Advisory Opinions

A U.S. public relations firm was retained by a private foreign marketing firm to do “project work” for the foreign firm’s client, a foreign trade association that did “not conduct advocacy or political activities directed at the U.S. government” and whose membership was comprised “entirely” of private sector companies.  The U.S. firm was to help the foreign firm organize an upcoming “business development conference” that would promote the foreign country for investment and that would feature some foreign government officials.”  The U.S. firm’s role was to arrange a “limited” number of media interviews for the foreign association’s leadership and for foreign government leaders with U.S. journalists who cover the association’s industry.  The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. firm would need to register as an “agent” performing “political activities,” acting as a “publicity agent,” and serving as an “information-service employee” because the conference would “concern, among other things, the political or public interests of a foreign government” and because the proposed interviews would involve the promotion of the foreign country for investment.  The FARA Unit also found that: (1) the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1) was unavailable because the activities were not “private,” given that the conference promoted investment in a foreign country and was “conducted in conjunction with that government”; and (2) the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2) was unavailable, given the conference “plainly serve[d] a foreign interest” based on “representatives of that foreign government who will attend the conference.”

A U.S. public relations firm was retained by a foreign trade association comprised of private businesses and funded by private sources and foreign-government grants.  The U.S. firm stipulated that the foreign government “does not own or control” the foreign association, but the association asked the U.S. firm to “provide media relations support” to a foreign government official “for any visits he makes to the U.S.” during a certain period, which would involve liaising with U.S. media, taking instructions from foreign government officials regarding “priorities and logistics” for interviews, and otherwise “performing activities normally undertaken” by the foreign government’s D.C. office representative.  The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. firm was an “agent” of both the foreign association and the foreign government engaged in “political activities,” acting as a “publicity agent,” and serving as an “information-service employee.”  The FARA Unit also found that found that: (1) the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1) was unavailable because the activities were not “private,” given that the work would be “conducted in conjunction with” a foreign government; and (2) the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2) was unavailable, given the media efforts “plainly serve[d] a foreign interest” based on a “partnership with representatives of [the] foreign government.”

A U.S. consultancy proposed to serve as a branding, planning, and research consultant to a foreign charity and to the spouse of a foreign political leader.  The request stipulated that all work would be conducted within the foreign country “and none of the work would be intended to reach the U.S. public or policymakers,” though the request acknowledged that other contractors could use the logo and branding work by the consultancy to later “develop U.S. partners.”  The FARA Unit concluded that this work was not “within the United States” for FARA purposes because it “would not be directed toward a U.S. audience.” 

A U.S. medical practitioner specializing in a particular disorder was appointed by a foreign government to represent the government at “medical conferences and meetings around the world, including in the United States” that are attended by medical professionals and U.S. health officials to advocate for “healthcare spending and collaboration.” The medical practitioner noted that conference attendance was “primarily” to meet non-U.S. health officials and “most” of the activities would occur outside the United States.  The FARA Unit found that the medical practitioner was an “agent” engaged in “political activities,” acting as “public relations counsel,” and serving as an “information-service employee.”  The FARA Unit also concluded that the medical practitioner was: (1) ineligible for the “official of a foreign government” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(b) due to the practitioner’s U.S. citizenship; (2) ineligible for the “diplomatic personnel” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(c) because the practitioner’s appointment was not recognized by the State Department and because the practitioner was serving as a “public relations counsel”; and (3) ineligible for the ineligible for the exemption for scientific pursuits at 22 U.S.C. § 613(e) due to the individual’s “political activities,” without analyzing how participation in medical conferences would not be scientific in nature.     

A dual citizen served as minister of a foreign government office that promoted economic growth, tourism, trade, and industrial expansion.  In that capacity, the dual citizen represented the foreign country’s “interests before U.S. officials and private-sector persons in the United States” from an office abroad.  The FARA Unit found that the appointment and related government service made the dual citizen an “agent.”  The FARA Unit also concluded that the dual citizen was: (1) ineligible for the “official of a foreign government” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(b) due to their U.S. citizenship; and (2) ineligible for the “diplomatic personnel” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(c) because the  appointment had not yet been recognized by the State Department.  Finally, the FARA Unit noted that if State Department recognition was later obtained, the dual citizen would not need to register for “activities that the State Department recognized as being within the scope of your functions, which would need to include the economic-promotion functions you describe.”

A U.S. venture capital firm took an indirect investment from a foreign sovereign wealth fund whose Board includes foreign government officials.  The sovereign wealth fund’s website indicated that it invests
in alignment with the research, development and innovation priorities of [Foreign Government] program to economically, socially, and culturally diversity [Foreign Country].”  The U.S. firm was to invest in a manner that would “stimulate, attract and grow [redacted] companies that will contribute to the advancement of [Foreign Country’s] innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem” and accomplish other objectives consistent with the foreign country’s interests.  The FARA Unit concluded that investment activities constituted “collecting, disbursing, and dispensing ‘money … for or in the interests of a foreign principal” and that: (1) the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1) was unavailable because the activities were not “private,” given that the stated purpose of the investment activities was to accomplish a foreign government’s public and political purposes; and (2) the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2) was unavailable due to the size of the foreign sovereign wealth fund’s capital commitment, the investment activities’ stated purpose of promoting a foreign government political interests, and the sovereign wealth fund’s control over the U.S. firm’s activities.

A journalist who was a retired member of the U.S. military received an invitation from a foreign government to attend a conference in a foreign country, with the foreign government paying for travel, lodging, and food.  The journalist represented that the foreign government would not push “to write in any manner or direction.”  On that basis, the FARA Unit found that the journalist was not an “agent,” so long as the journalist would “return to the United States without obligation to [foreign government]” on how and what to write.  The FARA Unit concluded, then, that mere acceptance of travel, lodging, and food in a foreign location was not sufficient by itself to establish “agent” status

A U.S. individual was asked to secure funding from the U.S. Development Finance Corporation for a “public-private joint venture” that would finance and construct a dam in a foreign country.  The U.S. individual emailed the Development Finance Corporation to ask about eligibility and request contact information.  The requestor asked whether registration was required “even at this interim stage” when no compensation had been provided and no additional activity was undertaken.  The FARA Unit concluded that the individual was an “agent” and then analyzed the potential applicability of exemptions.  The FARA Unit found the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1) was unavailable “even through the joint venture’s work is private to a significant degree” because: (1) a state-owned enterprise was a partner in the joint venture; (2) the “dam will be operated privately only for a finite period before it reverts to the governmental entities”; (3) the project “is a utility providing an essential public service”; and (4) the contacts with the U.S. government constituted “political activities.”  (The FARA Unit mentioned that the foreign state-owned enterprise’s “ownership stake would not by itself mean that the commercial exemption is unavailable” but the activities directly promoted the foreign government’s public interests by “addressing the water needs of [Foreign City].”)  The FARA Unit did not analyze the applicability of the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2).

A U.S. individual was hired by a foreign government to serve as a Deputy Administrator in charge of promoting international research-and-development collaboration with U.S. agencies, forming public-private partnerships with U.S. companies, and fostering economic ties between the U.S. and the foreign country.  The FARA Unit found that the U.S. individual was an “agent” by virtue of the contract and the contemplated scope of work constituting “political activities.”    The FARA Unit also found that the individual was: (1) ineligible for the “official of a foreign government” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(b) because of the individual’s U.S. citizenship; (2) ineligible for the exemption for scientific pursuits at 22 U.S.C. § 613(e) due to the individual’s “political activities”; and (3) ineligible for the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1) because the work to promote public-private partnerships in the U.S. would constitute “political activities.”

A U.S. law firm represented a foreign charity whose international programs included activities in the United States.  The law firm intended to reach out to U.S. organizations that had a “similar mission” to the foreign charity to serve as potential plaintiffs in state-court litigation funded by the foreign charity.  The firm noted that each U.S. organization would have full control over their participation in the litigation and that the firm would not disclose the foreign charity’s funding of the litigation unless “called upon to do so.”  The FARA Unit found that the firm’s retention agreement to “initiative and prosecute the proposed lawsuit” under the foreign charity’s direction and control made the firm an “agent” engaged in disbursement of funds “to investigate and prosecute a lawsuit” and “political activities” based on the suit’s policy objectives.  The FARA Unit concluded that the firm was ineligible for the Legal Representation Exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(g) because the foreign charity “would not be a named party in the proposed lawsuit and because the litigation would qualify as engagement in “political activities.”  In a footnote, the FARA Unite also concluded that the exemptions at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1) and (d)(2) were unavailable because the litigation qualified as “political activities” and because the litigation predominantly served the foreign charity’s interests based on the fact that it was: (1) “proposed and substantially funded” by the foreign charity; (2) the foreign charity could decide to stop funding the litigation; (3) the foreign charity helped conduct outreach to proposed plaintiffs in the U.S.; (4) the foreign charity intended to provide “expertise” during the litigation; and (5) the foreign charity’s role was “not expected to be disclosed publicly.”  The firm contested these conclusions, but the FARA Unit subsequently “decline[d] to alter our Advisory Opinion.”

A U.S. law firm that was already registered under FARA for a foreign government was subsequently asked to audit that foreign government’s export controls by analyzing existing laws, reviewing other export control regimes, identifying “gaps” in the country’s system, and making recommendations for improvements.  The firm stipulated that the attorneys working on the audit would “work independently from those individuals at the firm who are registered under FARA” and would not communicate with any U.S. government official or segment of the public.  The firm further stated that other attorneys who were already FARA-registered and who were not engaged in the audit work could potentially use the audit’s results in contacts with U.S. government officials.  The FARA Unit found that the attorneys on the audit team were not required to register as “agents” because they were not engaged in any registrable activities even though the audit would be used by others during contacts with U.S. officials.  The FARA Unit did not analyze the applicability of the Legal Representation Exemption at 22 U.S.C. §613(g). 

A foreign national proposed engaging volunteer lobbying “for policy changes … [to] enhance and accelerate the American space economy” on behalf of a U.S. nonprofit organization.  (The request also asked for law firm recommendations, so it is not clear that the requestor understood the advisory opinion process.)  The FARA Unit found that the foreign national was not an “agent” because the U.S. nonprofit organization was not a “foreign principal.”  The FARA Unit also noted that the U.S. nonprofit was not an “agent” because it was not acting at the foreign national’s order, request, direction, or control.  Notably, the advisory opinion mentioned that “a person can be both a ‘foreign principal’ and an ‘agent of a foreign principal.’”

A U.S. company that provided “turn-key solutions” for conference hosting and related promotion was retained by a foreign nonprofit organization to arrange a conference in the United States.  The foreign nonprofit’s Board was appointed by a foreign government to “align” the nonprofit’s activities with the foreign government’s “vision and mission.”  The FARA Unit noted that while many of the U.S. company’s activities “can credibly be described as administrative, logistical, or ministerial,” the contract with the foreign nonprofit called for the U.S. company to “engage in program development and to target and recruit speakers and moderators for the conference and to organize several meetings with speakers prior to the conference,” with the conference touching on several elements of U.S. policy.  The FARA Unit therefore concluded that the U.S. company was an “agent” engaged in “political activities” under FARA.

Without receiving compensation or acting pursuant to a formal agreement, a U.S. limited liability company recruited and coordinated volunteers within the United States in coordination with a foreign government and a foreign political party “on activities that directly advance those foreign principals’ interests.”  The U.S. entity also distributed a foreign government’s materials on its social media account.

A U.S. individual was retained by a former foreign government official to “obtain a hearing” to have their name removed from a U.S. sanctions list issued under the United States-Northern Triangle Enhanced Engagement Act.  The FARA Unit concluded that the individual “would not be otherwise exempt from registration” without performing any analysis and instructed the individual to register within 10 days.

A U.S. nonprofit organization received a grant from a private foreign nonprofit for a program that was directed, controlled, and formulated by the U.S. nonprofit.  The U.S. nonprofit initially asked whether it could avail itself of the of the exemption for Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants at 22 U.S.C. § 613(h), but the FARA Unit found it could not because the U.S. nonprofit had not filed a registration for the grantor.    The U.S. nonprofit then raised the “additional claim” that it was exempt under the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2).  After an initial negative finding, the FARA Unit found that the U.S. nonprofit was eligible for this exemption because it demonstrated that its “activities were not directed by and did not directly promote the public or political interests of a foreign government or foreign political party.”

A U.S. public affairs firm proposed acting as a “media and press consultant” to a foreign religious organization that “acts as a voice for interfaith relations” in multiple countries.  No connection between the foreign religious organization and a foreign government or foreign political party was noted.  The U.S. firm’s work would primarily involve media outreach to paint the organization and its leaders in a positive light, but would also include “meeting with policy makers to discuss policy changes” to combat religious intolerance.  The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. firm would be acting as a “publicity agent” and an “information-service employee” under FARA, while also finding that the policymaker meetings and a subset of the media outreach would constitute “political activities.”  Because of the proposed “political activities,” the FARA Unit found that the work would fall outside the exemption for religious pursuits at 22 U.S.C. § 613(e), since that exemption does not apply to “political activities.”  It is not clear whether the U.S. firm could have qualified for the exemption in the absence of the policymaker meetings.  The U.S. firm did not ask whether any other exemptions could apply. 

A U.S. law firm was engaged to represent a U.S. manufacturer “regarding state-level investigations, enforcement inquiries, and judicial and agency proceedings in connection with its government and related supplier contracts.”  The FARA Unit remarked that interactions with state government officials would not qualify as appearances before “any agency or official of the Government of the United States” and concluded that registration was unnecessary on that basis.  (The FARA Unit did not attempt to reconcile this with earlier findings in 3-26-2019  and 5-19-2023 that contacts with local officials would qualify as “political activities.”)

A U.S. individual was asked by a foreign political party with whom the individual was ideologically aligned to “help [the party] get some meetings with high-profile individuals, including members of Congress” and other private interests to “learn more about how to advance the ideologies they shared with these members and personally invite them” to visit the foreign country.  The individual did not accept payment or request meetings with U.S. officials, but had “made inquiries with the other individuals and organizations.”  Without analysis that accounted for the individual’s coincidence of views and the lack of payment received, the FARA Unit concluded that the individual had “established an agency relationship with a foreign principal” because the individual had agreed to a “request that you arrange meetings in Washington, D.C.”  The FARA Unit found that contacting private individuals and organizations in this instance constituted both engaging in “political activities” and serving as “public relations counsel.” 

A U.S. public affairs firm proposed to represent a foreign private company “engaged in international trade” before the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. firm could avail itself of the exemption for Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants at 22 U.S.C. § 613(h) because it would represent a privately held foreign company.

