Who Is Required to Register Under FARA 

FARA creates a four-part test to determine whether a person or entity must register with the Justice Department and disclose covered activities. Persons or entities must register if they are (1) an agent; (2) of a foreign principal; (3) engaged in covered activities; and (4) do not qualify for an exemption.  Each of these parts of the test are discussed in more detail below.   

1. Who is a “foreign principal”?  

A foreign principal is defined as a:  

• A foreign government or political party 

• Any person outside the United States, unless it is a U.S. citizen domiciled in the U.S.  

• Any entity, such as a corporation or nonprofit, that is either organized under the laws of another country or has as its principal place of business in a foreign country (see 22 USC § 611(b)) 

As such, foreign principal is defined broadly in FARA to include not just a foreign government or political party, but also a foreign nonprofit or foundation.  

2. What is a covered activity? 

Under the Act, a person engages in covered activities if they: 

• Engage within the United States in “political activities” for or in the interests of a foreign principal; 

• Act within the United States as a “public relations counsel”, “publicity agent”, “information-service employee” or “political consultant” for or in the interests of a foreign principal; 

• Within the United States “solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value” for or in the interest of a foreign principal;  

• Within the United States “represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States.” (22 U.S.C. §611(c)) 

“Political activities” is perhaps the most infamous covered activity. The Act defines “political activities” to cover not only lobbying of a government official, but attempting to “influence . . . the public within the United States with reference” to U.S. domestic or foreign policies. (22 U.S.C. §611(o)) As written, it could potentially include a wide range of public-facing advocacy. 

Other covered activities are also broadly defined. For example, “political consultant” is defined to mean “any person who engages in informing or advising any other person with reference to the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or the political or public interest, policies, or relations of a foreign country or of a foreign political party.” (22 U.S.C. §611(p)) As such, “informing” a foreign principal about U.S. policy constitutes a covered activity. 

The definitions of other covered activities underlined above can be found here.  

3. Who is an “agent” of a foreign principal?  

FARA defines an “agent of a foreign principal” as:

any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal. (22 USC 611(c), emphasis added) 

This convoluted definition has generated significant debate about its meaning. Most notably, key terms in this definition are not further defined in the Act. For example, it is unclear what it is meant to be financed or subsidized in “whole or in major part” by a foreign principal, as “major part” is not defined in the Act.  

Similarly, acting at another’s “request” is undefined in the Act. Some courts have interpreted that a “request” needs to be made to specific persons and not be a generalized plea, but this could still potentially encompass a broad range of relationships.  

4. What are exemptions to registration? 

There are a number of exemptions to registration. Under FARA regulations, the burden of establishing the availability of an exemption rests on the person or entity claiming it. (28 CFR § 5.300) Among the most important exemptions for nonprofits are: 

• The Domestic Interest Exemption: Exempts those engaged “in . . . activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest.” (22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2)) This exemption is one of the most debated and significant for nonprofits in the Act (see below).  

• The Academic and Religious Exemption: Exempts “[a]ny person engaging or agreeing to engage only in activities in furtherance of bona fide religious, scholastic, academic, or scientific pursuits or of the fine arts.” (22 U.S.C. § 613(e)) While seemingly providing broad exemptions for these categories of activities, FARA regulations interpret this provision not to apply to persons engaged in “political activities” as defined under the Act. (28 C.F.R. § 5.304(d)) 

• The Humanitarian Exemption: Exempts “soliciting or collecting of funds and contributions within the United States to be used only for medical aid and assistance, or for food and clothing to relieve human suffering.” (22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(3)) This exemption only applies in the context of collecting medical aid, food, or clothing and does not on its face encompass a broader range of potential humanitarian goals.  

• The LDA Exemption: If a person is registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) in connection with the agent’s representation of a foreign principal, they do not need to register under FARA unless the foreign principal is a foreign government or political party. (22 U.S.C. § 613(h)) 

• The Commercial Exemption: Exempts “private and nonpolitical activities in furtherance of the bona fide trade or commerce of such foreign principal.” (22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1)) This exemption can potentially apply to activities of nonprofits engaged in commercial activities. FARA regulations for the commercial exemption state that the exemption does not apply to agents of those engaged in political activities that “directly promote the public or political interest of a foreign government.” (28 C.F.R. § 5.304(b)) 

• The Legal Exemption: Exempts any person qualified to practice law, insofar as he engages in the legal representation of a disclosed foreign principal before any court of law or any agency of the Government of the United States. However, this exemption does not include “attempts to influence or persuade agency personnel or officials other than in the course of judicial proceedings, criminal or civil law enforcement inquiries, investigations, or proceedings, or agency proceedings required by statute or regulation to be conducted on the record.” (22 U.S.C. § 613(g)) 

The meaning of the so-called domestic interest exemption (22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2)) has generated significant debate. There is scant judicial precedent interpreting the exemption. The Justice Department has attempted to clarify its scope, including in the nonprofit context. For example, in a March 2024 advisory opinion, the Department found that a U.S. nonprofit did not have to register for receiving a grant from a foreign nonprofit even though it engaged in covered activities because its activities were “not serving predominantly a foreign interest,” and the nonprofit could therefore claim the domestic interest exemption. In this case (1) the U.S. nonprofit had demonstrated that its “activities were not directed by and did not directly promote the public or political interests of a foreign government or foreign political party”; (2) the activities were “directly in furtherance of the objectives” of the U.S. nonprofit; and (3) the activities were “not significantly influenced” by the foreign entity.  

