG’s Advisory highlights the state’s commitment to combating corruption and protecting fair competition. Companies should assess their compliance programs to ensure they meet both federal and state legal requirements. This includes reinforcing training and internal controls to mitigate the risk of engaging in practices that could be deemed unlawful under the UCL.
POSSIBLE LEGAL AND PRACTICAL CHALLENGES
While AG Bonta’s announcement underscores the state’s commitment to anti-corruption enforcement, it also presents several legal and practical challenges for enforcement. One significant challenge is evidence collection, as obtaining access to evidence and witnesses located overseas can be difficult. Federal authorities often leverage mutual legal assistance treaties and international cooperation, but state and local authorities may find it more challenging to gather necessary evidence from foreign jurisdictions, as well as to adequately resource investigations.
Jurisdictional limitations also pose a challenge, as the UCL does not apply extraterritorially. Valid UCL claims must involve injury in California, either to in-state victims or by in-state conduct. This requirement may limit the scope of potential enforcement actions under the UCL, although the large breadth of business operations and cross-border activity in California may still translate into investigations of conduct with even the slightest nexus to the state.
WILL THE DOJ USE THE TRAVEL ACT TO ENFORCE ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS?
California’s recent announcement demonstrates that enforcement of state bribery laws remains fully in effect. Another open question is whether, US Attorneys’ offices will bring prosecutions under the Travel Act predicated on violations of state bribery laws, given the FCPA enforcement pause.
The Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. 1952, is a federal statute prohibiting the use of “any facility in interstate or foreign commerce” with the intent to “distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity” or “otherwise [to] promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity.” Under the Travel Act, “unlawful activity” includes bribery in violation of the laws of any U.S. state where the alleged conduct occurs. Numerous U.S. states, including states like New York, California, and Texas criminalize commercial bribery, thus allowing U.S. Attorneys’ Offices around the country to bring Travel Act charges based on state commercial bribery.
The DOJ recently used the Travel Act in the prosecution of Javier Aguilar, a former oil trader, in a case out of the Eastern District of New York and Southern District of Texas, United States v. Aguilar.5 The DOJ charged Aguilar with violating the FCPA, as well as the Travel Act, in violation of the Texas Commercial Bribery statute. After Aguilar was convicted of FCPA and money-laundering charges after a two-month trial in the Eastern District of New York, he pled guilty to FCPA and Travel Act charges in the Southern District of Texas.
Ultimately, it remains to be seen if the DOJ will allow individual US Attorneys’ Offices to bring Travel Act charges predicated upon state bribery statutes.
INCREASE IN NON-US ANTI-CORRUPTION ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS
As the DOJ re-evaluates its use of the FCPA, other nations are stepping in to shore up enforcement in this area. The new international task force, backed by the UK, French, and Swiss authorities, continues a recent trend in increasing anti-corruption investigations and prosecutions by non-US authorities.
For example, although the DOJ recently terminated the FCPA monitorship of a multinational commodity trading company early, the United Kingdom is continuing its prosecution of several of the company's former executives, including the former CEO of its worldwide oil operations, whose trial is scheduled for 2027. Swiss authorities also recently resolved a $150 million resolution with the company over a purported failure to take adequate measures to prevent bribery of a Congolese public official by a business partner. Similarly, French authorities recently resolved a case against a French nuclear power company for allegedly paying an intermediary as a conduit for payments to foreign officials in relation to the acquisition of mining rights in Mongolia. And Australia recently resolved a case against a minerals and mining company, where its foreign subsidiary allegedly bribed foreign officials to obtain mining rights in Cambodia.
CONCLUSION
While the FCPA enforcement pause remains—and it is unclear what will happen with DOJ or SEC FCPA prosecutions going forward in this administration—anti-corruption laws remain enforceable at the state level, and the Travel Act still allows federal authorities to bring anti-corruption charges premised on violations of state bribery law. Moreover, global anti-corruption enforcement efforts have continued to increase in recent years, and we are seeing this accelerate in the face of a potential vacuum left by the shift in federal priorities.
Companies must remain vigilant and proactive in their compliance efforts to navigate the evolving enforcement landscape by reference to federal, state, and international law and best practice.
1 Docket No. 2:19-cr-00120 (D.N.J. Apr. 2, 2025)
2 No. 1:24-cr-20343 (S.D. Fl. Apr. 9, 2025)
3 No. 2:22-cr-00086 (W.D. Pa., Apr. 11, 2025)
4 No. 1:23-cr-20454 (S.D. Fla., Apr. 11, 2025)
5 20-cr-390 (S-1)( E.D.N.Y.) and 23-cr-335 (S.D. Tx.), respectively
[View source.]