A U.S. nonprofit organization “whose core mission is to address atrocity crimes, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity” assisted a foreign country’s “sanctions working group” in “documenting international crimes and harms, conducting police training, and assisting prosecutors and judges in documenting ad prosecuting mass atrocity cases,” the majority of which “relate to the pillage of grain.”  Specifically, the U.S. nonprofit would help identify violators, develop foreign in-country expertise to identify violators, and provide “information packages” to foreign government agencies about violations.  The U.S. nonprofit said that it would also present evidence of sanctionable conduct to U.S. officials in furtherance of the potential imposition of U.S. sanctions.  The foreign government did not compensate the U.S. nonprofit organization and the work was not conducted under a formal agreement.  The FARA Unit nonetheless concluded that the U.S. nonprofit’s presentation of evidence to U.S. officials would be registrable “political activities,” even though a foreign government would not be involved with or direct the presentation.  The FARA Unit reasoned that since the U.S. nonprofit had agreed to provide information to foreign government officials related to foreign sanctions, it was an “agent” of the foreign government for all related purposes.  The FARA Unit made no attempt to analyze whether presenting information to U.S. officials about the applicability of U.S. sanctions would principally serve the U.S. nonprofit’s own organizational interests to punish and prevent atrocity crimes in a context where the nonprofit used its own funds and controlled its own activities. 

An international political party based in a foreign country proposed to establish a U.S. chapter to “build goodwill” for the foreign country, engage U.S. civic groups, and write op-eds for publication in the United States.  The party stipulated that there would be no direct contact with U.S. government officials.  The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. chapter would have an “agency relationship” with the foreign political party due to several bylaw provisions and that the U.S. chapter would be engaged in “political activities,” act as a “public-relations counsel,” and serve as an “information-service employee” under FARA.  The FARA Unit also noted that to the extend funds were raised in the U.S. and then sent abroad to the foreign political party, that activity would also be registrable.  The FARA Unit did not analyze whether any registration exemptions applied.

In an opinion so heavily redacted as to be unreadable, a U.S. company asked whether its redacted services for a foreign business that had a redacted association with a foreign government would be registrable under FARA.  The FARA Unit concluded that the work would not be registrable because “they do not appear intended to influence any U.S. agency or official or any section of the U.S. public.”  The FARA Unit also noted that the other prongs of the “agent” definition would not be met. 

A U.S. public affairs firm contracted to perform “media and public relations activities” on behalf of three foreign businesses, which were presumably privately held businesses.  The FARA Unit found that the U.S. firm acted as “public-relations counsel,” a “publicity agent,” and an “information-service employee” under FARA, but that registration was unnecessary because the work was “private and nonpolitical” under the commercial activities exemption under 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1). 

A U.S. company was retained by a private foreign individual to “investigate the causes behind claimed travel ‘irregularities’ encountered,” such as visa revocation and reinstatement, by the individual and their family members during trips to the United States.  Without analyzing whether the investigative work would have constituted “political activities” under FARA, the FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. company did not need to register because it could avail itself of the exemption for Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants at 22 U.S.C. § 613(h).

The principal of a U.S. public affairs firm, which had already registered under FARA for a foreign government, formed a new U.S. nonprofit organization that proposed to host receptions for U.S. officials, write publications, and place advertisements related to U.S. relations with the foreign government.  The FARA Unit concluded that registration was required, even though the foreign government had no role in directing the new U.S. nonprofit, because the nonprofit’s work was closely aligned with the contracted work of the U.S. public affairs firm.

A U.S. nonprofit organization planned to apply to receive funding from a foreign government to carry out a three-year law clinic program formulated and directed by a foreign government agency and available to the foreign country’s nationals living within the United States who faced criminal charges.  The program also stipulated that the U.S. nonprofit would conduct “community outreach” and provide training to the foreign government’s consular officials.  The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. nonprofit would need to register as an “agent” if it accepted the foreign government’s funding for the program, since the “community outreach” work would constitute “political activities” and cause the nonprofit to act as “public-relations counsel” for the foreign government.  The FARA Unit also found that training consular officers qualify as “political consultant” work under FARA and that accepting foreign government funds would cause the U.S. nonprofit to “be soliciting, collecting, disbursing, and dispensing money for or in the interests of” a foreign government.  In a footnote, the FARA Unit stated that running the law clinic program would “go beyond the bounds” of the legal representation exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(g) due to the “community outreach” and training aspects of the project.  It is uncertain whether the program would have been exempt if those aspects were omitted from the project’s scope.

A U.S. lobbying firm proposed entering into a contract with a U.S. company that was managed by a U.S.-based executive group and was a joint venture between a foreign public pension manager and a U.S. company.  The U.S. firm would lobby the federal government “for the exclusive benefit” of its U.S. corporate client without having any “direct interaction” with any foreign executives of the public pension manager.  The FARA Unit decided that the U.S. firm could avail itself of the exemption for Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants at 22 U.S.C. § 613(h) because the lobbying work was “primarily intended” to advance the U.S. corporate client’s business interests.  The FARA Unit also noted that the foreign government’s investment in the U.S. corporate client “appears to be one of many diverse investments made on behalf of [foreign country’s] public sector investment funds.”

A U.S. individual planned to provide logistical support and media relations services for events convened on behalf of a private foreign nonprofit organization “that acts as a voice for interfaith relations” by explaining the “tenants of their holy book.”  The events would involve academics and religious figures from other faiths.  The FARA Unit noted that the materials “appear[ed] political in nature” but did not “relate to U.S. domestic or foreign policy or to the interests of a foreign government or foreign political party.”  The FARA Unit concluded that this work would not qualify as “political activities” and would be eligible for the exemption for religious pursuits at 22 U.S.C. § 613(e).

A U.S. consultancy proposed engaging in work for an international humanitarian organization located outside the United States.  The consultancy would communicate with the public and U.S. government officials about the humanitarian organization, including potential U.S. government funding of the organization.  The FARA Unit found that the consultancy would be an “agent” but that the work would fall within the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2) because it would not be directed by a foreign government or directly promote the public or political interests of a foreign government.  The FARA Unit also found that the exemption for “soliciting or collecting of funds and contributions … for medical aid and assistance” did not apply because the consultancy was engaged in “political activities” by attempting to influence U.S. government officials.

A U.S. individual expected to be employed by a private foreign corporation as a “lead technology specialist,” which is a role that would include “seeking U.S. Government clients and actively pursuing partnerships and collaborations with companies in the United States, both as a supplier and as a consultant.”  The FARA Unit concluded that although the individual would be an “agent,” their activities would be exempt under the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1) because the sole objective was to sell the company’s engineering services.

A foreign trade association composed of foreign private for-profit companies that was not funded or controlled by any foreign government proposed work in the United States for its members related to “regulatory, tax, and other industry developments.”  The trade association did note that one of its representatives that would engage in U.S. activity would be an elected member of a foreign legislature.  The FARA Unit found that the trade association would engage in “political activities” as an “agent” of its foreign for-profit members.  The FARA Unit also concluded that: (1) the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2) applied because the U.S. activities would not be directed by a foreign government and would not directly promote a foreign government’s public or political interests; and (2) the exemption for Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants would apply if the trade association was registered under the LDA because no foreign government would be “the principal beneficiary” of the U.S. activities.  These were the FARA Unit’s conclusions despite the involvement of a foreign government official.

In response to a U.S. Presidential Declaration, a foreign company submitted an application to a U.S. executive branch agency and corresponded with U.S. agency officials for the purpose of providing a good or service to the federal government.  The FARA Unit concluded that the foreign company’s employee would be an “agent” but that the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1) would apply because the company was pursuing sales to the U.S. government in furtherance of its own business interests.

A U.S. nonprofit established to “deliver language courses and programs that foster communication, education, collaboration, and cultural exchange” for people interested in a particular foreign country/region.  The nonprofit collaborated with a foreign government and foreign consulate in providing these programs.  The nonprofit inquired as to whether it would need to register due to potential receipt of funding from a foreign government.  The FARA Unit noted that the funding proposal imposed a prerequisite that “a current image of [Foreign Country] must be conveyed,” that “[h]istorical topics must be presented in such a way that they are linked to current issues,” and that the nonprofit would be required to cooperate with another nonprofit due to its “political importance.”  The FARA Unit found that these contingent requirements would make the nonprofit an “agent” and that the exemption from FARA registration for “activities in furtherance of bona fide religious, scholastic, academic, or scientific pursuits or of the fine arts” would not apply.  In explaining this conclusion, the FARA Unit mentioned that while “several of the activities” would be exempt, the nonprofit also was engaged in “political activities” that made the exemption unavailable.  The FARA Unit did not describe which specific activities it thought were exempt or registrable.

A U.S. consultancy expected to be retained by a foreign embassy to introduce a foreign ambassador to “private industry leaders in the [specific industry] to discuss trade and commercial opportunities” and to “build a strong relationship between [the foreign country] and [the U.S. city].”  The FARA Unit concluded that the consultancy would qualify as an ”agent” and that: (1) the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1) was unavailable because the proposed work would qualify as “political activities” and directly promote the public or political interests of the foreign government; and (2) the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2) was unavailable because the proposed work would be directed by a foreign government official and directly promote the foreign government’s public and political interests.

A U.S. nonprofit whose mission was to educate “decision-makers on American defense and strategic interests … the cornerstone of which is an anticipate robust U.S. and [foreign country] security cooperation agreement.”  The nonprofit published articles, established a YouTube channel, held fundraising banquets, and donated funds for humanitarian aid.  The nonprofit intended to engage in three additional activities “related to its mission in support of [foreign country]”: (1) at the invitation and expense of the foreign government, sending one or more senior retired U.S. military officials to the foreign country to give lectures; (2) at the invitation and expense of the foreign government, sending other Americans to train as first responders; and (3) correspond with each Member of Congress to describe the nonprofit’s activities.  The nonprofit emphasized that it made the decision on its own to engage in these activities and that it determined the substance of the congressional letter without allowing the foreign government input.  The nonprofit stipulated that it had not received “any money or in-kind support for any of its activities” (though the costs of its trips were defrayed by the foreign government).  The FARA Unit determined that the nonprofit was not an “agent” because it was “acting completely of its own initiative” and did not receive “any instruction or request from any agency or part of the [foreign government] to perform the activities.”

A U.S. nonprofit that was the subsidiary of a foreign government’s business promotion office asked whether it would need to register for participating in “conferences, panels, roadshows, and webinars with the goal of attracting foreign investment into [Foreign Nation],” communicating with local government entities in the United States, and “coordinat[ing] exchanges between U.S. federal agencies and industry representatives in [U.S. City].”  The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. nonprofit was an “agent” of the foreign government office and noted in cursory fashion that its work qualified as “political activities.”  The FARA Unit also found that: (1) the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1) was unavailable because the foreign office itself was not on its own behalf engaging in trade or commerce; and (2) the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2) was unavailable because the “growth of the country’s foreign trade and exports and foreign direct investment” was a public or political interest of a foreign government.  The FARA Unit did, however, opine that the diplomatic personnel exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(c) would apply to the accredited foreign government office’s personnel if they engaged in activities within the United States.

A U.S. individual proposed serving on a pro bono basis as a “strategic advisor” for a foreign government’s investment promotion office, whose primary objective was to “attract new foreign direct investment and assist current investors to expand their activities in [foreign country].”  The individual’s duties would include staging “events aimed at promoting the investment potential of [foreign country]” and carrying out other “measures aimed at attracting investment into the economy of [foreign country.”  The FARA Unit found that the individual was an “agent” because their activities “soliciting investments” would be “clearly in the public interest of [foreign country,” without further explanation or any attempt to reconcile this conclusion with other Opinions that are seemingly contrary (e.g. Adv. Op. 5-6-2022, Adv. Op. 11-15-2018), Adv. Op. 12-21-2017).  Notably, the FARA Unit also disregarded specific contractual language in the individual’s agreement stating that they would not be expected to act as a “publicity agent” or an ”information-service employee.”  Ultimately, the FARA Unit concluded that: (1) the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1) was unavailable because solicitation through “an organization created by the government of [foreign country] as ‘its investment promotion office,” cannot be construed as private and nonpolitical activity”; and (2) the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2) was unavailable because investment solicitation would “promote the public and political interests” of a foreign government.

A U.S. law firm proposed communications with the U.S. State Department following its placement of a foreign company and associated foreign individuals “under [a State Department-administered sanctions program” that prevented entrance into the United States.  The law firm’s engagement involved “anticipated engagement with the State Department … to obtain additional information about the bases for the designations, present factual evidence to rebut the purported bases for the designations, and ultimately, obtain relief from the sanctions imposed…”  The engagement specified that the work would not involve “political activities” regarding any foreign country or foreign political party.  The law firm retained the services of an outside investigator “to work under its direction and assist in [the] effort.”  The law firm engagement later involved administrative proceedings related to removal from the Specially Designated Nationals list issued by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (“OFAC”).  The law firm stipulated that it would not “attempt to influence any broader policy or political matters” while engaging with federal agencies.  The FARA Unit found that the law firm was an “agent” of its foreign clients, but that the “legal representation” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(g) applied, both to formal agency hearings and to “informal advocacy” before “those with decision-making authority at the State Department and OFAC regarding the sanctions at issue.”

An online news outlet proposed a three-day conference in a foreign country in collaboration with a foreign nonprofit think-tank and a foreign government ministry “to bring together high-profile CEOs and business leaders … to participate in journalism-drive keynote addresses, panel discussions, and breakout sessions.”  The conference was to be sponsored by U.S. and foreign businesses, but the news outlet stated that it would not take any sponsorship money from any foreign government or any foreign state-owned enterprise.  The news outlet stated that, although it would be advised by various partners regarding speakers and sponsorships, it would “retain full editorial and commercial control” and “recoup all profits” associated with the conference.  The FARA Unit concluded that because the news outlet would retain all editorial control, it “would not be acting as an agent of a foreign principal.”  The FARA Unit also found that the news outlet would fall outside the “agent” definition because it was a news or press service under the media exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 611(d). 

An online news outlet proposed a three-day conference in a foreign country in collaboration with a foreign nonprofit think-tank and a foreign government ministry “to bring together high-profile CEOs and business leaders … to participate in journalism-drive keynote addresses, panel discussions, and breakout sessions.”  The conference was to be sponsored by U.S. and foreign businesses, but the news outlet stated that it would not take any sponsorship money from any foreign government or any foreign state-owned enterprise.  The news outlet stated that, although it would be advised by various partners regarding speakers and sponsorships, it would “retain full editorial and commercial control” and “recoup all profits” associated with the conference.  The FARA Unit concluded that because the news outlet would retain all editorial control, it “would not be acting as an agent of a foreign principal.”  The FARA Unit also found that the news outlet would fall outside the “agent” definition because it was a news or press service under the media exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 611(d). 

A U.S. company that “develops and operates a custom software platform” available to subscribers that allows them “to claim and manage their profile as a form of virtual or digital presence.”  The company proposed to bring on a foreign government as one of its subscribers “in congruence with” other subscribers, with some possibility of “additional tailored support.”  The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. company would be an “agent of a foreign principal” as both an “information service employee” and a “public relations counsel.”  The FARA Unit noted that the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1) and the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2) would be inapplicable because the work promoted the “general public interest” of a foreign government.  It is unclear the extent to which the U.S. company’s potential provision of “additional tailored support” played a role in the FARA Unit’s conclusion.

