SEC Enforcement Under the Current Administration: Takeaways from the FY 2025 Results and the First Six Months of FY 2026

On April 7, 2026, the SEC released its enforcement results for fiscal year 2025 (the “Release”).  The Release is notable for both its explicit and aggressive criticism of the prior administration’s approach to enforcement, as well as its articulation of the current Commission’s enforcement priorities.¹Press Release, SEC Announces Enforcement Results for Fiscal Year 2025, (Apr. 7, 2026), available here.  The Release lays out a vision for SEC enforcement that prioritizes fraud enforcement, retail investor protection, individual accountability, and clearcut violations over what the current Commission characterizes as the prior administration’s emphasis on volume, “novel legal theories,” and headline-grabbing penalties.

In this alert, we examine takeaways from both the FY 2025 results and the enforcement data from the first six months of fiscal year 2026 (October 1, 2025 through March 31, 2026) to assess how these stated priorities are being implemented in practice. As discussed below, the early data from FY 2026 – which, by our count, shows 60 stand-alone enforcement actions brought during the first six months – is consistent with the Commission’s articulated agenda.  Taken together with the messaging in the Release and other recent developments at the SEC, we have reached a point where the Commission has clearly signaled to securities market participants and their counsel what to expect from enforcement for the remainder of this administration.

The FY 2025 Enforcement Results: A Statement of Priorities

During fiscal year 2025, which included the final months of the prior administration, the Commission filed 456 enforcement actions, including 303 standalone actions and 69 follow-on administrative proceedings, and obtained orders for monetary relief totaling $17.9 billion.²The Commission itself flags that a significant portion of that figure — approximately $14.9 billion — arises from a single long-running action against Stanford International Bank. Excluding the Stanford matter and certain “deemed satisfied” amounts, the monetary relief obtained in FY 2025 totaled approximately $1.4 billion in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and $1.3 billion in civil penalties.

Commenting on these figures, the Release criticizes the prior Commission’s “unprecedented rush” to bring a significant number of cases before the presidential inauguration and asserts that many of these cases involved novel legal theories.³From October 1, 2024, through January 19, 2025, before Inauguration Day on January 20, 2025, the SEC filed 173 new standalone enforcement actions. The Release emphasizes that the current Commission responded to these developments by resolving cases that “were not sufficiently grounded in the federal securities laws” and deliberately refocusing the enforcement program on matters involving fraud and/or that directly harm investors and the integrity of the U.S. securities markets, including offering frauds, market manipulation, insider trading, issuer disclosure violations, and breaches of fiduciary duty by investment advisers.

Additionally, the Release criticizes specific enforcement initiatives pursued by the prior Commission. It highlights that since fiscal year 2022, the prior Commission brought 95 actions, and accrued $2.3 billion in penalties, for off-channel communications recordkeeping violations, along with seven crypto registration-related cases and six “definition of a dealer” cases.  The Release asserts that these cases “identified no direct investor harm from those violations, produced no investor benefit or protection, and demonstrate what the current Commission views as a misinterpretation of the federal securities laws, a misallocation of Commission resources, and a bias for volume of cases brought versus matters of investor protection.” The Release also notes that the Commission dismissed seven enforcement actions involving crypto assets that had been brought by the prior Commission.  Notably, the Release also emphasizes that the FY 2025 results “do not include the 1,095 matters in which potentially violative conduct was investigated and which were closed, the several matters where market participants remediated their practices, or cases that were not otherwise pursued.”

The Release articulates several priority areas for the SEC enforcement program going forward.

