President Donald Trump is shifting the focus of foreign-influence laws, which once seemed aimed at people within his circle, toward left-wing activist networks that some claim are funded by overseas interests. These laws, specifically the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), haven’t always been strictly enforced. However, they gained more attention and usage after 2016, as the Department of Justice (DOJ) sought to hold various individuals accountable.
Legal experts are now observing that FARA and similar laws have become potential tools for Trump to target leftist activists. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, criticized the Biden administration for allegedly misusing FARA as a political weapon rather than addressing clear national security issues. He stated, “Unfortunately, it seems clear that the Biden administration went overboard and tried to use FARA as a political weapon against allies and supporters of President Trump.”
FARA requires individuals representing foreign governments or political entities in the U.S. to disclose their activities. Historically, prosecutions under this law were uncommon, with only a handful of cases before 2016. This dramatically changed when, in 2018, over 20 people were charged for FARA violations. Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, remarked on this shift, stating, “Prior to the Mueller gang and the deep state using it against Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, FARA was rarely, if ever used for criminal purposes.” The sentiment among conservatives has grown that they have become targets of an unfair political agenda, particularly with figures like Manafort and Flynn becoming embroiled in legal troubles related to foreign influence.
Foreign influence investigations haven’t been limited to conservatives. Prominent Democrats, including Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar and New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, have faced scrutiny under the Biden administration. This suggests that the effects of FARA reach across the political aisle, but those on the right often feel more intensely targeted by the DOJ.
The pattern continued into Biden’s term, resulting in scrutiny of Trump allies such as Rudy Giuliani and funds connected to figures like Stephen Wynn. After Trump regained office, former Attorney General Pam Bondi intended to scale back FARA enforcement and focus on more traditional espionage activities. Fitton characterized this as a shift back to common practices that had been overshadowed. Under Trump, Spakovsky noted a commitment to integrate FARA into the broader national security strategy, as reflected in a national security memo issued in 2025.
This memo, referred to as NSPM-7, directs federal agencies to investigate potential links between foreign entities and domestic political violence. Critics argue that it could infringe on constitutional rights, particularly freedom of speech, since it highlights “anti-Americanism” as a potential threat. Nevertheless, Spakovsky believes this initiative aligns with previous recommendations aimed at enhancing FARA enforcement, showing continuity rather than a radical departure from past practices.
FARA’s complexity has led some legal experts to question its effectiveness. Jason Torchinsky, a partner at Holtzman Vogel, explained the challenges of prosecuting under FARA, noting that defendants often cite First Amendment protections for their actions. Alternatives, such as sanctions violations or other prosecutorial avenues, can sometimes offer a clearer path for prosecutors to follow. “If these guys literally are shipping things to Cuba in violation of sanctions, that’s pretty easy,” he remarked, highlighting that these cases might provide a more straightforward means of addressing misconduct.
Others argue quality enforcement of FARA remains essential in combating foreign influence in American political matters. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna asserted her commitment to restoring the FARA office, emphasizing, “The political divide in this country is a foreign op from multiple countries and it’s sad.” This underscores a broader concern among some lawmakers about the implications of foreign influence on American democracy.
As discussions take place regarding FARA and its application, the potential exists for revising the law to better serve its initial intent. Smith of the Heritage Foundation suggested that while it may warrant updates, there is fundamental agreement on the issue of foreign influence in U.S. politics. He remarked, “Fundamentally, there should be broad agreement that foreign influence, particularly foreign influence directed at influencing our elections, our political discourse, is very problematic.”
The complexities surrounding FARA and its enforcement illustrate the broader tension in how foreign interactions are navigated within the U.S. political landscape. As the Trump administration seeks to leverage these laws, the conversations surrounding their application could shape future interpretations and strategies to manage foreign influence effectively.
"*" indicates required fields
