Originally posted on Global Investigations Review
Compliance is in a “holding pattern” as companies wait for credible US enforcement to make big decisions, Matt Ellis told GIR. (Credit: Generated with Copilot)
Nearly two years into President Donald Trump’s second term, in-house counsel and white-collar lawyers are split on its effects on the compliance landscape.
Some veteran compliance professionals say sophisticated companies don’t view a significant slowdown in white-collar enforcement as a reason to let their guard down. Instead, those businesses are scrambling to assess new risks posed by the administration’s aggressive stance against companies entangled with cartels and organised crime.
Others suspect a quiet compliance retreat is underway as the US, perhaps the world’s most aggressive policer of white-collar crime, scales back enforcement of once widely feared statutes like the FCPA.
Data on the issue is not conclusive. A recent survey of nearly 1,200 compliance professionals around the world by software provider Navex suggests some businesses have adapted to new risks under President Trump, though many compliance departments feel under-resourced.
For Matteson Ellis of Miller & Chevalier in Washington, DC, compliance is in a state of limbo.
“We’re in a holding pattern right now,” said Ellis, who advises businesses on cross-border investigations and compliance strategies. “Companies are waiting to see evidence of credible enforcement.”
Same work, new priorities
The jury is still out on whether US enforcement will bounce back. Regardless, many compliance professionals say changing risks, not case counts, are driving their decisions.
Becky Rohr, who recently stepped down as Ericsson’s chief compliance officer and head of investigations, told GIR that while white-collar lawyers may be fixated on declining enforcement numbers, compliance departments remain focused on managing risk and adapting to change.
The Trump administration’s designation of certain cartels as foreign terrorist organisations has created new risks that sophisticated compliance programmes cannot ignore, Rohr said. Even if companies pull back resources devoted to foreign bribery, compliance programmes need to evaluate cartel-related risks given the government’s expanded enforcement tools and the potential for civil lawsuits under the Anti-Terrorism Act, she said.
Andrew Gentin, who led the Criminal Division’s corporate enforcement and compliance unit under President Joe Biden, said companies shouldn’t need to rethink their compliance plans to assess new cartel risks entirely.
“It’s more of a refinement. Not all companies will need to make drastic changes but additional layers of diligence should be performed,” said Gentin, who now leads Rosetti Starr’s global investigations and compliance practices in Bethesda, Maryland.
Businesses should be diligently screening third parties for links to newly designated cartels, Gentin said. “It’s similar to the kind of due diligence that companies have long conducted to avoid getting involved with sanctioned entities,” he said.
Only 26% of compliance professionals surveyed by Navex, which included senior executives in industries such as healthcare, manufacturing, professional services, science, retail trade, utilities, said they had updated risk assessments to reflect shifts in US enforcement priorities.
Many practitioners were sceptical that staffing levels or enforcement numbers at agencies like the SEC or DOJ are helpful metrics to evaluate risk.
“Companies shouldn’t treat the perceived decreased level of enforcement as a reason to cut corners on their compliance programmes,” said Gentin, who helped shape corporate enforcement policies and previously served as a trial attorney in the FCPA Unit during his two-decade run at DOJ.
If your company is in the crosshairs of one prosecutor, it doesn’t do you any good to know that there are only 20 prosecutors left.
— Rebecca Rohr of Ericsson
If anything, artificial intelligence has been the real compliance disruptor as companies start using AI tools to automate routine tasks, redeploy staff and even reduce headcount, Rohr said.
“That’s much more of a driver in shaking up compliance programmes than the enforcement atmosphere,” she said.
That the DOJ has lost numerous experienced attorneys is “just a fact”, said Martin Weinstein of Hogan Lovells Cadwalader. But a younger crop of prosecutors will soon be up to speed and whistleblower tips are streaming in, so companies would be wise to keep an eye out, said the former Tax Division trial attorney.
“Is it going to take a little bit of time? Yeah. But not as much as you think,” Weinstein said.
Doing more with less
There are signs that some compliance departments are struggling to keep up under the Trump administration.
Roughly 38% of compliance experts surveyed by Navex cited expanded responsibilities without additional resources as their biggest internal challenge.
