State-level foreign agent laws now target foreign-owned companies, trade associations, and nonprofits. Four states, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, and Nebraska, enacted measures in 2025, and others are weighing similar bills. Supporters say the effort closes security gaps left by reduced federal enforcement, while critics warn the laws are overly broad and could ensnare far more people and groups than intended.

State-by-state momentum

Arkansas enacted its law in April, applying it to a wide range of foreign principals and including civil penalties for noncompliance. Texas followed in May, targeting lobbying by entities connected to “countries of concern” and imposing criminal penalties for knowing violations. Louisiana’s statute, approved in June, focuses on political activity and lobbying tied to foreign governments, while Nebraska’s law, passed in July, extends registration requirements to those seeking to influence state policy on behalf of foreign powers.

Several other states have taken narrower steps to address foreign influence. In July 2025, Florida enacted a law barring nonprofit organizations from fundraising from countries of concern such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba. Indiana and Tennessee passed laws this year prohibiting foreign nationals from contributing to state or local ballot measure campaigns, but neither state has adopted the broader registration requirements now emerging elsewhere.

In Georgia, lawmakers approved a state-level foreign agents bill in 2024, the first to reach a governor’s desk, but Gov. Brian Kemp ultimately vetoed it. The measure, Senate Bill 368, would have required certain “agents of foreign principals” to register with the state and disclose their lobbying and political work.

Kemp said the bill repeated an existing federal ban on political donations from foreign nationals and added extra registration rules that weren’t needed. Critics warned it could have forced workers at companies such as Hyundai, Adidas, and Anheuser-Busch to sign up as foreign agents. And without existing carve-outs for subsidiaries, nonprofits, universities, and religious groups, it could have swept in far more organizations than lawmakers intended.

A Georgia state lawmaker, speaking on background, said they remain concerned about the possibility of similar legislation returning in future sessions, warning it could harm the state’s economy and create confusion without meaningfully improving security. “Why put something into law when we already know it has major weaknesses?” the lawmaker said.

From Washington to the Statehouse: the shift

Supporters say the momentum is partly a response to the Justice Department scaling back criminal enforcement of FARA. Within hours of taking office in January, Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered prosecutors to limit criminal cases to conduct resembling “traditional espionage by foreign government actors” and disbanded the Foreign Influence Task Force. She said the shift would “free resources to address more pressing priorities” and reduce the risk of political abuse.

The change followed heightened scrutiny of FARA after former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort admitted failing to register for millions in lobbying work for pro-Russia Ukrainian politicians. His prosecution became a touchstone for critics who argued the law was enforced selectively, an impression Bondi’s directive seemed intended to push back on.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, said the Justice Department’s uneven record is a big part of the problem. 

“If you look at the history of Justice Department enforcement of the federal law on FARA, it’s been very uneven and sporadic,” he said. “Even when they have enforced it, they really have simply concentrated on individuals who are foreign agents lobbying in Washington and lobbying the federal government.”

Von Spakovsky pointed to concerns over Chinese government-linked purchases of agricultural properties and land near U.S. military bases as “another added incentive or reason why states need to be keeping a much closer eye on foreign entities.” He also cited efforts in some states to close what he called a “loophole” in federal law that allows foreign entities to participate in state ballot referendums, a gap Ohio moved to close in a special legislative session in 2024.

Jonathan Schanzer, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said foreign actors are targeting multiple layers of American society, from classrooms to local governments, in ways that have gone largely unchecked.

He said he supports states stepping in where the federal government has lagged. “This is the way our republic operates. I don’t see any problem with it,” he said, adding that a combination of federal and state laws “will be healthy for the United States” if the goal is to identify and restrict foreign funding.

“How we got here, how we went this far without reining in some of this influence buying is actually somewhat shocking to me,” he said.

Critics warn of business headaches and limited impact

Nick Cleveland-Stout, a research associate at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said he understands why some lawmakers feel compelled to act after the Justice Department “relegated FARA to a back-bench law,” but warned state measures risk creating “a nightmare of a bureaucracy” for companies, nonprofits, and universities.

“You could have a commercial exemption in one state, but not in another,” he said. “You might have to register as a foreign agent if you’re 10% owned by a foreign entity in one state, but 20% in another. That’s going to create a mess for companies trying to operate in multiple states.” 

Many proposals, he added, lack the exemptions built into the federal statute, such as for academic, humanitarian, or purely commercial activity, meaning far more entities could be swept into registration requirements. That, he said, could especially burden businesses with partial ownership from countries on “countries of concern” lists, like China. “There’s a difference between overt political influence and simply operating a business in the U.S.,” Cleveland-Stout said.

Ben Freeman, director of the Quincy Institute’s Democratizing Foreign Policy Program, said the state-by-state approach risks becoming “a Whac-a-Mole model” for foreign actors. “If Florida passes one of these bills, they’ll just move their operations to Georgia,” he said. “Foreign influence doesn’t stop at state borders.”

Both analysts at the Washington-based think tank questioned whether states have the investigative resources to enforce these laws, noting that even the federal government struggles to bring FARA cases. They also warned that the measures could backfire economically.

“If you’re a smaller foreign-owned company looking to set up shop, and you realize you’ll face heavy registration and disclosure requirements in Nebraska, you might just go somewhere else,” Cleveland-Stout said. 

Freeman agreed, pointing to the absence of a commercial exemption in many bills. “If I’m a foreign business and my choice is to register as a ‘foreign agent’ in Florida or just open in another state, that’s not a hard decision,” he said.

They also flagged specific provisions they see as overreaching. In Florida, nonprofits are banned from fundraising if they’ve received “anything of value” from a country of concern, a rule Cleveland-Stout said could “totally hamstring” groups even for purely humanitarian donations. He noted that Nebraska’s new law imposes fines of up to $50,000 for non-compliance.

A representative from a U.S. business with majority foreign ownership warned that many state FARA bills are “political rhetoric wildly out of sync with legitimate policy goals or national economic interests” and risk creating heavy compliance costs that make the U.S. less competitive. 

CONSERVATIVE MEDIA TARGETED BY QATARI FOREIGN INFLUENCE OPERATIONS

“We don’t want to make doing business in Georgia more difficult than in the other 49 states,” added a Georgia state lawmaker, speaking on background.

More states still weighing their own versions

Even as more than a half-dozen states have enacted “baby FARA” laws this year, at least a handful more are still debating similar proposals.

Legislatures in Arizona, California, Illinois, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and West Virginia have introduced bills modeled on the federal FARA, while New York has considered narrower measures affecting foreign agents but not a complete FARA-style registration system. Florida is also advancing new legislation requiring foreign principal agents to register with the state Division of Elections. 

How these pending bills fare over the coming weeks will likely determine whether 2025 marks the high point of this trend or just the beginning of a broader, sustained push in state capitals.