Published March 2026

This briefer describes the dangers the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) poses to U.S. nonprofits and the need for comprehensive FARA reform.  

FARA is a World War II era anti-propaganda statute that requires an “agent of a foreign principal” engaged in covered activity to register with the Department of Justice unless they meet an exemption. Its provisions are famously sweeping and vague. This provides the federal government wide discretion for enforcement, creating uncertainty for nonprofits and others in navigating the Act. It also creates the danger that FARA will be used in a politicized manner by the government to target voices it disfavors.

Four Common FARA Misconceptions 

1. WHO IS A FOREIGN PRINCIPAL 

Some observers believe that FARA is only covers the agents of foreign governments. However, a “foreign principal” under the Act includes not only foreign governments, but also foreign individuals, foundations, nonprofits, companies, and other entities. 

2. COVERED ACTIVITY 

Many believe FARA only applies to lobbying or electioneering activity. However, the Act covers a broad range of other activities. This includes “political activities,” which include attempts to influence “any section of the public within the United States” on domestic or foreign policy. This definition can cover a wide range of public advocacy. Similarly, a covered activity also includes a “political consultant”, who is someone who simply “inform[s]” a foreign principal “with reference to the domestic or foreign policies of the United States”. Covered activities do not even need to involve politics. For example, an “agent” that “solicits” or “disburses” “things of value” on behalf of a foreign principal is also covered by the Act.  

3. WHO IS AN “AGENT” 

Some think that FARA is only triggered by a traditional principal-agent relationship. However, the agency relationship can be far more informal than many appreciate. An entity can be considered an “agent” under FARA even if they act at the mere “request” of a foreign principal or they are financed by a foreign principal “in major part” (both “request” and “major part” are undefined in the Act). 

4. THE BURDEN IMPOSED BY FARA 

While often called a transparency statute, the Act creates significant burdens. An “agent” needs to register with the Department of Justice, provide regular (publicly available) updates of activities covered by the Act, and when providing information to the public must make a “conspicuous” statement that it is acting on behalf of a foreign principal. All staff engaged in covered activities also have to submit short-form registrations.  

If required to register, nonprofits acting independently in furtherance of their mission can be stigmatized as “agents” of a foreign principal. Staff at organizations frequently do not want to register as they fear potential negative repercussions to their career. Those that willfully fail to comply with FARA can face criminal penalties, creating a potentially chilling effect given the Act’s lack of clear bright line rules.  

FARA’s Impact on Nonprofits 

Many nonprofits–and policymakers–do not fully appreciate the potential breadth of FARA. However, organizations are increasingly being caught up by the Act – often for seemingly mundane activity. Consider these Department of Justice advisory opinions that required: 

• A U.S. religious organization to register for helping prepare banners for foreign attendees to a March for Life rally because in printing banners at the “request” of a foreigner it acted as a “publicity agent” under the Act. Nov. 19, 2019, advisory opinion. 

• A U.S. nonprofit to register for co-organizing a conference in another country with a private foreign research institute. The Department found the U.S. nonprofit was “disburs[ing]” something of value by paying for the travel costs of Americans for the conference and so were engaged in a covered activity. Oct. 16, 2024, advisory opinion 

• A U.S. environmental nonprofit to register because it received a grant from a foreign government to improve multi-national corporations’ product sourcing practices to help the environment in tropical countries. March 13, 2020, advisory opinion.  

As FARA becomes more prominent, it has increasingly been used by politicians and others to target domestic groups with which they disagree. Given the broad language, it is easy to accuse groups and individuals of violating the Act. For example, during the McCarthy era W.E.B. Du Bois was prosecuted under FARA for circulating an anti-nuclear petition at the “request” of a French nonprofit. Since 2020, over 20 Congressional investigations have claimed dozens of nonprofits may be violating the Act – often focusing on whether the nonprofit ever acted at the “request” of a foreign principal in a covered activity. In 2026, a letter from over a dozen state attorneys general claimed more than 150 U.S. nonprofits should register for receiving money from non-U.S. private donors. These accusations often fail to address potential exemptions for registration in the Act, but these exemptions are also vague, frequently leaving nonprofits on uncertain legal ground.  

FARA’s ill-defined breadth, the burden of its requirements, and the threat of criminal prosecution, can discourage beneficial cross-border nonprofit activity. The Act’s breadth and vagueness also leads it to being highly vulnerable to constitutional challenge, potentially jeopardizing the Department of Justice’s enforcement priorities. 

Finally, FARA’s broad language has repeatedly been used to justify anti-democratic “foreign agent” laws in countries like Russia, Nicaragua, and Kyrgyzstan. These laws are then used to stigmatize and shut down human rights, anti-corruption, and other civil society groups. 

Remedy 

The U.S. needs a modern approach to dealing with foreign influence in our globalized world. FARA should target foreign government attempts to influence U.S. democratic decision-making, not entangle nonprofits for simply engaging in beneficial cross-border conduct. 

FARA’s definitions need to be amended and clarified. This is a multi-faceted problem, but any comprehensive reform should at least amend the Act to only target the agents of foreign governments or political parties or those acting on their behalf. The Act should also be amended to clearly state that registration is only triggered by true principal-agent relationships. 

For more information about FARA, including navigating the Act, visit our resource page here  

Related Articles

Navigating the Foreign Agents Registration Act 

Other FARA Resources

U.S. Foreign Influence Laws