The 'Georgian Dream' has already started to implement the authoritarian laws adopted against civil society in practice. This stigmatizes and criminalizes their human rights activities, putting Georgian civil society at risk of annihilation.

As the public is already aware, the Anti-Corruption Bureau initiated inspections against the Social Justice Center and six other civil society organizations on the basis of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). By a letter which we received on 11 August 2025, the Bureau requested a written explanation as to why the Social Justice Center had not registered as a foreign agent. The Bureau emphasized the criminal liability envisaged under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), thereby indirectly articulating a threat of our punishment.

More specifically, the Bureau’s letter informed us that, based on the information available to it, the primary source of funding for the Social Justice Center consists of grants issued by foreign donors. Furthermore, according to the Bureau’s explanation, based on the information submitted by our organization and public sources, our activities may be considered “political activity” within the meaning of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which, in the Bureau’s view, warranted the initiation of inspection proceedings against our organization.

In particular, the Bureau’s classification of the Social Justice Center’s public and human rights activities as “political activity” was grounded in certain of our public statements, including:

• The 16 July 2025 statement on the subject of visa-free travel: “The Ivanishvili government is fully responsible for creating risks to visa-free travel”;
• The 24 June 2025 publication entitled: “Political justice and the consolidation of authoritarianism in Georgia are taking the gravest forms”;
• The video material published on 30 May 2025 on the topic: “Why does Ivanishvili need FARA?”;
• The information shared on 30 May 2025 regarding a public discussion entitled: “Six months of continuous protest: repression, resistance, and hope.”

In its official letter, the Bureau did not even substantiate which specific activities of the Social Justice Center it regarded as alleged political activity under the Foreign Agents Registration Act; nor did it identify under the instruction or control of which “foreign principal” the organization was purportedly operating, or how it satisfied the statutory test of acting under the control and in the interest of a donor.

(At the same time, in its most recent correspondence the Bureau no longer even refers to the Law on Grants or the Law on Political Associations of Citizens, which on 19 June 2025 served as the basis for the inspection of our organization and for the Bureau’s request for unlimited access to information. We remind the public that in the court order compelling the organization to provide information to the Bureau, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was not mentioned at all. This once again illustrates the arbitrary and selective approaches employed by the Bureau in its operations).

It should be noted that the U.S. FARA (just like its Georgian analogue and the directive adopted on its basis by the Head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau) establishes that the mere fact that an organization’s activities may be related to political issues does not in itself constitute grounds for designating it as an agent of a foreign principal. According to the law, in order for a person to be considered as such, it is necessary that: 1. The organization acts “at the order, request, instruction, or under the control of a foreign principal”; and 2. The activities of the organization are “in whole or in substantial part, directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized” by the foreign principal. This, in turn, requires an individualized and detailed examination of the purposes of the organization’s activities and the specific nature of its relationship with the donor. To establish the first prerequisite, the mere existence of a grant agreement (i.e., the fact of funding) is not sufficient.

In this respect, it is of particular importance to take into account the most recent interpretations of the U.S. Department of Justice on these matters.

For example, on 14 March 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice issued an assessment concerning whether an advocacy organization with foreign funding should be considered an agent of a foreign principal and subjected to a registration obligation. In its conclusion, the Department of Justice did not regard the mere existence of political activity and foreign funding as sufficient grounds for requiring registration as an agent. It emphasized that “the activities associated with the grant were consistent with the organization’s objectives and, moreover, the donor did not exercise significant influence over such activities. The information obtained also demonstrates that the organization’s activities were neither conducted at the direction of, nor directly in furtherance of, the political interests of any foreign government or political party. For these reasons, the organization’s activities did not primarily serve a foreign interest and, accordingly, the registration obligation under FARA should not apply.”^[1]

In the context of public organizations, it is especially important to note the revised decision of the Department of Justice issued on 12 March 2024, whereby it likewise excluded an organization from the scope of the statute, stating that “the activities associated with the foreign power’s grant directly aligned with the stated purposes of the organization; the foreign power did not exercise substantial influence over the organization’s activities; and the activities of the organization were not directly dictated by, nor did they serve to promote, the interests of a foreign state or political party.” ^[2] 

At the same time, the Department has underscored that forms of expression protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should not fall within the scope of FARA, even if they may coincide with the interests of a foreign power, so long as they fundamentally represent the normal exercise of freedom of speech and association by an individual or organization.^[3] FARA does not require registration merely because of the existence of overlapping or coinciding viewpoints.^[4] 

Against this backdrop, it is significant that, as of 2023, less than 5 percent of registered entities under FARA in the United States are non-profit legal entities. Prominent media outlets and human rights organizations such as the BBC, Deutsche Welle, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Transparency International are not registered under the FARA regime.

It is also crucial to emphasize that the new Trump administration has fundamentally altered the approach toward the application of FARA. Specifically, a memorandum issued by the Attorney General appointed by President Trump declares that, in practice, the focus of FARA enforcement should shift from criminal mechanisms to administrative-legal enforcement. According to this directive, criminal prosecution should be initiated only in those cases where the conduct of the so-called foreign agent amounts, in the traditional sense, to the offense of “espionage.”

