What steps have the U.S. Departments of Justice or Homeland Security publicly announced regarding investigations into PDD Holdings or Temu?
Executive summary
Since late 2024 and through 2025, U.S. political and state actors have repeatedly urged federal enforcement against Temu (owned by PDD Holdings) for alleged counterfeiting, forced‑labor links and data/privacy concerns, including a high‑profile letter from Senator Tom Cotton asking the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to open probes [1] [2]. Reporting collected through December 2025 and January 2026 shows public calls and press reporting of potential DHS interest, but no clear, separate public announcement from the DOJ or DHS confirming the launch of a criminal or civil investigation into PDD/Temu in the cited sources [1] [3].
1. What Republicans and state officials have publicly asked DOJ and DHS to do
A Republican U.S. senator formally requested that Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Homeland Security investigate Shein and Temu for “wide‑scale intellectual property theft and counterfeiting,” lodging that request in a letter that Reuters reviewed and reported on December 1, 2025 [1] [4]. That political pressure is echoed in state actions: for example, Texas and Arizona officials have pursued separate state inquiries and lawsuits alleging unsafe products, deceptive practices and problematic data handling by Temu and its parent PDD Holdings [1] [5].
2. What DOJ and DHS have publicly announced — the record in the reporting
The public record assembled in these sources shows requests and reporting of potential scrutiny but does not record an explicit, independent DOJ press release or DHS statement saying, “We have opened a formal investigation into PDD/Temu,” prior to January 2026; Reuters’ story describes Senator Cotton’s request and related state efforts but does not cite a formal DOJ/DHS confirmation of an investigation [1]. Separately, industry reporting has stated that DHS has been reported as looking into forced‑labor issues at Temu under statutes such as the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, but those pieces frame the DHS role as reported or under consideration rather than as a definitive, public DOJ/DHS confirmation of a criminal probe in the sources provided [3] [6].
3. Adjacent federal and international enforcement activity that matters
Beyond the specific DOJ/DHS question, multiple parallel enforcement and regulatory pressures are documented: congressional inquiries and committee findings earlier flagged Temu’s lack of systems to comply with the UFLPA [6], the EU has probed Temu under its digital and subsidy rules and even raided European offices according to European reporting [7] [8], and Chinese regulators have expanded probes into PDD at home after clashes with officials [9]. These actions increase the likelihood of coordinated or follow‑on inquiries by U.S. agencies, but the sources show those are distinct strands of regulatory pressure, not direct public DOJ or DHS confirmations of ongoing criminal investigations in the United States [9] [7] [8].
4. Why reporting so far leaves an open question — and what would count as a public DOJ/DHS step
The difference between political requests, media reporting of “investigations,” and formal agency action is material: Senatorial letters and state lawsuits are public prompts [1] [5], and investigative reporting can flag possible DHS interest [3], but a public DOJ or DHS announcement would typically take the form of an agency press release, indictment, subpoena filing or placement of a company on a statutory forced‑labor entity list — none of which are documented in the provided sources as having been issued specifically for PDD/Temu by DOJ or DHS as of the dates in these reports [1] [3] [6]. Sources such as Reuters and Bloomberg report pressure and probes in other jurisdictions and by other agencies, which can presage U.S. enforcement but do not substitute for an explicit DOJ/DHS declaration of an open investigation [1] [9] [7].
5. Bottom line and where the public record stands
Based on the assembled reporting, the actionable public steps announced by the U.S. Departments of Justice or Homeland Security regarding PDD Holdings/Temu are, as of the latest cited coverage, limited to public calls for investigation and media reports of potential DHS interest; the sources do not document an independent, confirmed DOJ or DHS public announcement that a formal investigation has been opened [1] [3]. Parallel state lawsuits, congressional findings, EU inquiries and intensified Chinese probes are factual and well‑documented in the reporting and increase enforcement risk for PDD/Temu, but they remain separate from any DOJ/DHS public declaration in the provided sources [5] [6] [7] [9].