White Collar and Enforcement Outlook 2025: DOJ’s Shifting
Priorities and Supreme Court Cases to Watch
As 2025 unfolds, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under Attorney General Pam Bondi has unveiled a sweeping overhaul of its enforcement priorities, focusing on national security, transnational crime, and immigration. Simultaneously, two high-profile cases before the U.S. Supreme Court—Kousisis v. United States and Thompson v. United States—could redefine the scope of federal fraud statutes, with significant implications for white-collar crime enforcement. This report examines the DOJ’s new directives, the dissolution of key task forces, and the potential impact of pending Supreme Court rulings.
DOJ’s New Enforcement Priorities
Within hours of her Senate confirmation on February 5, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued 14 memoranda reorienting the DOJ’s focus toward national security and transnational crime. These directives align with executive orders issued at the start of the Trump Administration, emphasizing aggressive action against illegal immigration, human smuggling, and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), including cartels and gangs.
Key Shifts in DOJ Enforcement:
- Transnational Organized Crime and Cartels: The DOJ has prioritized the “total elimination” of groups like MS-13, Tren de Aragua (TdA), and international drug cartels. Bondi’s “Total Elimination of Cartels and Transnational Criminal Organization Directive” streamlines prosecutions by removing bureaucratic hurdles, such as pre-indictment reviews for capital-eligible offenses and approval requirements for terrorism and racketeering charges.
- FCPA and FARA Enforcement: The DOJ will prioritize Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) cases tied to TCOs and cartels, particularly those involving bribery of foreign officials to facilitate human smuggling, narcotics trafficking, or firearms trafficking. However, FARA enforcement unrelated to TCOs will be minimized, with a focus on civil enforcement rather than criminal prosecutions.
- Immigration Enforcement: Bondi has directed U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to use “all available criminal statutes” to combat illegal immigration, including prosecuting state and local actors who resist federal immigration enforcement.
Dissolution of Task Forces:
To reallocate resources, Bondi dissolved several Biden-era task forces, including:
- The National Security Division’s Corporate Enforcement Unit, which investigated corporate sanctions violations.
- The KleptoCapture Task Force and Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, created to enforce sanctions against Russian oligarchs.
- The Foreign Influence Task Force, established to combat disinformation campaigns.
Supreme Court Cases with Far-Reaching Implications
Two cases before the Supreme Court—Kousisis v. United States andThompson v. United States— could significantly narrow the scope of federal fraud statutes, impacting future white-collar prosecutions.
Kousisis v. United States:
- Background: The petitioners were charged with wire fraud for allegedly making false statements to secure government contracts with disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) requirements. While they fulfilled the contracts, they failed to meet DBE conditions, leading to charges of fraud.
- Key Question : Can deception to induce a commercial exchange constitute wire fraud, even if the victim suffers no economic harm?
- Implications: A ruling in favor of the petitioners could limit the DOJ’s ability to prosecute fraud cases where the primary harm is non-monetary, such as the frustration of policy goals like diversity in contracting.
Thompson v. United States:
- Background : Thompson was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 for making “false statements” to a financial institution. He argued that his statements were misleading but not false.
- Key Question : Does § 1014 criminalize misleading statements, or only false ones?
- Implications : The Court’s decision could clarify the boundaries of false-statements prosecutions, potentially limiting the DOJ’s ability to pursue cases based on misleading but technically true statements.
Corporate Implications and Compliance
The DOJ’s new priorities and potential Supreme Court rulings have significant implications for corporations, particularly those operating in high-risk regions or industries.
Key Takeaways for Corporations:
- Immigration Compliance: Companies should review hiring and employment practices to ensure compliance with federal immigration laws, including proper recordkeeping for Form I-9 documentation.
- Anti-Corruption Measures : Corporations operating in regions with strong TCO or cartel presence, such as Mexico and parts of Latin America, must strengthen compliance programs to detect and prevent bribery, money laundering, and terrorism financing.
- FCPA and FARA Risks: While the DOJ prioritizes FCPA cases tied to TCOs, companies should maintain robust anti-corruption programs, as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) retains civil enforcement authority under the FCPA.
Compliance Program Essentials:
- Implement risk-based assessments and due diligence programs.
- Establish robust Know-Your-Customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) protocols.
- Monitor and report suspicious activities, and ensure sanctions screening procedures are in place
DOJ’s DEI/DEIA Policies and Environmental Justice Rollbacks
Consistent with President Trump’s executive orders, the DOJ has targeted Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEI/DEIA) programs in the private sector and educational institutions. Attorney General Bondi has tasked the Civil Rights Division and Office of Legal Policy with identifying unlawful DEI/DEIA practices and proposing enforcement actions.
Additionally, the DOJ has rolled back Biden-era environmental justice initiatives, reinstating Trump-era policies that prohibit third-party settlements in environmental cases and rescinding guidance documents used in enforcement actions.
Conclusion
The DOJ’s 2025 enforcement priorities mark a significant shift toward national security and transnational crime, with far-reaching implications for corporations and white-collar prosecutions. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s rulings in Kousisis and Thompson could redefine the boundaries of federal fraud statutes, potentially limiting the DOJ’s enforcement toolkit. As these developments unfold, corporations must remain vigilant, ensuring compliance with evolving legal standards and strengthening internal controls to mitigate risks.