By Joseph D. Terwilliger | Source

Democrats speak of the fight against “Russian disinformation,” while the Republicans pledge to combat “fake news” about Israel. Whatever you choose to call it, there is a bipartisan effort to rein in our First Amendment protections, which former Secretary of State John Kerry recently referred to as a “major block” to the government’s ability to combat misinformation. Speaking at the World Economic Forum, Kerry went on to lament that the inability to control the message makes it difficult to govern absent the existence of a truth arbiter, a role government has increasingly tried to assume through backdoor means.

For example, the Twitter Files exposed government collusion with social media platforms to censor stories like the Hunter Biden laptop report before the 2020 election. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya and other dissenting voices were shadow-banned or censored under White House pressure.

These examples highlight the government’s growing reliance on private-sector cooperation to stifle opposition under the guise of protecting public discourse. Yet the idea of labeling speech as “misinformation” or its messenger as a “foreign agent” is not new – it echoes historical attempts to discredit dissent.

This tactic has resurfaced with a vengeance with the rediscovery of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), now a favored tool for deplatforming speakers under the pretext of transparency while stigmatizing dissent as foreign interference. As you will soon see, FARA is Un-American!

Historically Un-American roots of FARA

The infamous House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was created in 1938 to “investigate alleged disloyalty and rebel activities on the part of private citizens, public employees and organizations.” Initially focused on Nazi propaganda, after the war its focus shifted to anyone daring to challenge the U.S. government. Black nationalists, civil rights leaders, and antiwar activists were smeared as communist sympathizers, not for posing real risks to national security but for challenging government policies. While HUAC was disbanded in 1975 under public pressure, its legacy of smearing its opponents lives on in one of its most enduring legacies – the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA).

Passed on the recommendation of HUAC, FARA required anyone spreading “foreign propaganda” (or expressing ideas perceived as allied with foreign interests) to register as a “foreign agent.” FARA didn’t ban speech outright – that would violate the First Amendment. Instead, it stigmatized and marginalized dissenters, creating a chilling effect on free expression under the guise of transparency and patriotism.

Fast forward to today. After decades of dormancy, FARA prosecutions have been skyrocketing in recent years, with a clear focus on those who challenge US foreign policy or question official government narratives. In the past seven years alone, there have been 21 prosecutions under FARA – three times as many as in the previous five decades combined. The resurgence in prosecutions reflects a broader trend of leveraging existing laws to address new geopolitical concerns, as fears of foreign influence have risen in the digital age. As whistleblowers, journalists, and activists face mounting scrutiny, FARA prosecutions have become a tool for stifling opposition to US foreign (and domestic) policy.

If you are reading this on antiwar.com, don’t kid yourself – you’re exactly the kind of person FARA is aimed at silencing. It’s not about protecting democracy. It’s about protecting the US government from scrutiny by branding dissent as foreign influence. It’s McCarthyism 2.0 – different era, same censorship. Will we stand by and let this persist, or will we fight back against this creeping authoritarianism?

Modern FARA: Silencing critics, not foreign Influence

While FARA was initially intended as a tool to fight the pernicious influence of Nazi (and later Communist) propaganda, it was modified significantly in 1966 to shift its focus to lobbying activities tied to foreign entities. This was in response to intense lobbying by domestic representatives of foreign interests, specifically related to sugar import quotas. Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly and the right to petition the government prevented the direct prohibition of such activities. Instead, the government expanded FARA’s scope to include registration of lobbyists, effectively repurposing it as a tool to attenuate broader foreign influence.

As currently written, the act requires any person who acts in any capacity “at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal” to register as a foreign agent with the Department of Justice. FARA’s broad definition of “foreign principal” – including not only foreign governments but also foreign organizations, companies, and even individuals – has created a legal minefield ripe for politically motivated prosecutions.

Proponents of FARA argue that it enhances transparency, making foreign influence more visible. Yet, in practice, this so-called transparency stigmatizes those required to register with the scarlet letter of “foreign agent.” This misuse of transparency not only silences criticism but also diminishes the public’s trust in institutions that are meant to serve and represent them. When public trust in these institutions erodes, their ability to function as legitimate representatives of democratic values is fundamentally undermined. Being labeled a ‘foreign agent’ not only stigmatizes individuals but also deters others from engaging in meaningful dialogue, silencing voices critical of government policy. What does it say about democratic ideals when a nation silences its critics with labels rather than engaging with their ideas?

This dynamic betrays FARA’s purported aim of protecting democracy and freedom. By labeling dissenting voices as foreign threats, the government exploits xenophobia under the guise of national security, suppressing free and open discussion of “uncomfortable” truths, “dangerous” ideas, and alternative narratives. The chilling effect extends beyond its immediate targets by perpetuating the dangerous precedent established by HUAC (labeling legitimate criticism as “Un-American”) and eroding the foundation of a healthy democracy. Though HUAC was disbanded, its discredited tactics live on in FARA, repurposed to stigmatize alternative viewpoints and shield government actions from scrutiny. FARA’s misuse today echoes a disturbing historical pattern where laws claiming to protect democracy have been weaponized to stifle critics.