CLIENT ALERT: DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division Announces New Enforcement Priorities And Plan To Address Them

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• On August 13, 2026, the DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division (“Division”) announced its new structure, which focuses on “prosecuting frauds that threaten the health, safety, security, and prosperity of Americans.”
• The five priority areas of focus are (1) public trust and financial integrity, (2) health care, (3) internal revenue, (4) global trade and commerce, and (5) corporate misconduct.
• The Division expects to reach approximately 500 attorneys and staff and explained that it “will continue to rapidly grow for the next two years,” backed by an infusion of resources reallocated from other Department components.
• Businesses and individuals should expect continued white-collar enforcement across the five priority areas. Uneven enforcement and declination trends are no safe harbor, since charging decisions can shift.

BACKGROUND

On August 13, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald announced via memorandum (“Memorandum”) a new structure of the Division, focusing on “prosecuting frauds that threaten the health, safety, security, and prosperity of Americans.” The Memorandum also included a new chart detailing the flow of sections within the Division. The five priority areas of enforcement are: (1) public trust and financial integrity, (2) health care, (3) internal revenue, (4) global trade and commerce, and (5) corporate misconduct.

According to the Memorandum, the Division will increase its headcount to approximately 500 attorneys and staff by August 24. This number will keep rising, as the Division “will continue to rapidly grow for the next two years.” As described by the Memorandum, the Division will have specialized litigating sections dedicated to prosecuting businesses and individuals under one of the stated priority areas of focus. These teams, consisting of supporting asset recovery attorneys and investigators, corporate enforcement experts, cross-disciplinary experts in data science, and more, are being assembled to make the Division “lean, flat, and agile,” so that its prosecutors can focus on charging violations of the law.

THE FIVE NEW ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES

I.   Public Trust and Financial Integrity: The Memorandum designates prosecuting government procurement fraud as a “critical priority,” identifying defective pricing, bid rigging, self-dealing, bribery, product substitution, and billing frauds as targeted conduct. The Memorandum frames these schemes as corrosive not only to government finances but to the quality of public services and, in the procurement context, to national security and military readiness. Beyond procurement, the Division intends to heighten scrutiny of fraud against benefit and grant programs, including student loans, childcare, veterans’ benefits, nutritional supplements, disaster relief, and small business programs, which it describes as support for the country’s most vulnerable citizens.

II.   Health Care: The Memorandum emphasizes that “health care spending remains a growing financial burden” that is worsened by both government and private insurer fraud. The Division plans to single out conduct that places corporate profits above patient care, including kickbacks and companies that cut corners to deceive regulators, which it says denies patients the ability to make informed health care decisions. The Memorandum states that it will use data analysis to target these exploitative schemes, including in “telemedicine programs, Medicare or Medicaid fraud, controlled substance diversion, home health and hospice schemes, and companies and individuals that deceptively market unsafe products and services.” Building on the Health Care Fraud Strike Force model with added resources, data analytics, and technology, the Division will prioritize the most extreme cases, including those involving losses of hundreds of millions of dollars, illegal distribution of controlled substances, and complex money laundering and other financial crimes relating to health care.

III.   Internal Revenue: The Memorandum emphasizes that although the federal government trusts Americans to voluntarily comply with their tax obligations, that trust is often abused through false claims on returns, concealed income, and other falsified information, as well as by promoters selling illegal tax schemes. The Memorandum further characterizes such conduct as cheating the government out of lawful revenue and stealing money that would otherwise fund “national priorities.” The Division aims to develop a more comprehensive and coordinated approach by strengthening divisional and cross-agency collaboration. It plans to use these resources to “identify tax misconduct earlier, pursue tax offenders more efficiently, and deliver meaningful deterrence” for the American taxpayer.

IV.   Global Trade and Commerce: The Memorandum states that trade fraud and customs evasion undermine American industry, deprive the public fisc of vital external revenue, fund foreign adversaries, and compromise national values. The Division plans to address violations of trade and customs laws through participation in the Trade Fraud Task Force. The prosecutors within this task force will “focus on systemic, high-impact noncompliance that threatens our economic and national security.” The Division plans to prioritize investigations and prosecutions involving illegal transshipment practices, fraudulent claims about a product’s country of origin, underreporting the value of imported goods to avoid paying duties, evading sanctions, and exploiting foreign forced labor.

V.   Corporate Misconduct: The Memorandum notes that the Department has long prioritized prosecuting corporate misconduct and states that the Division will treat such wrongdoing no differently, holding accountable organizations that seek to benefit financially from their employees’ criminal conduct while rewarding those that voluntarily self-disclose, cooperate, and remediate. Collaborating with the Department’s Corporate Enforcement Section, the Division will prioritize anti-fraud corporate enforcement and commit appropriate resources to combating corporate fraud. The Memorandum states that corporate enforcement experts will help ensure that sufficient resources are dedicated to these investigations, and that the Department’s policies are “fairly and consistently” applied.

ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES IN PRACTICE

The Memorandum’s aspirations sit in contrast to the broader state of DOJ. Over the last eighteen months, DOJ has experienced what has been described as a sweeping personnel purge. This includes firing prosecutors connected to prior investigations of the President, as well as terminations that legal observers say raised concerns about political influence over a traditionally independent agency, and the mass departure of thousands of DOJ personnel. The Department of Government Efficiency drove parallel disruption, steering the termination of more than $811 million in DOJ grants, some of which were reversed after public reporting, and contributing to attrition across federal law enforcement. Reuters reported a rising rate of dismissed criminal cases and courtroom missteps in part due to the mass departure of experienced prosecutors.

The Memorandum also sits contrary to the administration’s prosecutorial decisions thus far. A ProPublica analysis of DOJ data found that DOJ declined over 900 federal program or procurement fraud cases and roughly three times as many major fraud cases than in comparable prior periods, despite the DOJ’s public promise to root out waste, fraud, and abuse.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THOSE INTERACTING WITH THE DIVISION

The Division warns of an expansion of white-collar exposure through its five broad priority areas, and describes a deliberately “lean, flat, and agile” structure with reduced internal oversight. Those categories are broad enough that most regulated businesses fall within at least one. Any company touching federal contracts, benefit or grant programs, health care reimbursement, customs compliance, or tax reporting should assume heightened, data-driven scrutiny and a lower threshold to charge.

The practical response is the same. Businesses and individuals should treat the five priority areas as areas of potential exposure and pressure-test their compliance functions against the specific conduct that the Memorandum names. Given the Memorandum’s emphasis on data analytics and cross-agency data sharing, they should assume that anomalies in billing, claims, or import data can trigger inquiries before any whistleblower surfaces. Businesses should also document the legitimate basis for outlier patterns in advance. The Memorandum’s express rewards for self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation remain worth weighing, but any decision to self-report should be made deliberately with counsel. Finally, businesses and individuals should not mistake declination statistics or high-profile dismissals for a safe harbor. Charging decisions can shift quickly and limitations periods keep running.

CONCLUSION

The Division signals a continued effort to combat fraud across various sectors. The Division declared its intent to pursue complex and high-impact fraud more efficiently. Businesses and individuals operating in these spaces should expect continued monitoring and enforcement, making policy compliance and transparency more important than ever. Sher Tremonte LLP will continue to monitor developments related to DOJ enforcement policies.