Over the past 18 years, the idea of authoritarian regimes has increasingly been established or normalized in many countries. This trend relies on undermining trust in institutions, deepening societal divisions, and instilling fear of perceived internal and external enemies to justify restrictive and repressive legislative measures. One such measure is the so-called Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).

Russia has been a leading developer of “foreign agent” registration legislation since 2012. Variants of these laws also exist in Nicaragua (2022, leading to the closure of at least 150 civil organizations), Georgia (2024, despite massive protests against the law), Hungary (2017, later overturned by the EU Court of Justice), Israel (2016), Kazakhstan (2016), and Kyrgyzstan (2024). Recently, proposals for similar laws have been widely promoted in Slovakia and the Republic of Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina). In 2022, Bulgaria saw its first proposal for a Foreign Agent Registration Act, which combines some of the most radical and overtly freedom-infringing ideas seen in existing FARA laws.

But if the Bulgarian draft law is so problematic, one might wonder: could FARA be reformed to serve a genuinely beneficial public purpose? The short answer is no. Just as fitting a silencer on a gun doesn’t change the fact that it’s a deadly weapon, even a “softened” version of FARA would remain an attack on democracy and a tool for control. Here’s why.

The Implication of the Name

From its title alone, FARA aims to sow division in society. The term “foreign agent” carries connotations of spying or treason. The Act thus seeks to create the impression of internal enemies—those registered as “agents”—and provoke discrimination against them.

This is a deliberate suggestion, implying that there exists a group—typically media and civil society organizations—that is inherently non-transparent. Generally, and specifically in Bulgaria, this is untrue. Both businesses and NGOs in Bulgaria are subject to numerous transparency requirements under various laws, such as the Accounting Act, the Non-Profit Legal Entities Act, the Commercial Act, and others.

FARA: A Law of Prohibitions, Not Transparency

The Bulgarian FARA is presented by its proponents as a transparency measure, but, in reality, it is prohibitive and restrictive. It includes numerous repressive measures targeting those labeled as “agents” (see Articles 11 and 12), ranging from bans on activities in educational institutions to prohibitions on actions that could influence the country’s internal or external policies (effectively barring participation in public life).
Even if we assume that there can be a version of FARA limited to its two core provisions—registration in a database and the absurd requirement to label oneself as a “foreign agent” on websites, communications, and materials (including business cards)—this would still pose problems.

Whose Agents?

Most versions of FARA worldwide, including Bulgaria’s, do not require proof that the “agent” is acting on behalf of, or in the interest of, a foreign party. Receiving funding from abroad alone is sufficient to be labeled an “agent.” In other words, these measures do not illuminate foreign influence but instead target agents of no one in particular.

From a transparency perspective, it is important to know who is behind a legal entity. However, in Bulgaria and across the EU, proportionate measures already exist to ensure this information, such as the requirement to disclose the beneficial owners of legal entities. The labeling and registry proposed by FARA are therefore unnecessary and would serve only to stigmatize and discredit.