Acting (and Potentially Permanent) CFTC Chairman Warns of “Aggressive and Assertive Enforcement Action by the CFTC Under the Trump Administration”

Mar 15, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

 A similar balance is appropriate for the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement (DOE), which is staffed by experienced and decorated former prosecutors and, I can proudly say, is one of the premier civil law enforcement arms of the federal government. Yet, DOE also must look to benefit from cooperation and, where appropriate, deference to civil and criminal capabilities of other federal and state regulators and enforcement agencies.

But, as I mention the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement, let me take this moment to warn those who may seek to cheat or manipulate our markets: you will face aggressive and assertive enforcement action by the CFTC under the Trump Administration. There will be no pause, let up or reduction in our duty to enforce the law and punish wrongdoing in our derivatives markets. The American people are counting on us. (Bold in original version of speech on CFTC website)

Although the CFTC’s focus in the coming years will undoubtedly be influenced by three new Commissioners (once President Trump nominates and the Senate confirms them), if Acting Chairman Giancarlo is confirmed as permanent Chairman, his statements make clear that tough enforcement will remain a CFTC priority.

Like the CFTC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) currently has three openings. At present, there is still no official word on who will be nominated for the open seats, including the Chairman’s seat—although many industry reports say that nomination announcements are imminent. Until then, the new FERC’s approach to enforcement is necessarily a matter of speculation. But market participants in the energy industry might find it significant that the potential new Chairman of the CFTC has just given an unambiguous endorsement of “aggressive and assertive enforcement” under the Trump administration.

Also noteworthy, Acting Chairman Giancarlo states that elements of the CFTC’s market surveillance efforts—which are now housed in the Division of Market Oversight—will be moved to the Division of Enforcement to “strengthen our mission to identify and prosecute violations of law and regulations, such as spoofing, manipulation and fraud.” While not necessarily motivated by how other federal enforcement agencies organize and manage their surveillance efforts, this CFTC restructuring will make its Division of Enforcement look more like FERC’s Office of Enforcement. One of the more important aspects of FERC Enforcement—which, since 2012, has significantly expanded its natural gas and electric market surveillance capabilities—is that the surveillance staff and the investigative staff are all housed within the Office of Enforcement and that the analysts and investigators work closely together on inquiries and investigations. Acting Chairman Giancarlo states that housing surveillance and enforcement together “will foster increased efficiencies through knowledge sharing and cross training under unified leadership; thus benefitting the Commission’s surveillance mission and enforcement responsibilities.” Many within FERC would say the same about their own agency’s integration of surveillance and enforcement.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.