The finding “illustrates the strain [risk and compliance] leaders feel when making the case for additional resources and support from leadership,” the report said.
Ellis of Miller & Chevalier said businesses still rely on outside counsel for independence and expertise when necessary, but many are trying to accomplish more with internal resources and a leaner compliance team amid a slowing global economy.
“Until business leaders see compelling evidence of credible enforcement risks it will be hard for compliance teams to make the case for more budget,” Ellis said. The trend is most noticeable in lower-risk sectors and among companies facing broader cost pressures, he added.
US officials have repeatedly suggested that an enforcement rebound is around the corner, Ellis noted. An August memo by the chief of the DOJ’s new Fraud Division stated the division “has a strong pipeline of ongoing corporate matters”.
“The current lag in enforcement is not anticipated to be the new norm,” said Ellis.
Alexandra Addison, chief executive of Trace International, a non-profit industry group that helps companies mitigate bribery and corruption risks, said she sees signs of a gradual compliance pullback rather than wholesale cuts.
Companies are asking how to cut costs and compliance increasingly feels “more discretionary and less kind of solid mandate from the top”, Addison said.
Navex survey found that 32% of respondents expected their compliance budgets to increase by at least 10%, while 61% expected budgets to remain stable or change only modestly.
Addison said companies that were slower to embrace anti-corruption compliance in the first place appear to be scaling back fastest as boards become less convinced that FCPA violations present an existential threat.
“We watched industries get on the FCPA compliance bandwagon in a particular order through the early 2000s and they seem to be dropping off in roughly the reverse order,” she said. “If you no longer perceive this as the terrifying risk of large fines and jail time that you once did, your board’s going to invest less in it,” she added.
The shrinking FCPA docket
After a surge, the DOJ’s pipeline of FCPA cases against individuals thinned alongside a broader decline in corporate enforcement
Source: Criminal Division individual cases, corporate enforcement
Rohr, the former Ericsson compliance chief, said the changing enforcement landscape has forced compliance departments to rethink their internal messaging to ensure employees act with ethics and integrity.
“As a reason for compliance, companies are now pointing to their own anti-corruption policies instead of pointing to the DOJ as a possible threat,” Rohr said.
A smaller seat at the table
Beyond budgets and resources, some see a cultural shift at play.
Ellis said there are signs, however, that some compliance functions are losing influence. At some companies, compliance chiefs are attending fewer senior committee meetings and spending less time before boards than they once did.
I’ve noticed that the stature of the compliance function at some organisations is perhaps not as high as it once was.
— Matt Ellis of Miller & Chevalier
The share of Navex survey respondents reporting that boards receive periodic compliance reports or updates fell from 66% in 2024 to 54% in 2026.
Addison of Trace warned that the US may be losing credibility as the world’s leading anti-corruption enforcer. “When I travel internationally now, there’s a lot of eye-rolling. There’s a lot of, ‘you no longer have the moral authority to talk to us on this issue’.”
The Trump administration’s rhetoric and apparent disregard for ethical norms have only complicated matters, Addison said. President Trump’s long-held view that the FCPA is a “horrible” law and his family’s deals abroad have made it harder for compliance officers to explain strict anti-corruption rules to company employees, she added.
Compliance officers used to sit around and debate whether a $100 meal in Cairo was too much for a government official… all of that now happens against the backdrop of the behaviour of this administration.
— Alexandra Addison of Trace International
In August, Democrats from the House Judiciary Committee expanded a probe into President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to examine whether a $120 million luxury resort development deal in Albania breached the FCPA. In 2025, Qatar’s donation of a $400 million Boeing aircraft for President Trump’s use sparked a bipartisan outcry in Congress, with one prominent Democratic Senator labeling the gift as “the definition of corruption”.
“When it’s okay to accept a jumbo jet, it will be very difficult to recover America’s serious reputation on this issue,” Addison said.
## Explore the rest of the series
Part 1: How staffing cuts, agency shake-ups and shifting priorities are reshaping the federal agencies that drive corporate enforcement.
Part 2: How a wave of departures from government fuelled the growth of specialist boutiques and redrew the white-collar legal market.
In charts: A visual guide to the staffing losses, workload pressures and operational challenges facing the agencies at the heart of white-collar enforcement.
