False Claims Act enforcement expands amid shifting white-collar landscape

June 16, 2025 - Although the current administration has deprioritized white-collar enforcement in some traditionally active areas, False Claims Act ("FCA") activity remains robust — and is poised for expansion. The executive branch has signaled that it will pursue FCA cases in new areas, including diversity, equity and inclusion ("DEI") initiatives, antisemitism on university campuses, transgender issues, and customs and tariffs compliance.
These developments signal heightened exposure for a wide range of institutions, from corporations to universities to healthcare providers. Meanwhile, enforcement in traditional FCA strongholds — such as healthcare — continues unabated. Below, we discuss these emerging and continued FCA risks.
From Jan. 1 through May 31, 2025, DOJ announced approximately 128 FCA settlements totaling approximately $1.257 billion — a pace consistent with enforcement under the prior administration. DOJ has shown no signs of scaling back pending matters, signaling continued FCA scrutiny across key sectors.
Healthcare and Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") cases remain dominant, representing 90 of the 128 settlements (~70%) and accounting for over $1.04 billion — more than 80% — of the total recoveries to date. The emphasis on healthcare and PPP cases is in line with the prior year, when DOJ collected $1.67 billion from healthcare-related settlements and $250 million from pandemic fraud-related actions. False Claims Act Settlements and Judgments Exceed $2.9B in Fiscal Year 2024, U.S. Dep't of Justice: Office of Public Affairs (Jan. 15, 2025).
The importance of whistleblower actions under the FCA's qui tam provisions also remains clear: At least 65% of the settlement value so far in 2025 stems from relator-initiated cases.
DOJ has also initiated new healthcare actions. Recently, DOJ filed an FCA suit against three of the country's largest insurers — Aetna, Elevance, and Humana — as well as three major insurance brokers — GoHealth, SelectQuote, and eHealth. Hannah Albarazi, "Aetna And Humana Accused Of Medicare Kickbacks And Bias," Law360 (May 1, 2025). The complaint alleges a years-long scheme by these insurers to provide kickbacks to insurance brokers who in return allegedly funneled seniors into the Medicare plans most profitable for the insurers.
Although no Answer has been filed yet, the press has reported that the defendants dispute the allegations and intend to fight the case in court. "Trump's DOJ Accuses Medicare Advantage Insurers of Paying 'Kickbacks' for Primo Customers," KFF Health News (May 19, 2025). This case was initially brought by a relator under the FCA's qui tam provisions, but DOJ intervened and unsealed it on May 1, 2025. This case is a strong signal that the healthcare sector will remain a central focus of the new administration's FCA enforcement priorities.
Recent DOJ pronouncements indicate that FCA liability is expanding into areas not previously associated with fraud enforcement, including DEI initiatives, antisemitism, transgender issues, and tariffs.
Just one day into the new administration, the President signed an Executive Order which instructed all executive agencies to enforce civil rights laws and eliminate what it characterized as unlawful DEI programs. Exec. Order No. 14173, 90 Fed. Reg. 8633 (Jan. 31, 2025).
Building on that Executive Order, the Attorney General issued a February 2025 memorandum reaffirming DOJ's position that many DEI initiatives violate federal civil rights laws. Memorandum re: Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences, Office of the Attorney General (Feb. 5, 2025). The memorandum directed the DOJ Civil Rights Division to pursue investigations and penalties against private companies and academic institutions that receive federal funds whose DEI practices unlawfully "discriminate, exclude, or divide individuals based on race or sex." Id. at 1.
And on May 19, 2025, the U.S. Deputy Attorney General issued a memorandum (the "Memo") announcing a Civil Rights Fraud Initiative (the "Initiative"). Memorandum re: Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, Office of the Deputy Attorney General (Feb. 5, 2025). The Memo instructs DOJ to pursue FCA actions against any federal contractor or federal funds recipient that "knowingly violates federal civil rights laws." The Memo calls for coordination with other federal and state agencies and sets out potential enforcement targets, including:
•Federal funding recipients or federal contractors that falsely certify compliance with civil rights laws while maintaining DEI programs that allegedly assign benefits or burdens based on race, ethnicity, or national origin.
•Federally funded universities that allegedly permit antisemitism on campuses.
Critically, the Memo also "strongly encourages" private plaintiffs to file qui tam suits under the FCA — effectively deputizing employees, students, and other insiders as enforcement partners. Id. at 2. The Memo highlights the potential for private individuals to share in any monetary recovery that results from these cases. Indeed, under the FCA, whistleblowers can receive up to 30% of any monetary recovery, which — under the treble damages provision — could total several times the value of the federal contract or grant at issue.
