Recent headlines have been dominated by espionage, from the alleged assistance to Hong Kong’s intelligence service, the collapse of the ‘China spy’ case and the arrests of three individuals on suspicion of assisting Russia’s foreign intelligence service. The UK policy response is now in place, with the grace period relating to the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS) ending on 30 September. Introduced under the National Security Act 2023, FIRS swept away numerous antiquated pieces of legislation largely addressing espionage under the various official secrets acts.
This article compares the new FIRS regime with the long-standing US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
FIRS is a two-tier framework. The political-influence tier (PIT) requires UK companies and individuals to register ‘arrangements’ with a ‘foreign power’ (defined as sovereigns, heads of state, foreign governments or governing political parties) to carry out ‘political influence activities’ in the UK within 28 days of the arrangement.
The enhanced tier applies to specified foreign powers that pose higher national security risks (currently Russia and Iran). It requires registration of almost any activity carried out at their direction in the UK within 10 days and before any activity is undertaken.
Under FIRS, it is mandatory to register the arrangement, not each act. The UK party to the arrangement must file the registration, not the foreign power. Failure to register or update is a criminal offence: up to two years’ imprisonment for PIT failures and up to five years for enhanced-tier failures.
FARA is broader in scope. ‘Agents of foreign principals’ must register if they act under the direction or control of a ‘foreign principal’ – defined as any foreign entity or person (including foreign governments, political parties, corporations, individuals and NGOs).
FARA captures not only ‘political activities’ on behalf of a foreign principal, but also: (i) acting as their public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant; (ii) soliciting, collecting, disbursing or dispensing contributions, loans, money or other things of value for or in their interest; and (iii) representing their interests before any agency or official of the US government.
There are key differences between the UK and US regimes.
1. Trigger: FARA is triggered by work for any ‘foreign principal’ (that is, any non-US entity or person). By contrast, PIT applies only to arrangements to carry out political activities in the UK at the direction of a ‘foreign power’. Those directed by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to carry out political influence activities in the UK do not have to register. By contrast foreign SOEs fall squarely within FARA’s scope (subject to any exemptions).
2. Activities: PIT targets a narrower range of conduct than FARA, being limited to overt political influencing activities – communications or operations that are intended to sway the UK government’s decisions, legislation or elections. If an activity does not have a political purpose, it falls outside PIT. Purely commercial or academic activities with no intention of influencing UK public policy fall outside its remit. FARA, by contrast, covers a much wider range of conduct. Its broad wording encompasses even routine business activities in some cases, though in practice, there are exemptions that narrow this scope.
3. Exemptions: FARA’s commercial activities and Lobbying Disclosure Act exemptions are highly fact-specific and unavailable where a foreign government or party is the principal beneficiary. Under the PIT, where the activity also falls within the Transparency of Lobbying Act 2014, registration is required under both regimes separately. However, PIT only applies to ‘political influence’ activities, not commercial ones. As a result, a mandate may be deemed to fall outside both FARA (due to the commercial exemption) and FIRS (because the activity is not a ‘political influence activity’). Different routes, similar outcomes.
4. Reporting obligations: FARA imposes bi-annual reporting obligations until the agent’s relationship with the foreign principal is terminated, and public disclosures on registered agents. Registration under FIRS, however, is a one-time notification of the arrangement. Under FIRS, registered parties only need to update the information provided where there is a ‘material change’ to a registered arrangement. However, this requirement does not necessarily mean that registrations need to be updated every time a new activity is arranged or carried out. Where an activity is repeated and conducted in the same way and for the same purpose as the original activity registered, that does not trigger a requirement to register a material change.
Both regimes seek transparency, but they start from different premises. PIT turns on direction by a ‘foreign power’ and focuses on overt political influence in the UK, with an enhanced tier that captures broader activities linked to high-risk states.
FARA, by contrast, applies to work for any ‘foreign principal’ and reaches PR, information services, fundraising and advocacy – backed by continuing public filings. In practice, the same mandate could be non-registrable in the UK (if no foreign power directs it) yet registrable in the US (if undertaken for an SOE or other foreign entity).
Foreign influence transparency is now a significant compliance issue for global businesses. The choice is not whether to play by these rules, but how quickly to build a system that spots the trigger, classifies the activity and diarises the filings. It will require:
- Thinking about ‘direction’: Who truly instructs? A foreign power (FIRS risk) or any foreign principal (FARA risk)?
- Classifying the activity precisely: political influence v PR/information services/fundraising/agency.
- Mapping timelines and disclosures: one-off registration with material-change updates (FIRS) v ongoing public reporting (FARA).
For practitioners and businesses alike, compliance will mean mapping cross-border mandates carefully – not just to avoid enforcement but to ensure transparency where state interests and private influence intersect.
Ian Hargreaves is a partner and Genevieve Douglas an associate at Quillon Law, London
No comments yet