David Abramowicz

On March 13, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14392, “Ensuring Truthful Advertising of Products Claiming to be Made in America” (the “Made in America Executive Order”), a directive that, while framed in the language of consumer protection, carries significant consequences for federal contractors and companies in the government procurement ecosystem.

Most notably, the executive order directs agencies overseeing government-wide acquisition contracts to “periodically review and verify” domestic-origin claims and to refer contractors or vendors that misrepresent the American-origin status of their products to the Department of Justice for enforcement under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §3729 et seq.

Standing alone, the executive order might be dismissed as merely aspirational, one in a crowded field of Trump-era directives on trade and manufacturing. But it does not stand alone. When read together with the administration’s establishment of a new Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, the creation of a new National Fraud Enforcement Division at the DOJ, the appointment of Vice President JD Vance as the administration’s “Fraud Czar,” and a record-setting year for False Claims Act recoveries, the Made in America Executive Order signals the emergence of a potentially potent new enforcement frontier.

Practitioners advising companies that sell products to the federal government—or that make domestic-origin claims in the commercial marketplace—should take note.

The Executive Order

The Made in America Executive Order has two principal components. The first is consumer-facing: Section 2(a) of the Order directs the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to “prioritize enforcement actions” against sellers or manufacturers whose “Made in America” or similar claims violate the law and Section 2(b) directs the FTC to consider regulations that would deem an online marketplace’s failure to verify country-of-origin claims an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §41 et seq.

The second component (Section 2(d)) is more consequential for government contractors. Under Section 2(d) of the Made in America Executive Order, “all agencies overseeing Government-wide acquisition contracts, any Multiple Award Schedule, or any other Government-wide indefinite delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts” to “periodically review and verify any ‘Buy American Act’, ‘Country of Origin USA’, or similar American-origin claims for products acquired through these contracts.” Agencies that find misrepresentations are instructed to remove the offending products from government procurement availability and refer the responsible contractors or vendors to the DOJ, “which may pursue actions under the False Claims Act.” [Id. §2(d).]

The Made in America Executive Order thus creates a direct pipeline from procurement agencies to the DOJ for potential False Claims Act enforcement based on false or misleading domestic-origin certifications.

The Existing Framework: Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Act

To appreciate the enforcement risk the Made in America Executive Order creates, it is necessary to understand the existing legal framework governing domestic-origin claims in federal procurement. These laws create specific, and sometimes complex, requirements for companies wishing to label their products as American-made.

The Buy American Act, 41 U.S.C. §8301 et seq., enacted in 1933, generally requires the federal government to purchase domestic end products for public use. The statute is implemented through the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), principally FAR Part 25, which establishes the standards a product must meet to qualify as a domestic end product. Under the current framework, a manufactured end product is domestic if it is manufactured in the United States and the cost of its domestic components is at least 65% of the total cost of all components. This domestic content threshold is scheduled to rise to 75% for contracts with deliveries beginning in 2029. See FAR 25.101.

The Trade Agreements Act, 19 U.S.C. §2501 et seq. (the “TAA”), provides a complementary regime. For acquisitions above a certain dollar threshold (currently $183,000), the TAA allows the President to waive Buy American Act restrictions for products from “designated countries” that have trade agreements with the United States. Under the TAA, a product qualifies if it is either wholly manufactured in a designated country or has been “substantially transformed” there into a new and different article of commerce. See FAR 25.402; 19 U.S.C. §2518(4)(B). Products from non-designated countries, such as China, Russia, and India, are generally prohibited in TAA-covered procurements. See FAR 25.403(c).

Compliance with these regimes requires contractors to certify the country of origin of their products and components. Under FAR 52.225-2, offerors on supply contracts must certify whether the end products they are offering are domestic, and under FAR 52.225-6, they must certify compliance with the TAA. These certifications are incorporated into the contract and, critically, can form the basis for False Claims Act liability if they are knowingly false.

The Potential for False Claims Act Liability: A Powerful Enforcement Tool

The False Claims Act imposes liability on any person who “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the government. It also holds liable anyone who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.” 31 U.S.C. §3729(a)(1)(A)–(B). The statute’s “knowledge” standard encompasses actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, and reckless disregard. 31 U.S.C. §3729(b)(1)(A). Violators face treble damages as well as civil penalties.

It is well-established that false certifications of compliance with the Buy American Act and the TAA can give rise to False Claims Act liability. When a contractor certifies that a product is domestic or TAA-compliant, that certification is incorporated into the contract, becomes material to the government’s decision to purchase the product, and, if false, can form the basis of a False Claims Act action. Recent DOJ enforcement confirms this: in fiscal year 2025, the DOJ recovered more than $6.8 billion in False Claims Act settlements and judgments, a record, with a meaningful portion arising from customs and trade fraud, including country-of-origin misrepresentations.

Among the most notable cases were a number regarding false country-of-origin representations, including a $54.4 million settlement with Ceratizit USA, LLC arising from allegations that the company misrepresented the country of origin of tungsten carbide products manufactured in China and transshipped through Taiwan; a $12.4 million settlement with Allied Stone Inc. for misrepresenting Chinese quartz surface products; an $8.1 million settlement with Evolution Flooring Inc. for country-of-origin misrepresentations; and a $6.8 million settlement with Global Plastics LLC and Marco Polo International LLC for failing to declare the accurate country of origin of plastic resin imported from China.

These cases were, in significant part, initiated by whistleblowers under the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions, which allow private citizens to bring suit on the government’s behalf and receive between 15% and 30% of any recovery. 31 U.S.C. §3730(d). The 1,297 qui tam suits filed in fiscal year 2025 set a new record. The DOJ also launched a cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force in August 2025, further signaling a durable enforcement focus on country-of-origin compliance as a False Claims Act risk area.