For federal contractors, universities and other federal funds recipients, the enforcement implications are significant. Organizations found in violation of the FCA can face treble damages and per-claim penalties ranging from $14,000 to $28,000, in addition to reputational harm and follow-on litigation. Adjustments for Inflation to Civil Monetary Penalties, 15 C.F.R. § 6.3 (2025).
DOJ has already launched investigations under this new Initiative. According to recent reports, it is probing Harvard University's admissions practices for potential FCA violations tied to the Supreme Court's Students for Fair Admissions decision, which struck down race-conscious admissions. Michael C. Bender and Michael S. Schmidt, "Trump Administration Escalates Harvard Feud With New Justice Dept. Investigation," N.Y. Times (May 15, 2025).
On Jan. 28, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing federal and state agencies to take steps to restrict medical treatments related to gender transition for minors. Exec. Order No. 14173, 90 Fed. Reg. 8771 (Feb. 3, 2025). The Executive Order targets the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapies, and transgender surgeries for individuals under the age of 19.
On April 22, 2025, the Attorney General signaled that DOJ would use the FCA to enforce the principles of the Executive Order in a memorandum titled "Preventing the Mutilation of American Children." Memorandum re: Preventing the Mutilation of American Children, Office of the Attorney General (Apr. 22, 2025). This memorandum "direct[s] the Civil Division's Fraud Section to pursue investigations under the False Claims Act of false claims submitted to federal health care programs for any noncovered services related to radical gender experimentation." Id. at 4.
According to the memorandum, "[f]alsely billing the government for the chemical or surgical mutilation of a child is a violation of the False Claims Act and is subject to treble damages and severe penalties." Id. at 4. Notably, the memorandum encourages whistleblowers to come forward under the FCA's qui tam provisions, again highlighting DOJ's interest in leveraging insider information to identify and pursue potential violations. Id. at 4.
Finally, the May 19 Memo also signals DOJ's new focus on transgender issues. The Memo notes that federally funded universities could violate the FCA if they maintain policies that "allow men to intrude into women's bathrooms," or "require women to compete against men in athletic competitions." Memorandum re: Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, Office of the Deputy Attorney General (Feb. 5, 2025).
In line with the Trump administration's announcement of a sweeping new tariff regime in April 2025, DOJ officials have emphasized that FCA enforcement will play a key role in customs and trade compliance. In a February speech, Michael Granston, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in DOJ's Commercial Litigation Branch, called the FCA a "powerful tool" to address tariff evasion and foreign trade violations. Daniel Wilson, "DOJ Official Flags 'Aggressive' FCA Approach Under Trump," Law360 (Feb. 20, 2025). As tariffs rise and enforcement intensifies, the risk of FCA exposure in customs-related matters is expected to grow significantly.
With these developments, federal fund recipients should expect an uptick in both DOJ scrutiny and qui tam activity related to civil rights compliance, transgender issues, and tariff enforcement. Given these new and increasing risks, federal contractors and recipients of federal funds should consider reviewing and, as needed, revising and enhancing their policies and procedures, including with respect to internal whistleblower channels for reporting violations, to ensure continued compliance with the FCA and federal civil rights laws.
With respect to transgender care, healthcare providers and organizations that offer transgender care to minors should assess their billing practices and coverage determinations for compliance with DOJ's new FCA enforcement posture. Particular attention should be paid to documentation, coding, and any federal program reimbursements tied to treatments for individuals under the age of 19.
Finally, businesses involved in importing goods should proactively assess their compliance programs, including tariff classification and documentation procedures, to mitigate the risk of FCA scrutiny. With DOJ increasingly linking trade enforcement to FCA liability, importers should also prepare for heightened oversight and the possibility of whistleblower-driven investigations.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, clients, or any of their respective affiliates.
Debevoise associates Hirsa Amin and Nathaniel Quigley contributed to this article.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

