By Scott Hulsey and Hanna Tawasha
Consistent with its “America First” agenda, the current administration is concentrating on combating fraud, waste, and abuse to protect the country’s national security and financial interests. On May 12, 2025, Matthew R. Galeotti, head of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), issued a comprehensive memorandum announcing DOJ’s updated white-collar enforcement priorities.
The current administration’s priorities are animated by three core tenets: (1) focus (target enforcement in areas with the highest impact on U.S. interests), (2) fairness (prioritize individual culpability over corporate blanket prosecution), and (3) efficiency (shorten investigations, reduce corporate burdens, and tightly limit monitorships).
The memo identifies specific offenses related to these core concerns that DOJ plans to emphasize, and it also addresses company disclosures, whistleblower incentives, focus on individual conduct, and monitorships. This article elaborates on the memo’s guidance and concludes with recommendations for practitioners representing impacted companies.
The Administration’s Priorities
Following the first tenet, Galeotti directed DOJ to concentrate on
“10 high-impact” offenses that align closely with administration-wide goals. These are:
- Health care fraud and federal procurement fraud, which drain public resources;
- Trade, customs, or tariff fraud, which undermines trade policy;
- Complex money laundering, with particular attention to Chinese operations;
- Bribery that impacts U.S. national interests and enriches foreign corrupt officials;
- Crimes linked to transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), terrorists, and cartels that undermine national security;
- Material support to terrorist organizations;
- Unlawful manufacturing and distribution of fentanyl and opioids, including by medical professionals and companies;
- Variable interest entity fraud targeting investors;
- Crimes involving misuse of digital assets; and
- Other investment fraud targeting U.S. investors, including elder fraud and Ponzi schemes.
DOJ has decided to link white-collar enforcement to other initiatives, especially the targeting of TCOs and drug trafficking cartels. White-collar enforcement is also expected to serve as an extension of the administration’s foreign policy initiatives, most notably those involving import tariffs and engagement with China. National security has been identified as an underlying thread.
DOJ also will seek to protect investors, both in traditional markets and cryptocurrencies. This priority follows an April 7, 2025, memo from U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announcing that DOJ’s “investigations and prosecutions involving digital assets shall focus on prosecuting individuals who victimize digital asset investors, or those who use digital assets in furtherance of criminal offenses such as terrorism, narcotics and human trafficking, organized crime, hacking, and cartel and gang financing.”
Health care and federal procurement fraud round out the administration’s enforcement focus. For many years, health care fraud has dwarfed other areas of fraud enforcement, perhaps not surprisingly given the billions of federal dollars allocated to Medicare and Medicaid funding. Similarly, defense contracting is an industry involving billions of dollars in federal funds and therefore will be scrutinized for fraud and other abuse.
It is worth noting that DOJ’s prosecution of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) offenses, long deemed a DOJ enforcement priority, has been deemphasized as an area of focus. This shift is in line with a February 10, 2025, executive order raising concerns that “overexpansive” enforcement might interfere with U.S. business interests abroad. Consequently, FCPA enforcement is expected to be focused on non-U.S. companies registered or operating in the United States. In addition, the act will be leveraged to tackle transnational organized crime and drug trafficking organizations, according to a June 9, 2025, DOJ memo on guidelines for investigations and enforcement of FCPA.
While the current administration has been in office for less than a year, enforcement patterns appear to be tracking the DOJ white-collar memo’s guidance. For example, False Claims Act (FCA) cases, many predicated on health care fraud, have resulted in recoveries of approximately $3.8 billion for the first half of 2025 (as compared to $1.67 billion from health care settlements in all of 2024). As another example, DOJ recently resolved a $4.9 million customs fraud claim raised by a whistleblower in an FCA action. By contrast, select high-profile FCPA cases that previously would have been prosecuted to conclusion have been dismissed. DOJ’s dropping of FCPA charges against former Cognizant executives Gordon Coburn and Steven Schwartz on the eve of trial is a prominent example.
In sum, DOJ’s focus on these offenses mirrors the administration’s broader priorities of protecting U.S. economic and national security interests.
