In 2025, the landscape for compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) has undergone a subtle but important shift. While the federal government has deemphasized criminal prosecutions under FARA, civil enforcement mechanisms, state-level legislation, and congressional oversight have stepped into the foreground. For political consultants, advocacy firms, issue campaigns, and public affairs professionals, the message is clear: foreign influence compliance is still very much in play.
This article explores two dimensions of this evolving regime: (1) the current posture of the Department of Justice toward FARA enforcement at the federal level, and (2) the growing wave of state-level “baby FARA” laws designed to fill perceived gaps in the federal framework.
I. The Department of Justice Shifts Course
In early 2025, the Department of Justice issued internal guidance that dramatically narrowed the scope of its FARA criminal enforcement priorities. The disbanding of the Foreign Influence Task Force and the reassignment of staff from the Corporate Enforcement Unit signaled a sharp pivot away from aggressive criminal investigations of foreign lobbying. According to published summaries of the department’s policy, criminal charges under FARA will now be limited to conduct closely resembling espionage or activity undertaken at the direction of hostile foreign governments.
For example, the indictment of individuals who allegedly passed classified information to foreign intelligence services still falls within scope. But foreign commercial actors seeking trade advantages or foreign-funded advocacy campaigns aimed at shaping public discourse are unlikely to trigger criminal charges. Instead, these cases are expected to be addressed through civil enforcement tools, public guidance, and registration demands.
Even though the administration has stepped back from headline-making FARA prosecutions, the regulatory structure remains intact. Importantly, civil enforcement mechanisms—such as letters of inquiry, administrative subpoenas, and negotiated consent decrees—continue to be used to prompt compliance. The DOJ has not abandoned the statute; it has simply shifted to a more cautious, less criminal-facing approach.
II. Legislative Action: Congress and the Retroactivity Debate
Congress, however, has not eased off the gas. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have introduced legislation to expand FARA’s reach, most notably the Foreign Agents Transparency Act, a bipartisan bill currently under review. The bill would grant the DOJ authority to require retroactive registration of unregistered agents even after their relationship with a foreign principal has ended.
This legislative effort follows a major loss for DOJ in Attorney General v. Wynn, where courts ruled that the statute did not authorize retroactive registration once lobbying activity ceased. The new bill would close that loophole, creating a five-year window in which the government could demand compliance.
If enacted, this authority would substantially alter the compliance calculus for entities that previously assumed they were safe from retroactive enforcement.
III. States Step In: The Rise of “Baby FARA” Laws
While federal enforcement shifts tactically, state legislatures are stepping into the void with their own regulatory frameworks. In the last year, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have introduced or passed laws modeled after FARA. These “baby FARA” laws extend registration obligations to individuals and organizations engaged in political activity on behalf of foreign principals within state borders.
The Arkansas statute, signed into law in April 2025, is among the most expansive. It requires representatives of “hostile foreign principals” and “foreign-supported political organizations” to register with the Arkansas Secretary of State. The law applies not only to direct lobbying but also to broad categories of public advocacy, including attempts to influence public opinion, regulatory policy, and election outcomes. It contains no exemptions similar to the federal commercial or Lobbying Disclosure Act carveouts, meaning that activities normally protected at the federal level may now require registration at the state level.
Notably, the Arkansas law applies retroactively for a five-year period and empowers private citizens to file complaints. This opens the door to politically motivated enforcement and compliance actions initiated by third parties.
Other states are following suit. Bills introduced in California and Arizona adopt expansive definitions of “foreign principals” and regulated activities. In Tennessee and Oklahoma, the scope is narrower but still targets principals from countries of concern designated by the U.S. State Department. These state laws are not carbon copies of each other, but the trendline is unmistakable: states are asserting a role in policing foreign influence, regardless of federal enforcement priorities.
IV. Practical Takeaways for Public Affairs Organizations
For advocacy professionals, think tanks, and public affairs consultants, the compliance environment in 2025 is complex and fractured. While criminal prosecutions at the federal level may be less likely, the risk of civil enforcement, public scrutiny, and state-level registration is growing.
Organizations that receive foreign support—whether funding, services, or coordination—and engage in any form of political, policy, or advocacy activity should consider the following steps:
- Conduct a FARA risk assessment: Review past and current relationships with foreign individuals, entities, and funders.
- Review state-level activity: Determine whether advocacy or policy work occurs in jurisdictions with active or proposed baby FARA laws.
- Document internal decision-making: Leadership and legal counsel should document their rationale for not registering, if that is the decision.
- Train staff and consultants: Ensure that communications, research, and public-facing materials are consistent with the organization’s legal position.
- Prepare for scrutiny: Even in the absence of formal enforcement, watchdog groups and media may invoke these laws to create reputational pressure.
The administration may be dialing down aggressive criminal prosecutions under FARA, but the overall direction of policy is not permissive—it’s divergent. With Congress pushing for broader authority and the states launching their own registration regimes, 2025 is not the year to de-prioritize foreign influence compliance.
For public affairs professionals, legal advisors, and advocacy campaign leaders, the new enforcement environment requires a proactive stance. What used to be a specialized compliance concern for foreign lobbyists is now becoming a baseline requirement for organizations working on global issues, even at the local level.
In this new reality, the smartest organizations won’t wait for a subpoena. They’ll get ahead of the curve—because when it comes to FARA and its baby siblings, surprise is not a defense.