Federal prosecutors are drawing a hard line in the Ex-Rep Venezuela Agent Case, insisting that former U.S. Rep. David Rivera and political consultant Esther Nuhfer cannot sidestep charges under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The government argued in a Florida federal court that FARA’s reporting requirements are constitutional, stressing the law “merely requires registration and disclosures” rather than restricting political speech.

Rivera and Nuhfer, indicted in November 2022, face accusations of conspiring to launder money and failing to register as foreign agents. Rivera, who represented Miami-Dade and Collier counties as a Republican in Congress, also faces separate tax-related charges. Both defendants pled not guilty earlier this year.

$50 Million Deal at the Heart of the Case

The charges stem from a $50 million consulting agreement between Rivera’s Interamerican Consulting Inc. and PDV USA, the U.S. subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil giant, PDVSA. Prosecutors allege the lucrative contract was designed to advance Venezuela’s political interests in Washington, including lobbying for sanctions relief.

According to the DOJ, the defendants’ conduct aligns directly with what FARA was built to monitor: undisclosed lobbying on behalf of foreign governments.

Defense Fires Back, Citing First Amendment

Rivera’s legal team, led by Edward R. Shohat of Jones Walker LLP, argued that the law infringes on free speech and is impermissibly vague. Shohat framed the challenge as groundbreaking, calling it “the first prior restraint First Amendment attack on this kind of FARA case.” He further claimed that DOJ policy, outlined in a February memorandum by Attorney General Pamela Bondi, limited prosecutions to espionage-related FARA cases, not lobbying disputes.

Counsel for Nuhfer, David O. Markus and Margot Moss, echoed this sentiment, blasting prosecutors for pushing forward when “the Department of Justice has made it clear that these cases should not go forward.”

Prosecutors Counter “Vagueness” Claims

Prosecutors rejected the defense’s vagueness arguments, pointing out that terms such as “predominantly” and “directly” are widely used in other statutes courts have upheld. They emphasized that FARA prosecutions require proof of willful violations, leaving little risk of accidental infractions.

“The law doesn’t prohibit speech,” the government stressed in its filing. “It ensures the public knows when political advocacy is being carried out on behalf of a foreign power.”

The Legal Teams

• For the government: Harold E. Schimkat of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida and David J. Ryan of the DOJ’s National Security Division.

• For Rivera: Edward R. Shohat, David S. Weinstein, and Thomas P. Bardenwerper of Jones Walker LLP.

• For Nuhfer: David O. Markus and Anita M. Moss of Markus/Moss PLLC.

The case now sits at the intersection of free speech, foreign lobbying, and national security—making it one of the most closely watched FARA battles in years.