Unified Enforcement Meets National Security: DOJ Signals a More Active NSD

On March 30, 2026, the US Department of Justice’s National Security Division (NSD) provided additional details about the proper mechanism for reporting potential violations of national security laws, including those pertaining to arms control, dual-use export controls, economic sanctions, or otherwise based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

This development builds directly on DOJ’s broader Unified Corporate Enforcement Policy (UCEP) announced earlier in March to harmonize enforcement principles across DOJ components. By extending those principles into the national security context and emphasizing DOJ’s support for voluntary self-disclosures (VSDs), DOJ is continuing its effort to standardize how corporate misconduct is assessed, incentivized, and prosecuted across the Department.

Importantly, the announcement indicates that NSD expects to increase its enforcement actions, and as such compliance with national security laws, especially those related to export controls, sanctions, and government contracting, is paramount.

The new policy reflects NSD’s intent to ensure that companies have a clear and consistent pathway for receiving cooperation credit when they voluntarily disclose potential misconduct. As with under the UCEP, companies that promptly self-disclose, fully cooperate, and appropriately remediate may be eligible for declinations or reduced penalties.

Critically, the policy removes much of the fragmentation that previously existed between DOJ components, including NSD, by aligning expectations and outcomes. This harmonization reduces uncertainty for companies while simultaneously strengthening DOJ’s ability to enforce compliance where those standards are not met.

NSD has taken an increasingly active role in criminally enforcing export control and sanctions violations, treating them as core national security threats rather than purely regulatory issues. By reiterating NSD’s integration into the Departmentwide disclosure framework, DOJ is signaling that national security–related corporate enforcement will follow the same structured, and potentially more predictable, approach used in such areas as Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement. Corporations should prepare for increased and aggressive enforcement in this space.

The policy underscores that the benefits of VSD are contingent and not automatic. DOJ has emphasized that declinations will be reserved for companies that meet stringent criteria, including timely disclosure and full cooperation. In this respect, the policy also indicates that DOJ hopes to sharpen the consequences for companies that fail to disclose.

Taken together, the national security–focused VSD policy, issued on the heels of the UCEP, underscores DOJ’s shift toward a more centralized and disciplined corporate enforcement regime in which NSD will play an increasingly prominent role.

For companies operating in sectors involving cross-border trade, sensitive technologies, or sanctioned jurisdictions, this development reinforces the importance of robust compliance programs and careful consideration of disclosure decisions. It also indicates that NSD is likely to remain active—and potentially more assertive—in bringing enforcement actions where companies do not avail themselves of DOJ’s voluntary disclosure framework.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• NSD is positioned for further increases in enforcement activity. With clearer rules and integration into DOJ’s broader corporate enforcement regime, NSD is likely to take a more active and assertive role in investigating and prosecuting export control and sanctions violations.
• DOJ is standardizing expectations across enforcement areas. By extending the UCEP to national security violations DOJ has aligned NSD with other components, creating a more predictable framework for VSDs—but one that is also more rigorous.
• DOJ and NSD are signaling to industry that VSD is becoming more consequential. The policy reinforces DOJ and NSD’s emphasis that timely disclosure, full cooperation, and remediation can lead to significant benefits while failure to disclose may now carry greater enforcement risk given DOJ’s clearer and more uniform standards. While the decision of whether to voluntarily disclose remains one to be carefully considered, NSD’s announcement is the latest iteration of DOJ’s efforts to tip the scales in favor of disclosure.