DOJ Issues Unusual Warning on the Foreign Agents Registration Act

Key Takeaways

• The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued an unusual public warning concerning foreign-agent liability. On Sept. 16, DOJ reminded individuals and organizations of potential civil and criminal liability under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and 18 U.S.C. § 951, specifically identifying public demonstrations and other public activity undertaken on behalf of foreign interests.
• The announcement adds to signs of a changing FARA posture at DOJ. In February 2025, the attorney general directed prosecutors to limit criminal FARA and Section 951 cases to conduct resembling traditional espionage by foreign government actors. More recently, DOJ has revived a major FARA rulemaking, while other federal policy directives have placed renewed attention on undisclosed foreign influence.
• The emerging approach may combine more targeted enforcement with greater regulatory clarity. DOJ has indicated that its forthcoming FARA regulations will expand the availability of exemptions commonly relied upon by corporations and law firms and reduce certain regulatory burdens. At the same time, the September announcement puts companies, nonprofits, advocacy organizations, consultants, public-relations firms and others on notice that undisclosed foreign direction or control remains an enforcement concern.

An Unusual Warning From DOJ

On Sept. 16, DOJ issued a stand-alone press release titled “Liability for Unregistered Foreign Agents.”

The format itself is notable. The National Security Division release announces no charge, plea, settlement, advisory opinion or other enforcement action and names no individual or organization. Instead, DOJ used a numbered Office of Public Affairs release to issue a general warning concerning two separate foreign-agent statutes: FARA and 18 U.S.C. § 951.

DOJ emphasized that individuals acting in the United States as agents of foreign principals or foreign governments may face civil or criminal consequences for failing to satisfy applicable disclosure or notification obligations. The department specifically referenced the use of undisclosed agents, intermediaries, false affiliations, covert funding and other deceptive activity to illegally influence public debate, “suborn sedition” or interfere with official proceedings.

That language is striking. “Suborn sedition” is not ordinary FARA compliance vocabulary, and its inclusion places the warning squarely within a broader national-security context.

DOJ also singled out public activity. The department stated that persons acting as agents of foreign powers may incur registration or notification obligations when carrying out public activity, including demonstrations intended to further a foreign power’s propaganda or other objectives. DOJ prefaced that discussion with an express recognition of First Amendment protections, stating that it would not interfere with constitutionally protected expression or allow enforcement decisions to be improperly influenced by political beliefs or associations.

The release concluded with another unusual step: DOJ invited members of the public with information concerning undisclosed foreign-government direction or control to contact the FBI or their local U.S. Attorney’s Office. For organizations operating at the intersection of foreign relationships, public advocacy and U.S. policy, the announcement warrants attention.

A FARA Posture in Transition

The September warning is particularly notable given DOJ’s posture toward FARA 19 months ago.

In February 2025, the attorney general issued department-wide charging guidance directing that criminal charges under FARA and Section 951 be limited to conduct resembling “traditional espionage by foreign government actors.” The memorandum disbanded the Foreign Influence Task Force and instructed the National Security Division, including the FARA Unit, to focus on civil enforcement, regulatory initiatives and public guidance.

That directive represented a substantial change from the more aggressive criminal FARA enforcement of preceding years. The September announcement does not formally rescind it, but the department is now emphasizing both criminal and civil foreign-agent liability, discussing political and public-facing activity in concrete terms, and affirmatively soliciting information concerning possible undisclosed foreign-government direction.

A September 2025 national security memorandum provides additional context. NSPM-7 directed Joint Terrorism Task Forces, as part of investigations into domestic terrorism and organized political violence, to investigate potential FARA violations involving certain nongovernmental organizations and Americans that are abroad or have close ties to foreign governments, agents, citizens, foundations or influence networks where the conduct involved funding, creating or supporting entities that support or encourage domestic terrorism.

More recently, DOJ confirmed that it intends to complete its long-running effort to overhaul the regulations implementing FARA. Taken together, these developments indicate that foreign-agent compliance remains an active national-security priority even as the contours of DOJ’s enforcement approach continue to develop.

Enforcement and Rulemaking Move on Parallel Tracks

The regulatory picture is more complex than the September warning alone suggests.

DOJ’s January 2025 proposed FARA regulations contemplated significant changes to several exemptions routinely relied upon by corporations, nonprofits, law firms and other organizations. Some of those proposals generated concern that the department would materially narrow exemptions relating to commercial activity, domestic activity and legal representation.

DOJ’s current rulemaking agenda points toward a more measured final rule. In its August 2026 Regulatory Plan, the department stated that it is considering a final rule adopting many, though not all, of the January 2025 proposals. DOJ further stated that anticipated changes will expand the availability of exemptions commonly relied upon by corporations and law firms, provide greater clarity concerning digital informational materials, clarify existing regulatory ambiguities and reduce regulatory burdens on the public.