• First, the Commission has identified protecting retail investors as a central focus, noting that it devoted significant resources to cases targeting veterans, seniors, and members of a religious community, and highlighting major Ponzi scheme actions.
• Second, the Commission emphasized holding individual wrongdoers accountable: approximately two-thirds of standalone actions filed during FY 2025 involved charges against one or more individuals, a 27 percent year-over-year increase, and nearly nine out of every ten standalone actions filed under Acting Chairman Uyeda and Chairman Atkins involved individual charges.  While the two-thirds portion of cases involving individuals during all of FY 2025 is in line with historical results,⁴See, e.g., the SEC’s releases for FY 2023 (SEC.gov | SEC Announces Enforcement Results for Fiscal Year 2023) (“In fiscal year 2023, approximately two-thirds of the SEC’s cases involved charges against one or more individuals.”) and FY 2022 (SEC.gov | SEC Announces Enforcement Results for FY22) (“Similar to prior years, in fiscal year 2022, more than two-thirds of the SEC’s stand-alone enforcement actions involved at least one individual defendant or respondent.”). the percentage of standalone actions involving individuals under Acting Chairman Uyeda and Chairman Atkins has meaningfully increased.
• Third, the Commission identified combatting securities fraud across borders as a priority, and formed the Cross-Border Task Force in September 2025 to address foreign threats posed to U.S. investors and markets.
• Fourth, insider trading and market manipulation remain core enforcement priorities.  
• Finally, the Commission signaled a recalibrated approach to emerging technologies, re-branding the former Crypto Unit as the Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit in February 2025, while simultaneously stepping back from the prior Commission’s aggressive posture on crypto asset registration.

Notably, the Release also emphasizes the Commission’s receptivity to cooperation and self-reporting. The Commission noted that some market participants “self-reported violations, co-operated meaningfully with the Division’s investigations, and/or remediated securities law violations,” resulting in reduced civil penalties or even declinations.

FY 2026 First Half: Stated Priorities in Practice

Enforcement data from the first six months of FY 2026 offers a useful early test of how the current Commission’s stated priorities are being translated into practice.  By our count, the SEC brought 60 new stand-alone enforcement actions during the first half of FY 2026.⁵To conduct our analysis, we looked at all new civil actions and stand-alone administrative proceedings during the period. We excluded follow-on administrative proceedings — those based on convictions and previously obtained injunctions — and those related to delinquent filings. The breakdown of the first-half caseload was as follows:

Although the number of new standalone actions was unquestionably lower than normal, it bears noting that FY 2026 began with a 43-day government shutdown.  The shutdown not only delayed the filing of new actions, it also would have had a cascading effect on pending investigations and referrals from other divisions, agencies, and SROs.  In addition, as noted in a recent report by the GAO, the Enforcement division lost 18% of its workforce during FY 2025, including many senior, experienced attorneys and accountants. 

Case Mix: Alignment with Stated Priorities

Consistent with the priorities articulated in the Release, the mix of cases brought during the first half of FY 2026 reflects a clear emphasis on traditional fraud schemes that directly harm investors. The core types of cases can be grouped into a few categories.

Twenty cases concerning securities offerings represented the single largest enforcement category, accounting for approximately one-third of all actions. These cases typically involved Ponzi-like schemes, misrepresentations to investors, and/or frauds targeting specific groups such as veterans, seniors, or members of a particular religious group, reflecting the Commission’s prioritization of protecting retail investors from fraud.

Similarly, 12 investment adviser actions — the second-largest category — aligned with the Commission’s stated emphasis on holding those in positions of trust accountable. These actions frequently involved alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of client funds, and/or material misrepresentations in Form ADV filings, reflecting the agency's focus on protecting retail investors from violative conduct by fiduciaries.

Additionally, the FY 2026 first-half data in the issuer reporting, auditing, and accounting category reflected fewer cases in this area (ten) than in previous years. Eight of the ten cases involved charges against individuals, which is aligned with the Commission’s stated focus on individual accountability. Despite the lower number of cases, the creation of a new SOX Group at the SEC signals that gatekeeper accountability likely will be an area of focus.⁶For additional discussion regarding the creation of the SOX group, see Michael Plotnick, Alec Koch, Aaron Lipson, Raphael Larson and Clarissa Moliterno, The SEC’s new SOX Group - Potential Impacts for Audit Firms, Their Professionals, and Future PCAOB Enforcement (Mar. 31, 2026), available at https://www.kslaw.com/news-and-insights/the-secs-new-sox-group-potential-impacts-for-audit-firms-their-professionals-and-future-pcaob-enforcement

Seven insider trading cases were brought during the period. Four of the seven cases involved the life sciences industry, and for at least three of the seven cases there were parallel criminal actions. Insider trading remains a perennial enforcement focus regardless of administration, and the current SEC has shown a willingness to pursue both classic fact patterns involving corporate insiders and more complex international insider trading schemes.

