Mixed Signals: DOJ Congressional Notice Misaligned with White House on Structure and Oversight of New “National Fraud Division”

What Happened

On January 8, 2026, the White House announced the creation of a new Division for National Fraud Enforcement within the Department of Justice (DOJ) that will enforce federal criminal and civil laws against fraud targeting federal government programs and federally funded benefits, as well as fraud targeting private businesses and individuals. While the genesis of this new prosecutorial entity may have been related to the alleged corruption in Minnesota, the breadth of its potential scope is astounding. Often, third parties (e.g., financial institutions) receive heightened scrutiny in fraud investigations because the fraudulent actors themselves have disappeared, leaving such third parties in the government’s sights for restitution and penalties. The direction and priorities of this new enforcement division are thus relevant to financial institutions, fintech firms, investment banks, brokers, and others whom the government might assert played a role in facilitating or failing to stop fraud and corruption.

Notably, in its January 8th announcement, the White House stated that this new Division would be led by an assistant attorney general (AAG) reporting directly to the President and Vice President. However, a newly released Congressional notice from the DOJ outlines a different structure. In a January 16, 2026 letter to House Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Hal Rogers, AAG for Administration Jolene Ann Lauria formally notified Congress of the reorganization (the Lauria Letter). Unlike the White House's description of a standalone unit with direct West Wing oversight, the Lauria Letter indicates that the new AAG will report to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, consistent with the traditional DOJ chain of command.

Analysis: The Structural Disconnect

The Lauria Letter clarifies—and complicates—the operational reality of this new Division in three key areas:

1. Reorganization, Not Creation

To avoid the requirement for new congressional authorization or funding, DOJ is not creating a new AAG position. Instead, the Lauria Letter identified DOJ’s elimination of the standalone Tax Division (whose duties were assumed by the Civil and Criminal Divisions) and stated that the AAG slot previously assigned to the Tax Division will be “repurposed” to provide the AAG for the new National Fraud Enforcement Division.

2. Reporting Lines and Independence

While Vice President Vance emphasized that the new AAG would be “run out of the White House,” the Lauria Letter’s organizational chart places the position under the Deputy Attorney General.

• Impact: This discrepancy suggests the Administration may be reacting to legal concerns regarding prosecutorial independence. It may also reflect a power struggle emerging between the White House and DOJ leadership regarding control of the unit. Regardless, the uncertainty surrounding the new AAG’s “true” superior introduces uncertainty about how the National Fraud Enforcement Division will pursue cases and who will have the ultimate say on the terms on which they are resolved. It remains to be seen whether the matters brought will be more in line with traditional DOJ practices.

3. Staffing and “Turf Wars”

The Lauria Letter states the Division will be staffed by “existing personnel” and requires no new funding. The Lauria Letter further states that the new Division will oversee multi-district and multi-agency fraud investigations and provide advice and direction on fraud-related issues. This raises questions about the internal assurances given to the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, whose leadership recently told staff they would remain “entirely intact,” and about who will conduct fraud investigations.

• Impact: If the new Division lacks its own budget and must cannibalize resources from the Criminal and Civil Divisions, businesses under investigation may experience delay and less predictable outcomes as a result of internal friction within DOJ. This may manifest itself acutely in jurisdictional disputes over which section “owns” a high-profile fraud investigation and may result in duplicative subpoenas from competing DOJ components.

Key Takeaways for Clients

• Anticipate “Process” Confusion: The conflicting guidance on who leads this Division (White House versus Deputy AG) and where its staff comes from (new hires versus reassigned prosecutors) means the early days of this Division could result in delay of investigations and resolutions.
• Focus on Benefits and Federal Programs: Despite the structural confusion, the political mandate remains clear: DOJ will continue to prioritize investigation and prosecution of fraud in federal programs, with a particular focus on federal benefits fraud. Indeed, the creation of this new National Fraud Enforcement Division signals the federal government’s increased commitment to snuffing out fraud of public funds.
• Source of the Subpoena: Entities receiving subpoenas from the National Fraud Enforcement Division can expect their cases to be at the top of DOJ’s priority list, and that their cases may be impacted more heavily than others by the White House’s current policy considerations and enforcement priorities. Although there may be delays on the DOJ side as a result of the reconfiguration, entities under investigation should not expect this will translate to a longer timeframe than traditionally granted to produce documents and provide information to the DOJ.

Contact Us

If you have questions regarding this alert or its impact on your business, please contact the lawyer with whom you work or one of the authors below.