The president's fear that American companies are being harmed will become a self-fulfilling prophecy if the US decides not to enforce, let alone follow, the rules
Amid Donald Trump's blizzard of executive orders, the US president's decision this month to suspend enforcement of the country's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977 may not have been the most startling — but its impact on international co-operation against bribery and corruption may be profound.
The legislation prohibits US companies — and foreign companies that are listed in the US or interact with US markets and customers — from bribing foreign officials, or participating in other corrupt conduct. Washington's Department of Justice has used the law aggressively to tackle overseas corruption, with prosecutions aimed at Goldman Sachs, Ericsson, Glencore, BAE Systems and Halliburton. Fines have been in excess of £1 billion.
For years the US berated other countries for not having strong enough anti-bribery laws, and effectively bullied the UK to enact the Bribery Act 2007.
However, Trump has decided that US companies are "harmed" by over-enforcement under the act because "they are prohibited from engaging in practices common among international competitors, creating an uneven playing field".
This is a national security issue for Trump because he views the legislation as hindering US companies from "gaining strategic business advantages whether in critical minerals, deep-water ports, or other key infrastructure or assets". The president has tasked his attorney-general with developing guidelines that "prioritise American interests [and] American economic competitiveness with respect to other nations."
Trump's diagnosis is shockingly frank: trying to eliminate corruption through international co-operation for the good of all is naive and only harms the US; in the global race for key resources, others are bribing their way into the lead, and therefore, foreign bribery by US companies should be legalised in the national interest.
This alarming policy U-turn could have significant international consequences. It could precipitate a race to the bottom — Trump's analysis will become a self-fulfilling prophecy if the biggest player on the pitch decides that there is no point trying to enforce, let alone follow the rules.
And as with the president's order to drop a corruption case against the New York mayor, Eric Adams, because it "restricted" his ability to address illegal immigration, it is further overt politicisation of the criminal justice system, where decisions on who to prosecute are determined by economic and political interests rather than evidence and the rule of law.
Presumably, if the US decided to turn a blind eye to corrupt practices by an American company, it would also interfere to prevent any other country from prosecuting. The mutual trust on which international law-enforcement co-operation is based will erode.
More widely, defendants seeking to avoid extradition to the US will be able plausibly to argue that a criminal justice system controlled by political interests is discriminatory and cannot guarantee a fair trial.
Originally published by The Times, 27 February 2025
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.
