As we move into the last months of 2026, the contours of white-collar enforcement differ in some notable ways from those that defined 2025. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has undergone structural shifts and reorganizations, new task forces have reached early milestones, and enforcement tools that had seen less use have reemerged. Below are six developments worth watching.
A DOJ in Transition: Rebuilt Around Fraud
Within DOJ, significant financial resources and new hires are being allocated to focus on the Administration’s stated priorities, especially on efforts to investigate and address alleged fraud.
One chief example is a significant allocation of resources to the National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED), which absorbed several former standalone sections of the Criminal Division, including the Tax Section (which had only recently been merged into the Criminal Division after years as a standalone office), Health Care Fraud Unit, and Market, Government, & Consumer Fraud Unit. DOJ is also emphasizing closer coordination and cooperation among federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement, adding $300 million in grants to deputize state and local prosecutors as Special Attorneys and Special Assistant United States Attorneys, and launching a National Fraud Detection Center to generate data-driven leads across federal programs.
The Trade Fraud Task Force (the Task Force), launched in August 2025 by DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security, is another example. The Task Force’s goal is to target customs schemes such as false country-of-origin declarations, misclassified goods, and shipments rerouted through third countries in an attempt to evade tariffs. In its first year, the Task Force reported more than $1 billion in recoveries, penalties, and charged losses through criminal charges, False Claims Act matters, and asset forfeiture. In July 2026, a New York bag importer and its CEO also agreed to pay $7.3 million to settle False Claims Act allegations that they disguised Chinese-manufactured bags as Hong Kong-origin goods. They were alleged to have covered up country-of-origin markings and canceled orders to avoid customs inspection. DOJ’s Global Trade and Commerce Enforcement Section reflects a broader trend of treating trade fraud as a significant area of white-collar enforcement.
Read more: DOJ Merges Criminal Fraud Units Under New National Fraud Enforcement Division | DOJ and DHS Announce New Task Force to Counter Tariff Evasion
The 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown
DOJ’s announcement in June 2026 of its health care fraud takedown reflected significant enforcement numbers, but it also reflected a shift toward detecting fraud before payment rather than after.On June 23, 2026, DOJ announced charges against 455 defendants involving more than $6.5 billion in alleged false claims across 56 federal districts in coordinated enforcement actions. A record 50 state Medicaid Fraud Control Units participated, resulting in international arrests, and more than 1,000 providers being suspended by CMS. Hospice and wound care, especially allografts and skin substitutes, have drawn particular focus.
DOJ’s announcement spotlighted novel investigative techniques, such as the Health Care Fraud Unit’s Data Fusion Center, established to identify and target fraud before payment was made, enabled by new data-sharing agreements with CMS, the FTC, and DHS.
Read more: 2026 National Healthcare Fraud Takedown: 455 Defendants, $6.5 Billion, and a New Era of Enforcement
The New Uniform Corporate Self-Disclosure Policy
In March 2026, DOJ issued a department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP). The presumption of a declination for companies that voluntarily self-disclose, fully cooperate, and timely remediate now applies across every DOJ component and U.S. Attorney’s Office. Companies that fall just short can still potentially receive a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of fewer than three years, no compliance monitor, and a 50% reduction off the low end of the guidelines range. Incentives are potentially available even for companies facing aggravating circumstances or disclosures that do not technically qualify as voluntary.
The policy also introduces a tight timeline. Once an employee reports potential misconduct internally, a company has 120 days to investigate and self-disclose before losing declination eligibility. That window underscores the relevance of internal reporting channels, escalation processes, and records retention. Under this framework, the timeliness of disclosure is a significant factor in determining available outcomes.
In June, DOJ’s National Security Division (NSD) issued its first declination under the new CEP. NSD declined to prosecute a company for non-compliance with United States export regulations, specifically the alleged export of software without a license or authorization from the U.S. Department of Commerce to an importer located in China and included on the Department of Commerce’s Entity List. The company’s subsidiaries allegedly lacked the required Bureau of Industry and Security license and violated the license requirement multiple times between September 2020 and September 2024. Based on the facts described in DOJ’s press release, the exporter appears to have satisfied each requirement: it voluntarily self-disclosed, cooperated by preserving documents and providing information, and remediated the violations by disciplining relevant employees and hiring trade compliance personnel. DOJ identified no pervasive misconduct or prior resolution of similar conduct. As required under the CEP, the exporter agreed to disgorge its pre-tax profits of $11,430,098.00, with nearly $8 million of that amount to be applied toward a separate $36 million penalty owed to the Department of Commerce.
