Cycles are nothing new in the world of white-collar enforcement, which often impact the perceived importance of corporate governance processes. However, as we say in my other home country, “plus ça change, moins ça change” (the more things change, the more they stay the same!) 

Rules tighten in the aftermath of scandal or financial crisis, then loosen in the name of relaxing regulations that stifle innovation, economic growth or administrative priority shifts. Regulatory enforcement intensity waxes and wanes, but the importance of appropriate governance and controls remains critical to corporate well-being.

We now appear to be entering another familiar enforcement phase: a pullback in domestic focus, deeper scrutiny on specific areas, a lighter touch on corporate accountability and greater attention on foreign actors. While this is certainly not unprecedented, this environment raises important questions and challenges about corporate behavior, compliance resilience and the long-term risks of a less stringent enforcement environment.

Like a pandemic, fraud spreads silently at first — thriving in weak systems, exploiting human vulnerabilities and multiplying rapidly before anyone realizes the true scale of the contagion. Just as the Enron and WorldCom scandals in the early 2000s were preceded by a deregulatory boom and SOX was the response, the 2008 financial crisis followed years of unchecked risk-taking with the results we all saw. Today’s enforcement climate raises questions about whether we are once again setting the stage for the next wave of misconduct. And in order to have fraud, one needs opportunity, pressure and rationalization. 

Where the risk may surface first

Certain sectors are especially vulnerable in this type of environment. As well as the more traditionally targeted industries, new areas like crypto and digital assets,  which continue to develop ahead of clear regulatory frameworks, are particularly at risk. While high-profile prosecutions have taken place, certain new industry participants still operate in a regulatory gray zone, and investors lack many of the protections common in more mature financial markets.

Often overlooked, environmental claims also deserve attention. If enforcement around environmental disclosures and emissions standards weakens, it could create incentives for companies to exaggerate sustainability efforts or underreport risk. These actions often don’t attract immediate scrutiny — but they can lead to significant liability down the line.

Opportunity: The return of the light-touch era?

Recent developments suggest a clear change in tone from federal regulators. Penalties are being moderated in some cases, deferred prosecution agreements seem to have less teeth, and monitoring remedies may be refocused. While enforcement has not disappeared — nor is it likely to — its domestic focus appears to be narrowing. At the same time, there’s greater emphasis on foreign companies and overseas corruption and there are signals that foreign regulators, particularly in Europe, are willing to step in.

For today’s financial and compliance leaders — many of whom may not have been in senior roles during prior enforcement waves — this could seem like a reprieve. But it may also create blind spots. When rules seem less urgent or enforcement risk feels more distant, some organizations deprioritize the very controls and practices that help them navigate.

The past reminds us that such lulls can create fertile ground for misconduct, especially if companies start to believe that scrutiny is less likely, or consequences will be delayed.

Here’s a simple equation: Economic Pressure + Relaxed Oversight = Increased Fraud Risk.

At the same time, macroeconomic signals point to uncertainty. If economic headwinds intensify — especially with recessionary concerns, uncertainty around tariffs, extended and disrupted supply chains leading to margin compression — companies may feel increasing pressure to meet or maintain performance expectations. In such a climate, the line between aggressive accounting and earnings manipulation can start to blur and the need to gain market share may lead to bribes, among other malfeasance.

Misconduct in these environments rarely becomes visible right away. It builds quietly over time, often uncovered only years later during internal audits, in the aftermath of bankruptcies when performance was stretched to the breaking point, in the case of restatements, or as a result of a whistleblower. The risk may not be immediately visible — but it is cumulative and real.

The guardrails that remain

That said, several key safeguards are still intact — offering a measure of counterbalance even as federal enforcement evolves:

• International enforcement continues to expand. Regulators abroad are increasingly assertive, particularly in Europe and Asia. U.S.-based companies operating globally are still subject to foreign anti-corruption laws and cross-border cooperation among authorities is increasing.
• Domestically, state attorney generals can fill some of the gaps. Many AGs have a long history of stepping in — particularly in areas like health care fraud, consumer protection and investor rights. But these offices may lack the scale, budget and investigative horsepower of federal agencies.
• Federal action continues in targeted areas. Enforcement efforts remain active in sectors like health care, particularly in cases involving government reimbursement fraud or improper billing practices. These cases suggest that federal oversight has not disappeared — just narrowed in focus.
• Auditing standards are as demanding as ever. Despite other regulatory changes, public company auditors remain under pressure to detect fraud and report weaknesses. Regulatory expectations in this area have not been relaxed, and auditors are increasingly expected to identify red flags in financial statements.
• Private litigation remains a meaningful deterrent. Shareholder lawsuits and class actions continue to hold companies accountable when disclosures fall short or risks are misrepresented. This legal pressure — driven by investors and plaintiffs’ attorneys rather than government — operates independently of political cycles.
• Whistleblowers are still protected and can be highly incentivized. Tipsters have played a key role in uncovering many recent frauds, and protections for whistleblowers remain strong. In a lower-enforcement climate, their role becomes even more important.

Compliance programs: Relevance beyond enforcement

Many organizations have made real strides in strengthening internal compliance programs over the past decade — driven by regulatory pressure, investor expectations and reputational concerns. Even in a less stringent enforcement environment, these investments remain vital.

First, reputational risk and public accountability haven’t faded. In fact, social media and stakeholder activism make it easier than ever for ethical lapses to attract attention — even without government involvement.

Second, mergers and acquisitions continue to present risk. Acquiring entities are often held responsible for inherited compliance failures. Robust internal controls, due diligence and risk assessments are essential for identifying hidden liabilities before they become public problems.

Finally, even in the absence of immediate enforcement, forward-thinking organizations understand that compliance isn’t just about staying out of trouble. It’s about building sustainable operations, maintaining trust with stakeholders, establishing a reputation of integrity and anticipating risk — not reacting to it.

A moment to be proactive

As enforcement priorities shift, the temptation to loosen internal controls or scale back compliance efforts and investments may be tempting. But this moment is not one for complacency. If history is any guide (and it usually is), misconduct that begins under light scrutiny tends to end under a more intense spotlight — often years later.

Strong compliance programs can stop the spread of fraud before it takes hold, building organizational immunity through vigilance, accountability and early detection. This is a time to take stock:

• Are controls over financial reporting keeping pace with business complexity and the evolving new risks created by change in policies, and geopolitical uncertainty identified?
• Are new risks — especially in fast-evolving unregulated sectors — being properly identified, assessed and mitigated?
• Are compliance programs appropriately resourced and empowered to act?

These are the questions worth asking now, before risk has a chance to compound.
The enforcement cycle may be reprioritized, but risk itself hasn’t gone anywhere. Economic pressures, evolving industries and shifting regulatory priorities all create new vulnerabilities. And while some external guardrails remain in place, they are no substitute for proactive, internal risk management.

Those who treat this moment as a time to reinforce — rather than retreat from — strong compliance will be better positioned to navigate whatever comes next. Because while enforcement climates may rise and fall, the consequences of ethical failure are always significant, often lasting — and sometimes, fatal.

The Republican legislative balancing act now shifts to the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) said this week House Republicans would like to see as few changes as possible to the sweeping tax and spending package (H.R. 1) the House passed by a single vote this morning. But he was quick to add that the Senate will have its say as it aims to get the massive reconciliation package a step closer to becoming law.

“The Senate will have its imprint on it,” said Thune.

Indeed, GOP senators have their own demands, and the package will have to survive the chamber’s complex rules — a historically time-consuming process.

Byrd Rule issues

The reconciliation process allows tax and spending legislation to pass with a simple majority, but the bill still needs to survive the Byrd Rule — named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia), known for his mastery of parliamentary procedure. It prevents lawmakers from tucking non-budgetary provisions into the legislation.

“The committees are working closely to try and identify potential Byrd problems ahead of time,” Thune said.

The Senate parliamentarian makes calls on challenges against provisions in the bill and whether they survive the “Byrd Bath.” Democrats plan to aggressively use the rule to challenge items they believe don’t satisfy the Byrd standard. Once the package makes it to the floor, senators will be prepared for a marathon vote-a-rama on amendments.

GOP senators hope the advance work will help keep the measure moving, but a look at the history of the chamber’s experience with big bills shows it will likely be a lengthy process.