Corporate Whistleblower Awards
Continuing to incentivize whistleblower reporting to identify criminal activity, DOJ is expanding its Corporate Whistleblower Awards (CWA) Pilot Program to cover many of these enforcement areas, including immigration. To be eligible for a monetary award, tipster cases must result in forfeitures exceeding $1 million. Whistleblowers may be awarded 30 percent of net monies forfeited, up to the first $100 million, and up to 5 percent of any net proceeds forfeited between $100 million and $500 million. CWAs will now be available to whistleblowers who report the following additional offenses that lead to successful prosecution and forfeiture:
- Trade, tariff, and or customs fraud;
- Procurement fraud;
- Immigration violations;
- Money laundering, particularly tied to Chinese operations;
- Corporate sanctions violations;
- Health care fraud schemes targeting private insurers; and
- Material support to terrorism or transnational criminal operations, particularly cartels.
Awards will be paid from forfeited funds. Prosecutors are encouraged to “prioritize schemes involving senior-level personnel or other culpable actors, demonstrable loss, and efforts to obstruct justice.”
Targeting Individuals, Not Companies
Emphasizing the second tenet of fairness, the May DOJ memo explicitly identifies as the department’s “first priority” the prosecution of individual criminals rather than corporations. As the memo explains, individuals, including executives and employees, ultimately are responsible for corporate actions, including those that are unlawful. This focus on individual culpability is nothing new. In 2015, during the Obama administration, DOJ issued guidance (the Yates memo) encouraging prosecutors to focus on “individual accountability.”
Company Self-Disclosures
DOJ white-collar enforcement continues to be predicated on corporate self-policing. Like previous administrations, the current DOJ plans to incentivize self-disclosures. However, in his memo, Galeotti directs the Criminal Division to revise DOJ’s 2018 Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy to clarify the benefits of self-disclosure and cooperation. DOJ is essentially making a categorical promise to issue declinations (i.e., a formal DOJ commitment not to prosecute a company) to companies that otherwise may be subject to prosecution, pro- vided they meet four criteria: (1) voluntary self-disclosure, (2) full cooperation with the investigation, (3) timely and effective remediation, and (4) no aggravating factors.
To meet these criteria, the company must make a reasonably prompt, good-faith, and voluntary self-disclosure before DOJ has been or is about to be made aware of the conduct. Cooperation must be fulsome and include the disclosure of all relevant facts, preservation of evidence, and employees made available for interview. The timely and effective re- mediation includes disciplining the culpable employees, bolstering compliance, and otherwise attempting to make right. Aggravating factors that might thwart the government’s decision to issue a declination include behaviors like prior convictions for the same conduct.
A recent example of a declination by DOJ involves private equity firm White Deer Management LLC. White Deer disclosed violations of sanctions and export laws it discovered when acquiring another company, Unicat Catalyst Technologies, LLC. A senior executive at Unicat was successfully prosecuted because of White Deer’s disclosure. Unicat, by contrast, did not receive a declination but instead entered into a non-prosecution agreement. While Unicat cooperated with the government’s investigation and identified employees it believed to be most culpable, no declination was awarded because of aggravating factors — namely, having violated national security laws for a period of eight years.
Limiting Monitorships, Hastening Charging Decisions
Focusing on the final tenet of efficiency, Galeotti has committed to limiting monitorships, a shift from prior administrations. In recent years, DOJ has increasingly imposed outside compliance monitors as an independent oversight mechanism for companies that have engaged in corporate misconduct, providing oversight of remediation and compliance updates. The May 2025 memo indicates that DOJ will review all existing compliance monitor mandates and terminate those whose objectives have been met, even if the term of the monitor has not yet expired. Additionally, the memo provides that the appointment of new monitors should be narrowly tailored, cost-effective, and imposed only when truly necessary. Factors impacting the monitor’s scope will include the risk of misconduct recurring, the maturity of the company’s compliance program, and the availability of alternative oversight mechanisms.