A U.S. public affairs firm was contacted to conduct “training in effective executive communications” for a foreign state-owned enterprise that was “closely aligned” with a foreign government’s programs.  The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. firm fit the statutory definition of “agent of a foreign principal” as a “public relations counsel,” but concluded that the firm was not required to register under FARA because of the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1).  The FARA Unit said this exemption applied because the work was intended to improve the foreign state-owned enterprise’s commercial interests.  However, the FARA Unit also cautioned that the exemption would not apply to the extent that the work also advanced the related foreign government’s “public or political interests” without explaining the circumstances under which those interests would predominate.

A U.S. company was engaged by a foreign political leader to “market” that leader in the U.S. “in a private capacity and not as a representative of” a foreign country or foreign political party.  The U.S. company received fees from domestic entities wanting to hire the foreign leader for speaking engagements and then remitted post-commission payments to the leader.  The U.S. company stipulated that it had “not agreed to distribute a foreign principal’s message,” but only contracted with the foreign political leader to “selectively advertise his availability and fee requirements to U.S. audiences who want to hear from [him] and are willing to pay what the market demands.”  The FARA Unit stated that although the U.S. company was an “agent of a foreign principal” given its contractual relationship on behalf the foreign political leader, it was nonetheless exempt under the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1) because it had “no insight into or ability to affect the content” of the foreign leader’s speeches.  The FARA Unit did not attempt to reconcile this opinion with the civil injunction it sought earlier against RM Broadcasting, which was required to register by a federal district court for broadcasting Sputnik radio programs in the U.S. without edits and without input into programming.

A U.S. individual intended to pursue a series of business transactions with counterparts in a number of foreign countries, including some foreign governments.  The FARA Unit concluded that it did “not observe that you have an agency relationship with these foreign principals in that you would not be acting at the direction, control, or request of the individuals” or be engaged in FARA-registrable activities. 

Following an acquisition, a U.S. manufacturer and seller was a wholly owned subsidiary of a publicly traded foreign corporation that was itself 40% owned by a foreign parent corporation that included “current or former members” of a foreign government among its officers and directors.  The U.S. manufacturer represented that all “operational control is left to the Company’s U.S. based leadership by design,” though the foreign corporation’s officers review and approve the U.S. manufacturer’s “annual budget and high-level operating plan, as well as provide high-level budget and revenue targets.”  Although the foreign corporation and the foreign parent’s public ownership percentages were not listed, the U.S. manufacturer conceded that they “would be treated as state-owned enterprises.”  The U.S. manufacturer asked the FARA Unit whether its lobbying of U.S. government officials would make it an “agent.”  The FARA Unit found that although the U.S. manufacturer would be an “agent” because of its relationship with foreign businesses, the U.S. manufacturer was eligible “for one of the exemptions set out in 22 U.S.C. § 613,” finding in particular that the “proposed lobbying does not serve ‘predominantly a foreign interest.’”  Additionally, the FARA Unit mentioned that the lobbying would be covered by the LDA exemption, so long as the lobbying activities “are on behalf of an individual or corporation and not a foreign government or foreign political party.”  The FARA Unit did not analyze whether a foreign government would be “the principal beneficiary” of the lobbying work, which is a regulatory carve-out that is part of the LDA exemption.

A U.S. charitable organization was designated by a U.S. government agency to help it organize an annual conference that could involve foreign interests.  The FARA Unit noted that the U.S. organization did not identify any foreign principals from whom it had received funds or on whose behalf it might act.  Because of this, the FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. organization was not an “agent” and that evaluating the applicability of the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption was unnecessary. 

A U.S. military retiree proposed to engage in an unpaid internship under the U.S. Army’s Career Skills Program with a foreign manufacturer, which would include office and accounting work for the foreign corporation.  The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. military retiree would not be an “agent” because they would not engage in any registrable activities.

A U.S. individual who previously served as an ambassador for the United States planned to contract with a foreign sole proprietorship that was “neither owned nor controlled by” a foreign government.  The potential contract services would involve outreach to investors, industry consultants, and manufacturers in a certain field, but would not involved any outreach to the U.S. government or to U.S. media outlets.  The FARA Unit ultimately found that the U.S. individual would not be an “agent” because they would not engage in any registrable activities.

A U.S. company entered into an agreement with the U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation to provide “brand management, marketing, strategic planning, account managerial services, advertising strategies, and advertising services.”  The foreign parent was owned by a foreign government.  The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. company would be an “indirect agent” of the foreign government and the foreign company due to its contract with the U.S. subsidiary that constituted work as a “publicity agent.”  Nonetheless, the FARA Unit found the U.S. company was exempt under the “commercial activities” exemption because there was “no mention of you engaging in political or other activities reference in FARA” and because the financial benefits to the foreign government were only “incidental.”

A U.S. law firm proposed to represent a private foreign company and its CEO in litigation brought by the U.S. Department of Justice in federal court, where the Department alleged “an international conspiracy to launder money allegedly misappropriated from” a foreign sovereign wealth fund.  The firm’s representation would involve preparing legal analyses, appearing before the Department related to potential settlement, and providing background to Department officials.  The firm would not undertake any discussions with elected officials or handle any public relations matters.  The FARA Unit concluded on that basis that the firm’s work was eligible for the “legal representation” exemption.

A U.S. firm contracted with the U.S. subsidiary of a foreign company that specialized in “countering disinformation/misinformation from hostile nation states and other entities.”  Under the contract, the U.S. firm would identify potential U.S. clients (both private and governmental) and “provide threat assessments to them concerning the disinformation campaigns conducted by hostile states directed at the U.S. and its foreign allies.”  The U.S. firm had already made contacts with a U.S. Congressman and the U.S. military command.  The FARA Unit found that the activity was eligible for the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption because: (1) the activity was “focused on selling the commercial services” offered by the foreign corporation; and (2) the foreign corporation was a privately owned company that was “not affiliated with, nor controlled by” a foreign government.

A U.S. firm contracted with a private foreign-owned corporation that was publicly traded on a foreign stock exchange and that had a board including multiple foreign government officials.  The contract stipulated that the U.S. firm would attempt to attract investment to a foreign country “in concert with an understanding of priorities within the [foreign country]” by influencing U.S. government officials.  The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. firm was required to register, given that it was attempting to change “procurement processes, rather than merely assisting [foreign corporation] in applying for existing licenses, approvals, or authorities…”  The FARA Unit’s analysis was cursory, but seemed to state that the U.S. firm’s work was not eligible for the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption, even though no foreign government held an ownership stake in the foreign corporation, because: (1) foreign government officials served on the foreign corporation’s board; (2) the service contract with the U.S. firm referenced “an understanding of priorities” within the foreign country for the purpose of obtaining “military equipment and technologies”; and (3) the foreign government “will likely be a party to or benefit from future … transactions resulting from” the U.S. firm’s efforts.  It is uncertain to what extent the FARA Unit’s response to this Advisory Opinion may have been driven by the U.S. firm’s efforts to obtain military technology and equipment in particular.

A U.S. organization was established to attract private-sector companies involved in a particular industry to invest in developing countries.  The U.S. organization signed an agreement to receive funds from a foreign government to “establish a plan to identify and bring together the various private sector entities necessary to establish a world class [INDUSTRY] system” in another foreign country.  The U.S. organization stipulated that it would not lobbying or appear before any U.S. government official on a foreign principal’s behalf.  On that basis the FARA Unit concluded that the work would not involve “political activities” but did not analyze whether the organization’s appearances before industry leaders would constitute an attempt to influence “any section of the public within the United States.”  The FARA Unit noted further in a footnote that the U.S. entity seeking “investments in the United States” would be registrable activity by “solicit[ing], collect[ing], disburs[ing], or dispens[ing] contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal” but then remarked that this type of activity would be exempt under the exemptions at 22 U.S.C. 613(d).

A U.S. firm—a sole proprietorship—requested a determination with regard to three work projects.

In the first project, the U.S. firm contracted with a foreign entity that was a “collaboration” between a foreign government and “a consortium of six non-governmental partners” in the U.S. and abroad, with the foreign government providing all funding.  The contract involved the U.S. firm participating in events, authoring or co-authoring reports, and participating in meetings attended by U.S. officials and others.  The FARA Unit concluded that this project was registrable because it would “support outreach activities directed specifically towards ‘U.S. American’ policy makers to include advice on which policy makers to reach out in the United States and within the defense community more generally.”  The FARA Unit also noted that because a foreign government was the sole funder of the consortium, “it may be considered to control” the consortium. 

In the second project, the U.S. firm contracted with a foreign nonprofit “research and training organization” that had “diverse funders, which include governments, charitable foundations, international organizations, universities and companies” and even two U.S. government agencies.  The contract related to “facilitating meetings and new partnerships in the United States, particularly with U.S. government officials.”  The FARA Unit concluded that this project was registrable without making any effort to analyze whether an exemption may have applied to work on behalf of a nongovernmental foreign principal that was funded in part by U.S. government agencies.

In the third project, the U.S. firm proposed working with a foreign government “to write a study on the national security implications” of a redacted initiative for foreign-government departments.  The work would not have included meetings with U.S. government officials but would have involved obtaining insights into U.S. government agencies’ thinking on particular issues and “advice on how to partner with U.S. counterparts and organizations.”  The FARA Unit concluded that this project was registrable.

An individual hired as Vice President for Government Relations for a foreign university inquired about their potential registration obligation. The foreign university was financed entirely by a private family based in a foreign country. The position required the individual to manage relationships with executive branch officials in the U.S. and perform outreach to congressional officials.

The FARA Unit found that registration was required, specifically to the extent that the individual’s representation of the foreign university before U.S. government officials would include advocating that specific grant moneys be made available to the university, rather than merely assisting the university in applying for existing grant programs. Such advocacy for grant funding from the U.S. government for the foreign university would constitute “political activities” because it would be undertaken with an intent to influence the U.S. government “with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States.” The “scholastic, academic, scientific, or fine arts pursuits” exemption did not apply because the individual’s activities would include political activities.

Brief opinion with little analysis. An entity or individual requested an opinion on whether it would be required to register, identifying the potential foreign principal as an international membership organization for proposed activities to be conducted within the United States by the individual/entity as the potential foreign agent. The FARA Unit concluded that the requestor was not required to register.

A U.S. professor retained to provide analyses of international law to a foreign government official inquired about their potential registration requirement. The professor represent in their request that they would not be providing any analysis as to U.S. law or policy. The FARA Unit agreed with the professor’s assertion that they would not be performing political activities and were not required to register under FARA.

A U.S. professor retained to provide analyses of international law to a foreign government official inquired about their potential registration requirement. The professor represent in their request that they would not be providing any analysis as to U.S. law or policy. The FARA Unit agreed with the professor’s assertion that they would not be performing political activities and were not required to register under FARA.

An individual who was offered a job as Regional Liaison Manager for a foreign company in the United States inquired about his/her potential registration requirements. The contract outlined the following activities: “(A) Communicate and work towards growth of both parties with mutual respect and integrity. (B) Liaise with USA [deleted] customers of the [foreign company] via phone and email. Follow up customers with overdue invoices (delinquent account). (C) Collect and process payment from such customers for delinquent account(s). (D) Remit 95% of collected payments (less bank charges) to the [foreign company] or any individual or company as required by the Corporation and retain 5% as commission for the Partnership. (E) Provide weekly report on contractor’s communication with customers.” While the FARA Unit determined that the individual would be acting as an agent of a foreign principal, it concluded that the activities described were private and nonpolitical in furtherance of the bona fide trade or commerce of the foreign company. Thus, the commercial activities exemption applied and the individual was not required to register.

A U.S. public relations firm inquired about its registration obligations in connection with services it was providing to a government tourism bureau. The PR firm described its activities as promoting tourism to the foreign country. It described the government tourism bureaus as an independent, nongovernmental body dedicated to promoting the foreign destination’s tourism facilities and assets, both nationally and internationally. The PR firm asserted that private funds represented 70% of the entity’s budget, while a government-imposed tourism tax represented only about 30% of the budget. Also, the government tourism bureau’s Advisory Board was a supervisory body comprised of 5 members, of which 2 were representatives of the foreign government.

The FARA Unit advised that the PR firm’s promotion of tourism for the government tourism entity, a body in which the foreign government had a significant interest, could not be construed as private and nonpolitical activity. Promotion of tourism was a means of promoting economic development in the foreign destination region to the benefit of the foreign government.  Moreover, a number of the activities to be undertaken by the PR firm directly promoted the interests of the foreign government and were therefore not “other activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest.”

An individual proposed forming an organization whose mission was to “understand the social, economic and political problems facing [nationality] in the diaspora,” and to influence the policy agenda of a foreign government regarding issues related to that diaspora. A contemplated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a foreign political party anticipated possible collaboration in jointly developing and distributing materials, merchandise or information to promote the foreign political party in North America as well as mobilizing resources to support the mission of the foreign political party in the foreign country. The FARA Unit advised that under the MOU’s conditions, the organization would, of necessity, need to act “at the order, request, or under the direction or control,” of the foreign political party. Accordingly, regardless of whether the organization were acting at the foreign political party’s request or with more explicit direction, based on the MOU, the organization would be acting as an agent of a foreign political party and would be carrying out activities requiring registration. The FARA Unit advised that if the organization followed through on conducting the operations in the MOU, it would need to register under FARA.

A nonprofit organization in a foreign country, established by that country to promote a better understanding of the country within the international community and to increase friendship and goodwill between the country and the rest of the world through various exchange programs. The FARA Unit disagreed with the organization’s contention that the foreign government did not exercise control over the organization through funding (i.e. a tax implemented by the foreign government on passport applications) and through the ability to select the chairperson. The organization also contended that the exemption from FARA registration for “activities in furtherance of bona fide religious, scholastic, academic, or scientific pursuits or of the fine arts” should apply to its U.S. operations. The FARA Unit pointed out the exemption is applicable when a person engages only in activities in furtherance of bona fide religious, scholastic, academic, or scientific pursuits or of the fine arts and is not available when the person engages in political activities.” While many of the foreign nonprofit’s activities were in furtherance of religious, scholastic, academic or scientific pursuits, its own statements described goals for influencing public opinion in the nations where the organization is active, including the United States. Thus, registration was required.

A U.S. private equity firm wished to persuade a foreign company an “anchor investor” in the firm. It planned to engage in outreach the White House and potentially the State Department and other agencies, the goal of which was to encourage senior U.S. government officials to reach out to the government of the country in which the foreign company is located and encourage them to support and invest in the U.S. firm. Because the outreach would be controlled and financed entirely by the U.S. firm, without even the foreign country or foreign government being aware of the initiative, the FARA unit did not contest the U.S. firm’s contention that there was no agency relationship between it and the foreign company or any foreign principal.  

