By: Daniel Assor
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) has long been a cornerstone of America’s efforts to combat international bribery. Enacted in 1977, the law makes it illegal for U.S. individuals and entities to engage in corrupt dealings with foreign officials by “mak[ing] payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business.” Specifically, § 78dd-2(a) prohibits the giving of anything of value to any foreign official, political party or official thereof, or individual while knowing that all or a portion of such thing will be offered or given to any foreign official or political party. By enforcing transparency and accountability, the FCPA has played a critical role in preventing corporate corruption from undermining foreign politics and markets.
However, President Donald Trump’s recent executive order to pause, and potentially eliminate, the FCPA raises serious concerns about his motivations. While Trump claims the law unfairly burdens American businesses, the potential reality is far more troubling. His decision to pause the FCPA seems to align with a broader pattern of self-serving policies designed to enrich himself and his allies at the expense of ethical governance.
President Trump’s prioritization of personal gain over public service is not new. His quid pro quo nature has roots back in the first 100 days of his first term, where the Center for American Progress, an independent nonpartisan policy institute, labeled his actions “pay-to-play politics”. Under the current administration, actions such as launching a cryptocurrency, $Trump coin, and “rein[ing] in independent agencies,” seem to suggest that his political career has become further intertwined with his business ventures. The FCPA pause represents yet another step in a calculated strategy to remove regulatory obstacles that might prevent the funneling of money into his or his affiliates’ pockets from foreign entities.
The FCPA was signed into law following the Watergate investigations, which revealed widespread bribery among U.S. companies operating abroad. Its goal was straightforward: to prevent mutual manipulation of business or investment markets by preventing coercion of government officials. The law is jointly enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), which have pursued numerous cases resulting in billions of dollars in fines. Since its enactment the U.S. government has collected over $7.2 billion in FCPA-related penalties, including more than $2.5 billion in 2019 alone. Major corporations such as Goldman Sachs, Walmart, and Siemens have faced significant repercussions for illicit dealings abroad. A notable example involves the SEC’s recent action against Indian tycoon Gautam Adani, who allegedly bribed Indian government officials to secure above-market energy contracts while raising over $175 million from U.S. investors through his company’s publicly traded stock. Adani’s company denies these allegations.
Advocating for nefarious business practices is not an unprecedented element of a Trump presidency. In 2017, he similarly worked to undermine anti-corruption laws designed to prevent American businesses from engaging in unethical dealings. One notable example was his expungement of the Cardin-Lugar regulations, which had required oil companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments for mining and drilling rights. However, Trump’s decision to halt the FCPA’s enforcement is unprecedented. It marks the first time since its enactment that an administration has sought to curb its power. Trump has long been critical of the FCPA, calling it a “horrible law” in a 2012 interview and stating that he found it “ridiculous,” that the U.S. would criminalize bribery of foreign officials. He argues it unfairly restricts American businesses. Yet, the reality is quite the opposite. This is because a majority of FCPA actions are actually against foreign companies with U.S. ties. Therefore, it actually helps to level the playing field for American companies operating abroad by eliminating bribery and corruption, benefiting American companies in the long run.
Pausing FCPA enforcement threatens to undo decades of “progress in tackling cross-border corruption and puts international stability at risk.” The FCPA’s protections extend beyond economic and ethical considerations, highlighting the “profound human cost of corruption.” For instance, the 2018 FCPA case against Glencore exposed widespread bribery and unethical practices in Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Venezuela. Glencore’s bribes likely encouraged local governments to ignore serious environmental hazards and child labor in the mines, underscoring the devastating real-world consequences of corporate misconduct. If the FCPA were eliminated entirely, American corporations would essentially have free rein to engage in bribery without fear of prosecution, a move that would disproportionately benefit powerful business interests. Additionally, dismantling the FCPA would not only damage America’s credibility but also invite foreign interference in U.S. political and economic affairs.
One potential vehicle for such foreign interference is hypothesized to be the freshly minted crypto currency, $Trump coin. Commonly referred to as a “meme coin,” $Trump coin is less of a currency and more of a digital collectible, intended as a symbol of allegiance and support for the new president. CIC Digital, a Trump-owned company, is one of the entities behind the creation of the coin. The company earns revenue via trading fees accrued on the exchanges and gains capital value through the appreciation of the coins price. Although the exact amount CIC Digital has generated remains uncertain, estimates suggest it had earned a significant portion of the nearly $100 million in trading fees accrued by January 30, 2025. Recently, the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs informed the Office of Government Ethics, the Treasury, and the SEC that they are investigating the meme coin for potential threats to national security. Beyond concerns about consumer fraud and conflicts of interest, the primary fear is that the coin is being used to “open the door to secretive foreign buyers seeking to curry influence with the administration-and the possibility of foreign emoluments clause violations.” Some believe that the coin offers foreign actors an untraceable vehicle to directly invest in and manipulate the administration’s policies.
Trump’s political career has seemingly been defined by a transactional approach to governance. From his refusal to fully divest from his businesses while in office to his use of government properties for personal gain, the now twice-impeached president has repeatedly blurred the line between public service and private enrichment. The FCPA pause is merely the latest example of a broader effort to dismantle safeguards against corruption. His policies consistently reflect a pattern of self-interest, from directing government business to Trump-branded properties to promoting industries in which he holds financial stakes. These actions reinforce the notion that Trump views political power not as a public trust but as an opportunity to expand his wealth.
However, we are ultimately left with more questions than answers. What exactly are the business opportunities American companies lose due to FCPA enforcement? Who does the current president want domestic corporations to do business with that they currently cannot? What are the consequences of unrestrained foreign bribery? If Trump’s actions go unchecked, they will set a dangerous precedent for future leaders. The United States has long positioned itself as a global leader in anti-corruption efforts, but under Trump’s influence, that leadership is at risk of being permanently undermined. The final question is whether lawmakers and the American public will recognize this for what it is: a coordinated effort to put profits over principles.