In a June 2025 advisory opinion, the Justice Department similarly found that a US nonprofit did not have to register where a foreign entity could appoint its director as it qualified for the 613(d)(2) exemption. More advisory opinions relevant to nonprofits, including involving the domestic interest exemption, are available on ICNL’s website here.  

In early January 2025, the Biden Administration’s Justice Department proposed new FARA regulations that focused, in part, on the domestic interest exemption (see Part III(B)(c) of the proposal and the accompanying draft regulations). However, as of March 2026, the proposed regulations have not been adopted or rejected. 

Registration and Disclosure Requirements 

A person may not act as an agent of a foreign principal as defined under FARA without first registering with the Justice Department and they must register within 10 days of agreeing to act as an agent. (22 U.S.C. § 612(a)) 

The registration requirements are extensive. For example, a first time registrant must file a registration statement detailing the covered activities; a so-called “short form” registration statement for each individual engaged in covered activity within a registering organization; and separate “exhibits” describing (1) the foreign principal, (2) the nature and terms of the agreement, (3) the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the organization, and (4) details on any money or other things of value that the agent might receive. 22 U.S.C. § 612(b); 28 C.F.R. § 5.200–§ 5.202  Active registrants must file supplemental statements every six months thereafter. 22 U.S.C. § 612(b); 28 C.F.R. § 5.203 

Under FARA, agents of foreign principals must also disclose their status on certain public materials. Every agent of a foreign principal who transmits within the United States “informational materials for or in the interests of such foreign principal” must label that material with a “conspicuous statement that the materials are distributed by the agent on behalf of the foreign principal, and that additional information is on file with the Department of Justice, Washington, District of Columbia.” (22 U.S.C. § 614) 

The Burden of Registration 

FARA was designed as a transparency statute, but registration and disclosure requirements create a number of burdens. For nonprofits, such burdens include: 

Misperception: Nonprofits acting independently in furtherance of their mission could be misperceived and stigmatized as “agents” of a foreign principal.  

Reporting Burdens: As detailed above, reporting requirements can be significant. This can create burdens on organizations, including:  

• Retaining legal counsel to comply with registration requirements. 

• Delaying engagement on an issue that affects the organization’s mission if it involves registrable conduct as one cannot act as an agent under FARA until after one has registered.  

• Endangering persons or an organization’s mission by publicly disclosing sensitive activities – for example, reporting details of engagement with a foreign human rights dissident through FARA could endanger a dissident’s life.  

Creating tension with nonprofit staff who may not wish to engage on projects that require them to submit a short form registration under FARA. Some staff may fear adverse long term career consequences or stigma from registration under FARA.  

Denial of Government Benefits: A registrant under FARA may be ineligible from receiving certain government benefits. For example, under the federal government’s COVID relief program, those registered under FARA were ineligible for a forgivable PPP loan. Some registered agents under FARA who received PPP loans were later prosecuted under the False Claims Act. 

Future Audits: Under FARA and accompanying regulations, those engaged in registrable activity must maintain an extensive list of books and records that are then subject to audit by the Justice Department. 22 U.S.C. § 615; 28 C.F.R. § 5.500. These compliance costs can be significant and potentially opens up registered persons and organizations to future examination by the Justice Department. Past registration by an organization or person – and the knowledge it shows of FARA – could also be a factor in the Justice Department proving that one “willfully” violated the Act in the future, potentially triggering criminal penalties under the Act.   

Penalties and Remedies for Violation 

FARA has civil remedies. When the Justice Department becomes aware of someone who is in violation of the Act, they can petition a federal court to stop a person or entity from acting as an agent and order them to register. (22 U.S.C. § 618(f))  

It also has criminal remedies. Willfully violating the Act is a criminal offense punishable by up to 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine. (22 U.S.C. § 618(a)) The Justice Department has sometimes struggled to show “willful” violation of the law given the complexity and vagueness of FARA.  

FARA Enforcement

The Justice Department has traditionally enforced the Act in a variety of ways. These include: 

• Sending a letter of inquiry to an organization or individual it has learned may be in violation of the Act. These letters encourage voluntary compliance and allow the Department to gather more information and put persons or entities on notice of potential violation. 