Read more: DOJ Issues Department-Wide Corporate Self-Disclosure Policy
The Traditional “Whistleblower” is Evolving
Federal whistleblower programs continue to expand and generate payouts. The Antitrust Division paid its first award under its Whistleblower Rewards Program in January 2026, a $1 million payment tied to a bid-rigging investigation. The Criminal Division’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program remains active, and SEC and CFTC programs continue to generate significant filings and awards.
Equally significant is a shift in the type of individual bringing suspected fraud to the federal government, especially as FCA qui tam relators. The traditional relator was often a former employee or insider with direct knowledge of fraud, but advancements in AI and similar technology have enabled new categories of whistleblowers. Since FY2024, data miners using algorithms to analyze public government datasets have filed more than 45% of all qui tam complaints. Individuals with access to SBA loan records, PPP loan recipient information, Medicare and Medicaid claims data, or federal contracting data can use analytical models to identify potential fraud patterns. DOJ responded in April 2026 by launching its Fraud Oversight through Careful Use of Statistics (FOCUS) Initiative. The initiative is designed to evaluate data-driven qui tams and create new avenues for early dismissal of weaker claims.
At the same time, the Eleventh Circuit recently reversed a district court decision in the Zafirov case that had held the FCA’s qui tam device unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. The Eleventh Circuit held that qui tam relators are not officers of the United States and, accordingly, do not need to be presidentially appointed. But this area of litigation continues in matters throughout the country.
As whistleblower activity becomes more sophisticated and the self-disclosure window narrows, the efficiency of internal discovery, investigation, and reporting processes has become a more prominent consideration for companies seeking to preserve favorable enforcement outcomes.
Read more: DOJ’s New FOCUS Initiative Addresses Rising Number of FCA Qui Tam Cases Filed by Data Miners | Are Qui Tams Unconstitutional? The Latest on the Zafirov Case
Also read our Midyear Update specifically in the FCA context: False Claims Act Enforcement at Mid-Year 2026: Key Developments, Emerging Theories, and Strategic Considerations
FCPA Enforcement Continues
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement appeared to be quieter in recent years, but it has not ceased. In October 2025, prosecutors added a parent company as a corporate defendant to a pending bribery and money-laundering case—the first corporate FCPA indictment in fifteen years—over allegations that executives directed bribes to a former foreign election official. DOJ has confirmed that several other active FCPA matters will continue.
The nature and target of FCPA enforcement have also evolved in line with administrative priorities. Cartel and transnational criminal organization theories are increasingly layered onto traditional bribery cases. For example, an agricultural company recently reached a deferred prosecution agreement with DOJ in which it agreed to pay $10 million to resolve allegations it violated the FCPA by engaging in a years-long scheme in which it relied on bribery of Mexican officials to deliver goods across the border, with some of those bribes ultimately benefiting people who helped operate a cartel even though DOJ did not allege that the company knew about it. This convergence of anti-corruption and national security enforcement suggests that FCPA exposure may arise even where the company lacks direct knowledge of a cartel nexus. Additionally, sanctions compliance issues are increasingly overlapping with FCPA matters, potentially broadening the liability landscape for companies with international operations. Third-party and agent risk remains a primary exposure pathway, particularly where companies rely on intermediaries who interact with foreign government officials.
Read more: DOJ Poised to Reboot FCPA Investigations and Enforcement
Growing Risk of State AG Investigations
Federal enforcement is not the only risk. State attorneys general are conducting more active enforcement activities, such as taking the lead in health care fraud investigations, running parallel probes, and pursuing fraud independently under state False Claims Act statutes. This coordination is not incidental. DOJ’s own Civil Rights Fraud Initiative memorandum directs its Fraud Section and Civil Rights Division to “establish partnerships with state attorneys general and local law enforcement to share information and coordinate enforcement actions,” and state agencies can run independent, parallel investigations that often build a more detailed factual record than a federal case alone.
Read more on an example of recent State AG enforcement in the consumer protection context: The Next Frontier in State and Federal Junk Fees Enforcement
Key Takeaways
These developments reflect that enforcement activity is shifting and evolving to align with administrative priorities and technological change. DOJ is utilizing expanded tools and extending focus into new sectors. Companies in federal programs, government contracting, or international markets are navigating a more coordinated enforcement environment. Early detection, internal escalation, and engagement with counsel remain relevant considerations, particularly given the narrower timelines for self-disclosure and the expanding scope of whistleblower activity.
If you have questions on how these enforcement trends may impact your organization, contact Jody Rudman, Todd Gee, Julia Kopcienski, or your Husch Blackwell attorney.
Recent Comments