A U.S. company providing consulting services to various foreign governments requested an advisory opinion on its potential FARA registration obligations. For one foreign government, the company was advising the country on improving its competitiveness to attract international business and investment as well as guidance and recommendations to the country’s leader and a government agency director regarding policy reforms to increase the country’s competitiveness. The company stated it was not advising as to U.S. government programs or representing the foreign principal before U.S. government officials or agencies. The company also noted that it was in discussions with two other foreign governments to provide advisory services to those governments. These services would include communicating with U.S. Government officials to clarify a process or policy on behalf of the foreign government, or to exchange information regarding the foreign principal with local U.S. Ambassador in country as courtesy to the Embassy. With respect to the first scenario, the FARA Unit found that the company was not obligated to register because it was not engaged in political activities, or any other registrable activity, within the United States on behalf of the foreign government nor would it advise on U.S. government programs or represent the foreign principal before U.S. government officials or agencies. And with respect to the second scenario, the Unit determined that registration was required because advising the foreign principals on their engagement strategies with the U.S. government is “political activity” under FARA. Further, the engagement also fell within FARA’s definition of “political consultant.”

A U.S. organization sought to work with individuals both within the U.S. and abroad to oppose and eventually replace a certain foreign government. It planned to raise both financial and political support for the group, and to reach out to U.S. policymakers and business leaders in furtherance its goals. Because the activities were not undertaken “at the order, request, or under the direction or control” of any foreign principal – in fact, no foreign principal was identified or apparent – the organization was not required to register under FARA.

A U.S. entity was retained to perform administrative and financial activities on behalf of a foreign estate, including acting as “the administrative agency for trusts, banking and total indemnity, transfer agent, and total firm control, as well as private banking … and performing all duties and responsibilities of the ‘authorized representative’.” The FARA Unit determined that the entity was not required to register under FARA because the administrative and financial activities described were not registrable activities.

A U.S. law firm representing a foreign corporation in its efforts to collect and enforce the judgment of a foreign country’s court case involving the foreign corporation requested an opinion on whether it should register under FARA. The firm’s description of its activities included meetings and contacts with U.S. government officials to seek their aid in the full execution and payment of the judgment, including withholding funds to the foreign country until payments were made. The firm had also engaged a public relations consultant to potentially assist in preparing informational materials and advising on media relations, tactics and strategies in the United States. The FARA Unit found it “plain” that the law firm was engaging in “political activities,” pointing out that the firm had identified past and potential future efforts to lobby the U.S. government on its funding for and stance toward the foreign country. The Unit further determined that FARA’s legal representation exemption was not available to the firm because its meetings with the U.S. government and engagement with the public in efforts to gain U.S. government support for its cause plainly were attempts to influence or persuade agency personnel or officials other than in the course of judicial proceedings. According to the firm itself, none of its engagement with the U.S. government had been or would be “in the course of judicial proceedings, criminal or civil law enforcement inquiries, investigations, or proceedings, or agency proceedings required by statute or regulation to be conducted on the record.”

A U.S. corporation, together with its parent, a foreign corporation, retained a U.S. law firm to advocate for the removal of sanctions imposed upon it and to gather information from the U.S. Government in preparation for potential litigation, and to exhaust any potential administrative remedies as to the foreign company’s designation on a sanctions list, including representing the foreign company before the governmental agency involved in the decision-making process of the list. The law firm stated that it would not engage in interactions that implicated general policy or political considerations or in any advocacy before Congress or the public. The FARA Unit determined that absent an exemption, the law firm would have to register under FARA as the activities it described were inherently political activities for or in the interests of a foreign principal. However, based on the law firm’s representation that it would focus its advocacy on legal remedies for removal of sanctions, and not lobbying for a revision of sanctions policy itself, the Unit concluded that registration was not necessary for the law firm.

A U.S. corporation planned to engage in outreach to various private and public sector organizations in the United States to gather additional information and insights about issues relevant to a foreign corporation’s commercial interests. The U.S. corporation’s activities would not involve lobbying contacts with any government officials, attempts to influence a U.S. audience, or advocacy for the foreign corporation’s interests or policy preferences. The FARA Unit found that the described activities were not “political activities” and would not involve lobbying or advocating for the foreign corporation’s interests or policy preferences with either U.S. government officials or any section of the public; thus, registration under FARA was not required.

A U.S. public relations firm registered under FARA for its work on behalf of a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation. Subsequently, the firm asked the FARA Unit for an advisory opinion regarding whether registration was required. The firm’s work involved public affairs work related to two “adverse” U.S. government actions taken against the foreign corporation—a National Defense Authorization Act prohibition on U.S. government agencies buying equipment from the corporation and a placement of the corporation on the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Entity List. The firm posited that its work focused only on protecting the foreign corporation’s commercial interests and not on any interests of a foreign government or foreign political party, which made the work eligible for the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest exemption” at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2). The firm noted, among other things, that it: (1) had “not had contact with” any foreign government or foreign political party; (2) had “no knowledge” that a foreign government or foreign political party had played any role in the firm’s activities; (3) had “not devised content on behalf of” any foreign government or foreign political party; and (4) had “no knowledge that its public relations work on behalf of” the foreign corporation has “directly promoted the public or political interests of” a foreign government or foreign political party. The FARA Unit found, though, that the firm had not “met its burden under Section 613(d)(2) of the Act” because the firm’s efforts to challenge the adverse U.S. governmental actions “on the basis of stated national security and human rights concerns” are “political and seek to promote the public and political interests” of a foreign government. Put differently, the FARA Unit declared that the U.S. “prohibitions and licensing restrictions are inherently political” because they “were expressly made to serve American national security policies and interests.” The opinion could be read to stand for the proposition that any effort to oppose adverse action by the U.S. government against a corporation on national security grounds categorically affects the “public or political interests” of an foreign government and is ineligible for the exemption, then, irrespective of how a prospective agent’s work is scoped or structured.

A U.S. public relations firm was retained by the U.S. subsidiary of a privately held foreign corporation to seek “relief from national security tariffs against products” from a foreign country. The firm argued that the LDA Exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(h) applied because, although the foreign government “supports lifting national security tariffs,” the principal beneficiary “of this policy change would be private sector entities.” The FARA Unit agreed with the firm, stating that it would “not dispute [the] claim that the LDA exemption applies.”

A U.S. individual was asked to edit an opinion article for publication in the United States that was “an attempt to counter … the negative press that [Foreign Country] is subject to by presenting positive perspectives of a struggling nation with political challenges.” The editing work was to be undertaken on an unpaid basis and “limited to checking grammar, style, and organization” without any advice on the article’s content. The FARA Unit concluded that registration was unnecessary because the work did not constitute “political activities” or any other type or registrable effort due to its limited scope.

A U.S. public relations firm subcontracted with another consultancy already registered under FARA for work with a foreign government. The firm proposed to provide two services: (1) services to “positively impact relations between the [foreign Government] and the United States”; and (2) contacts and meetings “with private industry leaders to present commercial opportunities,” including the relocation of offshore manufacturing facilities to the foreign country. The firm proposed to use two entirely separate teams for the two different services. The firm asked whether the team performing the second set of services related to private industry leaders would need to register, asserting that the work would be exempt under the Commercial Activities Exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1). The FARA Unit concluded that this outreach to commercial industry leaders would constitute “political activities” because U.S. companies are a “section of the U.S. public.” The FARA Unit concluded that the Exemption was unavailable because the work involved “political activities” for a foreign government.

A U.S. individual received approval from the U.S. State Department to work as a paid consultant for a foreign government’s Ministry of Defense to “develop the capacity and capabilities” of its armed forces and construction of a new foreign military base. The individual was asked by a foreign military official to: (1) facilitate training exercises between the U.S. and foreign militaries; and (2) determine the U.S. military’s preferences of use of this military base “so that the physical structure is optimized for use by the U.S. [military] as well as other allied [militaries].” The individual stated that they would not intend for these activities to influence any U.S. government official or body. The FARA Unit concluded that the consultancy work was registrable because the individual represented the interests of a “foreign principal” before a U.S. government official and performed “political activities.”

A U.S. publishing company entered into a contract with a foreign government’s tourism promotion agency to design, publish, and copy a promotional travel guide for distribution to U.S. and foreign audiences. Although the foreign tourism agency was responsible for disseminating physical publications, the U.S. publisher itself published an online version of the guide. The FARA Unit said that the U.S. publisher was required to register because it acted as an “information-service employee” and a “publicity agent,” noting particularly the U.S. publisher’s direct distribution of an online version of the travel guide.

An individual identified themselves “as a foreign principal” but also noted that they “were born in the United States.” Without reciting any other facts, the FARA Unit concluded that registration was unnecessary for the individual based on “the description of the activities in which you will be engaged.”

The FARA Unit issued an Advisory Opinion to a U.S. organization on December 31, 2019 and subsequently removed that Opinion from the FARA Unit’s website. The FARA Unit issued a new Opinion to the organization after publishing general policy guidance “to more fully explain the basis” for its conclusion that registration may be necessary. The U.S. organization intended to undertake, as part of its representation of a foreign government in litigation, to “provide factual responses to media inquiries,” “issue press releases containing facts regarding the litigation,” and “engage in press conferences.” The FARA Unit indicated that “[w]hile responding to media inquiries about litigation typically fall within” the “legal representation” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(g), the U.S. organization proposed activities “aimed at promoting the litigation” and related political objectives. Registration was therefore advised, pursuant to this updated rationale.

A U.S. law firm was retained to represent foreign media company “to manage its U.S. corporate/legal affairs as well as its Washington compliance matters.” The media company wanted to create a U.S. subsidiary that would be funded by online advertising sales and include U.S. citizens as its incorporator, full-time Editor-in-Chief, and staff to publish and operate an English language news website for distribution in the United States. The foreign media company’s sole shareholder was the Deputy Prime Minister of a foreign country. The FARA Unit stated that the law firm was not obligated to register under FARA, “so long as its activities remain limited to the corporate and compliance matters described above, and the firm does not engage in the [registrable] activities” enumerated in the statute. Curiously, the FARA Unit did not examine the potential representation under the Legal Representation Exemption but did include a bare citation to it (“See also 22 U.S.C. § 613(g)”) after articulating its conclusion as to the law firm. Notably, the FARA Unit specifically stated that it “decline[d] to state its present enforcement intentions” with respect to the proposed U.S. subsidiary. The FARA Unit remarked that while the subsidiary’s willingness to relinquish all editorial decision-making to U.S. persons and its lack of interest in influencing U.S. officials and public opinion was “relevant,” it was also “not dispositive.” The FARA Unit, in fact, said “the fact that a long-serving senior government official is the sole owner of the U.S. subsidiary raises questions about whether the U.S. Subsidiary will … be under the control of a foreign government.” The FARA Unit did not expressly analyze the potential registration obligation under the Media Exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 611(d), but did reference standards that are relevant under that Exemption.

An individual working for a “global business consulting firm” interviewed a foreign government trade ministry official as part of a series for a magazine. The individual engaged in the interview and selected topics at their sole discretion and did not receive compensation. The individual allowed the foreign official to review a draft before submission “in order to suggest clarifications or revisions,” but ultimately made all final decisions with regard to content. The FARA Unit did not expressly analyze the potential registration obligation under the Media Exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 611(d), but did reference standards that are relevant under that Exemption in concluding that the individual was not required to register since they were not acting as an “agent.”

A media company owned by U.S. citizens provided “news, intelligence, and tools to government affairs professionals and policymakers.” The company proposed offering new services to subscribers, including coverage of “detailed information about and analysis of policymakers and influencers at the state and federal level” based on editorial decisions exercised only by the company’s staff, as well as additional topic-specific content to be “refreshed or revised” upon subscriber request. The media company intended to “offer these services broadly within the Washington, DC community, including foreign embassies.” The FARA Unit concluded that providing “detailed political intelligence” to subscribers on topics the company selected and over which the company exercised editorial control would not be registrable work. However, the FARA Unit stated that agreeing to provide intelligence on specific topics requested by a foreign embassy or other foreign principal would be registrable. The FARA Unit noted that the company was not eligible for the Media Exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 611(d) because was not a “news or press service.”

A U.S. law firm was retained by an individual who worked as the United States representative of a “foreign pro-democracy council” to establish a U.S. non-profit organization, review vendor contracts, open a bank account, and undertake other administrative tasks. The FARA Unit found that the client was a “foreign principal” for FARA purposes but the law firm was not required to register if “its activities remain focused on … corporate and administrative tasks.” The FARA Unit did not analyze whether the representation fell within the Legal Representation Exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(g).

A public relations firm was retained by a privately held foreign biotechnology company to rebut claims that the company was “charging below-market prices in the United States for its diagnostic tests” due to its alleged efforts to further a foreign country’s interests and access American medical patient data. The foreign company received no government subsidies related to the costs of producing the tests and no foreign government maintained an ownership interest in the foreign company. The FARA Unit concluded that the public relations firm was an “agent of a foreign principal” but that registration was unnecessary due to the application of the exemption for “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2). The FARA Unit found that the exemption applied because the company was not supervised, owned, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized by a foreign government or by a foreign political party.

A U.S. individual executed a services agreement with a foreign embassy to create a detailed plan for a “gala launch dinner, an immersive consumer experience, and educational content and merchandise.” The U.S. individual’s work, however, was ultimately to support a U.S. non-profit that would be formed to provide financial support to another U.S. non-profit conservation group. The project would not include any public-facing activities or any interactions with U.S. government officials. The FARA Unit noted that the agreement with the foreign embassy meant that the U.S. individual would be acting at a foreign government’s direction and control. However, the FARA Unit also mentioned that registration was unnecessary so long as the individual’s “activities remain focused on developing a project plan for a gala dinner and related activities” because none of those activities are covered by FARA’s statutory language. The FARA Unit conditioned this conclusion on the U.S. individual focusing efforts “on the logistics of events and their execution … and not on efforts to influence the public regarding the political or public interest of” the foreign government.

A U.S. law firm represented foreign companies in litigation against the U.S. government, along with the submission of a regulatory application and the presentation of information to U.S. officials. With the stipulation that it would “not challenge” the United States policy toward the foreign country in which the client companies were located, the U.S. law firm also stated that its work could include the filing of civil litigation, the representation of clients in administrative proceedings, the presentation of background information to U.S. government officials, and the preparation of attorney opinions, legal analyses, and litigation strategy. The FARA Unit concluded that registration was necessary, since the “legal representation” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(g) applied because the law firm would represent client interests before government agencies and in federal judicial proceedings. The FARA Unit did not address whether the exemption for “bona fide commercial activities” at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(1) would apply, even though the U.S. law firm had included a reference to the exemption in its Advisory Opinion request.