• Seeking an order from a federal court to stop an unregistered agent from engaging in covered activities and compel registration. The DC Circuit has held that the Department may only seek to compel registration of an individual or entity engaged in ongoing covered activities, but not for past covered activities. 

• Opening a criminal investigation into an organization or its staff, including potentially subpoenaing evidence or witnesses.  

• Criminal prosecution. Prosecution of nonprofits or their staff is historically rare. To impose criminal penalties the Department must prove that a person “willfully” violated the Act.     

There is a five-year statute of limitations on FARA violations.  

Given the lack of bright line rules for many provisions of FARA, including some of its key exemptions, many have looked to the Justice Department’s FARA enforcement priorities to navigate the Act. These priorities have shifted over the history of the Act. For example, during World War II, FARA was used to target Nazi propaganda, while in the McCarthy era the Department prosecuted alleged communists, including the civil rights activist W.E.B. Dubois using the law. Starting in the 1960s, the Department focused enforcement on lobbyists of foreign governments. 

After a period of relatively limited criminal enforcement, the Justice Department turned to FARA after allegations of foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. The Department significantly increased prosecutions, particularly of cases of individuals who failed to register for lobbying on behalf of foreign governments or political parties. The Department also required certain Russian and Chinese government owned media outlets to register under the Act.  

More recently, Attorney General Bondi seemed to signal a shift away from criminal FARA enforcement. The Attorney General issued a memo in February 2025 calling for criminal enforcement of FARA to be limited “to instances of alleged conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors” and for the Justice Department to focus instead on civil enforcement and public guidance. The same memo disbanded the Department’s Foreign Influence Taskforce, indicating that robustly staffing the FARA unit may also not be a priority.   

The Administration potentially signaled another enforcement shift in September 2025 when President Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7) on Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence called for Joint Terrorism Taskforces to investigate “non-governmental organizations” with close ties to foreign governments, citizens, and foundations for possible FARA violations. Recent Congressional investigations and state attorneys general letters targeting nonprofits for potential violations of FARA may also apply political pressure on the Justice Department to more aggressively enforce FARA in the future.  

Steps to Navigate FARA 

Given FARA’s frequently broad and vague provisions, including for its exemptions, FARA creates compliance challenges for nonprofits and others. Given this context, nonprofits should consider taking the following steps to navigate the Act: 

• Obtain legal counsel. Seek legal counsel if you may be engaged in FARA registrable activity or plan to engage in such activity to discuss potential registration requirements. 

• Monitor FARA enforcement developments. ICNL maintains a database of FARA advisory opinions and other enforcement actions from the Justice Department relevant for nonprofits. While these advisory opinions do not create binding precedent for others, they can provide guidance on how the Department has interpreted the Act. ICNL also maintains a tracker of Congressional investigations of nonprofits based on alleged violation of FARA and monitors state foreign influence laws that may create registration or other requirements at the state level. 

• Develop a FARA compliance strategy. Along with legal counsel, develop a compliance strategy. This could include training staff in identifying potentially registrable activity and reviewing which of the organization’s activities may trigger registration. If applicable, organizations may also wish to document why they believe specific exemptions to registration apply in their context.  

• Prepare for a potential government investigation. Organizations at higher risk of FARA enforcement action should take steps to prepare for a potential government investigation. Among other steps, this could include engaging counsel, implementing a document retention policy, and having a crisis communications plan.  

Need for FARA Reform 

FARA is a vague and broad statute that lacks clear bright line rules. This creates confusion and increases compliance costs for nonprofits and others. It also heightens the risk that the law can be used to target voices disfavored by the government. Commentators have further argued that key parts of the Act may violate the First Amendment.  

In response, ICNL and others have long called for FARA reform. Potential reforms would include more clearly defining the agency relationship under FARA; limiting foreign principals in the Act to foreign governments or political parties; and better targeting and clarifying FARA’s covered activities. ICNL’s page on U.S. foreign influence laws provides more information about these efforts. 

Further Resources

Foreign Agents Registration Act 

FARA Regulations 

Justice Department, Foreign Agents Registration Act Home  

ICNL’s FARA page. This includes links to advisory opinions impacting nonprofits, recent Congressional Investigations involving FARA, and proposed or enacted state foreign influence laws. 

Nick Robinson, FARA is a Catchall Statute-and That’s a Problem, Lawfare (January 2025)  

Nick Robinson, “Foreign Agents” in an Interconnected World: FARA and the Weaponization of Transparency, Duke Law Journal (2020) 

Fara.us. A website maintained by Caplin & Drysdale with links to FARA resources, including enforcement actions.   

American Bar Association, FARA: Issues and Recommendations for Reform (2021) This report compiles recommendations for FARA reform developed by an ABA taskforce.  

For more information contact Nick Robinson at nrobinson@icnl.org