CCBJ: Your move to Honigman occurs amid rising protectionism and increasingly complex global trade regulations. Which regulatory developments do you expect will present the most significant compliance challenges for U.S. businesses in the near future?
Daniel Wendt: Many companies are grappling with how to adjust to new tariffs that disrupt established supply chain models. These changes are prompting fundamental questions about the viability of certain business lines—or entire operations. As a result, companies face increased pressure around product classification, country-of-origin declarations, and other compliance-sensitive determinations.
As geopolitical tensions escalate, the risk of corruption and enforcement under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) remains high. What new compliance risks should companies anticipate, and what strategies can help mitigate exposure?
Companies are responding to the Administration’s recent pause in FCPA enforcement by reaffirming their internal commitment to anti-corruption laws. This is a necessary step to counter any misperception that enforcement no longer applies or that compliance standards have been relaxed.
At the same time, non-U.S. companies are concerned that enforcement may shift disproportionately toward them. In this uncertain environment, companies should expect to encounter proposals that stretch or breach compliance boundaries. Now more than ever, it’s essential to maintain ongoing, candid dialogue with global business teams about corporate standards—ensuring alignment with both current laws and future enforcement priorities.
Cross-border corporate investigations are becoming more aggressive and expansive globally. What emerging enforcement trends should multinational corporations be closely monitoring, particularly given current geopolitical uncertainties?
Companies should closely follow developments under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and comparable international laws. In 2022, the U.S. government brought a landmark case against Lafarge for making payments to ISIS in Syria. Since then, federal enforcement has prioritized actions against cartels and transnational criminal organizations, many of which are now designated as terrorist entities.
Companies engaging with third parties linked to such groups—or making payments under pressure—may be exposed to civil or criminal liability under the ATA. Most compliance programs are designed to detect improper payments to government officials but may not be equipped to identify transactions involving militant or terrorist-affiliated entities. That gap presents a growing risk.
Digital technologies, including AI-based compliance solutions, promise improvements but also raise new risks and complexities. In what ways do you anticipate digital innovation will complicate, rather than simplify, trade compliance and due diligence efforts?
A primary concern with AI is the ease with which bad actors can create authentic-looking documentation to evade scrutiny. This includes invoices, business registration forms, export licenses, timber permits, and more. As fabricated documentation becomes more sophisticated, due diligence and supply chain vetting will require deeper validation processes and independent verification—raising both the cost and complexity of compliance.
Given your experience advising clients across multiple industries, which sectors do you believe will face the toughest scrutiny from regulators in the coming years, and what underlying factors will drive that heightened focus?
Industries tied to national security will remain a central focus for regulators. This includes defense, AI, semiconductors, telecommunications, and finance. The current administration has also emphasized the importance of self-sufficiency in times of conflict, bringing additional attention to sectors such as steel, pharmaceuticals, and other critical infrastructure. Enforcement will continue to evolve in tandem with shifting definitions of national interest and economic resilience.
Published April 23, 2025.
