DOJ Issues Warning on FARA and Section 951 Liability, Signaling Heightened Attention to Unregistered Foreign Agents

The Justice Department’s National Security Division has taken the unusual step of reminding the public that federal law requires agents who act at the direction or control of a foreign principal to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) or provide notice under 18 U.S.C. § 951 (FARA’s sister statute). DOJ warned that “failure to do so may result in significant civil or criminal sanctions, up to and including a maximum of five years in prison.” See NSD Press Release No. 26-1066 (citing FARA’s five-year imprisonment maximum, though Section 951 provides a longer ten-year maximum).

A freestanding DOJ press release that reminds the public a law exists and will be enforced—while announcing no new case, no new charges, no settlement, no plea agreement, and no rulemaking—is not unprecedented, but it is highly unusual. In the past, DOJ has used strongly-worded statements to induce registration activity, signal an upcoming rise in enforcement actions, and to put potential registrants on notice to come into compliance with these broad, frequently misunderstood statutes.

This new warning follows on the heels of DOJ’s August 2026 Unified Agenda entry indicating that NSD intends to move forward with a final rule overhauling FARA’s implementing regulations. See O’Melveny alert: DOJ Indicates Final FARA Rule Is Coming, With Key Changes to Exemptions, Digital Media Labeling, and Compliance Requirements. 

Taken together, the two developments suggest that DOJ is pairing regulatory modernization with a renewed emphasis on enforcement of FARA, Section 951, and other foreign influence laws.

What the Warning Says

First, the statutory obligations. DOJ states that FARA and Section 951 “impose disclosure or notification obligations when a person acts in the United States as an agent of a foreign principal or foreign government.” DOJ describes the purpose of these obligations as stopping foreign governments or their representatives from using “undisclosed agents, intermediaries, false affiliations, covert funding, or other deceptive activities to illegally influence public debate, suborn sedition, or interfere with official proceedings.” 

Second, the scope of covered conduct. The warning reminds both “citizens and noncitizens” that anyone who violates FARA or Section 951 may face federal civil or criminal liability. DOJ describes the broad scope of these statutes, which impose registration and notice obligations on any person or entity who acts at the “order, request, or under the direction or control” of a foreign government or foreign principal. It then emphasizes that a person acting as an agent of a foreign power “to carry out any public activity, including (but not limited to) public demonstrations designed to further the propaganda or other goals of the foreign power,” must register or notify the Attorney General.

Lastly, First Amendment limits. DOJ states that it “recognizes and protects the First Amendment rights of those who seek to express their opinions publicly” and that it “will not take action to inhibit anyone’s constitutionally protected right to free speech and free expression.” It adds that no decisions “will be illegitimately influenced by anyone's political associations, activities, or beliefs.” 

Implications and Why It Matters

DOJ’s freestanding warning on FARA and Section 951 non-compliance penalties is highly unusual. At times, DOJ has historically provided general deterrence reminders about compliance with some statutes, such as reminders about complying with tax laws when the tax return deadline approaches. See, e.g., Justice Department Reminds Taxpayers that Willful Failure to Comply with Our Nation’s Tax Laws is a Crime. But a freestanding warning unconnected to any announcement of a new case, recent disposition, or rulemaking (or even an official policy memorandum) is rare.

So what does the announcement mean and why does it matter?

First, the warning does not include any reference to the fact that recent DOJ policy memoranda limited criminal enforcement of FARA and Section 951 solely to instances similar to “traditional espionage.” In early 2025, the Bondi and Blanche Memoranda directed that DOJ’s use of the criminal provisions of FARA and Section 951 be limited to “instances of alleged conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors,” and shifted resources for other types of non-compliance toward “civil enforcement, regulatory initiatives, and public guidance.” This was a significant departure from prior FARA and Section 951 enforcement. This new warning, however, says nothing about limiting criminal enforcement to activities similar to “traditional espionage,” but instead emphasizes the risk of “significant civil and criminal sanctions” simply for failing to comply with FARA and Section 951’s disclosure and notification obligations on a broad range of conduct—including “using undisclosed agents, intermediaries, false affiliations, covert funding, or other deceptive activities to illegally influence public debate, suborn sedition, or interfere with official proceedings.” That omission may signal a shift in how FARA and Section 951 will be enforced. 

