DOJ Civil Division Assistant Attorney General’s first day memorandum sets out FCA enforcement priorities aligned with Trump administration objectives

Prior administrative activity

The Civil Priorities Memorandum follows a series of other directives and executive actions targeting conduct and practices the President has deemed unlawful or at least more worthy of government action today than they were in the past, in particular those relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). First, immediately following his inauguration, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173, announcing the new administration’s intention to end DEI programs and directing agencies to require parties contracting with the federal government to certify compliance with anti-discrimination laws and agree that compliance with such laws is material to government payment decisions for purposes of the False Claims Act (FCA).¹

Two weeks later, on February 5, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memorandum to DOJ employees, directing them to “investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector and in educational institutions that receive federal funds.”²

Then, on May 19, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued his own memorandum directing the DOJ’s Civil Division Fraud Section and Civil Rights Division to lead a Civil Rights Initiative pursuing FCA allegations against recipients of federal funds “that knowingly violate[] federal civil rights laws.” The Blanche Memorandum called for collaboration between federal, state, and local authorities and encouraged private citizens to bring whistleblower suits under the FCA.³

Civil Priorities Memorandum

Against this recent backdrop, the Civil Priorities Memorandum instructs Civil Division attorneys to use all available resources to advance five policy directives, with an emphasis on the FCA as the Division’s weapon of choice.

1. “Combatting Discriminatory Practices and Policies” (Targeting Illegal DEI)

Citing Executive Order 14173 and the Bondi and Blanche Memoranda, the Civil Priorities Memorandum states that the Civil Division should “use all available resources to pursue affirmative litigation combatting unlawful discriminatory practices in the private sector,” including through the FCA. The memorandum calls upon the Civil Division to “work with the Civil Rights Division, relators, other whistleblowers, and federal agencies to advance these efforts.”

2. “Ending Antisemitism”

Citing previous executive orders and initiatives in furtherance of the “policy of the United States to combat anti-Semitism vigorously,” the Civil Priorities Memorandum again invokes the FCA, declaring that “the Civil Division will prioritize investigations and enforcement actions against entities that make claims for federal funds but knowingly violate federal civil rights laws by participating in or allowing antisemitism.”

3. “Protecting Women and Children” (Targeting Gender Dysphoria Treatments)

The Civil Priorities Memorandum instructs the Civil Division to use its resources to “prioritize investigations of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other appropriate entities consistent with” directives by the administration targeting gender-affirming care.⁴ Shumate describes examples of possible Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) violations by “pharmaceutical companies that manufacture drugs in connection with so-called gender transition,” and online sellers of such drugs. Invoking the FCA, the order targets “health care providers that bill the federal government for impermissible services” such as “providers that attempt to evade state bans on gender dysphoria treatments by knowingly submitting claims to Medicaid with false diagnosis codes.”

4. “Ending Sanctuary Jurisdictions”

Shumate again refers to the government’s recent executive orders and memoranda, here targeted at immigration laws, directing the Civil Division to “prioritize affirmative litigation to invalidate any State or local laws preempted by Federal law.” Shumate specifically references the President’s “multiple directives to secure the southern border” and Attorney General Bondi’s instruction to the Civil Division to seek out state and local activity in violation of federal immigration laws.

5. “Prioritizing Denaturalization”

The memorandum cites 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), permitting the United States government to commence action to revoke citizenship “if an individual either ‘illegally procured’ naturalization or procured naturalization by ‘concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.’” The memorandum describes ten “priorities for denaturalization cases” established by the Civil Division, including individuals who “pose a potential danger to national security,” “individuals who engaged in fraud against private individuals, funds, or corporations,” and other broad criteria. It further describes that the “assignment of denaturalization cases may be made across sections or units based on experience, subject-matter expertise, and the overall needs of the Civil Division.”

Looking ahead

AAG Shumate’s Civil Priorities Memorandum signals to Civil Division attorneys, government contractors, the health care and life sciences industries, and academia alike that the Trump administration is willing to pursue and test new and novel applications of existing statutes to advance the administration’s priorities with respect to DEI, antisemitism, gender-affirming care, immigration, and citizenship. The Memorandum’s emphasis on the FCA, in conjunction with other government directives issued over the last several months, increases the risk that relators (whistleblowers), emboldened by the administration’s directives and initiatives, will file FCA qui tam lawsuits advancing these theories. In turn, DOJ investigations will follow, along with hard-fought litigation in cases pursued by the Civil Division or, for cases in which the DOJ declines to intervene, by relators even absent government involvement. But, as we have explained in prior publications, the DOJ (or a relator) could face significant legal hurdles in advancing these novel FCA theories.⁵ And, as Justice Thomas’s recent discussion of FCA liability foreshadows, the statute’s rigorous materiality inquiry presents a high bar for enforcement based on previously unenforced provisions in contracts and regulations. See Kousisis v. United States, 145 S.Ct. 1382, 1398 (May 22, 2025) (Thomas, J. Concurring). For assistance navigating this rapidly-evolving landscape, please reach out to the authors identified below or any Hogan Lovells lawyer with whom you work.

Authored by Matthew Sullivan, Mitch Lazris, Jonathan Diesenhaus, Michele Sartori, Stephanie Yonekura, Katy Forsstrom, and Sebastian van Bastelaer.