"Weaponized transparency"

Books wrapped in paper with a “foreign agent” and “18+” markers

I recently attended a talk by Maxim Krupskiy, a Russian human rights lawyer and expert on foreign agent laws. I learned a lot from his presentation, titled “Foreign Agents' Legislation: Between Democratic Resilience and Weaponized Transparency,” and wanted to share some key takeaways.

The Decline of Democracy Worldwide

First, some sobering statistics from the V-Dem Institute: over 70% of the world population lived in autocracies in 2023, up from 50% two decades earlier. Over the same period, the number of countries democratizing dropped from 35 to 18, while those becoming more autocratic increased from 11 to 42. Additionally, more countries are witnessing a decline in election quality and freedom of speech.

Source: “Democracy Report 2024: Democracy Winning and Losing at the Ballot”, V-Dem Institute

To me, these figures, coupled with the strategies used by autocratic regimes like Russia, highlight the urgent need to defend democracy everywhere. Despite claims to the contrary, autocracies don’t remain confined to their own borders—they actively seek to expand their influence globally, and unfortunately, they are having some success. The threat to democracy is real and growing.

The Rise of "Sharp Power"

One new term I encountered during Krupskiy’s talk was “sharp power”. Unlike “soft power”, which relies on attraction and persuasion (such as through cultural diplomacy or educational exchanges), sharp power uses manipulative and coercive tactics to undermine democratic institutions, media, and public opinion. It exploits the openness of democratic societies through disinformation campaigns, censorship, economic coercion, and covert operations—all designed to distort the truth and promote the desired narrative.

For example, Russia has utilized sharp power through state-sponsored disinformation campaigns on social media to sway elections in Western democracies. It also leverages state-controlled media outlets, such as RT and Sputnik, to spread propaganda and conspiracy theories globally. Additionally, Russia has engaged in cyberattacks, such as hacking political parties and electoral systems in the U.S. and Europe, with the goal of destabilizing trust in democratic processes.

China, too, employs sharp power by pressuring international companies and universities to censor discussions on sensitive topics like Taiwan and Hong Kong. Similarly, China’s influence over diaspora media and Confucius Institutes has raised concerns about information control and political interference in democratic nations.

Understanding "Foreign Agent" Laws

Next, Krupskiy discussed foreign agent laws, which are intended to limit foreign interference by increasing transparency about who is acting on behalf of foreign entities. While these laws have attracted most attention in the context of Russia and Georgia, they are not exclusive to autocracies. The U.S. has had such a law for decades, and democracies like the UK and Canada are now considering similar measures to limit foreign influence.

However, Krupskiy pointed out that there are big differences in how these laws are crafted and enforced in democracies versus autocracies. He emphasized that any fair and effective foreign agent law should be transparent, predictable, and just. Specifically, an individual or organization should only be labeled a foreign agent if they meet all of the following criteria:

1. Existence of a foreign principal: There must be a foreign entity for whom the agent is acting. Without a foreign principal, there is no agency relationship.

2. Mutual consent to agency activity: Both the foreign principal and the agent must be aware of and consent to the agent’s actions. If either party is unaware of or disagrees with the agent's activities, the claim of an agency relationship is weak.

3. Clear link between the agent's activities and the principal's interests: There must be a direct, demonstrable connection between the agent’s actions and the foreign principal’s goals. Without such evidence, the claim of an agency relationship also lacks merit.

Krupskiy pointed out that laws like the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and similar laws in other democracies adhere to these criteria. In contrast, the foreign agent laws in Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and other autocratic or would-be autocratic states do not.

The key question, Krupskiy argued, should be: Is the entity truly under the control or direction of the foreign principal? If the foreign principal does not control the actions of the entity, the entity cannot be considered a foreign agent, even if their interests happen to align.

These criteria are crucial for preserving democratic freedoms, including free speech. Without them, labeling someone a foreign agent could be (and has been) easily weaponized to suppress dissent. For example, if I received a grant from a Canadian organization and criticized U.S. tariff policy toward Canada, under a law like Russia’s, the U.S. government could label me a foreign agent simply because of the grant. In reality, I am not representing Canada—I simply share their view on the issue.

