The State of FARA
State legislatures are increasingly regulating foreign influence, which could mean greater compliance burdens for companies and nonprofits.
Last March, Arkansas proposed a bill that would require foreign agents to register in the state. It wasn’t alone: Similar bills were also introduced in Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, and other states. This slew of legislation is part of a broader trend by states to engage in national security and foreign policy-related issues, with states increasingly adopting analogues to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Collectively, these actions portend increasing compliance burdens for companies and nonprofits with certain foreign connections, in particular due to differences between state statutes and their federal cousin.
FARA, at a Glance
FARA is a disclosure statute intended to promote transparency around foreign involvement in political and public affairs in the United States. Under the statute, “agents” who engage in specified activities on behalf of non-U.S. persons or entities (“foreign principals”) must register with the Department of Justice and submit periodic public disclosures regarding their activities. These disclosures are intended to help the U.S. public and government make informed decisions about the agents’ activities in light of their relationship with their foreign principals. Willful violations of the statute may be criminally prosecuted. Alternatively, the Justice Department can seek to compel persons to register and make necessary disclosures.
Though it lay dormant for much of its history, FARA became a greater enforcement priority following the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. elections. Successive administrations dedicated greater resources to FARA enforcement, leading to multiple high-profile civil and criminal enforcement actions as well as an increase in registrations. This expansion arguably culminated in December 2024 with proposed revisions to FARA’s implementing regulations, the first in over 20 years, that would have narrowed the often-used exemptions and expanded Justice Department enforcement ambit.
Whether that momentum will continue during the second Trump administration remains an open question. In a February 2025 memorandum, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed Justice Department prosecutors to limit criminal charges under FARA “to instances of alleged conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors.” However, the Bondi memorandum made clear that the Justice Department’s FARA Unit would continue to pursue civil enforcement. Additionally, a recent executive order indicated the administration specifically intends to enforce FARA against perceived domestic extremist groups. While the proposed changes have yet to take effect, the latter was not among dozens of proposed rules withdrawn by the Justice Department in September 2025.
Amid these conflicting signals at the federal level, states have begun to fill in the gaps. In the past year, five states—Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas—have enacted their own versions of FARA. Similar legislation has been proposed in several others. And though efforts to pass FARA-like laws in some states began well before the current administration, many now appear more eager to pick up the mantle.
State “Baby FARA” Laws
Many of the “baby FARA” laws adopted by state governments mirror the core structure of their federal analogue: Persons who attempt to influence state politics on behalf of a foreign entity, especially a foreign government, must register and make certain disclosures. But the state laws often depart from the federal statute in ways that illuminate the states’ unique concerns.
Six states have currently enacted their own version of FARA; two states have also enacted similar laws related to campaign expenditures:
| State | Summary |
| Arkansas House Bill 1800/Act 998 (Registration required by Jan. 31, 2026) | Covered Activities: Representatives of a hostile foreign principal engaging in political activity, defined as activities “performed to influence an agency or public official of this state” in regard to laws or elections, must register with the Secretary of State. Additionally, a foreign-supported political organization that engages in political activity must register. Covered Countries: Governments of and other entities related to China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. A foreign-supported political organization is defined as a political party or entity that has, within the past five calendar years, received something of value from a hostile foreign principal or a representative of a hostile foreign principal. Exemptions: None Penalties: $500 fine per violation; for willful or repeated violations, up to $2,000 fine per violation. |
| Florida Senate Bill 700 (Effective July 1, 2025) | Covered Activities: Charities, other nonprofits, and professional fundraisers are prohibited from receiving or soliciting anything of value from a foreign “country of concern” or individuals associated with those countries. Covered Countries: China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, the Maduro regime in Venezuela, and Syria, plus entities under significant control of one of these countries. Exemptions: None. Penalties: Willful and knowing violations may be subject to criminal penalties, and civil penalties may be imposed under the state’s deceptive practices statute. A safe harbor provision may prevent penalties for first-time violators if certain remedies are carried out. |
| Louisiana House Bill 686 (Effective Dec. 1, 2025) | Covered Activities: Any person who lobbies Louisiana’s legislative branch on behalf of a foreign adversary government, a corporation or entity whose headquarters or principal place of business is located in one of those countries, or a sanctioned party must register with Louisiana’s Board of Ethics. Registered executive-branch and local-level lobbyists for foreign adversary governments (but not for corporations or entities in those countries) must also register. Covered Countries: A foreign adversary government is defined based on the “Securing the ICTS Supply Chain” legislation, currently China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and the Maduro regime in Venezuela. Exemption: The law excludes registration for lobbying on behalf of entities that are the “subject of, or covered by, a qualified divestiture pursuant to the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” and for entities that are registered in the U.S. government’s federal procurement system. Penalties: None specified. |
