Number of DOJ Fraud Section's Foreign Bribery Cases and Prosecutors Cut in Half

Justice Department Resumes Foreign-Bribery Work but Cuts Cases After Trump’s Pause

The Justice Department will resume investigating foreign-bribery cases with a narrowed focus on matters that relate to U.S. strategic interests, including buttressing the ability of American firms to compete for business overseas.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the changes after a four-month review triggered by President Trump’s order earlier this year freezing corruption investigations. Trump said at the time that enforcement of a federal antibribery law, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, puts American firms at a disadvantage to foreign rivals that can engage in conduct forbidden in the U.S.

The department has closed nearly half of its foreign-bribery investigations to align with new guidelines Blanche issued Tuesday, according to senior Justice Department officials.

SEC plan says existing staff cuts help meet DOGE targets

Wall Street’s top regulator told the White House in March it had already made substantial progress toward meeting President Trump and Elon Musk’s demands for leaner government via voluntary workforce reductions, according to a planning document obtained by Reuters.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission also told the Office of Management and Budget that it is legally required to seek input from Congress before any “significant reorganization” and that changes beyond certain budget thresholds need lawmakers’ approval, according to the March 13 document provided in response to a Reuters’ public records request.

The SEC submission for “reduction in force” and reorganizations, which Reuters is the first to report, responded to February’s call from Trump and erstwhile ally Musk for federal agencies to develop plans for “large scale” cuts as part of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency initiative.

Though much of the text, released under the Freedom of Information Act, is redacted, the visible portions suggest agency leadership at least in part believed voluntary reductions already in progress could weigh against the need for further cuts.

Musk v. Trump

… If you own Tesla stock … look Tesla’s SEC filings do not currently include a risk factor saying “Elon Musk is a loose cannon who will alienate approximately all of our customers by going all-in on Donald Trump, and then also alienate Donald Trump.” Is that securities fraud? If there is one essential theme of this column (that is not legal advice) it is that everything is securities fraud, and hoo boy.

I often have occasion to see a stock drop and think “ahh that’ll be a fun lawsuit,” but I have never looked forward to a securities fraud lawsuit more than this one. These ones….

The Fallout from SEC v. Jarkesy: Is There a Right to a Jury Trial in Administrative Enforcement Actions Brought by NYDFS?

Legal developments emerging in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), present an important question for entities licensed by the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS): in an administrative enforcement action brought by NYDFS, does Jarkesy entitle the targeted entity to a jury trial?

Law Firms Thread Needle on Trump Pledges With Minimal Change

Nine big law firms that promised President Donald Trump $940 million in free legal services are changing little to meet their commitments, a strategy enabled by the deals’ vagueness and judges striking down orders punishing three competitors.

The agreements lack deadlines, definitions or processes, giving firms wide latitude in interpreting them. Firm leaders realize the president has less leverage to punish them for how they follow the deals after three judges struck down Trump orders. The president, after demonstrating that he can intimidate law firms, has shown little interest in enforcing the agreements—he’s barely mentioned them in the last 60 days.

“Neither party has an incentive to push it—it’s in that where the success lies,” said Rebecca Roiphe, an ethics professor at New York Law School. The deals were “more of a PR move, with a sword hanging over the heads of law firms to make them think about whether what they do pleases or displeases the administration.”