Contributors

Related

The Department of Justice recently issued a standalone public statement reminding individuals and organizations of their obligations under FARA and 18 U.S.C. § 951 and warning of potential civil and criminal consequences for noncompliance.

The significance lies less in what DOJ said than in the fact that it said it at all. The statement was not tied to a new case, rule, or policy announcement, suggesting heightened enforcement interest. It also signals a departure from the February 2025 directive that largely confined criminal FARA and § 951 prosecutions to espionage-related conduct. Together with a September 2025 presidential directive highlighting FARA as a tool to address foreign influence activities, the statement suggests that companies and individuals with foreign-government or foreign-principal ties should revisit their registration obligations and compliance controls.

Key Enforcement Signals from DOJ's Public Statement

  • Broad statutory reach. DOJ’s statement addresses both FARA and 18 U.S.C. § 951, underscoring its focus on the full spectrum of foreign-agent activity. 18 U.S.C. § 951 is a broad national‑security statute that criminalizes undisclosed foreign‑government direction or control over individuals operating inside the United States. There is no direct tie to political activity. FARA requires agents of foreign principals, including foreign governments, political parties, businesses, and individuals, to register and disclose certain activities. Registration obligations can arise from work for a private foreign company or individual, not just a foreign government. 
  • Universal applicability. DOJ emphasizes that these obligations apply to citizens and noncitizens alike, a particularly relevant reminder for multinational companies and organizations with personnel or affiliates operating in the United States.
  • Broad view of covered conduct. DOJ characterizes registrable activity as including “any public activity,” specifically referencing public demonstrations undertaken to advance a foreign power’s objectives. This language signals an expansive enforcement approach that extends beyond traditional lobbying or government-relations work.
  • Focus on penalties. DOJ highlights the availability of both civil and criminal remedies, including imprisonment, signaling a continued willingness to pursue a variety of enforcement options.
  • First Amendment considerations. While DOJ states that it will respect constitutionally protected speech, the statement makes clear that First Amendment interests will not necessarily shield individuals or organizations from scrutiny where foreign-agent registration obligations may exist.
  • Encouragement of reporting. DOJ encourages individuals with information about undisclosed foreign-government direction or control to contact the FBI or a U.S. Attorney’s Office. This language suggests an increased emphasis on referrals and whistleblower-driven investigations.

Compliance Considerations

DOJ’s statement signals that foreign-agent registration remains an enforcement priority. Companies with foreign ownership, foreign clients, foreign-government relationships, or cross-border advocacy activities should take proactive steps to assess their exposure and strengthen compliance programs.

  • Assess foreign relationships. Review relationships with foreign governments, political parties, state-owned enterprises, sovereign wealth funds, foreign businesses, and other foreign principals to identify activities that could trigger registration obligations. For novel issues, consider seeking an Advisory Opinion from DOJ’s FARA Unit.
  • Evaluate current activities. Analyze whether lobbying, government relations, public affairs, public relations, consulting, media engagement, advocacy, or similar activities undertaken on behalf of a foreign principal may require registration under FARA or notification under 18 U.S.C. § 951. Any reliance on a statutory exemption should be carefully evaluated, as exemptions are often construed more narrowly than many organizations expect.
  • Strengthen compliance programs. Establish or update policies and procedures for identifying, escalating, and assessing potential FARA and 18 U.S.C. § 951 issues. Training and periodic reviews should reflect the current enforcement environment.
  • Maintain thorough documentation. Keep detailed records of foreign relationships, funding sources, communications, and activities undertaken on behalf of foreign principals. Well-documented decision-making can be critical in responding to government inquiries and demonstrating compliance.
  • Address potential issues early. Failure to register can constitute a continuing violation. Historically, many FARA matters have been resolved through inquiries and retroactive registration rather than prosecution, but those options may narrow once an investigation begins. Companies facing potential registration questions should involve counsel promptly rather than waiting for government scrutiny or third-party complaints.

If you have any questions about this alert, please contact the authors or the Womble Bond Dickinson attorneys with whom you normally work.

Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP’s White Collar Defense and Criminal Investigations Team navigates domestic and international clients in all manner of white collar, regulatory, corporate and congressional investigations. Our team includes a distinguished roster of veteran defense attorneys, former federal prosecutors and U.S. Attorneys who served at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and at leading United States Attorneys’ Offices. Our team includes Chambers Ranked (Band 1) lawyers and alumni of the U.S. Department of Justice, the SEC’s Enforcement Division, the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, and in-house compliance specialists of publicly traded companies.