US DOJ announces new white-collar enforcement plan

In a May 12, 2025 speech at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association’s AML and Financial Crimes Conference, the Head of the Criminal Division of the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Matthew Galeotti, announced updates to the DOJ’s white-collar enforcement priorities and objectives (the “Enforcement Plan”).

The same day, Galeotti issued a memorandum addressed to all DOJ Criminal Division personnel documenting these updates. This is the first major development in the white-collar space since the pause on anti-corruption enforcement arising out of Executive Order 14209 and the series of strategy memos published by Attorney General Pamela Bondi shortly after her swearing-in. Galeotti’s speech previewed how the revised Enforcement Plan aligns with the administration’s “America First” priorities and seeks to create efficiencies with its focus on “the most egregious white-collar crime,” including fraud in US markets and government programs, tariff evasion, and narcotics trafficking, and its narrowing of monitorships. Galeotti emphasized that the DOJ would seek to simplify the corporate self-disclosure process and increase related incentives for companies to cooperate with the DOJ to facilitate efficient investigations and provide companies with increased certainty regarding the incentives that are available when they self-report. Notably, under the DOJ’s new guidance, companies that self-report, fully cooperate and engage in effective remediation in accordance with DOJ requirements will be eligible for a declination of prosecution, and companies that self-report in a good faith attempt to meet those requirements but fall short may still receive a non-prosecution agreement. This alert provides an overview of the changes indicated in Galeotti’s speech and the three revised policies issued by the DOJ later that day, and offers practical takeaways for regulated individuals and companies.

White-collar enforcement priorities and whistleblower award updates

Galeotti’s May 12 memo titled “Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime” updates the white-collar enforcement framework with a stated intention of striking a balance between reining in overbroad, burdensome enforcement actions and focusing enforcement resources on “high-impact areas.” These “high-impact areas” include:

• Federal program and procurement fraud
• Healthcare fraud
• Fraud affecting the US securities markets and investors
• Conduct that endangers US national security interests (such as, material support to terrorist organizations, sanctions evasion, customs evasion, and tariff fraud)
• Crimes that use digital assets in furtherance of other criminal conduct (such as, facilitation of drug money laundering)

In further alignment with these enforcement priorities, the subject areas for which forfeiture can be sought under the Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program (the Pilot Program) have been expanded to include many of the above categories (such as corporate procurement fraud, trade-related fraud and sanctions violations and violations involving material support of terrorism). The prior version of the Pilot Program provided financial recovery to eligible whistleblowers for tips related to certain crimes involving financial institutions, violations of foreign bribery, corruption and money laundering statutes, domestic corporate corruption and healthcare fraud involving private insurance plans. This expansion in the Pilot Program’s scope of eligible corporate misconduct signals that companies should evaluate their compliance programs to ensure they are attentive to internal reports involving this wider range of legal and regulatory risks. In addition, it is noteworthy that Galeotti’s memo identifies bribery of foreign corrupt officials as a “high-impact area,” while citing Executive Order 14209, which paused FCPA enforcement. This implies that the DOJ still has an interest in investigating and prosecuting bribery that implicates the administration’s priorities, namely, protecting US national interests, US national security and the competitiveness of US businesses. DOJ is expected to issue revised guidelines related to FCPA enforcement pursuant to Executive Order 14209 in the coming months. 

Corporate enforcement policy

The DOJ’s revised Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy contains critical updates designed to provide greater transparency and to increase the potential benefits to companies that self-disclose misconduct and cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation. In brief, the prior DOJ policy applied a “presumption of declination” standard for qualifying self-disclosures. Under the new policy, a company that meets the DOJ’s criteria “will” receive a declination—presumably decreasing the chance that a company self-disclosing misconduct would still face prosecution. Moreover, the DOJ has introduced a new “near miss” category for cases where a company acts in good faith by self-reporting but its disclosure does not qualify as a voluntary self-disclosure. Companies that fall into this category should now receive a non-prosecution agreement—a new presumption. The changes are illustrated in a flowchart attached as Appendix A to the DOJ’s policy (linked above).

Corporate monitorships

Galeotti’s May 12 memo also signals that the DOJ will take a far more narrow and tailored view of the circumstances in which independent compliance monitors are imposed as part of corporate resolutions. In a separate memo on the selection of corporate monitors, Galeotti indicates that the DOJ may now consider the “availability and efficacy of other independent government oversight” in addition to factors such as the nature of the misconduct and the effectiveness and the maturity of the company’s compliance program. According to the memo, there may be no need for an independent monitor where a company’s primary regulator can exercise sufficient oversight to ensure the implementation of an effective compliance program in conjunction with the company’s self-directed efforts. This policy development, while specific to the DOJ, may also indicate a broader appetite in the administration for regulators across the board to focus on improving the time-efficiency of their resolutions. 

Further, the memo provides that prosecutors can consider cost efficiency as a factor when deciding whether a corporate monitor is necessary. This would be a substantial departure from prior practice, and it signals that companies negotiating with the DOJ should be prepared to provide data on the proportionality factors recited in the memo.

Key takeaways

Galeotti’s announcement of the Enforcement Plan provides valuable insights into the DOJ’s priorities and expectations for companies. In hindsight, we can see that some of these new priorities have been in motion for at least a few weeks. At the end of April, the DOJ announced the early termination of a major transnational company’s compliance monitorship. Around the same time, the National Security Division of the DOJ issued a declination for a company’s “prompt self-disclosure and extraordinary cooperation” related to unlawful export of software to China. The administration’s prioritization of US companies and US interests will likely be a throughline as the DOJ works to streamline investigations, encourage corporate cooperation and offer companies concrete benefits for self-disclosure.  

With the DOJ’s efforts to make white-collar investigations more efficient, we may see current and future investigations moving more quickly and intensely. This will likely correlate with expectations from DOJ for companies to match their pace, whether in how quickly they address whistleblower complaints or responses to their requests. It is also important to keep in mind that the current administration will continue focusing on identifying the key individual actors who are involved in the alleged misconduct, including executives, officers and employees of companies. 

For companies examining their compliance programs or evaluating ongoing internal investigations in light of the administration’s various executive orders, there is still a clear expectation that companies will design and maintain active compliance programs to prevent and remediate misconduct. The DOJ’s guidance provides companies with helpful insight into areas that may pose heightened risks and areas where more compliance resources may be allocated. The standards for corporate liability in those areas merit particular attention. For example, companies should ensure that they have adequate supply chain controls to avoid any charge of willful blindness of customs violations, and companies should review their policies governing federal contracting and their certifications submitted with bids and program applications to protect against fraud claims.  

Galeotti’s messaging suggests a potentially more lenient environment for companies to self-disclose and resolve misconduct and better prospects for companies with sophisticated compliance programs to avoid extended monitorships in the wake of enforcement resolutions. For companies doing business across borders, these updates highlight that risk assessments under the current administration will require careful consideration to understand whether their supply chains and operations have touchpoints with US interests and whether their compliance programs sufficiently address these heightened risk areas. At the same time, companies should be mindful of the increased incentives for whistleblowers in the DOJ’s “high-impact areas,” and should take proactive measures to mitigate whistleblower risk and, where appropriate, take advantage of the DOJ’s avenues to seek declination or non-prosecution.

Please look for further publications in the near term from our team in the wake of the DOJ’s announcements.