From the outset, the Trump administration has been systematically dismantling much of the legal framework that puts commonsense limits on corporate power and corporate behavior. These numerous steps have taken the form of budget cuts, staff cuts, and directives to shift priorities in key government agencies. In February, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) pausing enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) – the United States’ foundational anti-bribery and anti-corruption law. The EO claims, without evidence, that the FCPA harms “American economic competitiveness” and “national security” – interests Trump’s own administration cited as reasons to prioritize combatting corruption during his first term.
While the pause does not mean that the FCPA will cease to exist, enforcement is likely to be significantly deprioritized moving forward. Five days prior to the pause, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum ordering the prioritization of the “total elimination of cartels and other transnational criminal organizations (TCOs)” across the agency’s enforcement. The memorandum also directed the FCPA Unit to prioritize investigating only corruption in cartels and TCOs and deprioritize all other investigations.
The FCPA pause comes as a shock considering the widespread and bipartisan consensus that corruption damages the reputation of the United States, weakens U.S. national security, and undermines economic growth. The FCPA is a model for efficient good governance, operating as a strong deterrent against corrupt business and other forms of corporate abuse that follow along with corruption. Since its enactment, it triggered a paradigm shift in how corruption has been viewed worldwide. Pausing FCPA enforcement and criticizing the aim of the law constitutes an alarming attack on a long-standing U.S. government commitment to ensure that U.S. companies do not engage in acts of bribery and corruption around the world.
History of the FCPA
The FCPA was enacted in 1977 in the wake of Watergate, when it became clear that bribery and corruption by U.S. companies abroad was undermining the U.S government’s foreign policy interests. Congress dealt with this concern by passing the FCPA, making it illegal for any U.S. company or any company that trades on a U.S. exchange to pay bribes to foreign officials for a business purpose. It also required companies to maintain accurate books and records so that any bribe could be discovered by auditors. At the time, the FCPA was the first law to address foreign corruption by U.S. multinational corporations. U.S. businesses claimed the law would put them at a disadvantage, since multinational companies located in other jurisdictions would still be able to pay off foreign governments to further their business interests. The FCPA was amended in 1998 to apply to foreign companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges and to American companies and individuals’ corrupt activities taking place abroad, expanding the law’s reach to prevent bribery from impacting U.S. markets. Enactment of the FCPA triggered a global “race to the top” in combating corruption, serving as the impetus for the development of the 1997 Anti-Bribery Convention of the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD), which has 46 State parties. Many States have enacted anti-bribery laws following the OECD convention. Now U.S. companies operate in a normative and legal environment where bribery and corruption are largely illegal, and companies all over the world have built up significant compliance practices to ensure they remain on the right side of the law.
The FCPA has also been historically supported by both Democratic and Republican administrations, citing the need for leveling the playing field for American companies that engage in ethical business and highlighting the U.S. government’s fight against corruption as a key national security priority. FCPA enforcement has increased in line with the expansion in authority in 1998, but has remained steady and consistent since the early 2000s. This is despite Trump’s claim in the EO that FCPA enforcement has been “stretched beyond proper bounds and abused…,” and is “excessive” and “unpredictable.” The only notable increase in the value of FCPA monetary sanctions in recent years occurred under the Trump administration’s first term between 2016 and 2020. In fact, Trump’s 2017 National Security strategy prioritized countering foreign corruption “so U.S. companies can compete fairly in transparent business climates.”
Moreover, there have been several bipartisan legislative efforts to expand the reach of U.S. anti-bribery and corruption laws. In December 2023, the United States passed the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA), which was meant to supplement FCPA enforcement by addressing the demand side of corruption. In addition to the FCPA holding corporate officials who pay bribes accountable, the FEPA is intended to establish criminal liability for foreign officials who demand or accept bribes in the United States or from a U.S. issuer or person. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) stated that the law was intended to “protect American businesses from corrupt foreign officials,” noting that demands for bribes from corrupt foreign officials put American businesses “at an economic disadvantage for following the law.” More recently, in January 2025, a bipartisan group of representatives introduced the “Combating Global Corruption Act,” which would develop a country ranking system for corruption similar to reports such as the International Religious Freedom Report or the Trafficking in Persons Report.
In the fact sheet accompanying the FCPA EO, Trump claimed that the FCPA harms American corporations. While the FCPA has been enforced against more American companies, foreign companies have paid significantly more in FCPA fines. Nine out of the top ten FCPA fines are against non-U.S. companies.
Moreover, although Trump claims that enforcement of the FCPA “wastes limited prosecutorial resources,” FCPA enforcement has generated billions of dollars in revenue through sanctions and fines for the U.S. government. A substantial amount of that goes towards funding federal law enforcement activities, among other federal government priorities. Pausing or limiting FCPA enforcement will result in a significant reduction of revenue.
