The US Department of Justice (DOJ) recently signaled that it may increase its focus on the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and a related—but more powerful—statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 951. Over the past month, DOJ has indicated that it may soon finalize long-pending revisions to the FARA regulations and issued a press release reminding the public of the civil and criminal penalties that exist for failing to register as a foreign agent. DOJ also continued to pursue legacy enforcement actions against individuals who allegedly acted at the direction of foreign governments—including several current or former US public officials. 

Taken together, these developments suggest that DOJ may be expanding enforcement under FARA and Section 951—notwithstanding its announcement in February 2025 that criminal enforcement would be limited to conduct “similar to more traditional espionage,” and even as it suggests it may expand the availability of certain exemptions available under FARA. Those with ties to foreign governments or other foreign principals should take note of these developments and their potential implications.

Background: What Are FARA and Section 951? FARA requires individuals and organizations engaging in certain covered activities as “agents” of “foreign principals” to register with DOJ and to file public reports detailing the agent’s activities, unless the activities fit within one of FARA’s statutory exemptions. Under FARA, an “agent of a foreign principal” is anyone who acts “at the order, request, or under the direction or control,[YJ2.1] of” a “foreign principal,” which is broadly defined to include a foreign government, political party, individual or entity.

FARA covers a range of activities—in general, those intended to influence the US government or public on matters of US policy, or with respect to the political or public interests of a foreign government or political party. By statute, it also covers anyone who, within the United States, “solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions” on behalf of a foreign principal. FARA can thus cover those who provide political or public relations advice to foreign entities, including foreign companies, or who solicit or distribute funds or other things of value on their behalf.
Separately, Section 951 criminalizes acting in the United States “as an agent of a foreign government” without prior notification to the Attorney General. It is generally reserved for conduct undertaken at the direction of a foreign government specifically (as opposed to FARA’s broader category of “foreign principals,” which can include companies, organizations and individuals). Historically, the government has sometimes paired a Section 951 charge with Espionage Act charges involving the unlawful transmission of national defense information to a foreign nation—the Section 951 charge targeted the unlawful agency relationship, without the need to prove other parts of the Espionage Act violation. 

Although FARA and Section 951 have existed for decades, DOJ has taken a series of actions over the past several weeks—spanning both the regulatory and enforcement fronts—that together suggest FARA and Section 951 may soon receive renewed attention.

FARA Regulatory Revisions on the Horizon. In January 2025, the outgoing Biden Administration issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) outlining potential amendments to the FARA regulations. DOJ accepted comments through March 3, 2025, but the Trump Administration provided no indication of whether it intended to proceed with any regulatory revisions—until August 14, 2026, when the Trump Administration published its semiannual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (the Regulatory Agenda). 

The Regulatory Agenda signaled that DOJ has, in fact, considered comments received during the rulemaking process and “is now considering a final rule that adopts many—but not all—of the NPRM’s proposals. Anticipated changes in the final rule include expanding the availability of exemptions commonly relied upon by corporations and law firms and providing requested clarity on labeling digital media.” Until the final rules are published, however, it is too soon to tell whether and how the relevant exceptions may be expanded.

DOJ “Reminder” of FARA and Section 951 Liability. On September 16, 2026, DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs issued a press release to “remind the public” of the civil and criminal liability that can result from failure to comply with FARA and Section 951. The press release warns that FARA and Section 951 both exist to stop “foreign governments or their representatives from using undisclosed agents, intermediaries, false affiliations, covert funding, or other deceptive activities to illegally influence public debate.” 

This press release underscores how both FARA and Section 951 are, at their core, disclosure regimes. Neither statute categorically prohibits acting on behalf of a foreign government or other foreign principal, but each requires that, as a threshold matter, such relationships be disclosed. DOJ’s reference to Section 951 may indicate a particular focus on foreign government relationships—and the possibility of criminal enforcement actions.

Recent Enforcement Actions. These policy signals follow several recent enforcement actions pursued against local, state or other US government officials for their activities on behalf of foreign governments. While some or all of these enforcement actions may have been set in motion during the Biden Administration, it is nonetheless notable to see them continue, with key examples that include:

• United States v. Eileen Wang. In May 2026, DOJ charged the mayor of Arcadia, California, Eileen Wang, with one count of acting as an illegal agent of the People’s Republic of China under Section 951; in February, DOJ had also charged her then-fiancé, Yaoning “Mike” Sun, for similar reasons. Wang’s plea agreement states that from late 2020 through 2022 (prior to her election as mayor), she worked at the direction of Chinese officials to operate a website purporting to provide news for California’s Chinese-American community that published information directed by the Chinese government—including content disputing reports of Uyghur human-rights abuses in Xinjiang. Wang pleaded guilty on May 29, and faces up to 10 years in prison; Sun is separately serving a four-year sentence on the same charge.
• United States v. David Rivera and Esther Nuhfer. In May 2026, a Miami federal jury convicted former US Rep. David Rivera and his associate Esther Nuhfer of conspiracy to violate FARA, a substantive FARA violation, and money-laundering conspiracy for secretly lobbying US officials—including then-Senator Marco Rubio, who testified at trial—on behalf of Venezuela’s Maduro regime and its state oil company, PDVSA, in connection with a $50 million contract. Rivera still awaits sentencing but faces up to 60 years in prison, and Nuhfer was recently sentenced to five years in prison and a $4.7 million fine.
• United States v. Linda Sun. Linda Sun, a former high-ranking New York State aide, was tried in late 2025 on charges that she violated Section 951 by acting at the direction of Chinese government and Communist Party officials. DOJ alleged that her actions included blocking Taiwanese government representatives from accessing senior New York State officials, altering those officials’ messaging on issues important to Beijing, and arranging visiting Chinese delegations’ meetings with state officials. She was also accused of providing unauthorized invitation letters to facilitate PRC officials’ US travel, which prosecutors say constituted false statements on immigration documents. Sun’s husband, Chris Hu, was also charged with related participation in money laundering and fraud schemes, but their trial ended with a hung jury in December 2025. 

Taken together, these developments suggest that—despite indications at the beginning of the Trump Administration that DOJ would deprioritize FARA enforcement—DOJ may be entering a period of increased FARA and Section 951 enforcement, especially where foreign governments may be involved. And FARA’s forthcoming regulatory revisions may set the stage for a return to more robust enforcement—whether by the Trump Administration or by other administrations in the future. 

WilmerHale has extensive experience advising companies, foundations and nonprofit clients on FARA and related national security statutes, including registration and exemption analyses, DOJ advisory opinion requests, and responses to government inquiries or investigations.