Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What did Donald Trump say about bribery during his presidency?
Executive summary
Donald Trump repeatedly criticized the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and in February 2025 signed an executive order pausing much enforcement of the law, directing the Justice Department to review and change guidance on prosecutions of Americans accused of bribing foreign officials [1] [2]. Critics said the move “diminishes” a key anti‑corruption tool and could encourage a “race to the bottom,” while Trump defended the action as protecting U.S. businesses from over‑criminalization abroad [3] [4] [5].
1. What Trump said about bribery: he called the FCPA “a horrible law” and acted to pause enforcement
Trump described U.S. anti‑bribery enforcement as overly punitive for legitimate business activity abroad and said the law “sounds good on paper, but in practicality it’s a disaster,” arguing it risks investigations of Americans doing business overseas [4]. That rhetoric culminated in February 2025 when he signed an executive order directing the Justice Department to pause prosecutions under the FCPA and to prepare new enforcement guidelines [1] [6].
2. The administration’s formal step: an executive order pausing FCPA enforcement
Reuters, BBC and other outlets reported the executive order explicitly directed prosecutors to pause bringing FCPA cases and ordered a review of prior and current actions under the statute, effectively loosening enforcement of the nearly half‑century‑old anti‑bribery law [1] [2] [6]. News organizations framed this as a formal shift from policy rhetoric to concrete executive action [1] [6].
3. Pro‑business rationale Trump and allies offered
Trump and supporters argued that stringent FCPA enforcement chills U.S. companies from competing overseas by creating a near‑automatic path to investigation when Americans do business abroad, and that revising enforcement would protect lawful, legitimate commerce [4] [6]. Coverage noted Trump has long criticized the law and presented the executive order as delivering on that longtime stance [4] [2].
4. Critics warned the order weakens global anti‑corruption norms and harms U.S. interests
Transparency International and a range of reporting warned the order could “diminish — and could pave the way for completely eliminating — the crown jewel” of U.S. efforts against foreign corruption, potentially spurring other countries to unwind similar laws and producing a “race to the bottom” in corporate conduct [3] [5]. The Guardian and AP said the policy risks tarnishing the U.S. image and empowering corrupt actors abroad [3] [7].
5. Immediate consequences and selective use of the order in high‑profile cases
Media reported that on the same day as the executive order, Justice Department guidance led prosecutors to drop or pause at least one prominent matter, with reporting that DOJ instructed prosecutors to drop a corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams — an example critics cited to illustrate practical effects [2]. Reuters likewise underlined that the order required a DOJ review of past and current FCPA actions [1].
6. Broader context: ties to other corruption and bribery controversies in Trump’s orbit
Reporting in 2025 and 2025‑2026 linked Trump’s policies to other alleged bribery concerns surrounding figures tied to his administration, including reporting that a senior White House official, border czar Tom Homan, was caught on tape taking a $50,000 cash payment amid a probe — and that the administration later shut down related inquiries, a development critics used to question enforcement priorities and political influence [8] [9]. Opinion pieces and watchdog reports also raised concerns about possible influence via presidential‑library donations [10] [11].
7. Legal and institutional limits: what the executive order can and cannot do
Reporting emphasized that an executive order directing DOJ policy does not repeal the FCPA; it instructs a department that is still bound by statute and courts to reassess enforcement priorities and guidelines [1] [6]. Coverage noted the potential for new DOJ guidance to significantly reduce prosecutions in practice, but also flagged that Congress, courts, and future administrations remain avenues to restore or reshape enforcement [1] [3].
8. Competing perspectives and what’s still unclear
Supporters frame Trump’s comments and order as pro‑business reform to prevent overreach; opponents say it undermines anti‑corruption progress and could reward bribery [4] [5] [3]. Available sources do not mention whether Trump made other specific public comments about domestic bribery statutes or about individual bribery investigations beyond the FCPA‑related statements and actions summarized here (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: this analysis uses the supplied reporting and opinion pieces; it does not attempt to adjudicate factual allegations in individual probes and notes where sources disagree about motive and consequence [2] [3].