| Maine Title 21-A § 1015 (Enjoined) | Covered Activities: Foreign government-influenced entities are prohibited from contributing funds to influence elections or referendums. Mandatory disclosures must be included in any public communications that are funded by foreign government-influenced entities to influence the public or any state, county, or local official or agency regarding state or local government policy or government relations with a foreign country. Covered Countries: A foreign government-influence entity is defined as: ● Foreign governments. ● Any entity in which a foreign government holds, owns, controls, or otherwise has direct or indirect beneficial ownership of 5 percent or more of the total equity or other ownership interests. ● Any entity that a foreign government directs, dictates, controls, or directly or indirectly participates in the decision-making process with regard to the activities of the entity. Exemptions: None. Penalties: Penalty of up to $5,000 or double the amount of the contribution, expenditure, electioneering communication, donation, or disbursement involved in the violation, whichever is greater. This law is currently enjoined on First Amendment grounds. |
| Nebraska Legislative Bill 644 (Effective Oct. 1, 2025) | Covered Activities: Agents who engage in political activity in the interest of the foreign principal; act as a publicity agent or political consultant in the interest of the foreign principal; solicit, collect, or dispense a contribution, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of the foreign principal; or represent the interest of the foreign principal before a state or local agency or official in Nebraska must register. Political activity is defined as engaging in activity with the belief or intent to influence a state agency or official or political subdivision in the state related to formulating, adopting, or changing policies of the U.S. or Nebraska. This legislation applies retroactively, with any agent who engaged in covered activity on or after Jan. 1, 2020, required to comply with the requirements of the Act (that is, register), even if no longer acting as an agent. Covered Countries: Foreign principal is defined based on the “Securing the ICTS Supply Chain” legislation, including the governments of China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and the Maduro regime in Venezuela; companies organized or headquartered those countries; entities in which those companies have 20 percent or greater beneficial ownership; and designated foreign terrorist organizations Exemptions: Registration is not required for diplomats and certain foreign government officials; news services organized or subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., publications that have filed a Statement of Ownership with the U.S. Postal Service and are owned at least 80 percent by citizens of the U.S. and not by agents of a foreign principal; and legal representatives. Penalties: Civil penalties of up to $50,000 for willful violations. Violators also face possible expulsion or dismissal if they are affiliated with a Nebraska postsecondary educational institution. The Nebraska attorney general is authorized to take enforcement actions including injunctions or corrective orders. |
| Oklahoma House Bill 2762 (Effective Nov. 1, 2025) | Covered Activities: Individuals attempting to influence state laws or the award of state funds on behalf of international corporations must register with the Oklahoma Secretary of State’s office if they receive compensation for their services. Covered Countries: International corporations mean corporations or business entities incorporated or headquartered outside of the U.S. or companies owned 51 percent or more by a foreign entity. Exemptions: Certain arrangements covered by provisions of a national security agreement with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Penalties: None specified. |
| Texas House Bill 119 (Effective Sept. 1, 2025) | Covered Activities: Anyone who communicates directly with members of the Texas legislative or executive branch to influence legislation or administration action on behalf of a foreign adversary, foreign adversary client, or foreign adversary political party must register with the state Ethics Commission. The law also prohibits receiving compensation for lobbying on behalf of the entities covered under this statute. Covered Countries: Foreign adversary is defined based on the “Securing the ICTS Supply Chain” legislation, currently China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and the Maduro regime in Venezuela. The definition includes an entity under the control of one of these countries and any company or subsidiary that has its principal place of business in one of those countries. A foreign adversary client is defined as a current or former official of a foreign adversary or an entity formed to benefit such a person, as well as the immediate family member of such a person. Exemptions: None. Penalties: Violators may be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed an amount equal to three times the compensation, reimbursement, or expenditure for failing to register or receiving compensation. |
| Utah Utah Code Section 36-11-103.5 (Effective May 4, 2022) | Covered Activities: Anyone engaging in lobbying in Utah as a foreign agent must register with the lieutenant governor. Lobbying means communicating with a public official for the purpose of influencing a legislative action, executive action, local action, or education action. Covered Countries: A foreign agent is defined as an individual who “engages in lobbying under contract with a[ny] foreign government.” Exemptions: This requirement attaches only to traditional lobbying activities, not the broad scope of activities contemplated by FARA. It also does not include lobbying by duly accredited diplomatic and consular officers. Penalties: Up to a $1,000 penalty for each intentional violation and up to $5,000 or suspension of the person’s lobbying license for one year for each subsequent violation within 24 months. |
Differences from Federal FARA
Focus on Foreign Adversaries
Federal FARA is country-agnostic. The location of the foreign principal does not matter, at least by the text of the statute. But nearly all the state laws—including four of the five enacted in 2025—apply only to agents connected to certain “adversaries,” namely China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and the Maduro regime in Venezuela. Government-directed activity from these countries appears to be of particular concern. For example, Louisiana imposes additional obligations on persons who lobby the executive branch or local officials on behalf of a foreign government.
