Enforcement

Subscribe to Enforcement via RSS

After the apprehension of Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, the White House has actively advocated for Venezuelan market access for U.S. oil companies. Although a regulatory framework under which such investment can occur remains uncertain, any such arrangement will need to account for the sweeping U.S. sanctions that have been imposed against Venezuela over the past decade in response to alleged human rights abuses, corruption, and the erosion of democratic institutions under the Maduro regime. As of writing, these sanctions remain in full-effect, generally blocking the property of the Government of Venezuela (“GoV”) and restricting U.S. persons (and non-U.S. persons to the extent they are engaging in dealings within U.S. jurisdiction) from engaging in transactions or other dealings with the GoV, entities owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of, the GoV, including the state-owned oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PdVSA”), and certain individuals in leadership of the GoV. Moreover, the U.S. government maintains discretion to impose blocking sanctions against parties determined to engage in certain activities, including operating in the defense and security, financial, oil, and gold sectors of Venezuela, as well as any other sectors as determined by the U.S. government in the future.  This note provides an overview of key Executive Orders (“E.O.”) constituting the Venezuela sanctions framework, including a description of the status of relevant General Licenses (“GL”), and considerations for the future as the White House explores potential arrangements with Venezuela for U.S. oil company market entry.Continue Reading Navigating Venezuela Sanctions: Legal Considerations and Anticipated Developments

For more insights and analysis from Cleary lawyers on policy and regulatory developments from a legal perspective, visit What to Expect From a Second Trump Administration.

On January 2, 2026, President Trump issued an order (the “Order”) prohibiting HieFo Corporation (“HieFo”), a Delaware company, from maintaining ownership of digital chip and wafer-related assets (including a semiconductor manufacturing facility) that HieFo acquired from EMCORE Corporation (“EMCORE”). HieFo acquired the assets in April 2024 for $2.92 million, and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) subsequently reviewed the transaction.Continue Reading President Trump Issues Order Requiring Hiefo Corporation to Divest Ownership of Digital Chip and Wafer-related Assets

On November 1, 2025, following U.S.-China trade discussions, the White House announced that it would suspend implementation of the Affiliates Rule for one year.  Effective November 10, 2025, BIS imposed a one-year suspension of the interim final rule, expiring November 9, 2026.

On September 29, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a new interim final rule, Expansion of End-User Controls to Cover Affiliates of Certain Listed Entities (the IFR) that, effective immediately, significantly expands the application of the Entity List and Military End-User List (MEU List) restrictions under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to foreign entities that are 50 percent or more owned by such listed entities (the Affiliates Rule).Continue Reading BIS Significantly Expands Application of Export Control Restricted Party Lists with New “Affiliates Rule”

For more insights and analysis from Cleary lawyers on policy and regulatory developments from a legal perspective, visit What to Expect From a Second Trump Administration.

Shortly after publication of this post, the Trump administration filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has expedited its review with oral arguments scheduled for November 5, 2025. The tariffs will remain in effect pending the Supreme Court’s review.

On August 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) issued a 7-4 decision upholding the U.S. Court of International Trade’s (the “CIT”) May 28, 2025 ruling striking down President Trump’s fentanyl trafficking-related tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China (referred to by the Federal Circuit as “Trafficking Tariffs”), and the broad reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2, 2025 (referred to by the Federal Circuit as “Reciprocal Tariffs”).[1] The Federal Circuit’s opinion held that President Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, 50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (“IEEPA”) in imposing the challenged Trafficking Tariffs and Reciprocal Tariffs. In a concurrent order, the Federal Circuit stayed the effects of its opinion until October 14, 2025, while the U.S. government appeals the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.Continue Reading U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Rules Against Trump’s IEEPA Tariffs

For more insights and analysis from Cleary lawyers on policy and regulatory developments from a legal perspective, visit What to Expect From a Second Trump Administration.

The Trump administration issued a series of executive orders in late July and early August 2025, implementing substantial tariff increases on imports from numerous countries.  These developments represent an escalation from the initial reciprocal tariff framework established in April 2025 (discussed here), with new measures targeting specific countries for distinct policy reasons.  The comprehensive nature of these orders, affecting approximately 70 countries with reciprocal tariff rates ranging from 10% to 41%, alongside varying country-specific tariffs reaching as high as 40% for Brazil, 35% for Canada, and 25% for India, likely will have a major impact on global supply chains and international commerce.Continue Reading President Trump Expands Global Reciprocal Tariffs and Imposes Additional Tariffs on Brazil, Canada, and India

For more insights and analysis from Cleary lawyers on policy and regulatory developments from a legal perspective, visit What to Expect From a Second Trump Administration.

On June 30, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14312 (the “Executive Order”) terminating several national emergencies related to Syria, revoking executive orders that imposed sanctions and export restrictions on Syria, and directing the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), U.S. Department of State, and U.S. Department of Commerce to ease trade and finance restrictions on Syria and its new government, led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa. The Executive Order also expands an earlier executive order of October 2019, E.O. 13894, to impose additional sanctions on individuals and entities associated with the regime of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.Continue Reading U.S. Government Formally Terminates Economic Sanctions on Syria

As of July 8, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is scheduled to begin full enforcement of its Data Security Program (“DSP”) and the recently issued Bulk Data Rule after its 90-day limited enforcement policy expires, ushering in “full compliance” requirements for U.S. companies and individuals.[1] Continue Reading Enforcement Countdown: Is DOJ Ready for the Bulk Data Rule “Grace Period” to End?

On June 16, 2025, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division (“NSD”) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas announced a landmark declination to prosecute private equity firm White Deer Management LLC following its voluntary self-disclosure of sanctions violations committed by an acquired company.[1]  This marks the first application of the safe harbor provisions for voluntary self-disclosure in connection with mergers and acquisitions—a policy put in place during the previous administration—and demonstrates the benefits of NSD’s enforcement policies while highlighting continued enforcement priorities across administrations.Continue Reading DOJ National Security Division Issues First Declination Under Merger-Related Safe Harbor Provisions

For more insights and analysis from Cleary lawyers on policy and regulatory developments from a legal perspective, visit What to Expect From a Second Trump Administration.

On May 23, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) issued General License 25 (“GL 25”), titled “Authorizing Transactions Prohibited by the Syrian Sanctions Regulations or Involving Certain Blocked Persons.”  Effective immediately, GL 25 suspends nearly all OFAC sanctions on Syria, in line with President Trump’s prior announcement that he intended to lift sanctions on Syria following the ouster of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the establishment of a new government under Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa.Continue Reading U.S. Government Suspends Economic Sanctions on Syria; EU and UK Take Similar Actions

For more insights and analysis from Cleary lawyers on policy and regulatory developments from a legal perspective, visit What to Expect From a Second Trump Administration.

On May 28, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued a decision holding that President Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, 50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (“IEEPA”) in imposing fentanyl trafficking-related tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China (referred to by the CIT as “Trafficking Tariffs”), and the broad reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2, 2025 (referred to by the CIT as “Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariffs”).[1]  In a Per Curium opinion, the three-judge panel granted summary judgment to a group of private plaintiffs and state attorneys general who had challenged the Trump administration tariffs imposed under IEEPA, vacated the Executive Orders imposing the tariffs, and enjoined collection of the tariffs.[2]  On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) temporarily stayed the CIT’s order, keeping the relevant tariffs in effect while the Federal Circuit considers the case. Continue Reading U.S. Court of International Trade Strikes Down Trump’s IEEPA Tariffs