Last week, I wrote a detailed analysis of how the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) has become a tool of government overreach, often used selectively to stigmatize inconvenient voices, control narratives, and criminalize ordinary interactions with foreign entities. Today, I explore how Dr. Sue Mi Terry’s recent indictment under FARA flips the script: a career insider and former CIA analyst accused of failing to register as a “foreign agent” of South Korea, one of America’s closest allies. Her case is both troubling and perplexing, highlighting the selective enforcement of FARA and its chilling effect on intellectual freedom and open exchange – principles essential to democracy.
Dr. Terry is not a natural candidate for libertarian sympathies. A staunch advocate of hawkish policies on North Korea, she has spent her career in Washington’s revolving door of government and think tanks. Adding to the irony, her husband, columnist Max Boot, once wrote that “Washington should ramp up enforcement” of FARA, a sentiment that now feels uncomfortably prophetic. While it might be tempting to indulge in a bit of schadenfreude, this isn’t a Menendez-style tale of gold bars and hidden cash. It’s a case built on think-tank funding and diplomatic dinners, routine activities in Washington’s policy circles.
What makes this case alarming isn’t the behavior itself, which, while ethically debatable, is typical for Washington. What is troubling is the inconsistent enforcement of FARA, a law so vague and expansive it can be used to target virtually anyone. Just as bookkeeping errors have been elevated to secure felony convictions against political opponents or tax evasion infamously took down Al Capone, FARA allows the government to transform minor infractions into significant criminal liabilities. Terry now faces up to a decade in prison – not for harming U.S. interests, but for failing to dot every “i” and cross every “t.”
Her case may be an exception but underscores a broader truth: FARA’s misuse threatens intellectual freedom, open dialogue, and fairness. Principles must outweigh personalities – even when the target is someone whose politics we may vehemently oppose. If the government can do this to a well-connected insider, what chance does anyone else have?
Hellbound and Down 