In addition, the memo encourages prosecutors to act swiftly, make prompt charging decisions, minimize the operational burden on companies, and accelerate investigations.
Strategies for Representing Companies
1. Align compliance with DOJ priorities. A first step for practitioners is ensuring that their clients’ compliance frameworks reflect DOJ’s cur- rent enforcement focus. This entails guiding clients through robust risk- mapping exercises that prioritize exposure to areas such as health care claims and federal grant programs, tariff and customs violations, import/export and immigration compliance, digital asset activity, and cartel or TCO risks within the supply chain. Anti-money-laundering programs, particularly those monitoring funds linked to China, may also be scrutinized.
Once risks are identified, practitioners might consider evaluating their clients’ policies, training, and controls to ensure they address risk exposure in these areas. For example, a company may need to enhance internal audit triggers for suspicious billing or trade activity, establish controls around cryptocurrency usage, and reinforce sourcing policies in vulnerable supply chains. Equally important is the ability to demonstrate in the event of an enforcement action a mature, well-supported compliance culture — one that is led from the top, incorporates documented remediation pathways, and includes clear escalation protocols for internal concerns.
2. Build a strategy for self-disclosure. With increased incentives for voluntary self-disclosure, practitioners may wish to assist their clients in evaluating whether they are harboring potential criminal exposure — such as Medicare overbilling or tariff evasion — and whether now is the right time to come forward. DOJ’s unambiguous guarantee of declinations makes this moment unique for companies considering self-disclosure, which of course would need to be timely and paired with full cooperation and effective remediation to avoid prosecution altogether.
Even if cooperation is delayed or incomplete, voluntary disclosure can still lead to more favorable outcomes, such as a nonprosecution agreement or deferred prosecution agreement with reduced penal- ties. Importantly, early disclosure can provide much-needed predictability and finality. Practitioners can help clients balance these bene- fits against other risks, such as shareholder exposure or parallel civil litigations.
3. Reinforce internal whistleblower channels. With the expanded scope of the CWA program — covering violations involving tariffs, procurement, immigration, TCO/cartel activity, and health care fraud — practitioners may wish to stress-test their clients’ internal whistleblower mechanisms to ensure they are accessible, effective, and responsive. Prompt internal resolution of complaints can reduce the risk that whistleblowers will first report problematic conduct to DOJ or another enforcement agency, thus preserving the company’s eligibility for full cooperation credit.
4. Review and renegotiate existing or potential monitorships. Considering DOJ’s revised approach to compliance monitors, counsel to companies subject to existing monitorships may wish to request a formal reevaluation of their scope and duration. Where compliance programs are deemed mature and the risk of recurrence is low, monitorships may be reduced or terminated early. For companies negotiating new resolutions, practitioners can advocate for tightly scoped monitorships with durations not exceeding three years, consistent with DOJ guidance that calls for efficient, risk-based oversight.
5. Consider geographic and sectoral implications. Global companies registered with U.S. indexes or operating in the U.S. market — whether through customs, health care payors, digital asset exchanges, or securities listings — will need to integrate DOJ priorities into their worldwide compliance systems. Counsel for foreign entities with U.S. operations or listings should align their compliance and audit functions with U.S. enforcement risks and ensure that disclosure strategies are harmonized across jurisdictions.
In summary, the May 2025 Galeotti memo signals a renewed approach to enforcement, purportedly friendlier to corporations and concentrated on protecting U.S. national security, U.S. investors, and programs with significant federal funding. Key shifts include:
- Guaranteed declination letters for compliant self-disclosure;
- Prosecution of individuals rather than companies;
- Broader whistleblower incentives; and
- Streamlined monitorships and faster resolutions.
Companies everywhere should consider recalibrating compliance, enhancing internal reporting, assessing disclosure opportunities, and positioning themselves to cooperate effectively.
Scott Hulsey is a partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, where he specializes in legal and regulatory compliance and government enforcement defense for businesses and individuals. He is a former chief compliance officer for a global company and former prosecutor and high-ranking DOJ official. Hanna Tawasha was a summer associate at the firm.
