Sue Mi Terry: When FARA Applies to US Allies
Last week, I wrote a detailed analysis of how the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) has become a tool of government overreach, often used selectively to stigmatize inconvenient voices, control narratives, and criminalize ordinary interactions with foreign entities. Today, I explore how Dr. Sue Mi Terry’s recent indictment under FARA flips the script: a career insider and former CIA analyst accused of failing to register as a “foreign agent” of South Korea, one of America’s closest allies. Her case is both troubling and perplexing, highlighting the selective enforcement of FARA and its chilling effect on intellectual freedom and open exchange – principles essential to democracy.
Dr. Terry is not a natural candidate for libertarian sympathies. A staunch advocate of hawkish policies on North Korea, she has spent her career in Washington’s revolving door of government and think tanks. Adding to the irony, her husband, columnist Max Boot, once wrote that “Washington should ramp up enforcement” of FARA, a sentiment that now feels uncomfortably prophetic. While it might be tempting to indulge in a bit of schadenfreude, this isn’t a Menendez-style tale of gold bars and hidden cash. It’s a case built on think-tank funding and diplomatic dinners, routine activities in Washington’s policy circles.
What makes this case alarming isn’t the behavior itself, which, while ethically debatable, is typical for Washington. What is troubling is the inconsistent enforcement of FARA, a law so vague and expansive it can be used to target virtually anyone. Just as bookkeeping errors have been elevated to secure felony convictions against political opponents or tax evasion infamously took down Al Capone, FARA allows the government to transform minor infractions into significant criminal liabilities. Terry now faces up to a decade in prison – not for harming U.S. interests, but for failing to dot every “i” and cross every “t.”
Her case may be an exception but underscores a broader truth: FARA’s misuse threatens intellectual freedom, open dialogue, and fairness. Principles must outweigh personalities – even when the target is someone whose politics we may vehemently oppose. If the government can do this to a well-connected insider, what chance does anyone else have?
Who is Sue Mi Terry?
A1.5 generation Korean American, Sue Mi Terry was born in South Korea and emigrated to the US after elementary school. Fluent in English and Korean, Terry pursued her interest in politics by earning a Ph.D. from Tufts University, writing her dissertation about the conservative hardline president “Park Chung-Hee’s Korea (1961-1979): A Study in Political Leadership and Statecraft.” She went on to work for the US Intelligence Community for the next decade as a CIA analyst from 2001-2008, on the National Security Council (2008-2009) and in the office of the Director of National Intelligence (2009-2010). After her career in government, she worked at a variety of elite universities and think tanks, most recently as a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Throughout her career, Sue Mi Terry has been a staunch advocate of hardline policies toward North Korea, aligning closely with South Korean conservatives. She has consistently supported tightening sanctions regimes against the DPRK and enforcing them rigorously while strengthening military alliances between South Korea, the US and even Japan. Her strategy aims to pressure North Korea into denuclearization through a combination of economic and military measures coupled with political isolation. Terry has also championed North Korean human rights and amplified the voices of defectors, arguing that unifying the Korean peninsula under the democratic ROK government is a necessary and urgent goal. While her views generally align with those of conservative South Korean administrations, she was highly critical of Moon Jae-In’s progressive, engagement-focused approach to inter-Korean relations, undermining allegations from the years he was in power.
I have never met Dr. Terry, even though we were both professors at Columbia University contemporaneously. That said, I have read her work and attended talks and webinars where she spoke eloquently and passionately about her ideas. Her bona fides as a scholar are unquestionable, and she is widely respected for her expertise and impassioned advocacy.
While I could not disagree with her positions more strongly than I do, seeing the world differently is not and should never be a crime in the USA. Like any good libertarian, I will defend her right to advocate for her opinions to the death, and I take no joy whatsoever in her indictment. It is entirely inappropriate that she faces up to a decade in prison for questionable judgment.
The case against Dr. Terry
So, what exactly did Dr. Terry do, and why is she being prosecuted for allegedly working at the direction of one of America’s closest foreign allies, and arguing for political positions that are completely in line with Washington’s foreign policy?