Pursuant to an employment agreement, a U.S. individual served as the Director of Business Development for a foreign “national agency supporting the international development” of a foreign country’s economy through “fostering export growth” and “facilitating international investment” in the foreign country. The U.S. individual’s office was located in the foreign country’s embassy to the United States. The FARA Unit instructed the individual to register because they worked as an employee for a foreign government under its direction and control. Even though the U.S. individual’s activities were commercial in nature, the FARA Unit found that their duties were “political activities” because they would be “seeking to persuade and influence U.S. companies to invest in” the foreign country for the benefit of the that country’s industry, “which is in the public interest of [foreign country].” The FARA Unit also found that the U.S. individual acted as an “information-service employee” by promoting the foreign country as a location for international business expansion. Finally, the FARA Unit mentioned that no exemptions were applicable to the U.S. individuals work, mentioning in particular the diplomatic personnel exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(c) because it is not available for those who function as information-service employees.

A U.S. individual made a humanitarian aid request to a foreign government’s embassy, “asking whether it had personal protective equipment” that could be donated to a U.S. hospital. The U.S. individual copied the U.S. Department of State’s desk officer on the request and confirmed that the U.S. individual “would not be involved in any media or public relations” for the foreign government regarding the equipment donation. The FARA Unit declared that registration was not necessary because the U.S. individual had not acted “at the order, request, direction, or control” of the foreign government.

A U.S. law firm was retained by a foreign corporation “that the U.S. State Department decided to impose sanctions on” for engaging in a transaction prohibited in an Executive Order. The retention called for the law firm to inquire about the sanctions and seek removal of the sanctions through interactions with Treasury and other U.S. officials, without any advocacy before Congress or the general public. The FARA Unit found that registration was unnecessary because the “legal representation” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(g) applied because the “enumerated activities appear to stop short of an attempt to influence OFAC and the U.S. Government’s policies regarding its sanctions regimes beyond their specific application” to the firm’s client.

A U.S. law firm retained by a foreign government asked the FARA Unit to “‘delineate and explain’ which of approximately 24 categories and instances of conduct outlined” by the firm would require registration. The U.S. law firm had “always viewed its work” for the foreign government “as either being outside FARA’s scope or exempt from its requirements.” The FARA Unit found that some of the law firm’s activities would qualify for the “legal representation” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(g), including the evaluation of “initiating or defending against particular litigation,” attending meetings with Department of Justice officials “to discuss pending extradition requests,” and answering “requests for legal assistance from the United States Government.” The FARA Unit cautioned, however, that other activities undertaken by the law firm would fall outside the exemption “and, thus, require[ ] registration.” Examples of registrable conduct cited by the FARA Unit include: (1) the provision of “legal advice and analysis on law and policy regarding matters and development that concern and affect US-[foreign country] relations, such as pending legislation, and executive decisions and policy”; (2) “attending regular meetings” at which the foreign government’s U.S. lobbyists discussed “proposed legislation and legislative strategy”; (3) sharing memoranda prepared by the law firm with the foreign government’s lobbyists and public relations firm “regarding pending legislation”; (4) “drafting, at the request of the Embassy, potential responses to media inquiries to be delivered by the Embassy about litigation in which [the firm]was counsel of record”; and (5) providing the foreign government with “written arguments against passage of [a] resolution in the House of Representatives.” The FARA Unit finally noted that the U.S. law firm would be required to “disclose, in its registration documents, all revenues and expenditures received from or spent on behalf of” the foreign government, as well as “all activities undertaken” by the firm without regard to privilege.

A U.S. individual was asked by the U.S. Department of State to “serve as an expert to a group assembled by” the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (“NATO”) to “conduct a forward-looking process to assess ways to strengthen NATO’s cohesion and unity” as well as “reinforce political consultation, coordination, and decision-making between Allies in NATO.” The FARA Unit concluded that registration was not required because the proposed activities were “in furtherance of a specific request made by the United States” through the State Department.

A U.S. non-profit organization “focused on environmental conservation” received a grant from a foreign government agency to “serve … as a general contractor” for a project to combat deforestation that sought to “change corporations’ product-sourcing practices pertaining to the use of natural resources found outside the United States in tropical regions of the world.” In the course of this work, the U.S. non-profit “met occasionally with officials of the U.S. government” and signed agreements with various U.S. firms to carry out the project’s activities. The U.S. non-profit asserted that its agreement with the foreign government agency did not give the agency “any ability to direct or control” it. The FARA Unit discarded this argument, noting that the agreement “obligated” the non-profit to “engage in activities to advance the deforestation priorities” of the foreign government. The U.S. non-profit also argued that its interactions with U.S. government officials had “nothing to do with formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States.” The FARA Unit again disagreed, remarking that the communications constituted “political activities” because they “advance the product-sourcing practices that are in the political and public interests of, and are the policies of,” the foreign government.

A U.S. company that “invests in the development of special economic zones for profit” owed 70% of a subsidiary U.S. company that was “created to promote and organize the development of a special economic zone” in a foreign country. A foreign government “selected” the two U.S. companies to seek investment in and development of “several contiguous parcels of land in a specific special economic zone” but did not provide any land or funding to the companies. As part of this work, the U.S. companies would communicate with U.S. government officials “related to the development of, investment in, and promotion of the project.” The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. companies were not required to register because “there is no agency relationship” due to the fact that the companies “are not acting at the direction, control, or request of the Government.” The FARA Unit made no attempt to reconcile this conclusion with its earlier statement that the U.S. companies had been selected by the foreign government, which could mean that the foreign government merely issued a permit or some other type of permission to develop land.

A U.S. public relations firm began work involving “media relations and communications support” (e.g. logistical and strategic communications services) for a foreign government’s Ambassador to the United States in 2018 related to support recovery efforts in the U.S. after a hurricane. The project provided the foreign government with “obvious reputational benefits.” The FARA Unit found that the U.S. firm was required to register as an “agent” because it worked as a “public-relations counsel” under a contract with the foreign embassy. The FARA Unit also commented that the U.S. firm had not appealed to the potential applicability of a registration exemption and the FARA Unit was “aware of none that apply.”

A U.S. non-profit established for the purpose of raising public awareness of a foreign country’s “art, culture, literature, visual, and performing arts” was governed by a Board of uncompensated private citizens with the foreign country’s Ambassador to the United States serving as a non-voting ex officio member of that Board. The U.S. non-profit made grants and sponsored lectures, seminars, conferences, and other educational in furtherance of its mission. The U.S. non-profit “worked closely” with the foreign country’s embassy to the United States, jointly organizing an annual festival, bestowing an annual literary award, and raising funds to renovate a building in the United States to be used by the U.S. non-profit and the foreign embassy. The FARA Unit concluded that although the U.S. non-profit fit the definition of “agent of a foreign principal,” it was eligible for the exemption for activities in furtherance of “the fine arts” at 22 U.S.C. § 613(e) because the group limited its activities to raising public awareness of the arts, culture, and literature. The FARA Unit ended with the caveat that registration would be necessary in the event that the U.S. non-profit engaged in any “political activities” or other registrable activities for the foreign embassy.

A U.S. law firm was retained by a foreign company to provide lobbying and legal services related to the company’s agreements with the U.S. Department of Justice and other U.S. agencies. (Notably, the FARA Unite stated that the advisory opinion pertained only to the government relations work performed by the law firm and not to any legal and compliance work.) The law firm, which registered the representation under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, would inform U.S. government officials, including Members of Congress, about the company’s compliance with the agreements. The law firm stipulated that it would not lobby “for or against trade restrictions, sanctions, or administrative measures.” The FARA Unit concluded that the exemption for Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants at 22 U.S.C. § 613(h) applied because the foreign company was “not a foreign government or foreign political party” and because the law firm’s activities would “not principally benefit” a foreign government, with only a bare citation to the fact that the majority of the company’s shares “are publically traded.” The FARA Unit also mentioned in a footnote that it would not need to determine whether the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. § 613(d)(2) would apply.

A U.S. energy consultancy intended to be retained by a foreign chamber of commerce and a foreign government entity described as a “semi-autonomous body … under the direct purview of the Ministry of Business.” The U.S. consultancy planned to organize a delegation of foreign chamber of commerce members from private companies to “meet with Washington D.C.-based business and energy organizations” in the United States. The U.S. energy consultancy also “contacted several potential investment services companies to inform them about” the foreign country’s oil and natural resources and related need for investment services after meeting with the CEO of the foreign government entity. The FARA Unit first found that arranging travel and meetings for foreign chamber of commerce members with U.S. non-governmental organizations would not trigger registration and would not constitute “political activities,” as long as “they are not intended to influence any U.S. government official or the public regarding the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or the political or public interests” of a foreign government. The FARA Unit then concluded, however, that the U.S. consultancy’s work for the foreign government entity would trigger registration because they “intended to stimulate investment in [foreign country] by U.S. businesses and thus, are intended to influence a section of the public within the United States.” The FARA Unit did not examine whether any exemptions might cover the U.S. consultancy’s work.

[This Opinion has been removed from the FARA Unit’s website, per subsequent Advisory Opinion issued on 1-5-2021]. A U.S. organization intended to represent a foreign government “in litigation matters in the United States.” Specifically, a foreign government proposed retaining the legal department of a U.S. organization on a pro bono basis “to act as counsel of record” in civil litigation and perform activities that “would focus ‘exclusively’ on activities directly in support of the litigation.” The U.S. organization intended to fund its work by soliciting “unrestricted grants or donations …, as it does in connection with other litigation.” The FARA Unit analyzed whether this work would qualify for the exemption for legal representations at Section 613(g) and found that the exemption applied to “its in-court representation … in civil litigation.” However, the FARA Unit also concluded that the exemption would not cover other activities, such as “provid[ing] factual responses to media inquiries about the litigation, issu[ing] press releases containing facts regarding the litigation, and engag[ing] in press conferences” about the legal representation because these were not “before any court of law or agency.” The FARA Unit therefore found that to the extent the U.S. organization performed this out-of-court work, it would need to register under FARA.

A. U.S. public affairs firm assisted “in fostering public debate, making public statements, and engaging with U.S. government officials” on behalf of a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign state-owned enterprise.  The purpose of the work was “promoting the transition of control” over the foreign state-owned enterprise from a foreign government sanctioned by the U.S. to a foreign government recognized by the U.S.  The U.S. public affairs firm registered the representation under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, claiming that the work was exempt from FARA registration under both the exemption for Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants at 22 U.S.C. § 613(h) and the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(2).  The FARA Unit disagreed because the purpose of the U.S. firm’s work was to promote a U.S.-recognized foreign government’s control over a company, which made it ineligible for both exemptions

An individual was exploring an opportunity to assist a foreign government “in modernizing its … certification standards by aligning with and emulating the standards of the United States.” The proposed work included “advising on written exams, process, and procedures, as well as providing guidance to and training of examiners.” The individual planned to “liaise with a number of U.S. universities” but was uncertain whether work would require interaction with U.S. government officials. The FARA Unit, with little analysis, concluded that the individual would not be an “agent” so long as the activities “focused on modernizing standards” in the foreign country because the proposed work would not qualify as engaging in “political activities,” acting as a “public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant,” or representing the interests of a foreign principal before the U.S. government. The FARA Unit did hedge by saying in a footnote that any meetings with the U.S. government could potentially trigger registration.

A U.S. public relations firm represented a foreign chamber of commerce, which was described by the firm as a “binational, private sector, not-for-profit association that represents more than 130 … industry stakeholders.” The foreign chamber of commerce was not directed, controlled, or funded by any foreign government. The U.S. firm’s work involved monitoring industry-related issues in the United states, sending press releases to congressional committees, and making direct contact with U.S. Congressional offices. The U.S. firm had already registered under FARA and inquired of the FARA Unit whether it could terminate that registration based on the application of the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(2). Without analysis, the FARA Unit concluded that it did “not contest [the] claim that the proposed activities qualify for the exemption from registration under FARA pursuant to Section 613(d)(2) because they do not serve predominantly a foreign interest.” The FARA Unit instructed the U.S. firm that it could terminate its registration.

A U.S. foundation proposed preparing banners at events that would promote foreign nonprofits, arranging social events for foreign nonprofit representatives, posting content on the foundation’s website about the activities of foreign nonprofits, and coordinating meetings for foreign nonprofit representatives and foreign government officials with U.S. government officials “in order to ‘explain their work in their home country.” The FARA Unit found that the U.S. foundation would be an “agent” because it would act as a “publicity agent” (by preparing banners) and engage in “political activities” (by introducing foreign individuals to U.S. government officials). The FARA Unit rejected the U.S. foundation’s claim of the exemption for “bona fide religious” work at Section 613(e) because the activities would include “political activities.”

A U.S. public relations firm planned to provide “public relations services” related to the “religious activities” of an international organization. A part of the international organization’s mission was described as “bring[ing] together the world’s religious leaders to agree on measures to overcome important social challenges.” The U.S. firm’s services were to “provide a long-term strategic plan” to raise the international organization’s profile, promote the organization’s events, “develop global, national, and regional relationships,” and advise on “communications strategy, messaging and media relations, online profile and social media management, and other public relations activities designed to maximize positive media exposure.” A foreign government ministry was a participant in the international religious organization, with an affiliate of that foreign government ministry listed in the U.S. firm’s contract as responsible for the firm’s fee. Notably, the FARA Unit considered the foreign government ministry to be a “foreign principal” of the U.S. firm in this circumstance. The FARA Unit then found that the exemption for “bona fide religious” activities at Section 613(e) would not apply to this circumstance because while some of the proposed activities furthered religious activities, those activities also promoted a particular political issue. The FARA Unit concluded that these activities were “political activities” under the statute and made the exemption unavailable because they were “intended to influence the American public and government with respect to U.S. domestic policy, and could also be in the public interests of a foreign government.”

A U.S. consultancy was retained by the U.S. subsidiary of a privately owned foreign corporation to deliver “strategic assistance and guidance through quarterly reports” about “the domestic and foreign policies of the U.S.” in order to inform the foreign parent corporation of “U.S. laws and policies of commercial interest … for the ultimate purpose of maximizing their financial gain.” In its letter to the FARA Unit, the U.S. consultancy “asserted that the proposed activity would not be considered ‘political activities’ or activities of a ‘political consultant,’” which was a characterization that the FARA Unit said it did “not contest,” without offering explanation.

A U.S. public relations firm was retained by a privately funded nonprofit organization located outside the United States for the purpose of “gathering information and analyzing the most relevant political intelligence” and “identifying ‘key influencers an decision makers’ on identified topics,” including U.S. government officials. The FARA Unit stated that the foreign nonprofit was a “foreign principal” under the statute and the contemplated activities “would require registration under FARA, absent an exemption.” The FARA Unit found, though, that the Lobbying Disclosure Act exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(h) was available to the U.S. firm because the foreign nonprofit’s organization, structure, and governance indicated that “there is no specific foreign government that is a principal beneficiary” of the activities.

