Over the past year, government investigations, audits and enforcement actions have risen sharply. This trend affects not only Colorado’s Fortune 500 companies but also the state’s nonprofits, startups, universities, government contractors and small businesses.
From federal funding reviews and whistleblower complaints to subpoenas and search warrants, government scrutiny is becoming more intense and less predictable. Clients are facing increased uncertainty, higher stakes in routine matters, greater reputational risks and a rise in what can best be described as “shadow adjudication,” in which agencies, politics or public narratives drive outcomes rather than judicial process.
For Colorado companies, executives and in-house counsel, this moment demands a recalibration of risk. Traditional assumptions about how investigations unfold, how agencies behave and how disputes are resolved no longer reliably hold.
A More Aggressive and Less Predictable Enforcement Environment
Enforcement actions are rising both in volume and scope across many Colorado industries such as tech, aerospace, cannabis, energy, construction, agriculture, higher education and health care. Regulators are moving faster, casting wider nets and pursuing cases that once would have been considered marginal or novel. Agencies increasingly push expansive legal theories, often confident that reputational damage, operational disruption or settlement pressure will achieve results even if a matter never reaches adjudication.
These challenges are exacerbated further by selective prosecution or non-prosecution, executive overreach, forum shopping as a political weapon, attacks on judicial independence, and declining public confidence in legal institutions. In this environment, more than ever, attorneys serve as institutional stabilizers whose conduct plays a role in shaping public trust in legal systems.
Current Enforcement Priorities to Watch
There are several areas of heightened enforcement priorities, including:
- Waste, fraud, and abuse, particularly health care fraud and federal program or procurement fraud.
- Trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion.
- Immigration, national security and cybersecurity, including sanctions violations and transactions involving cartels, transnational criminal organizations, hostile nation-states or terrorist groups.
- Crimes involving digital assets, including fraud, investor harm and the use of digital assets to facilitate criminal activity
Colorado companies operating in or adjacent to these areas should expect heightened scrutiny and plan accordingly.
Early Warning Signs: Identifying Investigations Before They Escalate
The most effective defense often begins before the government formally comes knocking. Early warning signs may include informal agency inquiries, document requests framed as routine audits, employee interviews, whistleblower complaints or unexplained delays in regulatory approvals or funding.
Preparation is essential. Organizations should establish and regularly update written policies for responding to subpoenas, search warrants, civil investigative demands and informal contacts. These policies should ensure all government communications are routed to counsel immediately, tracked in a compliance log and handled consistently to protect privilege and avoid missteps.
The Role of Internal Investigations
Internal investigations remain one of the most powerful tools for responding to government scrutiny. When properly conducted, they allow counsel to identify what the government may be investigating, assess underlying facts, determine document responsiveness, evaluate individual and entity exposure and develop a coherent strategy.
They also can inform critical decisions about cooperation, corrective action and whether to challenge the government’s theories. And in many cases, they can help prevent inaccurate narratives from taking hold.
Given the stakes, internal investigations should be led by independent, experienced counsel, particularly when executives or board members may be implicated, government funds are involved, the organization operates in a regulated industry or potential liability appears systemic.
Why the Rule of Law Still Matters
Despite today’s pressures, the rule of law has not disappeared. Courts still apply statutes. Evidence still matters. Due process still exists. But those safeguards depend on lawyers’ and institutions’ willingness to defend them.
For companies, that means treating compliance as a core governance function, not a checkbox exercise. For lawyers, it means delivering candid and sometimes uncomfortable advice grounded in law rather than in optics. For leaders, it means recognizing that ethical decision-making is not a liability. It is a strategic asset.
Looking Ahead
The current enforcement climate is unlikely to soften in the next three years. Political polarization will continue to shape law enforcement and dispute resolution, both in Colorado and across the nation. Navigating this reality requires a strong understanding of how law, politics and ethics now intersect.
In uncertain times, the erosion of the rule of law is not inevitable but preventing it demands vigilance from everyone who operates within the system. That responsibility falls not only on courts and regulators, but on lawyers, executives and institutions committed to preserving fairness, accountability and integrity in an increasingly politicized landscape.
— Henry Baskerville is an experienced trial lawyer at Fox Rothschild, who regularly represents clients in complex commercial litigation and white-collar criminal and government investigations.