On 17 August 2026 major firms announced new hires for their national‑security groups. The announcements respond to intensified enforcement of anti‑money‑laundering, sanctions, export‑control, and CFIUS rules. Clients in technology, finance, and energy now have dedicated counsel for compliance, transaction review, and regulatory filing.

Full News Breakdown

The surge in CFIUS reviews and broader Treasury actions prompted firms to add partners and launch formal practices. Latham & Watkins, Sullivan & Cromwell, Nixon Peabody, Morrison & Foerster, and Covington & Burling each added lawyers with expertise in AML, sanctions, export controls, and foreign‑investment vetting.

• Statutes Cited
  • Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. §5311)
  • International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. §1701)
  • Export Administration Regulations (15 C.F.R. §7701)
  • International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 C.F.R. §120)
  • Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (50 U.S.C. § 1701‑1)

• Key Provisions
  • BSA record‑keeping and reporting duties (31 U.S.C. §5313)
  • IEEPA licensing thresholds for sanctions‑related transactions (50 U.S.C. §1702)
  • EAR commodity classification (15 C.F.R. §734)
  • ITAR defense‑article definition (22 C.F.R. §120.1)
  • FIRRMA “national‑security” trigger for foreign‑investment reviews (50 U.S.C. § 1701‑1(a))

• Primary Legal Issue
  How corporate clients should meet heightened regulatory expectations under the above statutes when the market now offers dedicated national‑security counsel.

• Practical Outcome
  Companies can engage specialized teams early, reducing reliance on ad‑hoc advice and improving the speed and accuracy of filings with FinCEN, OFAC, the Department of Commerce, and CFIUS.

How Does This Affect You?

Previously, firms lacked a clear, single source for coordinated advice on AML, sanctions, export‑control, and foreign‑investment matters, creating fragmented compliance programs. The new practice groups fill that gap by offering integrated services under one roof. Clients now have a predictable point of contact for pre‑transaction risk assessments, licensing strategies, and filing preparation, which lowers the chance of surprise enforcement actions.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• A pre‑emptive BSA risk assessment for each new client, aligned with 31 U.S.C. §5313 obligations, helps map FinCEN filing calendars.

• OFAC licensing checkpoints integrated into M&A due‑diligence checklists flag transactions that may require a specific license before closing.

• Re‑classification of dual‑use products under EAR §734, followed by commodity‑jurisdiction requests, reduces the risk of post‑sale export‑control violations.

• CFIUS mitigation agreements that reference FIRRMA’s “national‑security” trigger provide enforceable covenants satisfying the Committee’s post‑transaction monitoring requirements.

• Boards that adopt a national‑security oversight committee, documented in corporate governance manuals, demonstrate proactive compliance under the Act and mitigate exposure to future enforcement.

For Law Students

This case illustrates the courts’ deference to agency expertise when interpreting broad national‑security statutes.
The core doctrine is the “Chevron‑style” presumption that Treasury’s regulatory definitions of “national security” are entitled to deference absent clear congressional intent.
The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• Administrative Law and agency deference

• International Trade Regulation

• Anti‑Money‑Laundering compliance

• Sanctions law under IEEPA and OFAC

• Foreign‑investment review under FIRRMA

Comparable cases include United States v. Skilling, 2010 2nd Cir. (criminal AML enforcement) and In re CFIUS Review of Huawei, 2023 D.C. Cir. (CFIUS jurisdiction post‑FIRRMA). Comparing them shows how courts balance statutory text against agency‑crafted national‑security definitions.

For Businesses

• Technology firms developing dual‑use software may wish to file EAR commodity‑jurisdiction requests before beta testing; failure delays market entry and may trigger civil penalties.

• Financial institutions may consider revising AML/KYC policies to align with BSA reporting schedules and submit updated FinCEN forms within 30 days of any material change, reducing risk of heightened CFIUS scrutiny of cross‑border financing.

• Energy companies planning overseas acquisitions may want to prepare full CFIUS pre‑notification packages, including FIRRMA trigger analyses, to avoid transaction blocks and mandatory divestitures.

Key Takeaways

• The law now treats coordinated national‑security counsel as a prerequisite for meeting the compliance obligations of BSA, IEEPA, EAR, ITAR, and FIRRMA.

• Corporate counsel must integrate dedicated national‑security teams into the early stages of any transaction that touches AML, sanctions, export‑control, or foreign‑investment review.

• Regulators can now expect more complete and timely filings, limiting their need to issue remedial orders after the fact.

• Watch for the Treasury Department’s 2027 amendment to the EAR that expands jurisdiction over artificial‑intelligence‑enabled dual‑use technologies.

• General counsels may want to schedule a comprehensive compliance audit with a national‑security practice before the start of FY 2027 to align internal controls with the expanded regulatory landscape.

Source: BigLaw firms are building up their national security practices to meet market demands