President Trump Issues Executive Order in Final Days of Presidency, “Protecting Americans From Overcriminalization” - Healthcare Fraud Defense Firm
WSJ logo
Forbes logo
Fox News logo
Bloomberg logo
Los Angeles Times logo
Washington Post logo
The Epoch Times logo
CNN logo
Telemundo logo
New York Times
NY Post logo
NBC logo
Daily Beast logo
USA Today logo
Miami Herald logo
CNBC logo
Dallas News logo
Quick Practice Area Locator

President Trump Issues Executive Order in Final Days of Presidency, “Protecting Americans From Overcriminalization”

motion practice in federal court

In his second-to-last day as President of the United State, Donald Trump signed an executive order intended to limit the government’s ability to criminally prosecute those in violation of certain regulations. The thrust of the Executive Order is to clarify when a violation of a regulation may result in criminal liability, and to generally limit the application of strict criminal liability in executive-promulgated regulations. At the same time, the Executive Order maintains the possibility of criminal prosecution for the “most culpable individuals.”

Put our highly experienced team on your side

Dr. Nick Oberheiden
Dr. Nick Oberheiden



Lynette S. Byrd
Lynette S. Byrd

Former DOJ Trial Attorney


Brian J. Kuester
Brian J. Kuester

Former U.S. Attorney

Amanda Marshall
Amanda Marshall

Former U.S. Attorney

Local Counsel

Joe Brown
Joe Brown

Former U.S. Attorney

Local Counsel

John W. Sellers
John W. Sellers

Former Senior DOJ Trial Attorney

Linda Julin McNamara
Linda Julin McNamara

Federal Appeals Attorney

Aaron L. Wiley
Aaron L. Wiley

Former DOJ attorney

Local Counsel

Roger Bach
Roger Bach

Former Special Agent (DOJ)

Chris Quick
Chris J. Quick

Former Special Agent (FBI & IRS-CI)

Michael S. Koslow
Michael S. Koslow

Former Supervisory Special Agent (DOD-OIG)

Ray Yuen
Ray Yuen

Former Supervisory Special Agent (FBI)

The Executive Order creates a new policy, consisting of three parts:

  1. All agencies that pass regulations including the possibility of criminal prosecution should make the “mens rea” element of the offense clear, and must also explain which conduct covered under the regulation subjects a potential defendant to criminal liability.
  2. All agencies should avoid imposing strict criminal liability, where possible, and should instead consider “administrative or civil enforcement of strict liability regulatory offenses”; and
  3. All agencies should focus their criminal enforcement efforts on those who “know what is prohibited or required by the regulation and choose not to comply,” and limit criminal prosecution to those who had actual or constructive knowledge of the prohibited conduct.

The Executive order also sets forth a specific protocol that agencies should follow when creating notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

  • All NPRM should include a statement indicating whether someone who violates the statute could face criminal penalties;
  • The text of NPRM should explicitly state the mens rea requirement for each provision, and specifically indicate any provision containing a strict-liability offense.
  • Any reference to a criminal penalty should be accompanied by a citation to the relevant authority authorizing criminal liability.
  • Any agency submitting an NPRM containing a regulatory offense that is not named in the authorizing statute and may subject a violator to potential criminal liability with no mens rea requirement (or a regulatory offense including an element without a mens rea requirement) should submit justification for the use of strict liability, as well as the source of the agency’s authority to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget

The Executive order also explains that all agencies should provide guidance on its plan on how it plans to address regulatory offenses that may result in criminal liability, rather than referring these matters to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. Such guidance should include the following:

  • The risk of harm posed by the conduct;
  • Any potential gain defendant could receive from the offense;
  • Whether the defendant has any specialized knowledge or expertise, or maintains a related license; and
  • Any evidence of the defendant’s knowledge of the regulation.

The President’s concern is clearly based on the overprosecution of regulations. The Executive Order, provided it remains intact once President-Elect Biden assumes the Presidency, will go a long way towards making the possibility of criminal liability related to the violation of a federal regulation much clearer.

When the Executive Order uses to the term “mens rea,” it is referring to the knowledge, or intent, element of an offense. For the vast majority offenses that can result in criminal liability, there are two elements: the actus reus (the act) element and the mens rea element (the intent).

Typically, when someone commits the “act” of an offense, they can only be found guilty if they also possessed the requisite mens rea. In criminal law, this is often “knowing,” “willful,” or “intentional.” Although, some crimes allow prosecution based on recklessness.

However, the exception is for strict liability offenses. A strict liability offense does not have a mens rea element, and the commission of the prohibited act is sufficient to find someone who commits the act guilty of the charged offense. Notably, just because a statute does not list a mens rea requirement does not mean that it is a strict liability offense. Courts will occasionally “read in” a mens rea element, depending on the statute, its legislative intent, and the type of conduct it was designed to prevent.

Contact with an Experienced Federal Regulatory Defense Lawyer at Oberheiden P.C.

Oberheiden P.C. is a federal compliance and defense law firm representing individuals and organizations in all types of state and federal investigations and enforcement actions. If you need to speak with a dedicated federal defense lawyer, call 888-680-1745, or contact us online to schedule an appointment with one of our senior attorneys.


Why Clients Trust Oberheiden P.C.

  • 95% Success Rate
  • 2,000+ Cases Won
  • Available Nights & Weekends
  • Experienced Trial Attorneys
  • Former Department of Justice Trial Attorneys
  • Former Federal Prosecutors, U.S. Attorney’s Office
  • Former Agents from FBI, OIG, DEA
  • Cases Handled in 48 States
Email Us 888-680-1745