The Exemptions That Shape the Empire
How FARA’s Selective Enforcement Warps American Foreign Policy
One of the strangest features of American foreign policy is not found in its military footprint or diplomatic commitments, but in the seemingly arcane world of bureaucratic registration. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), enacted in 1938, was originally designed as a transparency mechanism: a way to compel disclosure from individuals and organizations working on behalf of foreign governments or political actors. The law’s goal is not to limit speech or ban influence but to make it visible. In theory, it is blind to ideology, geography, and alliance. In practice, it is anything but.
Across nearly a century of uneven enforcement, FARA has been transformed from a neutral instrument of democratic accountability into a highly selective—and often strategic—tool. While adversaries such as Russia, China, and Iran have seen their proxies scrutinized and prosecuted, certain U.S. allies, particularly Israel and the United Kingdom, have operated under an informal exemption. Their agents lobby Congress, shape public discourse, and influence executive decisions—often without registering as foreign agents, and without the legal consequences that similar activities would trigger if conducted on behalf of less friendly powers.
This two-tiered system of foreign influence has created long-term strategic distortions within the American political system. By failing to apply FARA uniformly, the United States has incentivized some of its closest allies to pursue their interests more aggressively—and at times more brazenly—than would be possible under normal transparency laws. What begins as a gesture of diplomatic trust ends up encouraging the very erosion of sovereignty that FARA was meant to guard against.
The Origins of FARA and the Israeli Exception
FARA was born in the shadow of fascism. In the 1930s, Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy funded propaganda campaigns inside the United States, often using front organizations, journalists, and paid speakers to push pro-Axis narratives. Congress responded with a law that would force any agent of a foreign principal—government, party, or person—to publicly disclose their relationship, finances, and lobbying efforts. Transparency, not criminalization, was the goal: sunlight as antiseptic for foreign interference.
In theory, this regime should apply to all foreign governments. In practice, it does not. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of Israel. In 1962, the U.S. Department of Justice ordered the American Zionist Council (AZC)—an umbrella organization for pro-Israel groups—to register under FARA. The investigation, driven by evidence that AZC was receiving funding and directives from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was clear in its findings: the group was acting as an agent of a foreign principal.^1
Rather than comply, the AZC dissolved, and from its ashes emerged the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Crucially, AIPAC was structured to avoid direct financial ties to the Israeli government. This legal maneuvering allowed it to avoid FARA registration, even as it maintained close informal ties with Israeli diplomats, intelligence officials, and policymakers. In the decades since, AIPAC has grown into one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, shaping U.S. policy on Iran, military aid, and regional diplomacy—without ever having to disclose itself as a foreign agent.^2
This was not a one-time loophole but a structural precedent. Despite the clear original intent of FARA, the Department of Justice has consistently refrained from pursuing registration requirements against pro-Israel organizations, even when their activities align closely with Israeli state policy or receive indirect support from Israeli officials.
The UK, Intelligence, and the Special Relationship
The United Kingdom, too, benefits from a de facto exemption from FARA enforcement—though its influence tends to operate through different channels. Whereas Israeli influence in Washington is often highly organized and directed at legislative outcomes, British influence operates through the “special relationship,” an intricate web of intelligence sharing, diplomatic cooperation, and elite cultural affinity.
During the Trump presidency, the role of British intelligence services in shaping U.S. political narratives came into sharper focus. The infamous Steele dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, was funded by American political actors but built on the credibility of MI6’s legacy. The dossier’s contents—many of which were unverified or later discredited—nonetheless helped trigger years of media and legal inquiry into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.^3 While Steele himself was not acting on behalf of the UK government per se, the broader entanglement between British intelligence professionals and American institutions was undeniable.
Yet at no point did FARA enter the conversation. There was no inquiry into whether British actors involved in shaping American political outcomes had disclosed their activities. The presumption of trust—born of shared history, language, and postwar partnership—acted as a shield against the transparency obligations that FARA is supposed to guarantee.
