Article
Source: Law360
Article
10.12.26
In an article published in Law360, Pillsbury special counsel Evan Turgeon and counsel Jeff Izant examine the potential implications of an unusual September 16 public warning from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The warning emphasized that individuals acting as agents of foreign principals may face civil or criminal penalties for failing to comply with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) or 18 U.S.C. § 951, which apply to certain foreign agents acting within the United States. By expressly referencing public demonstrations, the DOJ may be signaling increased scrutiny of protests, advocacy campaigns, and public communications connected to foreign interests.
The authors explain that the warning is significant because it suggests increased scrutiny of protest organizers, nonprofit organizations, donors, communications firms, coalition partners, and other intermediaries. Read alongside National Security Presidential Memorandum No. 7, issued in September 2025, the announcement may indicate broader investigative interest in organizations and individuals with foreign connections. However, the authors emphasize that foreign funding, contact with foreign individuals, shared political views, or participation in a demonstration does not, by itself, establish a violation. Whether FARA or Section 951 applies depends on the specific relationship, the degree of foreign direction or control, the activities involved, and any applicable statutory exemptions.
Although the DOJ stated that it would not infringe upon constitutionally protected speech or target individuals based on their political beliefs, the authors caution that investigations can impose substantial legal costs, operational burdens, and reputational damage even when no violation is ultimately established. They also highlight the potentially significant penalties associated with these laws: Willful FARA violations can carry up to five years’ imprisonment, while Section 951 violations can carry up to ten years. Accordingly, organizations should not assume that their advocacy activities are exempt from scrutiny simply because they involve constitutionally protected expression or are conducted through nonprofit or intermediary structures.
To mitigate these risks, Turgeon and Izant recommend that companies, nonprofits, trade associations, and communications firms establish written foreign-agent compliance policies, review public-facing activities before launch, document decision-making authority and operational independence, and carefully assess foreign funding and intermediary arrangements. They also recommend training relevant personnel to recognize potential compliance issues and considering seeking DOJ advisory opinions when clarification is appropriate.
Ultimately, the authors underscore the importance of assessing foreign relationships and potential registration obligations early in the planning process to reduce enforcement risk.
Read the full article here.