A U.S. public relations firm considered an engagement with a foreign corporation that was “incorporated to manage assets held by” a foreign government and was owned by the foreign government’s finance ministry. The foreign corporation was controlled by a board of private sector individuals whose appointments were made by the foreign government’s finance minister and assented to by the president of the foreign country. The firm proposed to advise the foreign corporation on “investment strategies” by “contacting U.S. Government officials to gather information about the position of the U.S. Government on potential cross-border investments or transactions.” The FARA Unit concluded that, although the U.S. firm would not include any effort “to advocate for or against any policy or transaction,” the firm would be acting as an “agent” simply by appearing before a U.S. Government official, as contemplated in part of the “agent” definition found at 22 U.S.C. 611(c)(1)(iv). The FARA Unit also concluded that the U.S. firm did not qualify for the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1) or for the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(2) because the foreign corporation’s commercial activities “directly promoted the public or political interests of a foreign government.” The foreign corporation’s interests, the FARA Unit explained, were “inextricably connected to the public interest of the [foreign government] because … its core function is to generate funds for the [foreign government].” The FARA Unit explained that the foreign corporation was “a type of sovereign wealth fund” and “not a commercial business that happens to be state owned,” making it ineligible for the two FARA registration exemptions. Finally, the FARA Unit expressed the opinion that the U.S. firm’s proposed representation of the foreign corporation would benefit the foreign government’s interests because engagement with U.S. officials “would directly aid [foreign government]’s decision-making and improve its standing in the eyes of those officials.”

A U.S. organization was “formed to provide strategic support” to a foreign political party and conducted fundraising, educational, and recruitment activities to benefit the party in the United States. The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. organization was required to register under FARA because it conducted “political activities” and raised funds for the foreign political party.

A U.S. individual “and a group of friends” intended to start a “group in the United States to engage in social and political activities, such as holding political and social conferences and meetings, contacting political officials to advocate … opinions concerning [foreign country], seeking support and raising funds from U.S. citizens to support [the] group, and transmitting satellite TV broadcasts to [foreign country].” The individual stipulated that the group did not have any connection to any foreign individual or entity. Based on that stipulation, the FARA Unit concluded that registration was unnecessary.

A U.S. public relations firm was retained by three U.S. nonprofit organizations on projects originally funded by a foreign government. The projects were “limited to affecting the commercial decisions of U.S. and global companies with regard to their sourcing of [products] abroad” through private meetings and consumer-awareness campaigns. The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. public relations firm constituted “political activities” on behalf of a foreign principal because: (1) a U.S. company qualifies as “any section of the public within the United States”; and (2) a U.S. company’s supply chain and product sourcing practices were a “political and public interest of” a foreign government in this circumstance.

A U.S. communications consultancy represented a foreign non-profit that was not owned, controlled, financed, or subsidized by a foreign government. The foreign non-profit retained the U.S. consultancy for the purpose of supporting a former foreign government official’s candidacy for a United Nations position. The representation did not involve outreach to U.S. government officials, government agencies, or media outlets. Any public communications and public relations activities related to the candidacy were targeted to a non-U.S. audience. The FARA Unit concluded that although the U.S. consultancy was “generating work product in and from the United States through its communications and public relations efforts on behalf of its foreign principal,” registration was not required because the consultancy did not meet with U.S. government or media and because public communications targeted “only a non-U.S. audience.”

An individual worked as a consultant for the U.S. branch of a foreign government’s communications office. The consultant’s work was to initiate discussions with U.S. media, wireless, and renewable energy companies in an effort to convince them to open offices in the foreign country. The FARA Unit concluded that the consultant was required to register because he/she was acting under contract as an “information-service employee” by talking with U.S. companies about opening offices in the foreign country. The FARA Unit also mentioned that the consultant’s activities would qualify as “political activities” under the law. Finally, the FARA Unit noted that the consultant could not qualify for the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1) because the activities were not “private” or for its “sister” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(2) because the activities were undertaken directly for the foreign government.

A principal of a U.S. public relations firm simultaneously served as the president of a coalition of U.S. nonprofit organizations “dedicated to improving the welfare of” a specific ethnic diaspora, “through its mission to improve the United States’ long-term security interests in its relations with [foreign countries].” The coalition published commentary, convened discussions among Americans of the ethnicity, and advising foreign officials about U.S. policy. The coalition also engaged “with U.S. policymakers regarding [foreign country] security, trade, and other issues.” The public relations firm had already registered on behalf of the coalition under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The FARA Unit rejected the requestors’ assertion that they were “not acting as foreign agents because their activities are not undertaken at the direction and control of the [foreign government],” finding that FARA registration was necessary and that the Lobbying Disclosure Act exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(h) was in applicable. The FARA Unit’s finding appeared in large part to hinge on a $160,000 payment from the foreign government to the U.S. public relations firm. The FARA Unit concluded that, although the coalition itself had not accepted any money from a foreign government, the payment to the U.S. public relations firm “established an agency relationship under FARA” for both entities because money was “received from a foreign government to subsidize ongoing political activities that [were] relevant and beneficial to that government.” The FARA Unit disregarded the distinction between the coalition (which had not received foreign-government money) and the public relations firm (which had received foreign-government money) because the two organizations shared common top leadership. The FARA Unit also remarked that “direction or control” by a foreign government were unnecessary because it would have been enough for the coalition and public relations firm to act at the “request” of the foreign government. Finally, the FARA Unit disallowed the use of the Lobbying Disclosure Act exemption because it found that a foreign government was the “foreign principal” for the underlying work. Accordingly, the coalition and the public relations firm were required to register under FARA.

An individual in the United States intended to “accept an appointment as an honorary ambassador” of a foreign government. The individual stated that he “would not be engaging within the United States in any of the activities enumerated in the Act that require registration.” The FARA Unit concluded that registration was not required, but cautioned that the individual would likely be required to register if he “does engage with any U.S. government officials or the American public to advocate” on behalf of the foreign government.

The FARA Unit declined to issue an advisory opinion to an unknown party because the review request involved only past conduct. The FARA Unit did note, however, that “a person who engages in speeches at U.S. college or university campuses on behalf of a foreign government may have an obligation to register under FARA” if they engage in “political activity.” The FARA Unit also mentioned that “a person who informs or advises a foreign government about the domestic or foreign policies of the United States may have an obligation to register under FARA as a ‘political consultant.’”

A U.S. public relations firm held preliminary discussions with a foreign government to potentially engage in lobbying on the government’s behalf. The firm engaged in “research to determine whether it was feasible…to work on [the foreign government’s] behalf” and encountered several Congressional Record statements about the foreign government made by Members of Congress. The firm asked the FARA Unit whether “inquiring of these Members of Congress about their Congressional Records Statements would require registration under FARA.” The FARA Unit concluded that such inquiries would not trigger registration, so long as the firm limited its activities to “merely conducting research about [foreign country]” and did not use the inquiries as a way of influencing Members or their staffs on behalf of the foreign government.

An individual in the United States proposed serving as a consultant for a foreign government embassy official. The proposed consulting agreement stated that the consultant’s duties would be to “communicate” with local government entities in the U.S., to “participate in building strong and efficient relationships between the [foreign government] and the United States,” to exchange “best practices through participation in conferences,” and to “facilitate and arrange visits” to U.S. government officials by foreign embassy officials and by industry representatives from the foreign country. The FARA Unit found that registration was unnecessary due to the application of the “diplomatic personnel” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(c), which is available for those who are “employed by” an accredited diplomatic or consular official of a foreign government, if three conditions are met: (1) the agent’s name, status, and duties are “of public record” at the U.S. Department of State; (2) the agent engages “exclusively in the performance of activities which are recognized by the Department of States as being within the scope” of a diplomatic/consular employee; and (3) the agent dos not acts as a “public relations counsel,” a “publicity agent,” or an “information-service employee,” as those terms are defined under FARA. The FARA Unit did not provide additional information about the contours of U.S. Department of State restrictions or address whether interacting with government officials or participating in conferences could potentially constitute acting as a “public relations counsel,” a “publicity agent,” or an “information-service employee.”

A U.S. public relations firm wanted to represent a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of a foreign company “on federal legislative and regulatory issues affecting the U.S. operations of” the U.S. subsidiary’s business. The representation would include “lobbying contacts with members of Congress and their staff” as well as communications “with officials at federal regulatory agencies,” all of which would be directed by the U.S. subsidiary’s U.S. executive team. In its request, the U.S. public relations firm stipulated that the foreign parent of the U.S. subsidiary was a “foreign principal” under FARA and that the proposed representation would constitute “political activity.” The U.S. public relations firm also noted that it would register for its work under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. In cursory fashion, the FARA Unit noted that it would “not contest that the proposed activities qualify for the exemption from registration under FARA pursuant to Section 613(d)(2),” which covers activities that are “not serving predominantly a foreign interest.” The FARA Unit did not discuss whether the Lobbying Disclosure Act exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(h) was applicable.

A U.S. consultancy specializing in national security matters was in negotiations with a foreign pension plan board to advocate on its behalf before the U.S. government (e.g. Congress, U.S. Treasury, Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) with respect to recently enacted U.S. legislation. The foreign pension plan was created by a foreign government law but funded exclusively by private contributions. The foreign pension plan board acted “independent” of the foreign government and owed their fiduciary duty to pensioners, but board members were appointed by the foreign government. The FARA Unit noted that the consultancy would need to register “[a]bsent an exemption” and then analyzed the representation under the Lobbying Disclosure Act exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(h). The FARA Unit found that the exemption applied to the representation because the foreign pension board was not a foreign government because the foreign government was not “the principal beneficiary” of the representation, due to the board’s independence from the foreign government. Finally, the FARA Unit mentioned that the exemption’s availability was “premised upon [the] timely filing of a registration under the LDA.”

A U.S. individual served as an officer and political advisor for a foreign political party. The individual, among other things, engaged in the following activities within the United States: (1) “provided counsel and follow-up to the [foreign political party] regarding invitations sent to Members of the U.S. Congress” to attend an event; (2) “drafted two resolutions … the subject of which would be of political interest to the United States as well as [foreign region]”; (3) “accompanied” a foreign political party official “to attend congressional meetings and other events in Washington, D.C.”; and (4) organized briefings, formulated talking points, and provided “logistical assistance.” The FARA Unit decided that these activities triggered FARA registration because the individual conducted “political activities and acted as a “political consultant” for the foreign political party. Finally, the FARA Unit noted that although certain activities were “organized in cooperation with various organizations in the United States, it does not relieve [individual] of his obligation to register under FARA.”

Two U.S. companies contracted with foreign-government embassies for: (1) wholesale distribution of products to global wholesalers, distributors, and retailers; (2) guidance related to “investment opportunities in companies in the United States and/or in the American Economic Opportunity Zones pursuant to all U.S. federal guidelines and statutes; and (3) buying, selling, hauling, and delivering products to certain companies. The companies asserted that they were eligible for the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1). The FARA Unit, in cursory fashion, concluded that FARA registration was unnecessary because the companies’ activities “do not fall within the specified activities set forth in 22 U.S.C. 611(c) that would require registration under FARA.” The FARA Unit did not comment on the potential applicability of the exemption.

A U.S. consultancy was retained by a foreign company to assist in the promotion of an annual industry conference that was held in a foreign country, hosted by a foreign state-owned enterprise, and sponsored by a mix of private companies, state-owned enterprises, and foreign government agencies. The U.S. consultancy was specifically hired to serve as a liaison with media outlets internationally and to hold promotional events with industry leaders across the world, including those in the United States. The FARA Unit noted that the U.S. consultancy would be acting as a “publicity agent” and fit the statutory definition of “agent of a foreign principal.” The FARA Unit also reasoned that the “commercial activities exemption” at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1) was inapplicable because some conference promotion activities were “inherently political in nature” (e.g. authoring op-eds by foreign government officials) and indirectly promoted the public/political interests of the foreign government. However, the FARA Unit found that registration was unnecessary because the U.S. consultancy did qualify for the broader “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(2), which allows for the performance of “political activities” and work that only indirectly promotes the interests of a foreign government or a foreign political party. In reaching this conclusion, the FARA Unit emphasized that any benefits from the work that accrued to the foreign government would be only "indirect and incidental” and therefore eligible for the exemption, as long as the foreign government refrained from directing any of the U.S. consultancy’s activities.

A U.S. company was a wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign company, which was owned in equal one-third shares by a foreign government, another foreign government, and a private foreign corporation. The U.S. subsidiary was registered under FARA as an “agent” of its foreign parent company. However, the U.S. subsidiary inquired as to whether it was eligible for the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(2) and could deregister even while responding to a Department of Commerce investigation into its foreign parent. The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. subsidiary was indeed eligible for the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption while offering little analysis.

A U.S. media consultancy proposed several specific activities critical of a foreign government. One such activity was to ask a foreign ambassador to the United States to seek funding to promote democracy in the foreign country. The FARA Unit concluded that this activity was not registrable because the “solicitation of funds was made to a foreign party and the funds solicited were to be spent outside the United States. One of the other activities discussed was a series of paid speaking appearances about the status of the foreign country’s human rights record that were “sponsored by” a U.S. non-profit “in support of” a foreign political party. The FARA Unit found that the speaking appearances in the U.S. would trigger registration only if the activities were paid for by the foreign political party or if the U.S. non-profit was otherwise “acting in any way on behalf of” the foreign political party. Finally, the FARA Unit reviewed whether generic “pro-democracy” efforts could trigger registration, but did not provide a meaningful answer.

An entity proposed working with a U.S. law firm in that firm’s representation of a foreign company. The representation involved the “voluntary self-disclosure” of an unlicensed re-export to a foreign country before the Department of Commerce. Without articulating any analysis, the FARA Unit concluded that the requestor did “not have an obligation to register under these specific narrow facts.”

A U.S. law firm proposed working on behalf of a foreign government ministry to improve the foreign government’s ranking in an unknown index of countries. The U.S. law firm would conduct public records research, interview “international thought leaders,” and provide recommendations to the foreign government. The FARA Unit opined that the U.S. law firm was not required to register under FARA because it would not advise the foreign government about how to influence members of the U.S. public or on U.S. policy, and because the work would not involve distributing any documents to U.S. persons.

A U.S. public relations firm represented a private foreign company that had been retained by a foreign government to strengthen economic relations between that government and the United States. The U.S. public relations firm also simultaneously represented the foreign government directly, with the same personnel performing work under both the foreign company and the foreign government contracts. The U.S. public relations firm asserted that its work for the foreign company qualified for the registration exemptions under 22 U.S.C. 613(d). The FARA Unit disagreed, remarking that the engagement was ineligible for the “commercial activities” exemption because the activities were “not solely commercial in nature but involve some political activities.” The FARA Unit also found that the engagement was ineligible for the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption because they were intertwined with the foreign government’s public and political interests. FARA registration for the U.S. firm’s work for the private foreign company was therefore required.

