DOJ launches Global Trade & Commerce Enforcement Section and issues first-of-its-kind trade fraud enforcement guide with DHS

On July 14, 2026, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the creation of a new Global Trade & Commerce Enforcement Section (GTCES) within its National Fraud Enforcement Division. In addition, DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly released A Resource Guide to Trade Fraud Enforcement (Guide), the first comprehensive framework of its kind for cross-border trade compliance and enforcement. 

These developments advance DOJ’s trade fraud enforcement strategy and priorities, which have resulted in over $1 billion in civil and criminal recoveries, penalties, forfeitures, and publicly charged losses in less than a year. 

This alert discusses the key elements of the latest announcements, provides context for DOJ’s trade fraud enforcement efforts since 2025, and outlines considerations for companies engaged in international trade.

Background: DOJ’s escalating focus on trade fraud

In 2025, DOJ’s White Collar Enforcement Plan designated “trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion” as one of ten high-impact areas warranting significant prosecutorial resources from DOJ. DOJ’s reorganization of its Criminal Division to create the Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit (MGCF Unit) consolidated personnel from the Fraud Section’s Market Integrity and Major Frauds Unit with the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch to specifically focus on trade fraud and tariff evasion, alongside DOJ’s continued use of the False Claims Act (FCA) to enforce tariff compliance.

The July 14 announcements signal that DOJ’s enforcement focus on trade fraud may continue: The Trade Fraud Task Force (TFTF), launched in August 2025 as a joint DOJ–DHS initiative building on the enforcement priorities identified in 2025, has surpassed $1 billion in recoveries, and DOJ has further institutionalized its enforcement infrastructure through the creation of GTCES within its National Fraud Enforcement Division.

GTCES

The TFTF investigates and prosecutes parties that defraud the government through material misrepresentations to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including transshipment, mislabeling, and false declarations. Its mandate extends across the entire supply chain, impacting importers, customs brokers, downstream distributors, industrial and commercial end-users, and any other actors that knowingly profit from illegally imported merchandise. Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald of DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division made statements addressing the seriousness of trade fraud as an economic crime and cautioning all supply-chain participants. 

DOJ’s newly created GTCES will sit within the National Fraud Enforcement Division as a specialized litigating component responsible for investigating and prosecuting criminal customs fraud, evasion of external revenue (e.g., Section 301 duties; Section 232 duties; Section 201 safeguards; and anti-dumping and countervailing duty, or CVD, orders), international supply-chain forced labor offenses, and related trade crimes. GTCES trial attorneys are directed to lead transnational investigations and prosecutions nationwide. In addition, the GTCES will serve as DOJ’s central coordinator for interagency trade enforcement.

GTCES’s stated mission is to pursue criminal import, trade, and related fraud offenses that undermine American industries, evade lawful revenue collection, threaten consumer health and safety, finance foreign adversaries, promote forced labor, or otherwise violate US laws governing domestic and foreign commerce. 

The Guide

Prepared jointly by DOJ (specifically, the National Fraud Enforcement, Criminal, Civil, and Environment and Natural Resources Divisions, together with the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois) and DHS (Homeland Security Investigations, or HSI, and CBP), the Guide is described as the first comprehensive joint framework of its kind. DHS Assistant Secretary for Trade and Economic Security Aris Kourkoumelis stated that the Guide gives the private sector a “transparent, comprehensive manual on trade fraud enforcement.” While the Guide is presented as a compliance resource for businesses, individuals, and attorneys, it expressly does not create enforceable rights and does not limit the government’s enforcement positions.

Key topics from the Guide include:

• The customs entry process, including the obligations of importers of record and customs brokers, data submitted to CBP, post-entry activity, Section 301 duties, Section 232 duties, Section 201 safeguards, and AD/CVD orders


• Key anti-fraud enforcement authorities, including CBP’s civil penalty authority under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1592 and 1595a(b), the FCA, criminal customs fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 541, 542, 545, 548, 550, 551), money laundering, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and related health and safety and securities law provisions


• Forced labor enforcement tools, including Section 307 Withhold Release Orders and Findings, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), and the Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force’s UFLPA Entity List, which now covers 12 high-priority sectors, up from the original four (i.e., apparel, cotton, silica-based products/polysilicon, and tomatoes), with the addition of aluminum, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), seafood, steel, copper, lithium, caustic soda, and jujubes


