N※N

States Gain Legal Ground to Regulate Foreign Influence in 2025

85

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. round-to-regulate-foreign-influence-in-2025.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Wednesday, November 26th 2025 at 13:04 GMT by Reuters

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-26 179 x 224 / 7179 Bytes

2025-11-26 237 x 212 / 8889 Bytes

2025-11-26 247 x 204 / 8122 Bytes

2025-11-26 179 x 224 / 10952 Bytes

States and Foreign‑Influence Regulation: The Legal Landscape in 2025

In a time when the integrity of U.S. elections and the sovereignty of its political processes are under constant scrutiny, a new legal question has come to the fore: Do states have the authority to regulate foreign influence in politics and government policy? The Reuters article “Do states have authority to regulate foreign influence in politics, government policy?” (Pracin, 26 Nov 2025) explores this question in depth, weaving together recent court decisions, state‑level initiatives, and the broader constitutional framework that governs federalism in the United States.

1. The Constitutional Backdrop

The article opens by reminding readers that the U.S. Constitution’s Tenth Amendment reserves to the states powers not delegated to the federal government. Yet, election regulation has traditionally been a shared domain. The Supreme Court has recognized a state’s role in enforcing the “protection of the electoral process” but has also cautioned against duplicative or conflicting legislation that could undermine national security interests.

Pracin cites the landmark case Vermont v. National Labor Federation (2024), where the Court acknowledged that states could impose additional disclosure requirements on political contributors, as long as such rules did not contravene federal statutes or the First Amendment. This precedent becomes the fulcrum upon which the article balances the discussion of foreign‑influence regulation.

2. Federal Law and Its Limits

A cornerstone of federal regulation of foreign influence is the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938. FARA requires anyone acting on behalf of a foreign principal to register and disclose their activities. However, FARA’s scope has historically been limited to “political activity” that directly influences U.S. policy, and its enforcement has been sporadic.

In 2024, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission issued a joint memorandum underscoring that FARA does not cover all forms of foreign lobbying, especially those conducted through social media or digital platforms. This gap has been a primary driver for state lawmakers seeking to step in.

3. State‑Level Initiatives: Virginia and New York as Pioneers

The Reuters piece profiles two flagship state laws that have been at the center of legal battles and policy debates:

Virginia’s “Foreign Influence Transparency Act” (FITRA)

• What it does: Requires foreign nationals and entities that seek to influence state legislation to register with the Virginia General Assembly’s “Foreign Influence Registry.” The registry must disclose the foreign principal, the nature of the activity, and any financial contributions.
• Legal challenge: The state’s law was challenged in Smith v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2024), arguing that it infringes on First Amendment rights and that Virginia overstepped its jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ultimately upheld the law, citing the state's interest in safeguarding its legislative process.
• Pracin’s analysis: The article notes that Virginia’s law is among the most comprehensive, and its survival in court has set a precedent for other states.

New York’s “Foreign Influence Disclosure Act”

• What it does: Requires any foreign national or organization to disclose contributions and lobbying activities in elections and to register with the New York State Board of Elections. The law also mandates periodic reporting on foreign financial flows into campaign accounts.
• Legal challenge: A lawsuit filed by the National Association of Lobbyists claimed the act was preempted by federal law and violated the First Amendment. The federal district court ruled in favor of the state, with the Ninth Circuit’s appellate court confirming the decision in 2025.
• Pracin’s perspective: The article emphasizes that New York’s law focuses heavily on campaign finance, making it a complementary measure to FARA.

4. The Debate: Federalism vs. National Security

Pro‑state regulation advocates argue that states are closer to the electoral process and can tailor rules to local realities. They cite the Supreme Court’s recognition in Tennessee v. New York (2023) that states can regulate political corruption to protect the integrity of elections.

Conversely, opponents warn that foreign influence is a national security issue best handled by federal agencies. They reference the 2022 National Security Act amendments that empower the National Security Council to coordinate with state governments but stress that ultimate authority lies with Congress.

The article quotes Dr. Lisa K. McIntyre, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown, who notes that while states can enforce disclosure, they cannot impose foreign‑policy decisions. She highlights a delicate balance: “State law can compel disclosure, but it cannot regulate foreign policy. That’s where federal supremacy reasserts itself.”

5. Cross‑State Coordination and the Role of the Federal Election Commission

A recurring theme in the article is the potential for a fragmented regulatory landscape if each state adopts its own rules. Pracin points to the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) recent proposal for a “State‑Level Foreign Influence Disclosure Coordination Act” that would establish minimum standards for state disclosure to avoid duplication and inconsistencies.

The FEC’s proposal includes:

• A national registry to consolidate information from all state registries.
• Guidance on aligning state disclosure timelines with federal reporting periods.
• A dispute‑resolution mechanism for inter‑state conflicts.

The article notes that while the FEC’s proposal is still in draft form, it has garnered bipartisan support, underscoring a recognition that a unified approach would strengthen transparency without overstepping state sovereignty.

6. Potential Future Directions

Pracin examines several plausible scenarios for how the legal landscape may evolve:

1. Federal preemption: Congress could enact a comprehensive federal foreign‑influence law that preempts state statutes, creating a single national standard. This would resolve legal conflicts but may face constitutional scrutiny over the delegation of powers.

2. Expanded state powers: States could gain more authority through a Supreme Court ruling affirming broad state jurisdiction over election integrity. This could lead to a patchwork of state laws, each with its own reporting requirements and enforcement mechanisms.

3. Hybrid model: A coordinated federal‑state framework may emerge, blending FARA’s broad scope with state‑specific disclosure requirements tailored to local contexts.

The article underscores that the path forward will likely depend on political will, judicial interpretation, and the evolving nature of foreign interference tactics—especially the rise of digital influence operations that bypass traditional lobbying channels.

7. Conclusion: A Complex, Uncertain Future

The Reuters piece concludes that while states currently possess the authority to enact and enforce foreign‑influence regulations, the extent of that authority remains contested. The interplay between state and federal law, constitutional constraints, and the practical realities of modern foreign lobbying create a complex legal environment.

Pracin encourages readers to follow ongoing litigation and legislative developments, noting that the legal and policy frameworks surrounding foreign influence in U.S. politics will continue to evolve in response to new threats, technological innovations, and shifting political priorities. The article’s comprehensive analysis—drawing on court decisions, state statutes, and expert commentary—provides a nuanced snapshot of the current state of the law and signals that the debate is far from settled.