This targeted focus on a handful of regimes suggests that states are not interested in comprehensive regulation of foreign influence but, rather, have concerns about specific sovereigns. Indeed, as noted below, these laws are often paired with other efforts to prevent governments of these countries, particularly China, from gaining access to sensitive locations and information. The states’ approach here may signal developments at the federal level. Several recent proposals to amend or expand federal FARA, including the FRONT Act and the PAID OFF Act, would apply additional scrutiny to agents connected to certain “countries of concern,” a list that largely overlaps with the focus of the states.
Lack of Exemptions
Most state FARA-like laws include no or minimal exemptions, which significantly expands the scope of potentially registrable activities. FARA exempts from its registration obligations agents who perform many routine commercial services, such as purchasing goods on behalf of a foreign buyer. For example, no auto dealership has registered for selling foreign-made cars. Most types of legal services are also exempt. As a result, companies do not have to worry about registering as part of an ordinary commercial relationship with a non-U.S. client—which makes sense, as these activities generally do not implicate FARA’s animating concerns about foreign influence. These exemptions are critical to cabin FARA’s scope and prevent needless burden on all sorts of benign international ties.
But the FARA-like laws in Arkansas and Texas contain no exemptions to the registration requirements. Oklahoma only exempts from its statute certain arrangements covered by provisions of a national security agreement with CFIUS. And while Nebraska copies some exemptions from federal FARA, including exempting diplomats and some U.S. press organizations, it lacks a commercial exemption. This deviation from federal FARA makes these state laws much more onerous—at least for activities connected to some countries.
The lack of a commercial exemption has previously doomed some state efforts to regulate foreign influence. In 2024, a bill in Georgia that copied many elements of FARA’s structure and scope —but did not contain a commercial exemption—was ultimately vetoed by the state’s governor. Business groups praised the governor’s blocking of the bill as protecting commercial interests.
Retroactive Registration Requirements
Nebraska’s FARA-like statute explicitly requires retroactive registration for activity that falls under the new statute, even if the person or entity is no longer engaged in the activity. Arkansas’s law also states that “termination of status as a representative of a hostile foreign principal shall not relieve the representative … from the obligation to file a registration statement for the period during which he or she was a representative of a hostile foreign principal.” In contrast, the Justice Department’s authority to compel retroactive registration has been significantly diminished. In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the Justice Department cannot compel agents to retroactively register under FARA, at least in D.C. Even those currently working for a foreign principal could potentially frustrate enforcement efforts by terminating their relationship when the Justice Department comes knocking. By contrast, at least by the letter of the law in Nebraska and Arkansas, an agent who terminates a relationship with a foreign principal may still be compelled to register or risk violating the law.
What’s Next
As these regimes continue to roll out across the country, their practical effects remain unclear. In some instances, registration may not yet be possible due to administrative lags. To the extent that the purpose of FARA and these state analogues is to increase transparency, public enforcement and clear, easily accessible databases listing such agents will be vital.
More generally, these state FARA-like laws are just one example of state efforts to step into national security or foreign affairs domains that have historically been the exclusive province of the federal government. Dozens of states, for example, have enacted or proposed laws that prohibit or restrict the acquisition of land and other real estate by certain entities and persons from China, Russia, and other “countries of concern.” While some of these statutes have been subject to legal challenges on Supremacy Clause and Equal Protection grounds, recent court decisions may be clearing the way for such bans.
Such signals indicate that states are continuing to explore the boundaries of these foreign affairs powers and their effects on domestic organizations. To wit, some states have attempted to regulate foreign political expenditures, such as with the Florida and Maine laws listed above. Further, Arkansas’s FARA equivalent requires persons who have merely received funding from a “hostile foreign principal” to register under the statute, even without engaging in any covered conduct.
In another overlap with traditional federal criminal law, many states have passed their own laws modeled on the federal material support statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which criminalizes any knowing provision of material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization or one of its members. As with the state FARA equivalents, these terrorism laws often have meaningful departures from federal law. For example, state material support laws in Alabama, Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, and Virginia require that a defendant specifically intends that their actions support an act of terrorism, while laws in Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, and Texas require that a defendant knows (or reasonably should know) that their support may assist a terrorism offense. These variations on the mens rea requirements are just one example of how states emphasize different elements in their approach: here, defendant’s specific connections to federal crimes.
In this context, the spate of baby FARA laws are one piece of how states are attempting to exert some of the foreign affairs powers that have historically been reserved for the federal government. How successful this effort will be remains to be seen. Even so, businesses and charities engaging with state officials will be best served by understanding how to comply across this increasingly complex matrix. These statutes add one more complication for companies and nonprofits to consider as they evaluate their foreign connections.