The FCPA is Good for US Business
In addition to enjoying bipartisan support, there are clear indications that the FCPA is good for American business. Corruption and bribery have severe consequences on economic growth and create an environment favorable to various types of corporate misconduct and fraud. Despite Trump’s claims that the FCPA inhibits American competitiveness, studies show that the FCPA has been successful in curbing corruption around the world and increasing U.S. economic competitiveness.
The FCPA plays a significant role in protecting Americans and American businesses that act in good faith from corrupt corporations that exploit conditions to gain economic advantages. In 2008, Siemens, a German corporation and one of the world’s largest conglomerates, was found to have paid over 4,000 bribes, amounting to $1.4 billion, to gain favorable business around the world, limiting competition with other corporations. This practice was found to cut across all levels of Siemens’ work. High-ranking officials created a corporate culture where bribery was tolerated as a business practice at best and rewarded at worst. In addition to paying $800 million in fines–the largest FCPA fines yet at the time–Siemens was required to allow an independent monitor for four years to ensure continued FCPA compliance. By limiting the FCPA’s enforcement, the Trump administration creates ample room for corporations like Siemens to engage in abusive business practices to gain economic favors.
In addition to opening the door to increased bribery and corruption, the attack on the FCPA also creates space for increased abuse of human rights in U.S. supply chains, as corruption and human rights abuses often occur in tandem. In 2022, Glencore, a Swiss multinational mining company, was found to be liable for $1.1 billion in connection with bribery and market manipulation charges in the U.S., including $700 million in fines for violations of the FCPA. Glencore’s FCPA violations arise out of a decades-long conspiracy of paying bribes, through intermediaries, to officials in countries throughout Latin America and the African continent to gain favorable contracts, make lawsuits go away, and avoid government audits. In addition to widespread bribery, Glencore is also alleged to have a wide range of human rights abuses throughout their operations globally. According to the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre’s 2024 Transition Minerals Tracker, Glencore had the second worst human rights record between 2010 and 2023 out of all transition minerals companies with allegations of human rights abuse. Moreover, bribes, such as those to avoid government audits, can be used to cover up human rights abuses. Although no charges were levied for Glencore’s abusive human rights practices, this case demonstrates the extent to which corporations that engage in corruption are also likely to engage in human rights abuses.
More than just preventing harm, the FCPA has resulted in enhanced business practices across U.S. and foreign corporations. The prohibition on bribery and corruption creates a predictable environment that is favorable to investors and builds trust with stakeholders who American businesses interact with. The FCPA allows U.S. corporations to compete based on the value of their product or services rather than whether they can pay the largest bribe, creating space for the most innovative and highest quality products to come into worldwide markets. Additionally, robust FCPA compliance has resulted in strong oversight mechanisms throughout companies, resulting in stronger internal controls, improved quality, and efficiency.
What Does Attacking the FCPA Mean for the United States?
Masquerading as a protection for American businesses, the attack on the FCPA is a move that puts American companies that engage in ethical business practices at a disadvantage. This move by the Trump administration only weakens economic competitiveness, preventing U.S. companies from competing with the largest corporations with the resources to pay bribes. Although bribery and corruption are still illegal, without the threat of enforcement, American businesses may once again be at the mercy of foreign government officials to give economic preferences based on bribes rather than engaging in fair play.
Moreover, if the United States is not enforcing the FCPA, other countries are likely to increase enforcement to make up for the gap, potentially targeting U.S. companies for enforcement under their bribery and corruption laws. This may put U.S. companies at greater risk of facing bribery and corruption charges elsewhere.
Trump’s attack on the FCPA takes the United States several steps backwards from its leadership role in combatting corruption to opening the door for the “rotten” corporate culture of corruption that highlighted the need for an FCPA in the first place. According to Transparency International’s “2022 Exporting Corruption” report, the United States was one of two countries leading on enforcement of corruption in the “active enforcement” category. If the pause on FCPA enforcement continues beyond the initial 180 days, the United States could end up in the “little to no enforcement” category along with states like China or Russia. This also signals to foreign corporations that, under a Trump administration, the threat of accountability for engaging in corrupt business in the United States is low.
In addition to an increase in corruption, the United States is also likely to see an increase in abuses of other laws as corporations may rely on bribes to engage in business that infringe on human rights and environmental protections. Despite the United States’ longstanding role as a leader on addressing both corruption and human rights, much of the progress made through the tireless efforts of civil servants and advocates now risks being reversed. To cultivate a healthy business environment, the Trump administration should resume FCPA enforcement and reiterate the commitment from Trump’s first term to protecting Americans and American corporations against corruption and bribery.