On July 17, 2024, the Department of Justice (DoJ) indicted Dr. Terry on one count of conspiracy to violate FARA and one count of failure to register under FARA. In a publicly released 31-page indictment that reads like the script of a bad K-Drama, the government outlined salacious details of her alleged misdoings and provided detailed evidence and incriminating photos to support their case. Publicly releasing such details, disclosing the shocking extent of their surveillance capabilities, is extremely unusual, especially in cases involving national security.
The DoJ indictment claims that Dr. Terry had been acting as an agent of the South Korean government in exchange for luxury personal gifts, funding for her think tank and meals at fine dining establishments in NYC and DC. In exchange for these rewards, she allegedly facilitated meetings between ROK and US officials, wrote a series of Op-Eds at their request, and shared unclassified but “off the record” details of inside information about US government policy with South Korean agents. In a voluntary interview with the FBI in 2023, she further admitted that her resignation from the CIA in 2008 was in part to avoid being fired due to concerns about her close relationship with South Korean National Intelligence Service (NIS) agents, admitting that she had indeed been a “confidential source” for them over the years.
The story, as presented, looks extremely damning, and the evidence outlined in the indictment leaves little doubt that according to the letter of the FARA law, she probably should have registered with DoJ as a foreign agent. The indictment claims that she had been informed about the FARA registration requirements on multiple occasions and even attended FARA training courses, so it is not like she just didn’t know about it.
While many of her actions seem ethically questionable and indicate a marked lack of common sense, none of them are illegal on their own – private US citizens are free to engage with foreign governments, and they are even allowed to accept money and gifts in exchange for lobbying on their behalf. We have constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of speech and assembly, and freedom to petition the government. And most notably, DoJ did not charge her with other underlying crimes. Her prosecution reflects a broader trend: FARA’s selective enforcement disproportionately impacts individuals engaging in routine, non-criminal behaviors with foreign governments.
Shared goals, stained reputations
It is standard operating procedure for diplomats to actively engage with the foreign policy community. Foreign diplomats routinely wine and dine scholars over meetings that serve a mutual benefit. While it is possible that streak dinners may sway some people’s opinions, the meetings give policy wonks an opportunity to get a better understanding of the opinions, policies, and positions of foreign countries by engaging directly with them, and foreign governments obtain a better understanding of American attitudes and reactions to their policies and actions.
Think tanks, journalists, and academics would be hamstrung if such contact was disallowed or scrutinized too heavily by our government. For that reason, the indictment of Sue Mi Terry “sent shockwaves through the foreign policy establishment” and was met by a “deafening silence” from other Korea watchers in DC, who are not inclined to register themselves.
As to NIS funding her think tank, that is clearly intended to amplify viewpoints that were already aligned with their interests, just as FARA itself is used for narrative control. Agreeing with a foreign government’s positions does not make someone their agent, despite attempts to frame it that way. As an example, former House member Tulsi Gabbard was falsely accused of being a Russian stooge because her expressed opinions about the war in Ukraine and its origins conflicted with official Biden administration policy.
The articles Sue Mi Terry was accused of writing at the behest of South Korea include “A Korea Whole and Free,” suggesting the DPRK was on the verge of collapse, “South Korea takes a brave step toward reconciliation with Japan,” promoting the Japan-ROK-US alliance, and “The US-Korea Summit: The Future of a 70 Year Alliance,” originally published in Hankook Ilbo. The opinions expressed are consistent with her views throughout her career.
Spy games
Espionage against allies is not unusual. \The US notoriously wiretapped the cell phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as revealed by Edward Snowden. In 2023, a Pentagon leak revealed espionage by the US against its allies Ukraine and South Korea, among others. Jonathan Pollard has been called “one of the most damaging spies in US history” after he notoriously spied against the US for the Israeli government in the 1980s. There is nothing new about spying on friends.
It’s no secret that many embassies house intelligence officers posing as diplomats, but blatant operations can spark a backlash. The alleged actions of South Korean intelligence officers in the Sue Mi Terry case appear so careless that they must not have been concerned about being noticed. They likely believed (as Dr. Terry seemingly did) that since the US and ROK are allies, it was not inappropriate for them to openly go with Dr. Terry to luxury stores to buy her a designer handbag or coat.
The double-edged sword of identity
Dr. Terry’s case underscores the complexities of navigating dual loyalties, particularly for a Korean-born American with strong personal and professional ties to both nations. While the US and South Korea share a 75-year-old alliance and closely aligned goals, their interests are not identical. For those embedded in both cultures, distinguishing between the two can be particularly challenging, especially when personal motivations and professional responsibilities intersect.
The United States, as a nation of immigrants, benefits immensely from citizens with linguistic and cultural competencies that no non-native could replicate. However, identity inevitably shapes how individuals perceive the world, particularly when navigating relationships between the U.S. and their country of origin. For example, Irish Americans were instrumental in the Northern Ireland peace process but often supported groups like the IRA, complicating US diplomacy. Similarly, Cuban Americans, such as Marco Rubio, have steered US policy toward Cuba in a more hawkish direction than most Americans support. Ukrainian Americans, like Victoria Nuland, have championed confrontational policies toward Russia, fomenting the ongoing proxy war in Donbass.
For Korean Americans, the lingering trauma of Japanese colonization, Korea’s partition, and the dream of unification can add deeply personal stakes to foreign policy work, sometimes clouding objectivity. Dr. Terry is not the only Korean American scholar to face such challenges. Former CIA analyst Jung H. Pak, who served as the Biden administration’s Special Representative for North Korea, resigned abruptly five days before (and possibly because of) Dr. Terry’s indictment, highlighting how co-ethnic networks, even when well-intentioned, can become entangled in broader narratives of foreign influence.
A law without borders, a crime without harm
Perhaps the most egregious thing about her case is how it plays into every K-Drama-driven stereotype. The narrative of a South Korean-born scholar selling out her adopted country for meaningless baubles couldn’t have been written better by North Korean propagandists if they tried. While this story makes for salacious headlines, there is no evidence that what she did has done any actual harm to American interests.
For the most part, her actions were well within the normal range of behavior for foreign policy wonks in Washington. Engagement with foreign diplomats is essential to informed policymaking. And if we forced everyone in Washington who has been treated to such “fancy lunches” to register as a foreign agent, most of the population living within 40 miles of the capitol would be on the list.
The DoJ’s motives for prosecuting Dr. Terry remain unclear. Was it because her actions were unusually public and sloppy, reflecting amateurish behavior by South Korean intelligence? Or was it a calculated warning to others aligned with friendly nations to tread carefully? Perhaps it was simply that her uncompromising, hardline views on North Korea upset the wrong people behind the scenes. Could it even be a sarcastic response to Max Boot’s complaint that FARA is underused? Whatever the reason, it underscores the dangers of selectively enforcing vague laws like FARA.
Regardless, the exceptionality of Sue Mi Terry’s case does not invalidate critiques of FARA. Instead, it reinforces the urgency of addressing the law’s inherent flaws. By criminalizing routine interactions even with allied nations, FARA’s enforcement risks stifling open dialogue and intellectual freedom, which are vital to informed foreign policy.
The Soviets used to say Был бы человек, а статья найдется. (“show me the man, I’ll show you the crime.”) FARA’s vague and expansive definitions give our government one more tool to make that easier. If she broke an actual law, prosecute her for that, but don’t “Al Capone” her. There is enough real crime in America. We don’t need more gratuitous prosecutions under FARA or the tax code.
Rather than stigmatizing experts for engaging with foreign governments, we should recognize these interactions and their human nuances as essential to solving complex global issues. The last thing we need is to shut down communication under the guise of protecting national security. Dr. Terry’s case illustrates the urgent need to repeal or reform FARA to prevent its misuse and ensure that intellectual freedom and fair governance prevail. Her indictment is not just about one individual – it reflects a dangerous precedent that could stifle the voices necessary for effective policymaking.
Sue Mi Terry is wrong on almost everything – but her prosecution is even worse.
Joseph D. Terwilliger is Professor of Neurobiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, where his research focuses on natural experiments in human genetic epidemiology. He is also active in science and sports diplomacy, having taught genetics at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology, and accompanied Dennis Rodman on six “basketball diplomacy” trips to Asia since 2013.