A U.S. law firm represented a foreign government ministry in a private arbitration proceeding involving contracts that the ministry entered with private entities. The U.S. government was not a party to the arbitration but a federal agency was investigating certain related transactions and produced a draft report, which the U.S. law firm commented on as “to factual and process issues related directly to the arbitration.” The FARA Unit found that registration was unnecessary because the U.S. law firm was exempt under the “legal representation” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(g), given its narrow focus on the private arbitration.

A U.S. public relations firm was retained to perform “consulting on government relations” by a U.S. joint venture, which was majority-owned by a foreign company and a U.S. company. A foreign state-owned enterprise also held a 22% interest in the U.S. joint venture and provided a “manufacturing and financial role in supporting” the U.S. joint venture. The FARA Unit found that the U.S. joint venture was a “foreign principal” under the statute, given its relationship with the foreign state-owned enterprise. However, the FARA Unit also concluded that FARA registration was unnecessary because the representation was eligible for the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest exemption” at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(2). The FARA Unit stated that the exemption would apply so long as the U.S. public relations firm was not directed “to engage in political activities that promote the public or political interests of” a foreign country or a foreign political party.

A U.S. print media company, in “a business decision based upon anticipated revenue,” created and published a special magazine to coincide with the visit of a foreign government leader. The U.S. company did not have any contacts with the leader or his/her foreign government and did not accept any “foreign funding” for the publication. The U.S. company did, however, invite and receive an op-ed from the foreign leader’s advisor for the publication. The U.S. company also provided the advisor with an advance, draft copy of the overall publication and implemented the advisor’s suggested edits, including the replacement of “some photographs with other, more palatable photographs.” The FARA Unit concluded that registration was not necessary, since the publication was the U.S. media company’s idea and product to control, despite the fact that it sought input from a foreign government advisor. The FARA Unit seems to have relied heavily on the breadth of a statutory exemption for newspapers, magazines, periodicals, and other publications at 22 U.S.C. 611(d).

A U.S. law firm was retained by a private foreign bank and a foreign individual to provide legal services in connection with a potential designation under the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control’s sanctions program. The U.S. law firm, among other things, wrote a preemptive letter to that Office requesting that it stay any sanctions designations until the firm’s clients could submit information. The FARA Unit found that the U.S. law firm’s activities were eligible for the “legal representation” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(g) because its representation focused on the specific application of the sanctions regime to the firm’s clients.

A U.S. law firm was retained by a foreign state-owned enterprise to provide legal services in connection with a potential designation under the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control’s sanctions program. The U.S. law firm, among other things, wrote a preemptive letter to that Office requesting that it stay any sanctions designations until the firm’s client could submit information. The FARA Unit found that the U.S. law firm’s activities were eligible for the “legal representation” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(g) because its representation focused on the specific application of the sanctions regime to the firm’s clients.

A U.S. individual hosted a 30-minute broadcast television “interview and commentary show” from Washington, D.C., five days each week for a U.S. media company registered as a foreign agent “in connection with its production of various television shows” for a foreign state-owned enterprise. The U.S. individual was an independent contractor to the U.S. media company. The FARA Unit noted, in its brief analysis, that the “consideration most relevant to our determination that [US person] does not have an obligation to register is … that [US person] does not have a contractual relationship with [foreign state owned company] or other foreign principal.” The FARA Unit then concluded that registration is unnecessary without offering further explanation. Please note that this Advisory Opinion’s emphasis on privity of contract may not be reflected in other guidance issues by the FARA Unit.

A U.S. trade association joined as a member of a new international tourism organization based in a foreign country. The U.S. trade association stipulated that it would “not engage in any activities in an attempt to change or influence U.S. laws or policies.” The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. trade association was “not in an agency relationship with” the international tourism organization because its membership was “in furtherance of its mission in supporting [tourism] to the United States and the mutual interests of” the international organization’s members. Without further analysis, the FARA Unit declared that registration was unnecessary.

A U.S. non-profit engaged in a dialogue with the U.S. government and a foreign government to encourage the foreign government to release an incarcerated individual. To that end, the U.S. non-profit asked U.S. government officials to meet with various foreign government officials. However, the U.S. non-profit did not have a contractual relationship with the foreign government and did not receive fees for its activities. In concluding that registration is unnecessary, the FARA Unit simply restated the requestor’s position that a principal-agent relationship did not exist and that the U.S. non-profit appeared to be working solely to release the incarcerated individual.

A U.S. compliance consulting firm proposed a contract with a U.S. law firm to provide services to the law firm’s client, a foreign country’s central bank. The U.S. consulting firm would assist the U.S. law firm in the “rendering of legal advice and provision of legal services” by: (1) assessing the foreign central bank’s cyber security programs; (2) evaluating the foreign central bank’s policies and programs concerning anti-money laundering and terrorism finance; (3) communicating, under the direction of the U.S. law firm, with U.S. banks, financial institutions, and government agencies; (4) contacting U.S. banks, financial institutions, and government agencies to demonstrate the foreign central bank’s “suitability for establishing commercial relationships with U.S. financial institutions.” The FARA Unit found that the representation did not qualify for the “commercial activities” and “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemptions under 22 U.S.C. 613(d) because the work would “directly promote the public interests” of the foreign country.

A U.S. public relations firm was retained by a foreign company to “foster commercial and international investment-related outreach opportunities for private companies and investors” into the United States by: (1) making “senior level introductions” between companies and potential investors; (2) arranging visits for foreign companies’ executives “to explore business opportunities in the U.S.”; (3) analyzing and presenting investment opportunities; (4) engaging subcontractors and partners to ensure maximum value for the foreign company and its clients. The foreign company did not represent the interests of any foreign country or its government and the work by the U.S. public relations firm was “intended to promote the economic and commercial interests of [foreign corporation] on behalf of its private clients.” The FARA Unit also concluded that FARA registration was unnecessary because the representation was eligible for the exemptions 22 U.S.C. 613(d). The FARA Unit stated that the exemptions would apply so long as the U.S. public relations firm was not directed “to engage in political activities that promote the public or political interests of” a foreign country or a foreign political party.

A U.S. individual was employed by a U.S. company to provide consulting services to a foreign government related to the formation of a foreign government agency. The individual would provide advice on best governance practices on economic development and arrange meetings with international organizations, which would include U.S. government officials. The individual noted that he/she would “focus on the commercial aspects” of an industry and have no role in seeking to influence U.S. government policies.

A U.S. public relations firm was retained by a U.S. company for government-relations services, including efforts to secure incentive funding and procurement contracts from U.S. government entities. The U.S. company was owned by a public company, which was then owned by another public company, which in turn was 51.1% owned by a foreign government. The U.S. public relations firm was registered for its representation of the U.S. company under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. The FARA Unit concluded that it would “not contest” that the U.S. public relations firm was eligible for the FARA registration exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(h) for Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants. The FARA Unit explained that, even though that exemption excludes representations where a foreign government is “the principal beneficiary,” the foreign government’s indirect 51.1% ownership interest in the U.S. company would not affect the availability of the exemption as long as the U.S. public relations firm was not “directed to engage in political activities” by the foreign government.

A U.S. public relations firm was retained by a foreign government to “assist with facilitating meetings” for a foreign government official with “private industry leaders in the defense and security markets.” The FARA Unit found that the activities were “considered commercial in nature” and therefore qualified for the “commercial activities” exemption at 613(d)(1).

A U.S. company provided “meeting coordination, relationship facilitation and cross-cultural communications clarification” services to two U.S. firms in connection with their FARA-registered representation of a foreign government. The contract with the two U.S. firms stipulated that the requestor could not engage in any registrable activity (e.g. influence the U.S. government, publish or distribute materials) and prohibited the requestor “from undertaking any substantive work on behalf of the foreign government, either directly or indirectly…” The FARA Unit ultimately determined that, so long as the conditions of the contract remained true, the requestor would not need to register.

A U.S. public relations firm contracted with a foreign company that owns an air cargo facility at a foreign airport to “provide strategic advice and associated services … with the goal of obtaining U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) cargo pre-inspection” for the foreign company’s facility. The U.S. public relations firm would communicate with U.S. government officials as part of the engagement. The FARA Unit concluded that, despite contact with a U.S. government official, the representation was eligible for the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1) and registration therefore was unnecessary. In particular, the FARA Unit reasoned that the representational activities were “nonpolitical” under the exemption because they related to “existing CBP policy and administrative action with respect to approval of pre-inspection locations” in furtherance of a “purely commercial” interest.

A foreign technology company distributed a proprietary application in partnership with another foreign corporation, which was “under the direction and control or subsidized by” a foreign government. The foreign technology company intended in the future to “lobby the Congress or federal agencies concerning the acquisition of or the institution of pilot programs” for products produced by the company. The FARA Unit stated that the foreign technology company was eligible for the “commercial activities” exemption under 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1) for its regular business activities, but would need to avail itself of the exemption for Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants under 22 U.S.C. 613(h) to avoid FARA registration if the company decided to lobby the U.S. government. The FARA Unit also noted that the exemption for Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants is available only if a foreign government or foreign political party was not “the principal beneficiary” of the activities.

A U.S. individual planned to serve as a director of a U.S. “security solutions” company that was a subsidiary of a foreign corporation. The U.S. individual’s responsibilities would include “protecting the U.S. Government’s best interests” and “ensuring that [U.S. company] meets all of the requirements of the Special Security Agreements required by the Defense Security Service.” With little analysis, the FARA Unit concluded that the activities were “commercial in nature” and therefore qualified for the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1).

A foreign individual intended to work in the United States and hire a consultancy to support a former foreign government official, oppose the foreign government then in office, and call for the independent monitoring of election in a foreign country. The work would involve lobbying U.S. government officials. The foreign individual articulated “a concern for the physical safety” of the foreign individual because of their political views and their opposition to the foreign government. The foreign individual requested that the FARA Unit grant an exemption from public disclosure under 22 U.S.C. 612(f), which allows the Attorney General to exempt a filer from providing information “not necessary to carry out the purposes of” FARA. The FARA Unit declined to extend this exemption to the foreign individual, noting that it authorized the Attorney General to exempt only “unnecessary information.” The FARA Unit, however, did offer to redact “personally identifiable information” (e.g. addresses) from “publication on the FARA website upon receipt of a letter from the registrant.”

Two U.S. public relations firms provided advice to a foreign corporation concerning economic, security, and diplomatic matters facing a foreign country “in order to improve the overall global standing of [foreign country] and its relations with countries other than the United States.” The agreement with the foreign corporation specifically stated that the foreign corporation would not ask the U.S. firms to “engage in any activity that would require registration under FARA.” Although the FARA Unit ultimately decided registration was unnecessary for the two firms, it also notably rejected an argument that the firms were not required to register due to the fact that the firms’ personnel “would be physically outside the United States at the time of performance or delivery of the service.”

In a sparse opinion that contains little analysis, the FARA Unit told a requestor that registration was unnecessary for services under a signed contract with a foreign consulate where the contract clarified that the request would not provide “any communication and/or representation with any U.S. governmental official, with any news media, or with any related third party.” The FARA Unit did not describe any of the other representational activities or analyze whether they could potentially trigger FARA registration.

A foreign non-profit foundation was “considered a quasi-government arm” of a foreign government, performing services for and taking direction from a foreign government ministry. The foreign foundation proposed the sponsorship of exhibits at a U.S. museum about the history of diplomatic relations between the foreign country and the United States “to educate the American public about the strong bonds that have existed between the two nations.” The foreign foundation also planned to purchase “historically important and valuable items” for the foreign government. The FARA Unit stated that a “significant number of the activities in which the Foundation is considering engaging in could be considered to be activities ‘in furtherance of bona fide religious, scholastic, academic, or scientific pursuits, or of the fine arts’” under the statutory exemption for these activities at 22 U.S.C. 613(e). However, the FARA Unit also noted that the foreign foundation was “engaging in a wider array of activities and should register.”

A U.S. non-profit foundation received funds from a foreign government pursuant to a grant agreement. The FARA Unit concluded that it would “not contest” the U.S. foundation’s claim for an exemption under 22 U.S.C. 613(h), “so long as the activities of [U.S. foundation] are limited to activities ‘in furtherance of the bona fide religious, scholastic, academic, or scientific pursuits, or of the fine arts.’” The FARA Unit did not specify the underlying facts about the grants or the grant agreement.

A U.S. law firm and affiliated U.S. government relations firm represented a foreign company in its attempted acquisition of a U.S. company and the related Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) process. The FARA Unit has previously advised the U.S. firms that they were required to register this representation under FARA (see 12-3-2012). The U.S. firms then supplemented their initial filing with additional information, noting that their foreign company client was 40% owned by a foreign municipal government and 60% owned by a holding company (which itself was owned by two private foreign nationals). By the time the FARA Unit considered this additional information and revisited its initial analysis, the U.S. firms no longer represented the foreign company. Nonetheless, three years after the U.S. firms’ initial request, the FARA Unit ultimately concluded that it would “not contest” the U.S. firms’ request for an exemption under 22 U.S.C. 613(h), which applies to Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants because no foreign government owned or controlled the U.S. firms’ foreign company client.

A U.S. public relations firm planned to hold a political fundraising event for an individual who was a naturalized U.S. citizen and running for public office in a foreign country. The FARA Unit remarked that “merely contributing funds” would not trigger registration, but concluded that soliciting and collecting funds gives rise to registration.

The FARA Unit concluded that registration was unnecessary for an unknown requestor based on the representations contained in a letter, but did not describe those representations or any other facts about the request.

The FARA Unit concluded that registration was unnecessary for an unknown requestor based on the representations contained in a letter, but did not describe those representations or any other facts about the request.

The FARA Unit concluded that FARA registration was unnecessary for an unknown requestor based on the representations contained in a letter, but did not describe those representations or any other facts about the request. The FARA Unit also concluded “that there is insufficient evidence at this time to require [foreign national] to register pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 851,” which is a related anti-espionage statute, while also declaring that the Unit “does not render advisory opinions or statements of enforcement posture under 18 U.S.C. 951,” which is yet another anti-espionage statute.

A U.S. non-profit organization consisted of foreign nationals who lived in the United States and supported a particular foreign political party. The U.S. non-profit collected money from its members and others in the United States to support that foreign political party. The U.S. non-profit stipulated that it was not directed, controlled, or funded by the foreign political party, and that it did not disburse funds or conduct political activities for the foreign political party. The FARA Unit responded to these facts by requesting additional information from the U.S. non-profit, including copies of organizational documents and correspondence. The FARA Unit declined to issue an advisory opinion.

A U.S. law firm was retained by a foreign company that market high-performance computer systems, software, and services to remove the company from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security’s “Entity List,” which prohibits listed companies from certain commercial interactions. The foreign company was one-quarter owned by a foreign bank that was controlled by a foreign government. The FARA Unit found that the U.S. law firm was exempt from FARA registration under the “legal representation” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(g) because it would attempt to remove its client from the “Entity List” through a civil law enforcement proceeding. The FARA Unit also found that it did not possess sufficient information about ownership and control by any foreign government and about the foreign company’s alleged export violations to provide a determination about the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1).

