EO-14390
Combating Cybercrime, Fraud, and Predatory Schemes Against American Citizens
- Signed
- Mar 6, 2026
- Published
- Mar 11, 2026
Federal Register: 2026-04826
Source: Federal Register.
Federal Anti-Cybercrime and Fraud Coordination Initiative
What it does
This order directs senior cabinet officials — including the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and Homeland Security, and the Attorney General — to review existing frameworks and submit an action plan within 120 days to identify and disrupt transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) engaged in cybercrime, fraud, and predatory schemes targeting Americans. It establishes a new operational coordination cell within an existing National Coordination Center and directs the Attorney General to prioritize prosecutions of cyber-enabled fraud. It also instructs the Secretary of State to pressure foreign governments that tolerate TCO activity through tools such as sanctions, visa restrictions, and trade penalties.
Who benefits
Victims of cybercrime, financial fraud, ransomware, phishing, and sextortion schemes — including elderly Americans who are disproportionately targeted by financial scams, minors targeted by sextortion, small business owners hit by ransomware, and individuals whose identities have been stolen. State, local, tribal, and territorial governments that would receive expanded cybersecurity training and threat intelligence. Private-sector cybersecurity firms that may be engaged as partners. Americans whose critical infrastructure (power grids, hospitals, water systems) is hardened against TCO exploitation.
Who is affected
Foreign nationals and governments in countries where TCOs operate, who could face U.S. sanctions, visa restrictions, trade penalties, or diplomatic pressure — including citizens of those countries who depend on U.S. foreign assistance programs that could be curtailed. U.S. importers and businesses with trade ties to affected nations. Civil liberties advocates concerned about expanded domestic surveillance or information-sharing between private cybersecurity firms and federal law enforcement. Defendants in cybercrime cases who may face more aggressive federal prosecution priorities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that cybercrime and fraud cost Americans tens of billions of dollars annually and that the federal government's response has historically been fragmented across agencies with poor coordination. They contend the order uses well-established Article II authority to direct the executive branch to act more effectively within existing law, and that creating a centralized operational cell and prioritizing prosecutions are precisely the kind of executive management functions the president is constitutionally empowered to perform without congressional action.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the order's directive to use "offensive actions" and partner with commercial cybersecurity firms raises unresolved questions about the scope of domestic surveillance and whether private-sector data sharing with federal law enforcement could circumvent Fourth Amendment warrant requirements established in Carpenter v. United States (2018). They further contend that threatening trade penalties and foreign assistance cuts through executive action alone — without congressional authorization — may exceed the president's unilateral foreign policy powers and encroach on Congress's authority over appropriations and trade.
Constitutional basis
Executive orders rest on constitutional authority or statutory delegation. This summary describes the legal grounding cited or implied by the order.
The order invokes the president's Article II vesting clause and Take Care Clause authority to direct executive branch agencies. It also draws on statutory delegations including the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2018, and existing sanctions and foreign assistance authorities (e.g., IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. §1701, and the Foreign Assistance Act) for the diplomatic and economic pressure tools described in Section 4. The order explicitly conditions all actions on "applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations."