How the Foreign Agents Law Is Used To Silence American Dissidents
Democrats speak of the fight against “Russian disinformation,” while the Republicans pledge to combat “fake news” about Israel. Whatever you choose to call it, there is a bipartisan effort to rein in our First Amendment protections, which former Secretary of State John Kerry recently referred to as a “major block” to the government’s ability to combat misinformation. Speaking at the World Economic Forum, Kerry went on to lament that the inability to control the message makes it difficult to govern absent the existence of a truth arbiter, a role government has increasingly tried to assume through backdoor means.
For example, the Twitter Files exposed government collusion with social media platforms to censor stories like the Hunter Biden laptop report before the 2020 election. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya and other dissenting voices were shadow-banned or censored under White House pressure.
These examples highlight the government’s growing reliance on private-sector cooperation to stifle opposition under the guise of protecting public discourse. Yet the idea of labeling speech as “misinformation” or its messenger as a “foreign agent” is not new – it echoes historical attempts to discredit dissent.
This tactic has resurfaced with a vengeance with the rediscovery of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), now a favored tool for deplatforming speakers under the pretext of transparency while stigmatizing dissent as foreign interference. As you will soon see, FARA is Un-American!
Historically Un-American roots of FARA
The infamous House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was created in 1938 to “investigate alleged disloyalty and rebel activities on the part of private citizens, public employees and organizations.” Initially focused on Nazi propaganda, after the war its focus shifted to anyone daring to challenge the U.S. government. Black nationalists, civil rights leaders, and antiwar activists were smeared as communist sympathizers, not for posing real risks to national security but for challenging government policies. While HUAC was disbanded in 1975 under public pressure, its legacy of smearing its opponents lives on in one of its most enduring legacies – the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA).
Passed on the recommendation of HUAC, FARA required anyone spreading “foreign propaganda” (or expressing ideas perceived as allied with foreign interests) to register as a “foreign agent.” FARA didn’t ban speech outright – that would violate the First Amendment. Instead, it stigmatized and marginalized dissenters, creating a chilling effect on free expression under the guise of transparency and patriotism.
Fast forward to today. After decades of dormancy, FARA prosecutions have been skyrocketing in recent years, with a clear focus on those who challenge US foreign policy or question official government narratives. In the past seven years alone, there have been 21 prosecutions under FARA – three times as many as in the previous five decades combined. The resurgence in prosecutions reflects a broader trend of leveraging existing laws to address new geopolitical concerns, as fears of foreign influence have risen in the digital age. As whistleblowers, journalists, and activists face mounting scrutiny, FARA prosecutions have become a tool for stifling opposition to US foreign (and domestic) policy.
If you are reading this on antiwar.com, don’t kid yourself – you’re exactly the kind of person FARA is aimed at silencing. It’s not about protecting democracy. It’s about protecting the US government from scrutiny by branding dissent as foreign influence. It’s McCarthyism 2.0 – different era, same censorship. Will we stand by and let this persist, or will we fight back against this creeping authoritarianism?
Modern FARA: Silencing critics, not foreign Influence
While FARA was initially intended as a tool to fight the pernicious influence of Nazi (and later Communist) propaganda, it was modified significantly in 1966 to shift its focus to lobbying activities tied to foreign entities. This was in response to intense lobbying by domestic representatives of foreign interests, specifically related to sugar import quotas. Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly and the right to petition the government prevented the direct prohibition of such activities. Instead, the government expanded FARA’s scope to include registration of lobbyists, effectively repurposing it as a tool to attenuate broader foreign influence.
As currently written, the act requires any person who acts in any capacity “at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal” to register as a foreign agent with the Department of Justice. FARA’s broad definition of “foreign principal” – including not only foreign governments but also foreign organizations, companies, and even individuals – has created a legal minefield ripe for politically motivated prosecutions.
Proponents of FARA argue that it enhances transparency, making foreign influence more visible. Yet, in practice, this so-called transparency stigmatizes those required to register with the scarlet letter of “foreign agent.” This misuse of transparency not only silences criticism but also diminishes the public’s trust in institutions that are meant to serve and represent them. When public trust in these institutions erodes, their ability to function as legitimate representatives of democratic values is fundamentally undermined. Being labeled a ‘foreign agent’ not only stigmatizes individuals but also deters others from engaging in meaningful dialogue, silencing voices critical of government policy. What does it say about democratic ideals when a nation silences its critics with labels rather than engaging with their ideas?
This dynamic betrays FARA’s purported aim of protecting democracy and freedom. By labeling dissenting voices as foreign threats, the government exploits xenophobia under the guise of national security, suppressing free and open discussion of “uncomfortable” truths, “dangerous” ideas, and alternative narratives. The chilling effect extends beyond its immediate targets by perpetuating the dangerous precedent established by HUAC (labeling legitimate criticism as “Un-American”) and eroding the foundation of a healthy democracy. Though HUAC was disbanded, its discredited tactics live on in FARA, repurposed to stigmatize alternative viewpoints and shield government actions from scrutiny. FARA’s misuse today echoes a disturbing historical pattern where laws claiming to protect democracy have been weaponized to stifle critics.
Sacrificing liberty on the altar of national security
The seeds of FARA’s misuse were sown during the Cold War, when the US honed its ability to manipulate narratives under the guise of promoting freedom and democracy. The US quickly became the world’s champion in what is now referred to as “information warfare.” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia and other shortwave radio stations funded by the CIA broadcast American propaganda into “vulnerable” media environments. Publicly framed as “promoting democratic values,” these endeavors were privately described as America’s “most successful covert action project,” designed to mobilize the opposition in Eastern Europe and the USSR.
Framing itself as a champion of free expression, the US vigorously criticized Soviet efforts to jam these broadcasts, ostensibly because “the West believes that global peace can be achieved only through open and informed discussion,” with the US delegate to the United Nations General Assembly even remarking that “anybody who asked for foreign propaganda directed at the United States to be jammed would certainly meet with a hostile reception.”
Today, the US mirrors the very tactics it once decried. In 2017, it forced Russia’s RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents under FARA, invoking the same narrative control it condemned during the Cold War. By 2022, RT and Sputnik were deplatformed by major social media outlets, including Meta, YouTube, and Twitter, and were likewise removed from major television providers in the US. The European Union went even further, outright banning RT and Sputnik in 2022, claiming this was necessary because they posed “a major threat to liberal democracies, which rely on free and open information.” This glaring double standard is hard to ignore. The same tactics Western powers condemned during the Cold War are now used to shield their own citizens from “foreign ideas.”
In 2024, RFE/RL went so far as to complain that despite the official ban on RT and Sputnik, its correspondents were still able to easily access them both from locations throughout the EU, opining that “The ease of access [to RT/Sputnik] is a clear blow to unprecedented Western efforts to punish Russia for the invasion and to combat its carefully tracked trail of disinformation to try to justify or spin the conflict.” What’s good for the goose seems not to be so good for the gander after all…
Western countries are now routinely calling plays straight out of the authoritarian playbook, demanding that RT (Russia), CGTV (China), and Al Jazeera (Qatar) register under FARA and endure the stigmatization and deplatforming associated with the “foreign agent” label. The FBI even seized the English language domain of Iran’s international TV station, Press TV.
Meanwhile, broadcasters such as BBC (UK), CBC (Canada), Deutsche Welle (Germany), NHK (Japan), and KBS (South Korea) remain exempt from such onerous requirements, even though they are state-funded and disseminate content promoting their governments’ perspectives to American audiences.
FARA’s inconsistent enforcement reveals its transformation from a transparency measure into a tool for silencing dissent and controlling narratives. If protecting democracy from foreign influence were truly the goal, the law would be applied uniformly, regardless of whether the entity originates from an ally or represents a “foreign malign influence.” Instead, FARA exploits xenophobia and stigmatizes minority voices as foreign threats, chilling free expression and deterring open dialogue.
The marketplace of ideas only works when the government does not put its finger on the scale, directing citizens away from “bad ideas.” The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect the citizens from the government imposing its narrative, while FARA is now being used for precisely that purpose. These double standards have not gone unnoticed by authoritarian regimes, which have adapted and weaponized similar tactics, referencing FARA to justify their own repressive measures. In the digital age, these Cold War tactics have been repurposed, with platforms like YouTube, X and Meta acting as gatekeepers to information, amplifying FARA’s chilling effect on dissent.
When authoritarians steal our playbook
In 2012, the Russian Federation passed its own Foreign Agent Law, with Russian officials “taking certain provisions of the American law [FARA] as a basis.” The US, which claims FARA is a transparency measure, responded by condemning Russia’s version as a tool of repression. When RFE/RL and Voice of America were required to label their content as originating from a “foreign agent,” RFE/RL successfully sued Russia in the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that such labeling “violates the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.”
When RT was forced by the US to register as a foreign agent, US officials insisted it “does not inhibit freedom of expression [and] does not restrict the content of information disseminated,” a glaring inconsistency that reveals the true intent behind FARA’s resurgence – narrative control, not transparency.
Russia is not the only country that has adopted legislation inspired by FARA in recent years. In 2023, Hungary passed a sovereignty protection law aimed at monitoring foreign-funded groups and individuals engaging in political activity. The US State Department criticized this law for providing “draconian tools that can be used to intimidate and punish those with views not shared by the ruling party,” and deemed it “inconsistent with our shared values of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law.” Similarly, Georgia passed its own law concerning “Transparency of Foreign Influence” in 2024, creating a registry of organizations accused of “pursuing the interests of a foreign power.” The White House claimed this law “runs counter to the democratic values and would move Georgia further away from the values of the European Union and also NATO.”
The hypocrisy here is staggering. When foreign governments implement laws like FARA, the US condemns them as undemocratic. Yet FARA itself has been used domestically to intimidate and silence government critics, as in the 1951 prosecution of the “Peace Information Center” (PIC). This entirely domestic organization, led by civil rights leader W.E.B. Dubois, one of the co-founders of the NAACP, was targeted for distributing the Stockholm Appeal, a global petition for a ban on nuclear weapons that originated in Europe. The government’s theory was that the Stockholm Appeal was a Soviet propaganda trick, making the PIC a de facto Soviet agent. Although they were not ultimately convicted, the reputational damage caused by this application of “lawfare” ultimately led to the closing of the PIC.
The AIPAC Exception
While the PIC was smeared and dismantled for distributing the Stockholm Appeal, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) openly lobbies for policies aligned with Israeli government interests. In March 2024, Israeli foreign minister Israel Katz wrote on X that he had met with AIPAC’s leaders and asked them to “work with the [US] administration and Congress to take dramatic steps against the decision by the Prosecutor of the ICC to demand arrest warrants for PM Netanyahu and the Defense Minister.”
This blatant demonstration that AIPAC’s lobbying activities are being directed by the Israeli government clearly meets FARA’s definition of a foreign agent. Yet, because its agenda aligns with official US policy, it has thus far avoided the “scarlet letter” of FARA registration. While organizations advocating for marginalized perspectives face legal action, those aligned with US foreign policy goals – regardless of foreign affiliation – are exempt, exposing the law’s true purpose: narrative control, not transparency.
Authoritarian regimes often defend laws like FARA by asserting that social stability and national security are more important than individual liberties. The US tradition, in contrast, has been to err on the side of personal freedom and human rights. Yet FARA, like its Russian, Georgian and Hungarian analogs, treats “the people” as if they were incapable of critical thinking and discerning truth from propaganda. Only the all-knowing government can be trusted to decide which ideas are acceptable. Such infantilization of the public undermines democratic principles.
Conclusion
A healthy democracy relies on its citizens’ ability to evaluate diverse and contradictory ideas freely and critically without government interference or fear of retaliation. Rather than stigmatizing lawful engagement with foreign ideas (which we need more of), empowering citizens to engage critically strengthens the democratic process and counters authoritarian tendencies.
While it is certainly true that some foreign influences can be dangerous, the most significant threats to our democracy come from within – corporate lobbying, misinformation, and government overreach. Fixating on foreign influence only distracts from these pressing internal challenges.
The double standard of requiring Russian-linked media to register with FARA while leaving AIPAC untouched is a way for Washington to tip the scale of debate in the US.
Unchecked authority thrives on fear, using laws like FARA to stifle dissent. Registration requirements, surveillance, and censorship can escalate quickly, silencing critics and ensnaring ordinary citizens. If these trends persist, what kind of democracy will remain for future generations?
By invoking vague threats under the guise of national security, FARA fosters a culture of fear and self-censorship. Bans on platforms like TikTok reflect the same troubling trend, silencing dissent while shielding official narratives. These tactics don’t safeguard democracy—they destroy its foundations.
We need laws that respect the First Amendment, not scarlet letters for dissenters. Demand transparency and accountability. Reject authoritarian tactics masquerading as patriotism. Advocate for laws that protect free expression, not those that punish dissent. FARA isn’t protecting democracy – it’s dismantling it. Let’s call it what it is: un-American, undemocratic, and absolute bullsh*t!
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment