Florida’s recent amendments to its Charitable Solicitation Act are getting a lot of attention – and for good reason – charitable fundraising just got even harder. But Florida’s efforts to combat foreign influence should attract the nonprofit sector’s attention for another reason. Florida’s unique approach may be a sign of what is to come as state efforts to regulate foreign influence of nonprofits ramp up, creating a national minefield.
While federal legislation has been introduced to provide for the disclosure of foreign funding of certain tax-exempt organizations (e.g., the Think Tank and Non-Profit Foreign Influence Disclosure Act, and the Securing Academia from Foreign Entanglements (SAFE) Act), states have also enacted laws aimed at foreign real estate ownership, foreign funding of higher education, and foreign funding of political and lobbying activities. These initial efforts may touch only small segments of the nonprofit sector, but the newest enactments, part of the growing interest in stopping what is perceived as foreign adversaries using charitable and other tax-exempt organizations to influence American society and its public policy choices, will potentially impact a much larger swath of the sector.
Florida’s Ban on Nonprofit Solicitation of, or Acceptance of Contributions From, a Foreign Concern
With only a short time between its May enactment and its July 1, 2025, effective date, nonprofits registered to solicit contributions in Florida had little notice or time to prepare to comply with Florida’s new ban.
Florida’s amendments prohibit nonprofits that are required to register to solicit funds in Florida (e.g., §501(c)(3), §501(c)(4) organizations) from soliciting or accepting “contributions or anything of value from a foreign source of concern.” Professional fundraisers, fundraising consultants, commercial co-venturers (e.g., a for-profit corporation raising charitable funds for a charity registered in Florida), and others are also included in this ban when they are acting in connection with the planning, conduct, or execution of any solicitation or charitable or sponsored sales promotion.
A “foreign source of concern” is defined as:
- the government or official of the government of a foreign country of concern;
- a political party or a member of a political party or any subdivision of a political party in a foreign country of concern;
- a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country of concern, or a subsidiary of such entity;
- a person who is domiciled in a foreign country of concern and is not a citizen or lawful permanent citizen of the U.S.;
- an agent (e.g., subsidiary or affiliate) of a foreign legal entity, acting on behalf of a foreign source of concern; or
- an entity in which a person, entity, or collection of persons or entities described in (a) – (e) has a controlling interest. A “controlling interest” means the possession of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of an entity, whether through ownership of securities, by contract, or otherwise. A person or entity that directly or indirectly has the right to vote 25% or more of the voting interest or is entitled to 25% or more of its profits is presumed to possess a controlling interest.
A “country of concern” is defined as China, the Russian Federation, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela (under Nicolas Maduro), and Syria.
The ban applies not just within Florida. If a charity is registered to solicit in Florida, it is prohibited from soliciting or accepting a contribution from a foreign source of concern, regardless of where the solicitation or acceptance occurs. Further, the charity’s ban also applies to those with which the charity works, including any person, charitable organization, sponsor, commercial co-venturer, professional solicitor, or charitable sales promoter.
The law is very broad and raises a number of issues, including that there is no threshold or scienter requirement. Receiving $1 from a foreign source of concern (e.g., a contribution from a U.S. subsidiary of a company that is 30% Chinese owned) is an apparent violation, whether the nonprofit is aware of this or not. Direct monetary contributions are prohibited, but so is accepting something of “value”, which is not defined and could include volunteer services. These issues raise concerns about foreign student involvement, how to vet contributions from donor advised funds and contributions from US companies with foreign ownership, and partnerships with organizations and companies abroad.
State Foreign Influence Registration Schemes (“Mini FARA” laws)
Five states have passed their own versions of the federal Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), requiring registration and disclosure for covered activities on behalf of foreign principals, and similar legislation is pending in three states. At first glance, nonprofits may quickly dismiss these laws as inapplicable. However, given some of the broad definitions and limited to no exemptions, nonprofits should carefully review their applicability.
Nebraska
Effective October 1, 2025, Nebraska’s law requires any “agent” of a “foreign principal” from an “adversary nation” to register with the state attorney general if the agent engages in “covered activities.” An “adversary nation” includes China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela, while a “foreign principal” includes not just foreign governments, but nonprofits, universities, companies, research institutions, and individuals from an adversary nation. A foreign principal also includes a U.S. entity that is 20% or more owned by persons or entities from an adversary nation.
Nebraska’s definition of “covered activities” sweeps broadly and includes engaging in political activities for, or in the interests of, a foreign principal; acting as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant for, or in the interests of, a foreign principal; soliciting, collecting, disbursing, or dispensing contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for, or in the interests of a foreign principal; or representing the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the state or a political subdivision.
Unlike FARA, Nebraska does not have exemptions for religious, academic, humanitarian, or commercial activity. Therefore, registration by a nonprofit may be required under a number of scenarios, including working with a Chinese group to host a Chinese dissident at one of its Nebraska events, making a grant for humanitarian efforts to a Cuban nonprofit, or receiving funds from a Honduran company that has 25% Chinese ownership.
Arkansas
Nonprofits should also not be quick to dismiss Arkansas’ new law as a close examination of the definitions demonstrates its broad reach.
There are two separate registration triggers under the law. The first trigger requires registration based on foreign support (“foreign-supported political organization”) beginning in January 2026.
A “foreign-supported political organization” is defined as an “association, corporation, organization, or any other combination of persons that has, within the past five (5) calendar years” “received money or things of value from a hostile foreign principal or a representative” of the same, and that engages in “political activities.”
A “hostile foreign principal” includes a government, political party, or member of a political party, a nonresident alien of a hostile foreign nation, or a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the law of or having its principal place of business in a hostile foreign nation. “Political activity” includes any activity that is “performed to influence an agency or public official, a local government, or the Arkansas public with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the policies or laws of Arkansas, or electing or opposing a candidate for local or state public office.
There are three important points regarding this foreign-supported political organization registration trigger: (1) a hostile foreign principal is broadly defined and includes a nonresident alien of a hostile foreign nation (China, Russia, North Korea, Iran); (2) “political activity” is broadly defined and includes activity that is not traditionally viewed as “political” such as grassroots lobbying; and (3) there is no requirement that the hostile foreign principal direct, request, or be involved in the “political activity.” Therefore, a nonprofit could receive $1 from a nonresident alien from Russia living in the United States, and if the nonprofit is engaged in any effort to influence the general public, such as through grassroots communications urging citizens to communicate with government officials, the nonprofit may be required to register as a “foreign-supported political organization.”
The second registration trigger requires the filing of a registration statement if one acts as a “representative of a hostile foreign principal.” A “representative of a hostile foreign principal” is a person who acts as an agent, employee, representative, or servant, or otherwise acts at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a hostile foreign principal; whose actions are financed in whole or in party by a hostile foreign principal; and who engages in “political activity.” This registration trigger is similar to FARA’s, but does not contain the same FARA exemptions.
Other States
Texas and Louisiana now join Utah in requiring additional lobbying disclosure requirements for lobbying on behalf of a foreign adversary and certain foreign entities. While Utah requires registration regardless of the nationality of the foreign principal, Louisiana and Texas have defined foreign adversary to only include China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and the Venezuelan President Maduro’s regime. Texas’ law also includes a compensation ban for those communicating directly with state officials to influence legislative or administrative action on behalf of a foreign adversary.
Texas’ requirements take effect on September 1, 2025, while Louisiana’s requirements are effective December 1, 2025. Nonprofits engaged in public policy in these states should carefully review these laws.
Unanswered Questions and Next Steps
A number of questions have arisen, some of which may get answered as states complete their rulemakings. For example, will nonprofits be required to verify the nationality of donors? Will “best efforts” attestations, similar to what is permitted under the Federal Election Campaign Act, be sufficient? What type of additional due diligence will be required when receiving or making grants?
While waiting for guidance, there are a number of things that nonprofits can do to prepare. Nonprofits operating on a nationwide basis may want to review their current and future planned activities in the states with foreign influence laws, as well as audit all funding sources, such as donors, sponsors, grants, partnerships, and donor advised funds, and develop attestation statements for funding sources. Nonprofits with board members, chapters, donors, or vendors located in one of the countries of concern, or that may be owned in whole or in part by individuals or entities located in a country of concern, should review these relationships and agreements.
