White-Collar Enforcement Under Trump 2.0: Insights From The 2026 ABA White-Collar Crime Institute

This past March, representatives of Osler attended the American Bar Association’s White-Collar Crime Institute and the Women’s White Collar Defense Association’s Annual Attorney Meeting in San Diego, California. These conferences brought together former and current officials from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Department of Justice (DOJ), federal and state prosecutors, in-house counsel from major corporations and practitioners from U.S., Canadian and international law firms.

Discussions largely centred on enforcement priorities under the second Trump administration, including Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit (FCPA) enforcement, sanctions and export controls, corporate self-disclosure, international anti-corruption enforcement, securities and healthcare fraud, and monitors and receiverships.

Canadian companies — particularly those with international operations or access to U.S. capital markets — should remain keenly aware of these developments. In this post, we discuss certain key topics featured during these conferences in more detail.

Shifting resources and enforcement priorities

At a high level, panelists emphasized that white-collar enforcement by U.S. authorities has undergone a paradigm shift under the second Trump administration.

First, there has been a significant reallocation of federal resources toward anti-immigration efforts, coupled with substantial layoffs at the DOJ and other federal agencies. This has had a cascading effect on traditional white-collar enforcement, and panelists suggested an uptick is unlikely in the near term.

Second, the guiding principle driving white-collar enforcement appears to be “America First.” This is reflected in the types of cases pursued, higher authorization requirements for certain investigations (such as FCPA matters) and more centralized decision-making from Washington, D.C. Priority areas now include healthcare fraud, trade and customs fraud, national security, cartel financing and sanctions, while cryptocurrency and FCPA enforcement have taken a back seat. These shifts are consistent with the DOJ’s White-Collar Enforcement Plan released last year.

SEC enforcement: a ‘back to basics’ approach

Panelists highlighted that since 2025, the SEC significantly shifted its enforcement approach. Under Chairman Paul Atkins, the agency adopted a “back-to-basics” strategy, prioritizing traditional securities fraud cases with tangible investor harm over technical books-and-records matters, registration cases and novel legal theories.

The SEC appears also to have significantly slowed enforcement against public companies, reflecting concerns that innocent shareholders are often harmed by corporate enforcement actions. Cryptocurrency enforcement remains largely paused, though the SEC remains committed to combating fraud in the technology space. In February 2026, the SEC announced a new Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit, replacing the former Crypto Asset and Cyber Unit.

Private funds remain an area to watch. The SEC appears to be pursuing a dual approach: on one hand, embracing initiatives aimed at “democratizing” private markets by expanding retail investor access; on the other, signalling that this expanded access will be accompanied by heightened scrutiny on the potential “pitfalls” of these investments, including liquidity, valuation, diversification and terms and conditions. As a result, market participants should anticipate increased enforcement focus on misrepresentations or opacity in asset valuations, particularly where retail investors may be affected.

Finally, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement updated its Enforcement Manual in February 2026 for the first time in eight years. Key changes include extending the Wells process submission period from two to four weeks, providing recipients with greater access to evidence gathered by staff and restoring the practice of simultaneous consideration of settlement offers and waiver requests. The updated Manual also provides a more detailed framework for evaluating cooperation, potentially leading to reduced or no penalties.

Canadian companies who could be subject to SEC investigations should familiarize themselves with these developments. It remains to be seen whether Canadian securities regulators will follow suit; notably, enforcement in the cryptocurrency industry remains active in Canada.

Anti-corruption and bribery enforcement: a shifting landscape

Panelists discussed how FCPA enforcement by U.S. authorities has been significantly curtailed, but not eliminated. Following President Trump’s February 2025 executive order pausing FCPA enforcement, the DOJ released new FCPA guidelines in June 2025. Under the new guidelines, any new FCPA investigation must be specifically authorized by the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the DOJ or a more senior DOJ official. Prosecutors are also now required to consider factors such as associations with cartels or transnational criminal organizations, national security threats and impact on American companies.

Despite these constraints, the DOJ has continued to bring and pursue FCPA cases, particularly against individuals and in matters involving egregious misconduct. In fact, the DOJ secured a conviction in February 2026 against an individual in connection with an international bribery and money laundering scheme.

One important development noted by panelists is the potential for foreign regulators to fill anti-corruption and bribery enforcement gaps left by U.S. authorities’ backing away from their historical dominance. European authorities have so far remained active in their efforts to combat foreign and domestic bribery and corruption. In fact, this past month, the European Parliament passed new anti-corruption rules for adoption across the European Union, and the United Kingdom, France and Switzerland announced a new anti-corruption alliance to strengthen collaboration between them. While U.S. enforcement may have recalibrated, international enforcement risk has not disappeared and may actually be increasing.

Corporate self-disclosure: the new DOJ framework

A key topic of discussion was the DOJ’s new unified Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy, which creates a framework for all corporate criminal matters (except antitrust). Under the policy, companies that voluntarily self-disclose, fully cooperate and remediate in a timely fashion shall receive a declination, absent aggravating circumstances. For “near miss” situations — where a company fully cooperated and remediated but the disclosure did not qualify as voluntary self-disclosure and/or certain aggravating factors were present — the likely outcome is a non-prosecution agreement.

While panelists welcomed this development for providing greater predictability and consistency across the department, self-disclosure remains a complex decision for companies. Companies should be mindful that DOJ declinations are made public, do not insulate against state prosecution or civil actions and can be revisited (within the applicable statute of limitations).

Conclusion

While these enforcement trends are playing out in the United States, their implications extend well beyond U.S. borders. Canadian companies — particularly those with international operations, U.S. subsidiaries or access to American capital markets — should remain vigilant. The shift in U.S. enforcement priorities does not eliminate risk; it redistributes it. Areas like healthcare fraud, trade compliance and sanctions remain active, and foreign regulators are increasingly prepared to step in where U.S. authorities have pulled back.

We will continue to monitor these developments and their impact on Canadian businesses.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.