A U.S. consulting firm worked for a foreign research center to arrange “conferences, workshops, lectures, and other scholarly events.” The FARA Unit did not make a determination, noting that it needed additional information to decide whether FARA registration was necessary.

A U.S. law firm that had previously been instructed to register by the FARA Unit (see 12-3-2012) for matters involving the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sought subsequent clarification. The U.S. law firm specified that it would be seeking a “specific license from OFAC permitting direct payments to be made between U.S. financial institution and [foreign bank] in connection with the licensed exports of food, medicine, and medical devices.” The FARA Unit found that seeking such a specific license would not be a registrable activity because it would “be part of established and routine administrative OFAC procedures.” However, the FARA Unit also noted that the U.S. law firm contemplated lobbying of U.S. government officials to secure approval of the license and concluded that those efforts would be “political activities” under the statute. Moreover, the FARA Unit decided that the U.S. law firm could not avail itself of the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1) and the exemption for Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants at 22 U.S.C. 613(h) because the foreign country “and its banking system [are] bound together.” FARA therefore held that the U.S. law firm’s representation would “require immediate registration under FARA.”

A U.S. law firm and an affiliated U.S. government relations firm represented a foreign company in connection with an acquisition of a U.S. company, focusing specifically on navigating the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) process and “educating U.S. policymakers” about the foreign company’s business. The foreign company was minority owned by a foreign municipal investment corporation, which was controlled by the foreign municipal government. The U.S. government relations firm registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act prior to requesting the advisory opinion from the FARA Unit. The FARA Unit, after remarking several times that the requestor did not provide adequate information, decided that this activity was “political activity” under the statute in as much it was “an attempt to in any way influence the domestic or foreign policy of the United States and the political or public interest of the [foreign country].” The FARA Unit, without further analysis, concluded that the U.S. law firm and the U.S. government relations firms could not avail themselves of the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1). The FARA Unit also rejected the applicability of the “legal representation” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(g) because the “anticipated activities … exceed the activities permitted under the legal exemption.” Finally, the FARA Unit rejected the applicability of the exemption for Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants at 22 U.S.C. 613(h) because that “exemption is not permitted where a foreign government is the principal beneficiary.” The FARA Unit revisited and reversed its analysis of this particular representation three years after this initial conclusion (see 11-10-2015).

U.S. law firm was retained by a private foreign bank to provide “legal and political consultancy services regarding the establishment of a direct banking relationship” between the bank and U.S. financial institutions “to facilitate licensed transactions” involving entities in a foreign country. The FARA Unit noted that the goal of the representation was contrary to an Executive Order, which blocked any U.S. institution from engaging in transactions with any financial institution in that foreign country. The FARA Unit also remarked that the U.S. Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) named the foreign bank specifically as an entity covered by the Executive Order. The U.S. law firm, in order to lift these restrictions for its foreign bank client, planned to communicate with U.S. government officials, propose legislation, appeal to the public and industry leaders, and meet with U.S. financial institutions to “discuss compliance assurances.” The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. law firm’s proposed work constituted “political activities” under FARA and was ineligible for the Lobbying Disclosure Act exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(h) because a foreign government would be “the principal beneficiary.” The FARA Unit later revisited its analysis of this particular representation but reached the same conclusion (see 4-9-2013).

A U.S. individual initially requested an opinion from the FARA Unit, but subsequently indicated that he/she “decided to separate myself amicably” from the foreign government he/she previously represented “because of the deteriorating security situation.” The U.S. individual withdrew the request for an advisory opinion.

A U.S. 501(c)(3) non-profit research institution was established to study unspecified issues related to the United States and foreign countries. The U.S. 501(c)(3) proposed to receive a grant from a foreign corporation, which was itself funded by both public and private donations but had no affiliation with a foreign government or foreign political party. The foreign corporation’s purpose was to create a financial center in a foreign city. The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. 501(c)(3) could receive the proposed grant “without incurring an obligation to register under FARA.” In reaching this conclusion, the FARA Unit relied heavily on the U.S. 501(c)(3)’s representation that it would not engage in “political activity” or any other FARA-registrable activity. The FARA Unit did not provide an analysis of whether the grant-funded work would be FARA-registrable activities, separate from the requestor’s representations.

A U.S. 501(c)(3) non-profit organization proposed to represent a foreign government ministry by: (1) convening panels (e.g. think-tank analysts, former U.S. officials, corporate figures) to discuss issues of interest to the foreign government; (2) hosting foreign government officials in Washington to present their views on issues of interest to the foreign government; (3) training interns and introducing them to the Washington policy community; (4) working with the foreign government’s embassy on “important issues”; and (5) conducting educational workshops throughout the U.S. on issues important to the foreign government.” The U.S. 501(c)(3) noted that it had been educating U.S. policymakers and other citizens about similar issues for over 30 years. The FARA Unit noted that the U.S. 501(c)(3)’s “tax exemption does not relieve an agent from registration under FARA” and then concluded that the organization must register because it would engage in “political activities” and serve as a “political consultant” for a foreign government.

A U.S. individual proposed providing advice on a foreign government’s security and national defense to that government’s President, Prime Minister, Ambassador to the United States, and other senior officials. The U.S. individual represented that he/she would not engage in “political activities” or any other FARA-registrable activities. The FARA Unit stated that advice to a foreign government “on matters unrelated to the integrity of the U.S. government decision making process or American public opinion toward” the foreign government would not trigger FARA registration. However, the FARA Unit found media articles disseminated in the United States that were written by the U.S. individual about the foreign country and remarked that several “public source documents” alleged that the U.S. individual “received payments from the [foreign government] Embassy to write articles favorable to [foreign ambassador].” The FARA Unit therefore withheld any conclusion on registration and asked the U.S. individual to provide additional information.

A foreign government retained a foreign partnership to perform consultancy services in several countries “but not in the United States.” The foreign partnership then hired a foreign company to support its contract with the foreign government. That foreign company, in turn, contracted with its U.S. subsidiary to provide “consultancy services in the United States for the [foreign country],” and the U.S. subsidiary registered under FARA prior to the opinion request. The FARA Unit declared that neither the foreign partnership nor the foreign company were required to register under FARA so long as they did not “act within the United States on behalf of the [foreign government] and all public relations activities within the U.S. were conducted exclusively by” the U.S. subsidiary. The FARA Unit also noted that even though the foreign partnership and foreign company were not necessarily required to register themselves, they did need to be listed on the U.S. subsidiary’s FARA registration in order to disclose fully the relationship between the U.S. subsidiary and the foreign government.

A U.S. individual who had received earlier advisory opinions from the FARA Unit requested a renewal of those prior opinions by simply referring the Unit to “earlier correspondence.” The FARA Unit responded that it would need “specific details of … current activities” and declined to issue an opinion. The FARA Unit did mention, however, that a statutory exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(f) for a foreign government “vital to the defense of the United States” was not available to the U.S. individual because the individual’s foreign principal had not been duly listed by the President in the Federal Register, as the exemption requires.

A U.S. law firm provided “legal and political consultancy services” to a foreign individual, who was married to a former leader of a foreign political party regarded as a foreign country’s “top opposition leader.” The representation involved an effort to obtain the release of the foreign individual’s spouse from a foreign prison by educating U.S. policymakers about the circumstances of the imprisonment. The U.S. law firm was to be paid by the foreign individual exclusively from personal funds. The U.S. law firm registered the representation under the Lobbying Disclosure Act prior to asking for the FARA Unit’s opinion. The FARA Unit said that the exemption for Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants at 22 U.S.C. 613(h) was inapplicable because a foreign political party would be “the principal beneficiary” and that the “activities not serving predominantly a foreign interest” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(2) was inapplicable because the activity was directed by a foreign political party and the exemption “applies to foreign corporations engaged in commercial activities.” Notably, the FARA Unit rejected the U.S. law firm’s assertion that registration was unnecessary because no foreign government or foreign political party would pay the firm’s fees, remarking that “payment of the agent is not the only factor in determining FARA coverage.”

A U.S. individual communicated with several U.S. government officials and agencies to recommend “as friendly to the interests of the United States” a foreign individual who was campaigning as a candidate at the time to be President of a foreign country. The FARA Unit stated that it considered the U.S. individual to be an “agent.” The FARA Unit then went on to mention that 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1) and (d)(2) exempt “certain commercial transactions from the requirements of the Act” and that registration is not required when activities are limited “to nonpolitical activities or commercial activities” before ending the opinion.

A U.S. company contracted with a foreign government to act within the United States and Canada in order to secure investment for and attract tourists to a particular region in a foreign country. The FARA Unit opined that tourism promotion constituted “political activity” and fit the definition of all other categories of FARA-registrable activity under the statute. The FARA Unit therefore concluded that the U.S. company was required to register.

A U.S. public relations firm proposed working for a U.S. individual who served as Honorary Consul General for a foreign government to raise funds in the United States for the construction of a memorial in a foreign country. The U.S. individual insisted that the memorial project was his/her “own creation” and that he/she was acting “in his role as a private U.S. citizen and not as Honorary Consul General” by spearheading the memorial fundraising project. The FARA Unit found that the U.S. individual and the U.S. public relations firm had no obligation to register under FARA.

A foreign company, which was owned directly by a foreign national government and a foreign state-owned development bank, intended to sell a U.S. company to a U.S. corporation. To effectuate the sale, the foreign company was required to obtain permission from (and therefore communicate with) officials from Congress and from U.S. government agencies. With little analysis, the FARA Unit said that the foreign company’s interactions with government officials would be eligible for the registration exemptions at 22 U.S.C. 613(d) and registration would therefore be unnecessary.

A U.S. law firm was retained by a foreign government to “initiate, conduct, supervise, and assist in litigation” involving foreign nationals who were in the United States, including the filing of amicus briefs. Notably, the FARA Unit concluded that registration was unnecessary because these individuals did not fit the definition of “foreign principal” and because the U.S. law firm was not engaging in any registrable activities. The FARA Unit also mentioned that it determined the law firm’s representation was exempt under the “legal representation” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(g).

A U.S. law firm was retained by a foreign government to provide litigation services to the foreign government and to foreign nationals, which would involve pre-litigation discussions with relevant U.S. government officials in an attempt to avoid judicial action and to alter enforcement policies that could trigger litigation. The FARA Unit stated that the U.S. law firm could rely on the “legal representation” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(g), so long as it disclosed its foreign government client during the course of any discussions. However, the FARA Unit also requested additional information from the U.S. law firm about the scope of its possible efforts to discuss changed enforcement policies.

A U.S. law firm was retained as litigation counsel to a foreign government seeking damages against a multinational corporation “for both the loss of commercial profits and tax revenues.” A U.S. federal district court, citing a U.S. “revenue rule” dismissed all the foreign government’s claims for damages in the form of lost tax revenue. The U.S. law firm hired a U.S. public relations firm to “meet with the State Department and seek to have them waive the rule in this case.” The FARA Unit found that although the litigation activities by the U.S. law firm would be exempt from registration as a “legal representation” under 22 U.S.C. 613(g), the efforts to influence the State Department would fall outside that exemption and therefore triggered registration. The FARA Unit also reviewed the U.S. law firm’s contingent-fee arrangement with the foreign government and found that FARA’s statutory prohibition on contingent fees was not violated because the fee was tied to “the success of winning your case through settlement or jury verdict.”

A U.S. consultancy represented a U.S. international air cargo transport company that was owned by three foreign entities and individuals. The U.S. consultancy met with U.S. government officials as part of the representation and registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act for the representation prior to soliciting the FARA Unit’s opinion. The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. consultancy was eligible for the exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(h) for Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants and registration was not required.

A U.S. individual formed a U.S. company in early 2008 for the purpose of rendering services to a foreign government. Those services included, among other things, communicating with U.S. government officials, “attract[ing] foreign assistance from the United States and other countries,” and promoting “the professionalism and readiness of the [foreign government] security services.” The U.S. company executed a contract with the foreign government, the U.S. company received payment from the foreign government, and the U.S. individual met several times with foreign government officials. The U.S. individual severed the relationship with the U.S. company and foreign government in January 2009. The FARA Unit concluded, when asked in 2010, that the statute required a retroactive FARA registration followed by a termination.

A U.S. law firm requested an opinion from the FARA Unit regarding the extent to which an attorney could represent a foreign principal before certain components of the U.S. Congress that were conducting an investigation. The FARA Unit declined to issue an advisory opinion on the basis that the request lacked sufficient information.

A U.S. consultancy was offered a contract to assist a foreign individual running for political office in a foreign country. The foreign candidate’s campaign could be funded by a foreign political party, and the U.S. consultancy would be paid either by the foreign candidate or the foreign political party. The engagement was to advise the foreign candidate “on the social networking tools and methods used by President Obama and other U.S. political candidates” in order to run the foreign candidate’s campaign. The engagement also included meeting with U.S. government officials and consultants, though the meetings were described as being for the purpose of “obtaining this information and not to influence U.S. officials or any sector of the U.S. public….” The U.S. consultancy further emphasized that any information obtained in meetings would be “solely” for use in the foreign campaign that occurred outside the United States. The FARA Unit concluded that registration was unnecessary because the proposed activities were “not among those enumerated in Section 1(c)(1)(i)-(iv).”

A U.S. consultancy was retained by a foreign trade association to “provide a range of services promoting business and investment opportunities between” a foreign country and the United States through meetings with U.S. government officials, promoting legislation, and other activities. The foreign trade association was not directed or controlled by a foreign government, according to the requestor, but did receive roughly $10 million per year for projects that the FARA Unit found to “promote the political or public interests of [foreign country] in the United States.” The FARA Unit concluded that the U.S. consultancy was required to register and was ineligible for the exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(h) for Lobbying Disclosure Act registrants because of this designated funding.

A U.S. law firm was retained by a foreign government “to prepare litigation seeking to recover money owed” to the foreign government under commercial contracts. The engagement involved some interaction with U.S. law enforcement agencies “in connection with an ongoing investigation.” With no analysis, the FARA Unit declared that the representation was eligible for the “commercial activities” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(d)(1) and the “legal representation” exemption at 22 U.S.C. 613(h).

A U.S. company was “engaged in economic development activity on behalf of” a foreign local-level government entity. With relatively little analysis, the FARA Unit concluded that the promotion of economic investment in a foreign jurisdiction is “political activity” and “political propaganda” under the statute. The FARA Unit therefore stated that the U.S. company was required to register.

A U.S. public relations firm provided advertising services to a foreign government’s tourism bureau. The FARA Unit concluded that promoting tourism for a foreign government “cannot be construed as private and nonpolitical” and qualified as “political propaganda” because “tourism creates an influx of capital and a host of jobs for the indigenous population, both of which are obviously in the political and public interests of [foreign country].” The FARA Unit therefore found that the U.S. public relations firm was required to register under FARA. Notably, the FARA Unit also remarked that it did “not require the labeling of tourism ads as political propaganda.”