Contrary to the standards outlined above, in the course of the inspection, the Bureau does not even attempt to demonstrate that it intends to conduct a nuanced assessment of control and interest. Instead, it treats the mere fact of foreign funding as the sole and sufficient condition for registering the organization as an agent under the “Foreign Agents Registration Act.” It is evident that this approach directly and unequivocally contradicts the logic and standards of the U.S. FARA, despite “Georgian Dream” consistently asserting that the enforcement of this law is being carried out in full compliance with the requirements of U.S. law.

In this context, the Social Justice Center submitted an extensive letter to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, in which we elaborated, on the one hand, the legal standards, approaches, and practices regarding the application of FARA in the United States, and on the other hand, the history, ideology, operational logic, and ethical framework of our organization. We substantiate why it is impossible and absurd to claim that the Social Justice Center could be acting under the control or directive of its donors and partners. In this comprehensive response, the Social Justice Center asserts that the organization has been operating independently and autonomously since 2012, and that its activities are guided solely by its own ideological convictions, research-based findings, and the genuine needs and interests of specific social groups, including workers, internally displaced persons, ethnic and religious minorities, socially vulnerable groups, and persons with disabilities.

More precisely, we assert that a number of circumstances exclude the Social Justice Center from falling within the regulatory scope of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). These include:

1. Organizational autonomy and the existence of independent ideological and strategic priorities: The Social Justice Center is an established, ideologically coherent organization with a clear left-wing leaning, clearly defined areas of activity and a value framework that is publicly accessible on our website. For us, adherence to ideological and value-based principles is fundamental to defining our positions and setting our agenda. Our work is entirely grounded in the genuine needs, interests and concerns of local communities, which we identify through sustained and systematic research and engagement. We rigorously observe the principle of 'nothing about us without us', meaning the content and nature of our work is determined by the social groups we work with and for. To this end, the organization maintains multiple participatory platforms and employs participatory monitoring and advocacy methodologies to ensure the representation of specific community needs.

It is also important to note that a significant part of our work involves providing free legal assistance to citizens. In 2024–25, for example, the Social Justice Centre provided free legal assistance to around 500 people. Given the nature of legal assistance and the relevant legislation, the organization acts solely in the best interests of its beneficiaries, and any suggestion that it may pursue other interests in this process is unfounded.

Additionally, the organization engages in active academic work, including research, translations and teaching, organized according to academic methodologies. This represents a qualitatively autonomous sphere.

Furthermore, the organization’s perspectives on global and local processes often differ from those of numerous international organizations, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in practice.

2. Multiple and unconnected funding sources: The Social Justice Center has a diverse set of funders, and no single donor’s contribution is decisive for the financial viability of the organization. Accordingly, it is impossible to link the organization’s activities to any specific foreign entity. For instance, as of June 2025, the organization had 18 donor entities, of which the individual share of 12 donors did not exceed 0.5%–5% each.
3. Use of funding solely as a tool for mission-driven activities determined internally: Accordingly, grants serve as instruments through which the organization independently and autonomously implements activities aligned with its pre-determined mission, guided by internal processes and research-based approaches. The organization engages with donors based on its own statutory objectives and tasks, through project proposals fully defined by the organization itself. The content of a project proposal is entirely determined by the organization. The organization defines the scope and logic of project implementation even after the receipt of a grant. At no point has any donor required the organization to implement specific activities. The organization assumes full responsibility for initiating, planning, and defining the content and form of activities. This is routinely reflected in project agreements outlining planned work and delivered outputs. Furthermore, a substantial part of the organization’s work is carried out voluntarily, without any project-based support.
4. Correspondence with donors serves accountability and information exchange, not operational control: During project implementation, correspondence with donors is limited to financial accountability (e.g., preventing the use of received grants for personal purposes) and cooperative information exchange; it does not affect the substance of organizational activities. Moreover, several projects implemented by the organization constitute organizational support (so-called “core funding”), further enhancing the organization’s proactive role regarding the tasks defined under these projects.
5. Grant-related activities are not connected to the support or lobbying of foreign political parties: None of the organization’s grant-based activities relate to the activities of foreign political party members in Georgia or the advancement of their interests. Accordingly, there exist no contractual guarantees with any donor in this regard. The state cannot provide a single instance in which the Social Justice Center has promoted the interests or ideas of any particular organization.

Taking all of the above into account, the Social Justice Center considers that, under a reasonable and good-faith interpretation of the law, it is not possible for our organization to be considered subject to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

In these circumstances, it is clear that the inspection initiated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the legal criteria used to classify the organization as an 'agent' contradict the Constitution and laws of Georgia, as well as the requirements of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and its reasonable interpretation.

The broad and arbitrary application of the law against the Social Justice Center and our partner organizations infringes the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of association and expression. Furthermore, the Bureau's targeted focus on critical organizations and its aggressive and selective use of legal measures against them clearly indicates a discriminatory approach and an intent to suppress critical viewpoints and activities.

The Social Justice Center intends to utilize all available legal remedies, both domestically and internationally, to protect the rights and reputations of our organization and other civil society actors. This process is of fundamental importance to the defence and survival of civil society in Georgia.

Share