Those developments are significant when considered together. DOJ may provide greater regulatory certainty for conventional commercial, legal and professional activity while directing closer enforcement attention toward relationships involving concealed foreign influence, foreign-government direction, covert funding or public-facing activity presenting national-security concerns.

The final regulations will provide an important indication of where DOJ intends to draw those lines.

Public Advocacy Moves Into Focus

FARA has always extended well beyond conventional lobbying. Depending on the relationship and activity involved, the statute can reach political activity, public relations, political consulting, fundraising, dissemination of informational materials and representation of foreign interests before the U.S. government.

The September warning nevertheless places unusual emphasis on public advocacy, with implications for nonprofits, advocacy groups, public-relations and communications firms, grassroots organizations, consultants, universities, foundations, think tanks and others whose U.S. activities intersect with foreign entities or foreign governments.

The statutory predicates remain critical. Foreign funding alone does not automatically create a FARA registration obligation, and ideological agreement with a foreign person or organization does not establish one either. The analysis turns on the relationship with the foreign principal, the particular activities undertaken in the United States and the availability of any statutory exemption.

Those distinctions become especially important where constitutionally protected speech and advocacy are involved. For organizations with multiple funding sources or distinct advocacy programs, the analysis should be tied to the particular foreign relationship and activity rather than inferred from an organization’s overall funding profile. The relevant questions include who requested the activity, who exercises direction or control, how the activity is financed, what role the foreign principal plays in its development or execution, and what covered activity is actually being performed.

That activity-specific analysis also should be documented contemporaneously. In an environment where DOJ is expressly inviting third parties to report suspected foreign-government direction or control, a well-developed record explaining the relationship, activity and applicable exemption can become particularly important.

FARA and Section 951 Remain Distinct

DOJ’s announcement discusses FARA and Section 951 together, but the statutes impose materially different obligations.

FARA is principally a disclosure statute. It can apply to agents of a broad range of foreign principals, including foreign governments, political parties, companies, organizations and individuals, where the requisite relationship and covered activity exist. A willful FARA violation can carry up to five years’ imprisonment.

Section 951 is a separate criminal statute directed at individuals operating in the United States subject to the direction or control of a foreign government or foreign official without prior notification to the attorney general. Its agency standard, scope, exemptions and penalties differ from FARA, and a violation can carry up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

That distinction matters in practice. Conduct that presents a registration question under FARA may raise a very different analysis under Section 951, particularly where a foreign government is directly involved. Organizations assessing foreign-agent exposure should therefore analyze the two statutes separately rather than treating foreign-agent registration and notification as a single compliance question.

What Organizations Should Do Now

1. Reassess significant foreign relationships. Organizations engaged in U.S. advocacy, government relations, public communications, political activity or other public-facing work should understand who is requesting, directing, funding or controlling those activities and whether those relationships have changed over time.

2. Document FARA analyses and exemptions. Where an organization concludes that registration is unnecessary, the basis for that conclusion should be clear and supportable. That includes the underlying agency analysis and any reliance on commercial, legal, LDA or other statutory exemptions. For organizations with multiple workstreams, that analysis should be conducted with sufficient specificity to address the particular foreign relationship and activities at issue.

3. Review public-facing activity involving foreign interests. Demonstrations, advocacy campaigns, public-relations initiatives, grassroots activity, influencer relationships, informational materials, event organization, fundraising and other efforts intended to affect U.S. public opinion or policy merit particular attention in light of DOJ’s announcement.

4. Consider prospective guidance for close questions. DOJ’s FARA regime provides an advisory opinion process for contemplated activities, agreements or transactions. For prospective activity presenting a close registration question, obtaining the FARA Unit’s position may be appropriate before the activity proceeds.

5. Prepare for scrutiny from outside the FARA Unit. DOJ’s invitation to contact the FBI and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices creates another avenue through which foreign-agent allegations may arise. Organizations should have protocols for evaluating and responding to inquiries generated by employees, former employees, counterparties, competitors, advocacy groups or other third parties.

Looking Ahead

Two developments will provide important indications of where DOJ is heading next.

The first is the pending FARA rulemaking. The final regulations could materially affect the exemptions and other provisions that determine when registration is required and may provide greater clarity for companies and organizations navigating the statute.

The second will be enforcement itself. Future investigations and cases will show whether the September warning marks a broader operational change in DOJ’s approach or reflects a more targeted focus on concealed foreign-government influence and related national-security concerns.

For companies and organizations with significant foreign relationships, both developments merit close attention. DOJ is reconsidering the rules governing FARA at the same time it is issuing a conspicuous public warning about the consequences of failing to comply with them.