White House and DOJ Announce Sweeping New Anti-Fraud Initiatives

1. The New National Fraud Enforcement Division of DOJ

What: On January 8, 2026, the White House announced the creation of a new National Fraud Enforcement Division at DOJ. At the April 7 press conference announcing the formal rollout of the new division, Acting Attorney General Blanche emphasized that the new division’s mission is “to zealously investigate and prosecute those who steal taxpayer dollars and rip off the American people.” Blanche also stated that DOJ will “spare no resources” to support its fraud-focused mission and announced a new National Fraud Detection Center that will be “a permanent, prosecutor-led, multi-agency, data-analytics team working to ferret out the most harmful, actors defrauding federal government programs.” While this may simply represent a repurposing or expansion of preexisting data analytics resources used by DOJ and partner agencies, it nonetheless reflects DOJ’s continued push to leverage data to identify and stamp out alleged government program and healthcare fraud.

Who: The National Fraud Enforcement Division is headed by recently confirmed Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald. McDonald most recently served as an Associate Deputy Attorney General under Blanche but was previously a career prosecutor in San Diego with experience in narcotics, gangs, immigration, fraud, and public corruption cases. During his swearing-in ceremony, McDonald put down a marker on the breadth of the mandate for his new division: “No longer will [DOJ] be uninterested in low levels of fraud; we will be interested in all of it.”

How: Prior to the April 7 press conference, it was unclear to what degree the new division would siphon personnel or funding from other DOJ components devoted to fighting fraud. The memo issued by Acting Attorney General Blanche in coordination with the press conference answered that question, announcing a significant restructuring of DOJ’s Criminal Division — specifically its Fraud Section. “Effective immediately,” the memo shifts the Fraud Section’s two largest litigating units, the Health Care Fraud Unit and essentially all of what used to be the Market Integrity and Major Frauds Unit (recently renamed the Market, Consumer, and Government Fraud Unit with the addition of former Consumer Protection Branch lawyers) out of the Criminal Division and under Assistant Attorney General McDonald. The new division will also include the former members of the Criminal Tax Section (which has recently been moved to the Criminal Division). Finally, the memo contemplates additional potential changes to the composition of the new division and the structure of DOJ, as discussed further below.

Recent Enforcement: The new division is already driving enforcement activity, with DOJ announcing major fraud actions the same day it was launched, attributable to the Health Care Fraud Unit. The cases involve a range of alleged misconduct, including fraudulent billing to Medicare and other federal programs, misuse of Covid relief funds, and schemes tied to telemedicine, medical equipment, and prescription drugs, totaling roughly $500 million of taxpayer dollars. While these cases reflect ongoing work by the Health Care Fraud Unit and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, they are now being advanced under the banner of the new division.

Next Steps:

• Immediate. The Civil Division is directed to identify a “liaison” to the new division.
• Immediate. The Department’s grant-making components will establish a grant program, or refocus existing grant programs, to enable state and local prosecutors to join the mission of the National Fraud Enforcement Division as Special Attorneys or Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
• Immediate. The National Fraud Enforcement Division, in coordination with the Justice Management Division, shall design and implement a hiring plan that enables the Department to rapidly and substantially increase prosecutorial resources across the country to combat fraud against taxpayer-funded programs.
• Immediate. The Criminal Division Appellate Section; Money Laundering, Narcotics, and Forfeiture Section; and filter teams shall be responsible for supporting, advising, and litigating on behalf of the National Fraud Enforcement Division, consistent with the support these units and teams provide the Criminal Division.
• Within 14 days, the Criminal Division and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys must provide a report to the National Fraud Enforcement Division detailing all ongoing fraud investigations and prosecutions.
• Within 21 days, each U.S. Attorney’s Office shall designate an experienced prosecutor to be detailed in place to the National Fraud Enforcement Division.
• Within 30 days, the Office of Legal Policy and Justice Management Division will make recommendations to the Deputy Attorney General for resourcing and structure on a go-forward basis. In this interim 30-day period, existing supervisory structures will continue to have authority to a degree, but it remains to be seen whether the former Fraud Section Unit Chiefs will directly report to Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald or still report to the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section Chief — or Criminal Division leadership — in some manner in the short-term or after 30 days. The Deputy Attorney General is directed to make a “final decision” on the proposed realignment within just three days after receiving recommendations.
• Within 90 days, the Office of Legal Policy (OLP) will provide recommendations for strengthening laws, regulations, and guidelines relevant to fraud investigations, prosecutions, and penalties.
• Within 120 days, OLP will make a recommendation to the Deputy Attorney General on whether “non-criminal elements of the Department should be brought within the National Fraud Enforcement Division.”

What It May Mean:

• We will be following whether this new structure alters the traditional workstreams of its constituent parts. A key question here is how corporate criminal healthcare (and other government program fraud) cases will be handled as opposed to cases against individuals. Public announcements about the new division seem oriented around individual prosecutions, but time will tell. Regardless, companies operating in life sciences/pharmaceutical, healthcare, and insurance, as well as financial institutions, should expect an uptick in issuance of subpoena process and similar requests as the new division will face pressure to show immediate results. Companies with significant Medicaid-related or Medicare (including Part C) operations, government contracting, and government grant portfolios may also be in prosecutors’ crosshairs.
• As a fraud case pipeline review is underway at DOJ, clients should consult counsel for opportunities for advocacy during this interim review period as prosecutors report up on and assess cases.
• We are also monitoring whether the new division will pursue cases along the lines of what the executive order and certain public announcements contemplate (e.g., small-dollar state program fraud for programs with federal support) as opposed to DOJ’s more traditional focus of using resources to target the worst offenders (measured by seriousness of offense, duration, and financial or physical harm).
• With the move of the Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud team, there is also a question of what will happen with non-government program fraud matters, such as significant insider trading, investment fraud, commodities fraud, and consumer fraud that these teams have historically handled (and which include charged cases).

2. Multiagency Task Force to “Eliminate Fraud”

What: A multiagency task force created by President Donald Trump to combat fraud in federal programs.

Who: Vice President J.D. Vance will serve as chair of the task force, and Andrew Ferguson, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, will serve as vice chair. Relevant Cabinet secretaries and heads of government agencies, including DOJ, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, and others, will serve as task force members.¹

Timetable for Action: On March 16, 2026, President Trump issued an executive order entitled “Establishing the Task Force to Eliminate Fraud.” The order sets an accelerated 30-60-90-day timeline for agencies to identify vulnerabilities, implement minimum anti-fraud controls, and develop measurable enforcement plans. It also emphasizes enhanced eligibility verification, data sharing, and interagency coordination alongside yet another directive to DOJ to promote and expedite False Claims Act enforcement, including whistleblower (qui tam) actions.

What to Watch For:

• Monitor the degree to which this task force targets fraud in specific states, such as those listed in the executive order, and the degree to which the task force oversees prosecutorial work versus seeks to oversee and manage state eligibility criteria.
• The order focuses primarily on programs administered jointly with state, local, tribal, and territorial partners, such as housing, food, medical care, and cash assistance programs, rather than exclusively federal programs.² The order suggests that state governments (and officials) may find themselves under particular scrutiny, alleging that “despite accepting federal funds, some States have refused to institute basic fraud controls such as providing enrollee information to the federal government that would verify eligibility. As a result, illegal aliens, criminals, foreign gangs, bureaucrats, State and local officials, non-governmental organizations, and ineligible providers exploit these programs ... with ease.”
• The announcements suggest that eligibility criteria for receipt of benefits may be as much an issue as enforcement. This creates a potentially interesting question given that criteria for enrollment in federal programs are generally established by statute, then by federal agencies — through rulemaking and regulations — while states establish specific procedures for enrollment pursuant to such federal laws. This may raise questions about the extent to which federal agencies can reinterpret eligibility standards outside of the formal rulemaking process, especially if state-level administration reflects a reasonable application of federal guidelines.
• Changes imposed by the task force could result in litigation regarding the allowable scope of authority of the federal government versus states with respect to eligibility and enrollment criteria for federal programs administered by states, including with respect to corporations and individuals cut off from funds by the proposed restrictions. A key issue in litigation will be what authority the federal government has to restrict eligibility for state programs.³

3. Executive Order Targeting Cyber-Enabled Fraud

What: On March 6, 2026, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Combatting Cybercrime, Fraud, and Predatory Schemes Against American Citizens.” The order focuses on combatting cyber-enabled crimes, such as phishing, “sextortion,” deployment of malware and ransomware, and general financial fraud, committed by transnational criminal organizations (TCOs).⁴

Who: The order contemplates coordination among the Department of State, Department of the Treasury, Department of Defense, DOJ, and Department of Homeland Security, among others.

Timetable: The order requires a comprehensive interagency review of existing operational, technical, diplomatic, and regulatory frameworks within 60 days and creation of a detailed action plan identifying TCOs engaged in cyber-enabled fraud and proposing solutions to prevent, disrupt, investigate, and dismantle these TCOs within 120 days.

What to Watch For:

• We shall see whether this new task force represents a meaningful departure from past interagency DOJ efforts, such as the Ransomware Task Force and efforts by the now-disbanded National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team to target crypto pig-butchering schemes, or whether it will simply continue to utilize the same playbooks under a new banner.
• The order includes the creation of a dedicated operational cell within the National Coordination Center to centralize federal efforts and enhance coordination with private-sector corporations to protect individuals, businesses, critical infrastructure, and public services from TCO criminal activity. The order also directs DOJ, through the Attorney General, to prioritize prosecutions involving cyber-enabled fraud and scam operations, signaling an anticipated increase in criminal investigations and charges against those partaking in cyber-enabled fraud, whether the instigators are domestic or foreign based. DOJ is also tasked with creating a Victims Restoration Program, within 90 days, that provides restoration or remission to the victims of cyber-enabled fraud schemes, using funds forfeited or seized from the TCOs.

Collectively, these initiatives reflect a significant escalation in the administration’s focus on fraud enforcement — and now a significant restructuring of DOJ.

Businesses should reassess the effectiveness of their compliance programs, ensure readiness to respond to accelerated investigative timelines, and evaluate their exposure to cross-agency enforcement risk. Proactive monitoring, internal reporting mechanisms, and preparedness for potential self-disclosure and cooperation decisions will be increasingly important as the enforcement priorities among the White House and DOJ continue to evolve.

---

¹ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/establishing-the-task-force-to-eliminate-fraud/ (Sec. 2).
² Id. (Sec. 3)
³ Under NFIB v. Sebelius, the federal government cannot coerce states into adopting significant policy changes by threatening to revoke existing funding that they rely on. The Sebelius decision resulted in Medicaid expansion being optional for states by limiting the federal government’s ability to withhold funding for not agreeing. President Trump has stated that the task force will withhold funding to state and municipal jurisdictions with inadequate antifraud controls for benefits. This tactic, which the Trump administration has used before, has already been blocked by the court. To the extent that the task force requires states to adopt new enforcement measures and administrative policies pertaining to eligibility, they may try to avoid structuring the mandates in a fashion that contradicts the ruling in Sebelius.
⁴ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/combating-cybercrime-fraud-and-predatory-schemes-against-american-citizens/ (Sec 1).