Strategic Distortion and Incentive Misalignment
This selective enforcement of FARA creates a series of dangerous incentives. If an allied state learns that it can operate on American soil without transparency, it will do so. It may fund think tanks, coordinate with media outlets, or pressure members of Congress—all without triggering disclosure requirements. Over time, these activities become normalized, and the very concept of foreign influence loses its negative valence, at least when exercised by “trusted” partners.
This is not merely a legal failure but a strategic one. As allies like Israel and the UK push their agendas more aggressively—whether on Iran, Syria, Russia, or trade—they may pursue goals that are contrary to long-term U.S. interests. But because their influence is unregistered and therefore politically invisible, these tensions cannot be adjudicated in the open. Instead, they become part of a hidden machinery of foreign policy, one that warps decision-making from within.
Consider Israel’s long-standing campaign to shape U.S. policy toward Iran. Through coordinated lobbying, media pressure, and alliance-building with American evangelical groups, Israeli officials and their proxies have helped drive a maximalist approach to Iranian containment—often more aggressive than what even U.S. military leadership would recommend.^4 The 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), which Israel strongly opposed, was a flashpoint in this campaign. Pro-Israel lobbying groups mobilized tens of millions of dollars to oppose the deal, working closely with lawmakers and public relations firms—all while sidestepping the disclosure requirements that FARA might have imposed under different political conditions.^5
Similarly, British influence in U.S. foreign policy has historically tilted Washington toward interventionist positions—particularly in the Middle East and post-Soviet space. From the Suez crisis to the Iraq War, London has often acted as both instigator and legitimizer, encouraging American action through diplomatic support and shared narratives. Yet the degree to which this influence is coordinated or strategically aligned is never subjected to the transparency that FARA would demand of a non-allied actor.
Domestic Blowback and the Collapse of Trust
Inside the United States, this double standard is not without consequence. As awareness grows—especially in online and populist spaces—of the asymmetrical enforcement of FARA, public trust in both the law and the alliance system begins to erode. The perception, not entirely incorrect, is that foreign influence is tolerated when it is ideologically convenient, and punished when it is not. This breeds cynicism, conspiracism, and eventually, calls for overcorrection.
We see this on both ends of the political spectrum. On the left, critiques of AIPAC and Israeli influence have become more open and aggressive, though often tangled up in accusations of antisemitism. On the right, suspicions about British intelligence and elite transatlantic coordination feed into broader narratives of “deep state” manipulation. In both cases, the underlying issue is the same: Americans are being governed, in part, by forces that operate outside the legal frameworks designed to ensure transparency.
Rebuilding Sovereignty Through Uniform Transparency
The solution is not to sever alliances or shut down foreign engagement. The world is interconnected, and influence is inevitable. But if the United States wishes to maintain the integrity of its democratic system—and the credibility of its laws—it must apply those laws uniformly. FARA should not be used selectively against geopolitical rivals while exempting strategic partners. Doing so only invites those partners to exploit their exemption, turning cooperation into covert steering.
If a Turkish academic or Chinese business consultant must register as a foreign agent for speaking on behalf of their government, then so too should a British intelligence operative or Israeli defense official. Transparency should not depend on the flag one flies but on the function one serves. Anything less is not only inconsistent—it is dangerous.
Notes
U.S. Department of Justice, “Order to the American Zionist Council to Register Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act,” 1962. See also declassified DOJ memoranda cited in Grant F. Smith, Big Israel: How Israel’s Lobby Moves America (Washington Report Books, 2016), 42–55.
Ibid., 56–67.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation (2019), ch. 7; see also Devin Nunes, Countdown to the Mueller Report: The Inside Story (Regnery, 2019).
Trita Parsi, Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), 153–177.
New York Times, “Wealthy Donors Seek to Block Iran Deal,” August 9, 2015; ProPublica, “How AIPAC Engineered the Demise of the Iran Nuclear Deal,” May 2018.