With each new Administration comes a new approach or emphasis on certain enforcement priorities.  The Trump Administration is marking its territory and doing so to underscore its priorities. 

In a recent speech, the Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti for the Criminal Division announced DOJ’s new approach.  To reinforce this new approach, DOJ issued a new memorandum, Focus, Fairness and Efficiency in the Fight Against White Collar Crime, May 12, 2025.   

The new approach outlined includes some interesting observations concerning white collar enforcement.  The highlights include:

AAG Galeotti cited the fact that white-collar crime “poses a significant threat to U.S. interests,” and that, if unchecked, results in great harm to government and hardworking Americans.  In particular, AAG Galeotti cited the national security harms caused by international money laundering organizations, and illicit financial and logistical networks which facilitate sanctions evasion by hostile nation-states and terror regimes.

AAG Galeotti questioned the efficacy of DOJ’s past practices and the fact that prior enforcement efforts ” come at too high a cost for businesses and American enterprise..  To address this issue, American companies ” need clear guidance and certainty on the concrete benefits that each company, their shareholders, boards, and customers can earn through self-reporting, owning up to criminal conduct, remediating, and cooperating with the Department.”  In his view, those costs and uncertainty have deterred companies from working with the Department and diverted the Department’s resources from tackling the most significant threats facing our country.”

To back up this assertion, AAG Galeotti asserted that DOJ had been “quick and heavy-handed with the stick, and stingy with the carrot,” which resulted in ” lengthy drawn-out investigations that are ultimately detrimental to companies and the Department.”  As a result, companies have been deterred from cooperating and allowing the Department to more readily target the most culpable actors.”

The New Page on White Collar Enforcement  

Beginning with the importance that white-collar enforcement should not intrude on law-abiding companies that are key to ensuring the overall prosperity of the U.S. economy.  In this respect. AAG Galeotti noted the dangers of “excessive enforcement” and “unfocused corporate investigates” frustrate innovation, limit prosperity and reduces efficiency. 

Like many predecessors, AAG Galeotti cited the strength and important of corporate compliance functions, especially those compliance officers fighting AML on the front lines against criminal actors.  He urged compliance officers to “provide critical information” to prosecute the worst offenders, the individual fraudsters, those that shadow bank for hostile nation-states, cartel enablers and other financial facilitators. 

Going forward, AAG Galeotti announced three significant changes to its corporate enforcement policies. designed to promote focus, fairness and efficiency.  AAG Galeotti cited the harm caused by fraudsters who perpetrate schemes designed to harm individuals; the harm caused by dishonest actors who take advantage of our government and enrich themselves through waste, fraud and abuse, including those that defraud Medicare, defense programs and other public benefit programs.; and those bad actors who exploit the U.S. financial system. 

To this end, AAG Galeotti announced the following changes to DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Program:

1.  Companies that self-report will earn significant benefits — a declination, not a “presumption” of a declination.  Those companies that voluntarily disclose, cooperate and remediate will be awarded a declination, assuming there are no aggravating circumstances. For those companies that have aggravating circumstances, companies may still be eligible for declination based on weighing the severity of those aggravating circumstances and the company’s cooperation and remediation.

2.  Those companies that disclose but do so after DOJ has initiated an investigation, the revised Corporate Enforcement Program that those companies are still eligible to receive significant benefits—an NPA with a term of fewer than three years, 75% reduction of the criminal fine, and no monitor.  Where a company does not disclose but still cooperates and remediates its compliance program, the CEP provides that companies could receive benefits in a favorable resolution, with a three-year term, no monitor and up to 50% reduction in the fine.

3.  Modification of DOJ’s Monitor Program to narrow the cases where a monitor should be appointed and to minimize costs of a monitorship.  In this regard, DOJ will ensure that any existing or future monitor to narrow the scope or terminate a monitorship.  In appropriate situations, DOJ will appoint a narrowly-tailored monitorship that is right-sized to the conduct it seeks to remedy.  Going forward, DOJ will weigh the following factors: (1) the nature and seriousness of the conduct and the risk that it will happen again; (2) the availability of other effective independent government oversight—i.e., regulator oversight; (3) the efficacy of the company’s compliance program and culture of compliance at the time of resolution; and (4) .the maturity of the company’s controls and ability of the company to test and update its compliance program.

And when a monitor is imposed, DOJ “will ensure that costs are proportionate with the underlying criminal conduct, the company’s profits, and the company’s size and risk profile.” DOJ will require a fee cap, approve budgets for all workplans, and require biannual tripartite meetings between DOJ, the monitor, and the company.