The Trump administration could not have gotten off to a better start for people accused of violating foreign lobbying and bribery laws.
In the days after President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi issued directives limiting the enforcement of those laws, lawyers for people accused of such violations — including Trump allies — have scrambled to capitalize on the moment.
Some have requested that the Justice Department drop pending charges, or have suggested they are planning to make such requests. Others are expected to use the directives to seek clemency from Mr. Trump or leniency in dealings with prosecutors, according to people familiar with the reactions to the changes ordered by the new administration.
The administration portrayed the moves as part of a broader shift in focus toward immigration, drugs and terrorism, and away from white-collar crimes that it says are selectively enforced. The orders echoed complaints by Mr. Trump and his team that they had been politically targeted by the Justice Department during his first administration under the guise of clamping down on foreign influence.
The effects of the new administration’s moves are expected to be wide reaching, rippling through Washington’s lobbying industry, foreign capitals, U.S. attorneys’ offices across the country and highly paid white-collar law firms.
Taken together, the moves send “a clear signal that the United States is just wide open to foreign meddling, and even if you get caught red-handed there is a chance that you can get off the hook,” said Ben Freeman, who tracks foreign influence for the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Already, Mr. Trump’s executive order on Monday pausing enforcement of a bribery law, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or F.C.P.A., appears to be jeopardizing a long-running case against two American technology executives accused of authorizing a $2 million bribe to Indian officials to secure permits for a new office campus. The act makes it illegal for companies that operate in the United States to pay foreign government officials to secure business deals.
On Tuesday, a federal judge in New Jersey asked prosecutors to explain how Mr. Trump’s order affected their case against the two technology executives, according to a court filing.
Other cases could be undermined by a directive issued by Ms. Bondi last week narrowing the enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA. The act requires anyone who lobbies or does public relations in the United States for a foreign government, political party or state-owned enterprise to register with the Justice Department and disclose their activity.
During Mr. Trump’s first term, the act was used by the special counsel appointed to investigate interference by Russia in the 2016 election and ties between the country and Mr. Trump’s team.
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and other prosecutors brought criminal charges related to FARA against an array of Mr. Trump’s allies, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his former fund-raiser Elliott Broidy. Both men were pardoned by Mr. Trump during the final days of his first term.
Ms. Bondi has personal experience with FARA, having registered as a foreign agent for Qatar at various points from 2019 to 2021 while working as a lobbyist for the firm of top Trump fund-raiser Brian Ballard.
In her directive scaling back enforcement of the law, she cited concerns about “the improper weaponization of the criminal justice system,” and referenced an executive order issued by Mr. Trump on his first day in office pledging to “take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the federal government related to the weaponization of law enforcement and the weaponization of the intelligence community.”
She set forth guidelines under which the Justice Department would mostly focus on “civil enforcement, regulatory initiatives and public guidance” to ensure that lobbyists and public relations firms comply with FARA.
Criminal charges under the act, she wrote, should be “limited to instances of alleged conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors.”
On Tuesday, in a Miami courtroom, Ms. Bondi’s directive was cited by defense lawyers seeking the dismissal of charges against former Representative David Rivera of Florida and a longtime associate, Esther Nuhfer, for failing to register their lobbying for President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela.
Harold E. Schimkat, an assistant U.S. attorney, told the judge presiding over the hearing that prosecutors had received guidance that the directive would only apply to new cases, and not pending charges like those against Mr. Rivera and Ms. Nuhfer, according to a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of Florida. The judge did not offer an opinion on the dispute between the prosecutor and the defense lawyers over the applicability of the directive. He scheduled another hearing in a month.
In a statement on Thursday, Mr. Rivera, a Republican and former housemate of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, argued that Ms. Bondi’s guidance — and the Trump executive order it references — were an effort to “correct past abuses” by the Justice Department under former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “So anyone who thinks they’re going to obstruct or undermine Bondi’s directive and authority on this just doesn’t realize that Pam Bondi is no nonsense and tough as nails.”
The Justice Department declined to comment on the applicability of the Trump and Bondi directives to cases with pending charges, like the one against Mr. Rivera and Ms. Nuhfer, who have pleaded not guilty.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Lawyers for Ms. Nuhfer — a political consultant whose firm has assisted the campaigns of Mr. Trump, Mr. Rubio and Mr. Rivera — welcomed the FARA and F.C.P.A. directives in a statement on Wednesday.
“For too long, our government’s net was cast way too broadly, ensnaring many good people engaged in completely legal business and labeling them felons for a vague registration offense,” said the lawyers, David Oscar Markus and Margot Moss.
“Aren’t we better off focusing on drugs, guns, violence and terrorism in the U.S., instead of accepted business activity in other countries with no harm or victims, let alone impact on our country?”
Lawyers for Barry Bennett, a former Trump campaign aide, asked the Justice Department what Ms. Bondi’s directive means for a deferred prosecution agreement he entered in 2023, according to a person familiar with the matter. As part of the agreement, Mr. Bennett admitted to FARA violations related to his lobbying for Qatar and agreed to pay a $100,000 fine to avoid charges, but the case remains open.
Erica Dumas, a spokeswoman for the rapper Prakazrel Michel, known as Pras, said Ms. Bondi’s directive should help his case for a pardon for his conviction in 2023 for FARA violations and other crimes as part of a Malaysian embezzlement scheme that also involved Mr. Broidy.
And a lawyer for Representative Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat who has pleaded not guilty to charges including acting as an agent of Azerbaijan and a Mexican bank, said that Ms. Bondi’s directive undercuts some of the charges against him.
“The new policy largely affirms our position in the case,” Eric Reed, a lawyer for Mr. Cuellar, said in an interview. “We’re evaluating the new policy and assessing the best manner to address it with the Department of Justice.”
In addition to the directives, Ms. Bondi’s Justice Department has buoyed the hopes of defendants in foreign influence cases by ordering prosecutors on Monday to drop foreign corruption-related charges against Mayor Eric Adams of New York.
The moves have set the white-collar defense bar abuzz.
Some lawyers fretted privately that it could depress lucrative business from corporate executives and lobbyists who might be less fearful of Justice Department scrutiny of their foreign business. Others worried that the changes might be used primarily to help Trump allies, and might make it harder to advise other clients.
“Every administration changes enforcement priorities,” Christopher Swift, a lawyer at Foley & Lardner who helps clients navigate F.C.P.A. and sanctions, said in an interview. “But one of the difficulties with the personalization of criminal law is some attorneys may be able to obtain outcomes based on who their client is, not what the facts in the case are, and that kind of inconsistent application of the law is corrosive and potentially dangerous for all defendants.”
Others are predicting a return to the anything-goes approach to FARA that pervaded the foreign influence industry before the special counsel’s investigation led to a clampdown in the first Trump administration.
“This feels a little like turning back the clock to the pre-Mueller era,” Matthew T. Sanderson, a lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale who advises clients on FARA compliance, said in an email.
Still, he said, Ms. Bondi’s guidance did not actually change the law, and it could be lifted at any moment, setting the stage for the resumption of more aggressive enforcement.