34 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Tragic video 20-year-old Texas woman sent boyfriend shortly before going missing on jet ski

A woman sent a heartbreaking video to her boyfriend before she went missing from a Texas lake. Ashley Gil, 20, was pulled from the waters of Lake Houston on Thursday after she fell into the water while riding a jet ski with two others. She had sent a video of herself earlier that day riding the recreational watercraft while wearing a life jacket to her boyfriend, Jason Campos Rodriquez. Tragically, cops said, when she fell in the water she was not wearing a life jacket. Speaking with ABC13, Rodriquez said: 'My motive here is understanding everything that happened. '[I] kind of right away, right away got a sense something's not right.' He claims a man fishing near Gil said the group she was with had no urgency to find her. Recalling what the man told him, he said: 'To be honest with you, they didn't even pay attention. 'They didn't even know when they lost her, where they lost her, they looked like they didn't even care.' Rodriquez told KHOU that Gil was 'careful and cautious', with her death leaving him puzzled. 'When you see someone that has so much potential, leave this world. This is just sad in and of itself, and it's hard to you know accept that she's not here anymore', he said. He had been out of town for work when he received the horrifying news about her disappearance and death. The recovery of her body was confirmed by the Office of Commissioner Rodney Ellis on Thursday. A statement said: 'I am deeply saddened to learn that the young woman who went missing on Lake Houston hear Alexander Deussen Park has been found deceased.' It continued: 'My heart goes out to her family, her loved ones, and everyone affected by this tragic loss.' Houston Police had said earlier this week that there were three people on the jet ski when Gil fell into the water and didn't come back up to the surface. They said that they don't believe she was wearing a life jacket at the time, despite the video sent to Rodriquez. Alexander Deussen Park was closed on Wednesday as search crews looked for Gil,it reopened on Thursday. Her family have since launched a fundraiser to help with funeral costs, it has raised over $6,500 as of Friday. In a post to the fundraiser, her family said: 'It is with heavy hearts that we share the tragic loss of my beloved sister, Ashley Gil, who passed away after a heartbreaking accident on the lake. 'Ashley fell from a jet ski and, despite all efforts, she did not survive. Ashley was a bright light in the lives of so many, full of love, laughter, and kindness. 'She had an incredible spirit that touched everyone around her. Her absence leaves a deep void in the hearts of our family, friends, and all who knew her.' It added: 'We are starting this GoFundMe to support our family, especially our mother, during this incredibly difficult time. 'The funds raised will help cover funeral expenses and any additional costs we may face as we grieve and begin to heal. 'If you are able to give, any amount—no matter how small—will mean the world to her loved ones. 'And if you aren't able to donate, please consider sharing this campaign and keeping Ashley's family in your thoughts and prayers.'

Telegraph

40 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Trump attack on Left-wing bias on TV sparks ‘constitutional crisis'