Weaponizing Transparency: Russia’s Foreign Agent Law

To illustrate how transparency can be weaponized, Krupskiy described Russia’s foreign agent law, versions of which have already been adopted by Georgia and Kyrgyzstan. Bulgaria, Hungary, Turkey, Serbia, and Slovakia have also recently pushed or are currently pushing similar initiatives.

Russia’s foreign agent law is exceedingly broad. Merely receiving foreign funds—without any direct connection to a foreign principal—can result in being labeled a foreign agent. You could be classified as a foreign agent for something as benign as monetizing your YouTube channel or receiving money from relatives abroad. In Russia, it is also possible to be a “foreign agent” of no one specifically.

There are also no clear terms in the law that would allow accused to defend themselves in court. The prosecution does not have to provide any proof or evidence that you were acting on anyone’s behalf, so if the government decides to label you a foreign agent, you’re screwed. In fact, because the law is so broad, you don’t even have to receive foreign funds to be labeled a foreign agent—receiving any support, of any kind, from a foreign entity is sufficient. And because there’s no requirement to provide evidence, merely expressing a view that the government doesn’t like can be used to label you a foreign agent, with the idea being that if you expressed such a view, you must be “under foreign influence”.

The Impact of Being Labeled a "Foreign Agent"

According to OVD-info, a Russian human rights group group, the most recent additions to the foreign agent list include two journalists, a blogger, a writer, and an actor. Why did they make the list? Because they spread “false information” about the decision of the Russian government, spoke out against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and live outside of Russia.

Now you might say, is this a big deal if all you have to do is slap a “foreign agent” label on yourself? It is, for two reasons. First, Russian law imposes severe restrictions on foreign agents, such as prohibiting them from organizing public events, receiving advertising revenue or state financial support, or targeting minors with their materials. Books written by foreign agents are sometimes wrapped in brown paper and labeled as "18+" to protect bookstores from fines (illustrated above).

Russia’s restrictions on foreign agents also make it difficult to engage in crowdfunding, and lawyers are often reluctant to help organizations labeled as foreign agents because they risk being labeled foreign agents themselves. Recently, Russia has introduced new initiatives to try to further deprive these “foreign agents” of income.

The second reason it is a big deal is because the law is popular with Russian people, who understand it only superficially. Because Russia controls essentially all the news media, there’s no one to fight back against the “broken logic” of the government, which claims that this law is protecting Russia from malicious foreign influence. As Dr. Krupskiy pointed out, it took him nearly an hour to lay out why this law is harmful. The typical Russian person, with no legal expertise, easy access to independent media, and years of brainwashing by the government, does not stand a chance. As a result, being labeled a foreign agent has proven to be a very effective way of stigmatizing civil societies and silencing dissent.

This is how Russia has weaponized transparency, and more broadly, how autocrats around the world aim to normalize their vision of the world, where dissent is equated with malicious foreign interference.

Where to go from here?

The rise of such laws and autocracies more generally poses a serious challenge to democracy, so what do we do? Dr. Krupskiy concluded with a quote from "Autocratic Legalism" by Kim Scheppele. With what’s going on in the world, I frankly think this should be required reading for all of us. I will also wrap up with two key quotes from the article, one describing the problem and one the solution.

The problem: “the new autocrats come to power not with bullets but with laws. They attack the institutions of liberal constitutionalism with constitutional amendments. They carefully preserve the shell of the prior liberal state—the same institutions, the same ceremonies, an overall appearance of rights protection—but in the meantime they hollow out its moral core. Constitutional institutions survive in the same buildings, but their liberal souls have been killed. How many people can really see this until they themselves need constitutional protection and find themselves defenseless? By then it is too late.” (pg. 582)

The solution: “In the days when dictators come to power with law reform as their primary tool, civil defense requires citizens to be empowered with law. Citizens need to be trained as constitutionalists—to understand the point of constitutionalism, to recognize threats to self-sustaining democracy, and to care about defending liberal values.”

It’s obviously not easy, but the other choice is to risk returning to a world where democracy and true freedom exist only in theory.