Partner Ian Hargreaves and Associate Genevieve Douglas examine diverging approaches to foreign influence transparency, in The Law Society Gazette

Partner Ian Hargreaves and Associate Genevieve Douglas compare the UK’s new Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS) with the long-standing US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), analysing key differences in scope, registration and disclosure obligations, and consider the practical compliance implications for organisations with cross-border public affairs and government relations activity.

Their article, “Comparing the FIRS and FARA regimes”, was published in The Law Society Gazette on 14 November 2025.

Recent headlines have been dominated by stories from the world of espionage – from the 2024 proceedings over alleged assistance to Hong Kong’s intelligence service, the collapse of the “China spy” case, and more recently the arrest of three individuals on suspicion of assisting Russia’s foreign intelligence service. The UK’s 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 United States’ long-standing Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”).

UK – FIRS

The UK’s 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.

US – FARA

The US’ FARA regime 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 a 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 U.S. government.

Diverging Approaches

There are a number of key differences between the UK and US regimes, notably:

1. Trigger: FARA is triggered by work for any “foreign principal” (i.e. any non-US entity or person). By contrast, the UK’s FIRS’ 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. Whereas foreign SOEs fall squarely within FARA’s scope (subject to any exemptions).
2. Activities: FIRS’ 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 of the FIRS’ PIT. Purely commercial or academic activities with no intent to influence 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 FIRS PIT, where the activity also falls within the Transparency of Lobbying Act 2014, registration is required under both regimes separately. However, the FIRS 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. The FIRS 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 U.S. (if undertaken for an SOE or other foreign entity).

Compliance Implications

One thing is certain: foreign influence transparency is now a significant compliance issue for global businesses. The choice is not whether to play by these rules—it is 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 vs. PR/information services/fundraising/agency.
• Mapping timelines and disclosures: one-off registration with material-change updates (FIRS) vs. 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.