A New Era of Enforcement?

The Made in America Executive Order does not arrive in isolation. It is part of a broader, administration-wide enforcement apparatus that has taken shape rapidly over the first months of 2026.

On Jan. 28, President Trump announced the creation of a new National Fraud Enforcement Division at the DOJ. The Senate confirmed Colin McDonald, a career federal prosecutor, to lead the division as the first-ever Assistant Attorney General for National Fraud Enforcement on March 25, and Vice President Vance swore him in on April 1.

The new division is charged with coordinating nationwide civil and criminal fraud enforcement, overseeing multi-district investigations, and setting national enforcement priorities across federal programs and federally funded activities.

Although the division’s initial focus has been on benefits fraud—particularly in Medicaid and SNAP—its mandate extends to “fraud involving federal funds recipients” broadly, which potentially encompasses procurement fraud, including false domestic-origin certifications.

Three days after the Made in America executive order, on March 16, President Trump signed Executive Order 14395, “Establishing the Task Force to Eliminate Fraud,” creating a government-wide task force chaired by Vice President Vance, with FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson serving as Vice Chairman. The task force is charged with developing a “comprehensive national strategy to stop fraud, waste, and abuse within Federal benefit programs,” and encompasses representatives from nearly a dozen federal agencies, including the DOJ, Treasury, and the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services.

On April 3, President Trump designated Vice President Vance the administration’s “Fraud Czar” in a post on Truth Social, stating that “the job he will be doing…will be a major factor in how great the future of our Country will be.” The following day, Vice President Vance’s task force announced its first major enforcement action—the arrest of eight individuals in Los Angeles in connection with an alleged $50 million healthcare fraud scheme, in a case the DOJ explicitly noted was carried out “in coordination with the Vice President’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud.”

Taken together, these actions reflect the administration’s intent to marshal its enforcement resources against governmental fraud, broadly conceived. While the initial emphasis has been on benefits fraud, the institutional architecture—a new DOJ division, a multi-agency task force, a Vice President with a political mandate and a public profile tied to fraud enforcement—is available for deployment across any area of fraud against the government, including procurement fraud arising from false domestic-origin claims.

Guidance for Practitioners

The convergence of the Made in America Executive Order with these structural enforcement developments creates an elevated risk environment. Practitioners should help their clients navigate this new landscape with the following steps:

1. Audit Your Supply Chain. The Made in America Executive Order’s directive that agencies “periodically review and verify” domestic-origin claims means that the government is no longer likely to simply rely on contractor certifications. Companies should affirmatively audit their supply chains to verify that their country-of-origin representations are accurate—not only at the time of contract award, but on an ongoing basis as component sourcing evolves. Particular attention should be paid to situations where component sourcing has shifted mid-performance but product literature, invoices, or contract deliverables retain legacy domestic-origin language.

2. Understand the Applicable Standard. The Buy American Act, the TAA, and the FTC’s Made in USA standard each apply different tests. The FTC’s standard for an unqualified “Made in USA” claim requires that “all or virtually all” of the product be made in the United States. The Buy American Act requires manufacture in the United States with domestic component costs of at least 65% (rising to 75% in 2029). The TAA looks to whether the product was “wholly the growth, product, or manufacture” of a designated country or was “substantially transformed” there. Practitioners should ensure that their clients’ certifications and marketing claims comply with the standard applicable to the relevant context, particularly where products are sold in both commercial and government channels.

3. Ensure Subcontractor Compliance. Prime contractors bear responsibility for the accuracy of the domestic-origin certifications that flow through to the government, including for components supplied by subcontractors and lower-tier suppliers. The executive order’s emphasis on verification raises the stakes for primes that have not implemented robust flow-down requirements. Practitioners should advise clients to implement contractual provisions that require subcontractors and suppliers to certify and warrant the country of origin of the components they supply, and to permit audits of those representations.

4. Prepare for Whistleblower Activity. The record-breaking volume of qui tam filings in fiscal year 2025 underscores the incentive structure that the False Claims Act creates for whistleblowers. These can include current and former employees, competitors, and others with knowledge of a contractor’s supply chain practices. The DOJ has noted that whistleblowers continue to play a “pivotal role” in trade-fraud enforcement, and the substantial relator shares awarded in recent cases demonstrate the tangible financial incentives for individuals to report suspected country-of-origin fraud. Companies should anticipate that aggressive government focus on domestic-origin compliance will encourage additional qui tam activity.

5. Align with Tariff Strategies. The domestic-origin compliance landscape is further complicated by the current tariff environment. With significant tariffs in effect under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and with the DOJ’s Trade Fraud Task Force actively pursuing companies that misrepresent product origin to evade duties, the consequences of inaccurate country-of-origin representations extend well beyond the procurement context. Companies that shift supply chains in response to tariffs must update their bills of material, origin certifications, and procurement documentation accordingly—or risk exposure on multiple fronts.

Conclusion

The institutional infrastructure for a wave of False Claims Act actions based on false domestic-origin certifications is now in place: an executive order that creates a direct referral pipeline from procurement agencies to the DOJ; a statutory framework in the False Claims Act that imposes treble damages and per-claim penalties; a newly created DOJ division dedicated to fraud enforcement; a multi-agency task force; a Vice President who has been publicly designated as the administration’s chief fraud enforcer; and a relator’s bar that set records in fiscal year 2025.

Companies that sell products to the federal government, particularly those with complex or global supply chains, should treat the Made in America Executive Order as a call to action: audit your supply chain representations now, before a whistleblower or an agency auditor does it for you.

--

This article first appeared in the April 16, 2026, edition of the “New York Law Journal” © 2026 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or reprints@alm.com.