Once again, the administration of US president Donald Trump has threatened criminal prosecution of those exercising their right to speak out against US foreign policy.
On September 16, 2026, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a “reminder” to the public about laws at its disposal to go after those who it deems act in the service of a foreign power. The DOJ wrote that “if a person acts as an agent of any foreign power to carry out any public activity, including (but not limited to) public demonstrations designed to further the propaganda or other goals of the foreign power,” that person must register with the federal government or face possible criminal sanctions, including prison.
Anyone familiar with the history of the United States, particularly the period immediately preceding US entry into World War II and the McCarthyite witch hunts that followed the war, will recognize this latest salvo for what it is — a brazen attempt to sow suspicion and fear and to still voices of dissent.
EDITORIAL
Taking it one step further, the memo ends with an encouragement to members of the public to turn over any information about potential violations to the FBI or their local US attorney’s office. In other words, spy on and rat out your neighbors, coworkers, even family and friends for the beliefs they espouse.
In the news release, DOJ cited the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Section 951, of the US Code, which covers “agents of foreign governments.”
FARA was initially enacted in 1938, during the run-up to World War II. It was supplemented in 1940 by the infamous Smith Act (officially called Alien Registration Act) and the Voorhis Anti-Propaganda Act. The Smith Act was at the heart of some 100 convictions between 1941 and 1957 of individuals charged with sedition, including the “crime” of speaking out against US involvement in the inter-imperialist war in Europe.[1]
A ‘catchall’ statute
FARA is a notoriously vague and increasingly expansive law. It is described in the newsletter Lawfare as “a sword of Damocles hanging over broad sections of U.S. civil society … with no one being quite sure if — or when — it might drop on them.” The most well-known trigger of the requirement that one register as a foreign agent is “political activities.” This means lobbying or electioneering but also attempting to influence “any section of the public … with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States.” Lawfare notes this “could include a nonprofit’s public advocacy or a journalist’s news article.”
It is, literally, a “catchall” statute. And it has become broader, with fewer exemptions, and has seen a surge in enforcement since the 2016 presidential elections.
The government attempt to smear its political opponents as threats to “national security” and to push them into the shadows is evident in its twisting of the already vague language of the law. The words “public demonstration” or “protest” do not appear in FARA at all. The word “propaganda” was dropped from the law in 1995. Nevertheless, this all resurfaces in the DOJ news release, clearly signaling the direction the Trump administration is headed.
Further evidence of this course is the recent introduction of several bills that seek to define email and social media posts as “informational materials” under FARA. This would trigger a requirement that the content of social media posts, as interpreted by the government, would compel their authors to register with the DOJ as “foreign agents.”
‘Foreign agents,’ ‘domestic terrorists,’ ‘conspirators’?
It would be easy to shrug off the DOJ news release as nothing new — executive orders on every whim that crosses the president’s mind, reports from federal agencies blaming somebody else for the problems working people face, midnight rants on social media, and off-hand comments by government officials laden with threats and ludicrous ideas. This endless stream of threats and attacks on democratic rights under this administration has become so ubiquitous that this can seem “normal.”
But the threat is real. If you oppose Washington’s brutal, inhuman attempt to starve the Cuban people into submission, are you an agent of Havana? US secretary of state Marco Rubio would certainly say you are.
If you disagree with US tax dollars supporting Israeli genocide in Gaza and the West Bank, are you under the direction of a foreign government?
If you speak out against the bombs raining down on Iranian schools, expressing the opinion this imperialist assault constitutes a war crime, are you in the service of Tehran?
The government has already acted using FARA, the equally vague 18 USC § 951, as well as its “domestic terrorism” statutes to curtail free speech and protest against its policies. This includes criminal cases launched against anti-ICE protesters (while the federal thugs that have gunned down immigrants and the defenders walk free), students speaking out against the uprooting of an entire population in Palestine, and leaders of the Uhuru Freedom Movement for their position in support of Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Increasingly, to bolster its charges, the government has tacked on charges of “conspiracy.”
The Trump administration is now leveraging this tool against those who stand in opposition to Washington’s economic warfare against Cuba. Title 18 USC § 951 specifically mentions the island nation and “any other country that the President determines … poses a threat to the national security.”
Because this law focuses more on information gathering than influencing the public, it often carries the hint of covert action. This fits with Rubio’s allegations that Cuba is leading an “espionage empire” that has pulled US political activists into its net.
Federal prosecutors have served subpoenas on several outspoken opponents of US policy in the Caribbean, including The People’s Forum and CODEPINK. It has sent “requests” for information to others, particularly those who have raised funds to send humanitarian aid to the Cuban people — a legally sanctioned activity.
How should workers and their allies respond?
What kind of response does this latest assault on democratic rights merit? Do we shrink back and remain silent, sharing controversial ideas only with a trusted circle of friends? Or do we stand alongside others and fight this assault on our most fundamental civil liberties?
The pattern of intimidation and persecution is familiar, lifted directly out of a more than 100-year-old playbook. But a response by free-speech advocates and political activists based on the lessons from the past has yet to coalesce.
At the heart of those lessons is the understanding that defense of free speech, assembly, the vote, and the free press cannot be left solely or mainly to the courts, institutions that are part of the same state now threatening these rights. Alongside a legal defense, there must also be a political one.
That means a campaign of education and outreach by a coalition of groups and individuals already under investigation, joined by other potential targets — labor unions, civil rights organizations, antiwar veterans, and others who have been standing up against US wars, ICE terror, and attacks on free speech. Teach-ins, public forums, and other united front actions can begin to build a movement in defense of civil liberties and to protect the organizations and activists now coming under fire.
In the face of every attack, no matter the views of the particular victim, we must rally under the banner “An injury to one is an injury to all.”
NOTES
[1] Among the targets of this government offensive were 18 members of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), many of whom had been leaders of the Minneapolis, Minnesota, Teamster strikes in 1934 and other labor struggles. In 1941, they were tried and convicted of “seditious conspiracy” and violations of the Smith Act. In fact, they were on trial for their ideas.
The book Socialism on Trial contains the testimony of SWP leader James P. Cannon, one of the defendants, in that 1941 trial. Cannon and his co-defendants were finally vindicated in August 1986 when US District Court Judge Thomas Griesa issued a decision in a lawsuit by the SWP and Young Socialist Alliance against the US government for spying and disruption. The record of that victory for democratic rights can be found in Cointelpro: The FBI’s Secret War on Political Freedom.
If you appreciate this article, share it with friends and subscribe to World-Outlook (for free) by clicking on the link below.
Type your email in the box below and click on “SUBSCRIBE.” You will receive a notification in your in-box on which you will have to click to confirm your subscription.
Categories: Democratic Rights, Editorials