Second, the warning specifically focuses on public demonstrations, as well as on entities or individuals who organize or sponsor them. While FARA and Section 951 govern disclosure and notice obligations for a much broader range of conduct, the announcement specifically targets “public demonstrations” to the extent those demonstrations are “designed to further the propaganda or other goals of [a] foreign power.” This warning is consistent with President Trump’s September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum, directing the Joint Terrorism Task Forces to investigate “non-governmental organizations and American citizens residing abroad or with close ties to foreign governments, agents, citizens, foundations, or influence networks engaged in violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.) or money laundering by funding, creating, or supporting entities that engage in activities that support or encourage domestic terrorism.” See Section 2(c)(ii) of the September 25, 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum-7. The warning also follows a sustained congressional campaign over the last several months, which pressed DOJ to apply FARA to protest funding specifically. See, e.g., February 3, 2026 Letter from Sen. Hawley to AG Bondi requesting investigation into the funding of recent protests, including anti-ICE protests, with “possible ties to the Chinese Communist Party”; June 10, 2026 Letter from Sen. Tom Cotton to AG Blanche requesting investigation into a “network of foreign actors, led by the Chinese Communist Party . . . attempting to manipulate U.S. policy and public opinion on data centers.”

Third, DOJ’s decision to issue this reminder, without first publishing the final FARA rule or making any further comment about it, is noteworthy. Last month, DOJ stated only that it is considering a final rule adopting “many—but not all—of the NPRM’s proposals,” with anticipated changes that would expand the availability of exemptions commonly relied upon by corporations and law firms, clarify digital media labeling requirements, and improve civil FARA administration. It provided no timeline for finalizing that rule. Where DOJ felt it necessary to issue this latest reminder about FARA and Section 951 compliance now, companies and individuals should not read the prospect of more accessible exemptions as a relaxation of the underlying obligations. The new warning indicates that DOJ intends to enforce the registration and notification requirements while that rulemaking proceeds. Until the final rule is actually published, the precise contours of the revised exemptions, digital media labeling requirements, and civil administration provisions remain unknown, and compliance analysis must continue to be conducted under the existing regulations. 

Key Takeaways and Practical Steps

Companies and individuals engaged in advocacy, lobbying, consulting, public relations, and other potentially registrable activities that may benefit a foreign principal should take account of the following:

• Criminal exposure may no longer be expressly cabined to “traditional espionage.” The new warning from DOJ omits the limiting language from the early 2025 Bondi and Blanche Memoranda and instead pairs civil with criminal sanctions across a broad range of undisclosed-agency activity.
• Re-examine agency relationships for direction or control. The trigger for FARA and Section 951 liability is acting “at the order, request, or under the direction or control” of a foreign government or foreign principal, so the analysis should focus on the substance of the relationship rather than its label or formality.
• Treat public demonstrations as a flagged risk area. DOJ singled out public demonstrations designed to further a foreign power’s “propaganda or goals,” consistent with NSPM-7 and the congressional campaign pressing DOJ to apply FARA to protest funding. Entities or individuals that fund, organize, coordinate, or direct public events that are arguably at the behest or in coordination with a foreign principal should assess exposure now, and be mindful that foreign principals under FARA are not limited to foreign governments but broadly include foreign entities and individuals. 
• The final FARA rule is not final yet. The final FARA rule redesigning significant aspects of FARA’s implementing regulations has not been published and has no deadline for being finalized, so compliance analysis must proceed under the existing regulations even though the anticipated changes may yet expand commonly used exemptions.
• Consider seeking an advisory opinion where the analysis is close. Where activity may arguably trigger FARA or Section 951 liability, consult with experienced counsel to understand your legal obligations, and consider whether seeking a formal advisory opinion from DOJ’s FARA Unit is warranted.

This memorandum is a summary for general information and discussion only and may be considered an advertisement for certain purposes. It is not a full analysis of the matters presented, may not be relied upon as legal advice, and does not purport to represent the views of our clients or the Firm. Jim Bowman, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in California; David N. Kelley, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in Connecticut and New York; Greta L. Nightingale, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia; Steven J. Olson, an O'Melveny partner licensed to practice law in California; Mark A. Racanelli, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in New York; David J. Ribner, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia and New York; and Jared R. Ginsburg, an O’Melveny counsel licensed to practice law in California, contributed to the content of this newsletter. The views expressed in this newsletter are the views of the authors except as otherwise noted.

© 2026 O’Melveny & Myers LLP. All Rights Reserved. Portions of this communication may contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please direct all inquiries regarding New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct to O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700, New York, NY, 10019, T: +1 212 326 2000.