Elon Musk may have stepped aside, but Donald Trump still has a Doge problem. The US president's plan to run a scythe through up to $425bn (£316bn) of government spending could be gutted or even vetoed in the Senate, where just a few rebel Republicans could scupper the cuts. But Trump and Russell Vought, his budget tsar, have hatched a scheme, called a 'pocket rescission', that might keep the Doge (department of government efficiency) dream on track. And it could even shift the constitutional balance of power between president and Congress towards a testy Trump. It's a high-risk, high-stakes strategy. The outcome will determine whether the Doge spending reductions can go ahead, helping to pay for Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax cuts without blowing out the budget and rattling the bond markets. But the unprecedented procedure takes the White House and Capitol Hill into uncharted legal waters. So it is likely to end up in the courts – joining a raft of litigation that will either reinforce the institutional checks on the president's power or unleash him. 'It's a challenge to Congress,' says Sarah Binder, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution and George Washington University. 'I don't like to throw around the term 'constitutional crisis', but it's not a great position for lawmakers and institutions.' Under the constitution, Congress has the so-called power of the purse, meaning that lawmakers, not the president, are the final arbiter of what the government spends or does not spend. If the president wants to cut funding or programmes that Congress has already authorised, his only option is to launch a rescission procedure – a formal request for the cuts, which both houses of Congress must approve. The rescission process was introduced in a law called the Impoundment Control Act, which had the overall aim of making it hard for Richard Nixon, the then-president, and his successors from delaying or withholding funds once Congress had green-lighted them. Rescission has seldom been used. Ronald Reagan used it to secure $15.2bn of spending cuts as president in the early 1980s, but later in the decade, Congress tended to ignore or refuse his rescission messages. Trump tried it on with a $15bn-plus request in his first term, but was stymied in the Senate. The Democrats then got control of Congress in the midterms and pushed back another $27bn salvo. Now Trump is trying again. The initial proposal – Vought says it will be 'the first of many' – is to scuttle $9.4bn of spending on public broadcasters and international aid programmes. This rescission was flagged back in March but formally put to Congress only this month. In an executive order early last month, Trump said he wanted to terminate all public funding of National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which accounts for about $1bn of this first rescission package. 'Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens,' Trump said. 'Today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.' The White House has until July 18 to persuade Congress. The rescission scraped through the House of Representatives by 214 votes to 212, but the Senate is the real test. If just four Republicans in the 100-seat upper house swap sides, the spending stays in place. It's not looking promising for Trump. Several Republicans have already voiced concern about at least some of the cuts. The dissenters include Senator Susan Collins, who chairs an influential Senate finance committee that will consider the cuts at a session on June 25. There could be fireworks. Vought will appear before the committee and, in recent weeks, he has started airing the possibility of bypassing Congress altogether through an untested and almost unknown variant of rescission: the so-called pocket rescission. 'It's a provision that has been rarely used, but it is there,' Vought told CNN. 'And we intend to use all of these tools.' The trick with the pocket rescission is to make the request to Congress right before the end of the fiscal year, which runs to Sept 30. The White House reckons that the Impoundment Control Act's wording creates a loophole: if Congress does not act on the request before Sept 30, then even if the window is well short of 45 days the spending approval will lapse automatically on that date. The case for pocket rescissions was made recently by Wade Miller, of the Center for Renewing America (CRA), a Right-wing think tank. 'A rescission is a viable tool for carrying out the broader political mandate to curb unnecessary spending,' he wrote in a briefing paper. 'If the executive branch decides to use this process, the deployment of a rescission with fewer than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year is a statutorily and constitutionally valid strategy.' The CRA was set up by Vought himself, after he served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the final six months of Trump's first term. He returned to the White House with the president this January, in the same role. But other Washington think tanks trenchantly oppose the CRA's position. 'Calling it a pocket rescission implies that it's like an actual functional tool under the law, in a way that it's actually not. It is a strategy that the person who is running the Office of Management and Budget has articulated to evade the law,' says Cerin Lindgrensavage, a lawyer at Protect Democracy. She says the whole purpose of the Impoundment Control Act was to stop any presidential ploy to skirt its strictures. 'One of the reasons why they might want to do this is because they're afraid they don't have the votes to actually make the cuts the legal way.' Binder, from Brookings, says that the Act doesn't explicitly deal with what happens if a president makes the request right before the end of the fiscal year. 'There's certainly room here for an aggressive Office of Management and Budget and an aggressive administration to try to stretch – others might say manipulate – the silence in the budget law,' she says. 'But the logic of the matter suggests that pocket rescissions are not legal under the Act and I would imagine there's a strong argument that they are unconstitutional under Congress's power of the purse.' Binder suspects Vought is looking to get a test case into the courts. Given there could be a constitutional principle at stake, it could go all the way to the Supreme Court, where a majority of judges are Republican appointees. In the meantime, litigants could get restraining orders or injunctions to prevent the Doge cuts. But they can't necessarily get the White House to respect these. The stage is set for a constitutional showdown. The question is whether Trump and Vought will really pull the trigger. And then, whether the weapon will actually work.