For the reconciliation bills enacted since 1980, the time between adoption of a budget resolution and enactment of the reconciliation bill ranges from 28 to 385 days, with a 152-day average, according to the Congressional Research Service. The Senate passed the Democrats’ 2022 sweeping reconciliation legislation with changes roughly nine months after the House passed it.

Independence Day target

“It will take longer than expected just because it is arduous and it’s designed to be that way,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota) said. “It would be great to get it out before the Fourth of July break.”

Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) said the Senate Finance Committee has been meeting since last summer and “have some ideas that may or may not be in the House bill.” Barrasso said he’ll work with every member of his conference, calling Trump and Vice President JD Vance persuasive members of the whip team as well.

Congress didn’t clear Republicans’ 2017 tax overhaul until December of that year, Barrasso said, but this bill faces a tighter deadline because it includes a debt ceiling hike. The borrowing limit could hit as soon as August.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-North Dakota) said the message to Senate Republicans right now is to work with committees of jurisdiction.

“Whatever committee you’re on, work with your chairman on your committee, is really where we’re at,” Hoeven said.

Thune originally proposed moving the measure in two parts, but Trump wants his agenda rolled into a single package, which the House dubbed “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) is still advocating for the previous approach.

Asked when the Senate could get it done, Johnson said, “We are so far away from an acceptable bill, it’s hard to say.”

“I think we could move very quickly if we split it into two.”

Next steps

If the Senate amends the reconciliation legislation, the House would need to vote on the amended legislation or they would need to be reconciled in a conference committee. That’s likely to lead to more challenges, given the tight margins in the House.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), one of the most vocal conservative hardliners who ended up supporting the bill, acknowledged Senate changes are coming and suggested tough negotiations lie ahead between the chambers.

“We’ll give them some flexibility, they gotta work their will, but somewhere between us and the Senate and the White House, there’s gonna be some red lines and those will be public pretty soon,” Roy said.

Subsidies for clean power would end years earlier in a giant tax and spending bill narrowly passed by the Republican-led House of Representatives early Thursday, driving down shares of solar companies including Sunrun Inc.

It now moves to the Senate, where key Republicans have already balked at some of the House’s plans. Some wanted longer transition times before the latest House bill cut those even further.

The House bill is “worse than feared” for clean energy, analysts at Jeffries said in a research note Thursday. They added, however, that “we don’t expect this to last into Senate draft.”

Shares of Sunrun fell 44% in early trading Thursday. SolarEdge Technologies Inc. sank 17%.

The revised text released Wednesday night marked an extended effort to win over Republican dissidents, including fiscal hardliners who wanted deeper cuts to a series of tax credits created under former President Joe Biden’s signature climate law.

The revisions would include ending technology-neutral clean electricity tax credits for sources like wind and solar starting in 2029 and requiring those projects to commence construction within 60 days of the legislation becoming law. The initial version proposed by House Republicans had a longer phase-out time, allowing many of the credits to exist until 2032.

“They would probably amount to a hard shutdown of the IRA,” said James Lucier, managing director at research group Capital Alpha Partners, referring to Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. “The initial version of the Ways and Means bill gave investors some hope they could live under the old regime for another couple of years, but now no more.”

The House bill would also hasten more stringent restrictions that would disqualify any project deemed to benefit China from receiving credits. Under the new version, those restrictions, which some analysts have said could render the credits useless for many projects, would kick in next year.

At the same time, the revised bill would restore “transferability” of a nuclear production tax credit, which would allow a project sponsor to sell tax credits to a third party, according to a summary of the changes. It also lengthens the amount of time the credit remains in place by allowing projects that have started construction but aren’t yet operating to be eligible to receive them, the summary said.

The new bill also would keep the tax credits for advanced nuclear projects and expand existing plants if construction starts by the end of 2028. It also would phase out a consumer tax incentive of as much as $7,500 for the purchase of electric vehicles.

The changes would come on top of limitations on the energy credits that were estimated to save $560 billion in cuts in Inflation Reduction Act spending and could cripple the clean energy industry. 

The legislation is the centerpiece of President Donald Trump’s second term agenda. However it faces a delicate path to become law, and may still be altered further. 

Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski and three colleagues have vowed to defend the credits and called for a “targeted, pragmatic approach.” 

“I am watching right now to see how far the House goes,” Murkowski said in an interview on Tuesday.