• Common trade fraud typologies, including manifest fraud, false country-of-origin declarations or markings, false tariff classification, undervaluation, AD/CVD evasion, shell company and customs broker fraud, drawback fraud, free trade agreement fraud, port shopping, forged safety or environmental certifications, and failure to report dangerous products

The document catalogs additional enforcement actions and bases trade fraud enforcement on three principles: 1) fiscal health (e.g., preventing revenue loss to the US Treasury), 2) public safety (e.g., preventing circumvention of health and safety standards), and 3) human dignity (e.g., preventing forced labor and illegal profits derived from it). It states that companies owe a duty of care and candor in their trade compliance and that DOJ will scrutinize whether violations stem from negligence, gross negligence, willful blindness, or intentional criminality. The Guide also highlights the breadth of 18 U.S.C. § 545 (i.e., smuggling goods into the US), which carries up to 20 years’ imprisonment plus forfeiture and extends liability down the supply chain to any party that knowingly receives or sells illegally imported goods, not just the importer of record.

The Guide reiterates that trade and customs laws exist to ensure transparency, raise revenue, protect public health and safety, and preserve fair competition, and that DOJ, DHS, CBP, HSI, and US Attorneys’ offices will continue coordinated enforcement while encouraging voluntary compliance. Consistent with that approach, the document reminds companies of DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Policy, which incentivizes voluntary self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation, and notes the availability of whistleblower mechanisms, including FCA qui tam suits and DOJ’s Corporate Whistleblower Program.

Key takeaways

The creation of GTCES, the $1 billion TFTF recovery milestone, and the joint DOJ–DHS Guide signal that trade fraud enforcement remains a federal priority. Viewed alongside DOJ’s May 2025 White Collar Enforcement Plan and its July 2025 reorganization creating the MGCF Unit, the July 2026 developments suggest that DOJ is following an enforcement path focused on trade-related misconduct. Companies engaged in cross-border trade – including importers, customs brokers, distributors, and other supply-chain participants – are encouraged to consider the following key takeaways:

• DOJ’s enforcement path has remained consistent. DOJ flagged trade fraud as a top enforcement priority in its May 2025 White Collar Enforcement Plan, created a dedicated unit in its July 2025 reorganization, and has now launched GTCES, surpassing $1 billion in TFTF recoveries.


• Enforcement will likely be sustained and well-resourced. The creation of GTCES and the addition of dedicated personnel are consistent with DOJ’s focus on trade fraud.


• Liability extends beyond the importer of record. Customs brokers, downstream distributors, and commercial end-users that knowingly profit from illegally imported goods can face civil and criminal exposure, including under 18 U.S.C. § 545.


• Willful blindness is not a defense. DOJ has signaled it will scrutinize whether trade compliance failures reflect negligence, gross negligence, willful blindness, or intentional conduct. As such, companies are encouraged to proactively audit supply chains rather than rely on assumed compliance by counterparties.


• Forced labor risk has expanded. The high-priority sector list has grown to 12 categories. Renewing supply-chain due diligence is encouraged, particularly for companies sourcing from higher-risk regions.


• Tariff evasion remains a top enforcement priority. Companies are encouraged to review classification, valuation, and country-of-origin practices, especially where duty rates may create incentives for mislabeling or transshipment.


• The Guide provides insight into enforcement priorities. Although the Guide does not create private rights or bind DOJ's exercise of its enforcement discretion, it offers a view into the typologies, statutes, and case examples that DOJ and DHS are prioritizing, which may be useful for benchmarking internal compliance programs.


• Voluntary self-disclosure could mitigate exposure. Companies that identify potential violations are encouraged to evaluate the benefits of voluntary disclosure, cooperation, and remediation under DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy, particularly given the growing risk of qui tam suits and whistleblower reporting under DOJ’s Corporate Whistleblower Program.


• Recent penalties illustrate financial exposure. Settlements and fines reaching hundreds of millions of dollars (and, in one FCA matter, exceeding $1.6 billion) underscore the risk for non-compliance.

For more information, please contact the authors.