Reuters

42 minutes ago

• Reuters

Middle East tensions put investors on alert, weighing worst-case scenarios

NEW YORK, June 21 (Reuters) - Investors are mulling a host of different market scenarios should the U.S. deepen its involvement in the Middle East conflict, with the potential for ripple effects if energy prices skyrocket. They have honed in on the evolving situation between Israel and Iran, which have exchanged missile strikes, and are closely monitoring whether the U.S. decides to join Israel in its bombing campaign. Potential scenarios could send inflation higher, dampening consumer confidence and lessening the chance of near-term interest rate cuts. This would likely cause an initial selloff in equities and possible safe-haven bid for the dollar. While U.S. crude prices have climbed some 10% over the past week, the S&P 500 (.SPX), opens new tab has been little changed as of yet, following an initial drop when Israel launched its attacks. However, if attacks were to take out Iranian oil supply, "that's when the market is going to sit up and take notice," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B Riley Wealth. "If you get disruption to supply of oil product on the global marketplace, that is not reflected in today's WTI price and that is where things get negative," Hogan said. The White House said on Thursday President Donald Trump would decide on U.S. involvement in the conflict in the next two weeks. Analysts at Oxford Economics modeled three scenarios, ranging from a de-escalation in the conflict, a complete shutdown in Iranian production, and a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, "each with increasingly large impacts on global oil prices," the firm said in a note. In the most severe case, global oil prices jump to around $130 per barrel, driving U.S. inflation near 6% by the end of this year, Oxford said in the note. "Although the price shock inevitably dampens consumer spending because of the hit to real incomes, the scale of the rise in inflation and concerns about the potential for second-round inflation effects likely ruin any chance of rate cuts in the U.S. this year," Oxford said in the note. The biggest market impact from the escalating conflict has been restricted to oil, with oil prices soaring on worries that the Iran-Israel conflict could disrupt supplies. Brent crude futures have risen as much as 18% since June 10, hitting a near 5-month high of $79.04 on Thursday. The accompanying rise in investors' expectations for further near-term volatility in oil prices has outpaced the rise in volatility expectations for other major asset classes, including stocks and bonds. But other asset classes, including stocks, could still feel the knock-on effects of higher oil prices, especially if there is a larger surge in oil prices if the worst market fears of supply disruptions come true, analysts said. "Geopolitical tensions have been mostly ignored by equities, but they are being factored into oil," Citigroup analysts wrote in a note. "To us, the key for equities from here will come from energy commodity pricing," they said. U.S. stocks have so far weathered rising Middle East tensions with little sign of panic. A more direct U.S. involvement in the conflict could, however, spook markets, investors said. Financial markets may be in for an initial selloff if the U.S. military attacks Iran, with economists warning that a dramatic rise in oil prices could damage a global economy already strained by Trump's tariffs. Still, any pullback in equities might be fleeting, history suggests. During past prominent instances of Middle East tensions coming to a boil, including the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2019 attacks on Saudi oil facilities, stocks initially languished but soon recovered to trade higher in the months ahead. On average, the S&P 500 slipped 0.3% in the three weeks following the start of conflict, but was 2.3% higher on average two months following the conflict, according to data from Wedbush Securities and CapIQ Pro. An escalation in the conflict could have mixed implications for the U.S. dollar, which has tumbled this year amid worries over diminished U.S. exceptionalism. In the event of U.S. direct engagement in the Iran-Israel War, the dollar could initially benefit from a safety bid, analysts said. "Traders are likely to worry more about the implicit erosion of the terms of trade for Europe, the UK, and Japan, rather than the economic shock to the US, a major oil producer," Thierry Wizman, Global FX & Rates Strategist at Macquarie Group, said in a note. But longer-term, the prospect of US-directed 'nation-building' would probably weaken the dollar, he said. "We recall that after the attacks of 9/11, and running through the decade-long US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the USD weakened," Wizman said.