Six market manipulation cases were brought, including cases involving pump-and-dump schemes, ramp-and-dump schemes, and cross-border manipulation.  The cross-border cases reflect the Release’s emphasis on combatting securities fraud “wherever it occurs.”  The SEC's Cross-Border Task Force is targeting foreign-based frauds directed at U.S. investors, with a focus on issuers and the gatekeepers that facilitate their access to U.S. capital markets.⁷Press Release, SEC Announces Formation of Cross-Border Task Force to Combat Fraud, US Sec. & Exch. Comm’n (Sept. 5, 2025), available here. 

Regarding individual accountability, 48 of the 60 cases (80 percent) brought in the first six months included claims against at least one individual, and 31 of the 60 cases were filed against only individuals.  

Equally telling is what is absent from the FY 2026 first-half caseload.  No FCPA cases were brought during this period, continuing a trend of reduced foreign bribery enforcement by the SEC that began in the second half of FY 2025.  Similarly, and not at all surprising, there were no off-channel communications cases, a hallmark of the prior administration's enforcement program that the  Release explicitly criticized as an “inappropriate use of enforcement resources” that “did little to advance investor protection.”  The absence of these case types in FY 2026 is a concrete illustration of the Commission following through on its stated intent to redirect resources away from what it views as technical violations and toward cases involving direct investor harm.

It is also interesting to compare the mix of cases brought during the first six months of this fiscal year with the statistics from the five prior years. As reflected in the table below, the portion of cases involving securities offerings, investment advisers, and public company accounting and disclosure are roughly consistent with historical trends, while there have been upticks in insider trading and market manipulation cases and a significant decline in broker-dealer matters, on a percentage basis.

Also noteworthy were the cases in which cooperation, remediation and self-reporting were rewarded by the Commission. Notable examples were the EisnerAmper case, in which the SEC imposed a censure but declined to assess a civil penalty, citing the firm's prompt remediation and cooperation, and the Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM) case, in which ADM was credited for cooperation and significant remediation.⁸In the Matter of EisnerAmper LLP, Release No. 104936 (Mar. 6, 2026); In the Matter of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, Vince Macciocchi, and Ray Young, Release No. 11403 (Jan. 27, 2026).

Takeaways

The Release provides the clearest statement yet of the Chairman Atkins Commission’s enforcement priorities: a deliberate pivot away from “regulation by enforcement” and toward cases that address fraud, protect retail investors, and hold individual bad actors accountable. The first six months of FY 2026, while shaped by the compounding effects of a long government shutdown, leadership change, and staffing reductions, offer early evidence that these priorities are being put into practice. The 60 enforcement actions brought during this period skew heavily toward traditional fraud schemes, insider trading, and market manipulation, while the type of actions that the current Commission has criticized, such as off-channel communications and crypto registration actions, are absent.  And while the investigations that led to many of the cases brought in the second half of FY 2025 and the first half of FY 2026 likely began during the prior administration, the decision to bring the cases and the manner in which they were charged reflect the current Commission’s stamp and priorities.

Securities market participants, including public companies, regulated entities, senior leaders, and their advisers, should take several key lessons from the FY 2025 enforcement results and the early FY 2026 data.

• The SEC's reduced enforcement volume does not equate to reduced risk for those engaged in fraud, insider trading, or market manipulation; this type of conduct remains firmly in the agency's crosshairs, and the concentration of resources on fewer, more targeted cases may result in more aggressive pursuit of those matters.  
• Similarly, the Commission has clearly signaled its intent to prioritize actions against individual wrongdoers.
• The SEC's Cross-Border Task Force and interagency coordination suggest an intent to pursue cross-border fraud and gatekeeper accountability with vigor, particularly with respect to foreign issuers.
• Self-reporting, cooperation, and prompt remediation will be rewarded, as demonstrated by various resolutions and the  Release’s explicit discussion of reduced penalties or declinations for cooperating parties.  This messaging, when taken together with other efforts being pursued by the administration, such as DOJ’s new department-wide Corporate Enforcement Policy, suggests that parties and their counsel may have more success when advocating for the SEC to close cases or provide concrete, tangible benefits to reward self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation.
• The Commission’s critique of the prior administration’s “aggressive pursuit of novel legal theories” shows that Enforcement will focus on pursuing cases that involve straightforward violations of existing laws and regulations.
• When it comes to non-fraud and more technical violations, we expect the SEC will focus its enforcement resources on matters involving conduct that is more egregious, long-running, or related to core investor protection provisions.