Japan's Anti-Espionage Law and the Economic Security Information Protection Act, Explained for Business [July 2026 Update]: The National Intelligence Council Establishment Act, the New National Intelligence Bureau, Security Clearance, and a FARA-Style Foreign Agent Registry

Japan's Anti-Espionage Law and the Economic Security Information Protection Act, Explained for Business [July 2026 Update]

Hello, this is Ryuta Hamamoto from TIMEWELL.

The moves around what Japan calls its "anti-espionage law" advanced significantly in the first half of 2026. What was a "Cabinet-approved bill" six months ago is now an "enacted law." If you have not updated your internal briefing materials in the past half year, there is a good chance the premises themselves are now out of date.

Let me start with the conclusion. As of July 2026, there is still no standalone "anti-espionage law" that comprehensively criminalizes espionage. Instead, the administration of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is standing up several frameworks in stages as part of an intelligence reform. The easiest way to organize the whole picture is as three layers:

1. The Act on the Protection and Utilization of Important Economic Security Information (enacted May 2024, in force since May 16, 2025). This is the body of Japan's security clearance system; the operational standards and guidelines are all in place, and it is already in the implementation phase [1] [2].
2. The National Intelligence Council Establishment Act (enacted May 27, 2026). It creates a National Intelligence Council chaired by the Prime Minister and a new National Intelligence Bureau formed by reorganizing the Cabinet Intelligence and Research Office; the government aims to launch the Bureau in July 2026 [4] [6]. This is the "first step" of the reform.
3. A second stage that includes a FARA-style foreign agent registry. Together with the creation of an external intelligence agency and tougher penalties for leaks, this is at the stage of setting up an expert panel in summer 2026. Bill submission, once expected from the autumn extraordinary Diet session, is now likely to slip to the 2027 ordinary Diet session or later [7] [8].

If you want to start by gauging how much your company should brace itself on export control and overseas transactions, try our export-control compliance check. From here, I will sort out - through the lens of corporate practice - what is now settled and what is still ahead. Because I run a business in the tech industry myself, I have laid out both sides of the debate and then stated my own position plainly.

---

Where Japan's "Anti-Espionage Law" Stands Today

The phrase "anti-espionage law" means quite different things depending on the outlet and the context. Without sorting this out, the discussion talks past itself.

As of July 2026, no single law actually named the "Anti-Espionage Act" has been enacted. In 1985 the LDP submitted the "Bill on the Prevention of Espionage Related to State Secrets," but it was withdrawn amid criticism that the maximum sentence was death and that the scope of "state secrets" would expand at government discretion [9]. The 2013 Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets strengthened penalties for leaking specially designated secrets in four fields - defense, diplomacy, counter-terrorism, and counter-espionage - but it is not a law that polices espionage activity as a whole.

What is advancing instead is the three-layer structure above. It may look scattered, but bundled together it converges on a single aim: protecting advanced technology and critical information from leakage through the channels of people and organizations. A useful map here is the intelligence-reform roadmap that the Takaichi administration has laid out. It is organized as a sequence: the first stage is the National Intelligence Council Establishment Act, and the second stage is an external intelligence agency, tougher penalties for leaks, and a foreign agent registration law.

Viewed on a single page, the frameworks sit like this:

Stage	Measure	Status as of July 2026
Foundation	Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets (enacted 2013, in force 2014)	In operation. Covers specially designated secrets in defense, diplomacy, counter-terrorism, and counter-espionage
Preliminary	Important Economic Security Information Protection and Utilization Act (enacted May 2024, in force May 2025)	Operational phase. The core of the security clearance system
First stage	National Intelligence Council Establishment Act (enacted May 27, 2026)	National Intelligence Bureau scheduled to launch in July 2026
Second stage	External intelligence agency (tentative) / tougher penalties for leaks / foreign agent registration law	Expert panel to be set up in summer 2026. Bill submission expected no earlier than the 2027 ordinary Diet session

The practical meaning for companies is this. The preliminary layer and the first stage, already in motion, are "things to handle now"; the second stage is "something whose outline is only starting to emerge." Speaking about both with the same urgency leads you to misjudge priorities. What to tackle first is the Important Economic Security Information Protection Act, which is already in operation, and the counterparty- and personnel-management posture that the National Intelligence Bureau launching in July will assume.

---

The National Intelligence Council Establishment Act and the National Intelligence Bureau (Enacted May 27, 2026; July Launch)

The biggest news since the start of 2026 is the enactment of this National Intelligence Council Establishment Act.

The bill was approved by the Cabinet and submitted to the Diet on March 13, 2026, and it was passed and enacted at the House of Councillors plenary session on May 27. The reason so many explainer articles from six months ago stop at the "bill" stage is precisely the speed of these moves. The deliberation ran as follows [5] [6].

Date	Progress
March 13, 2026	Cabinet decision and submission to the Diet
April 23, 2026	Passed by the House of Representatives plenary session
May 26, 2026	Passed by the House of Councillors Cabinet Committee
May 27, 2026	Passed and enacted by the House of Councillors plenary session

The vote is worth noting too. Because this law creates an organization with strong authority, the parliamentary groups split.

In favor	Opposed
Liberal Democratic Party, Nippon Ishin no Kai, Democratic Party for the People, Komeito, Sanseito	Constitutional Democratic Party, Japanese Communist Party, Reiwa Shinsengumi

The law has two pillars. One is the new National Intelligence Council, chaired by the Prime Minister and composed of the relevant ministers - the Chief Cabinet Secretary, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Defense, and others - which will draw the medium- to long-term direction of intelligence policy. The other is the creation of the National Intelligence Bureau. It reorganizes and expands the Cabinet Intelligence and Research Office, said to be about 194 people, and positions it as the secretariat that consolidates the intelligence functions dispersed across ministries. What is new is that it holds "comprehensive coordination authority" over the intelligence bodies of each ministry - the vision being a command hub for the nation's intelligence [6]. The head of the Bureau, the Director of National Intelligence, is placed on par with the Secretary-General of the National Security Secretariat, an elevation from the former Director of Cabinet Intelligence. The government plans to launch this National Intelligence Bureau in July 2026.

Not to be overlooked is Prime Minister Takaichi's press conference on the day of enactment. She clearly positioned the law as "the first step of a reform to strengthen our country's intelligence functions." On the other measures - including an anti-espionage law and an external intelligence agency - she said, "I am not at a stage where I can state specific details at this point, but while carefully listening to a range of views, we will proceed with the examination one by one, carefully and steadily" [4]. In other words, by the government's own account, building the command hub has been settled as a first step, but the concrete shape of what comes next is still to be worked out. If you get this wrong and tell colleagues internally that "the anti-espionage law has already been enacted," you will be issuing a correction later.

The lines of debate are worth setting out too. Supporters argue that without a command hub to bundle intelligence that is siloed and dispersed, swift decision-making is impossible, and that a counterpart is needed on Japan's side to deepen information sharing with allies. Those urging caution point out that oversight of such a powerful body with comprehensive coordination authority - by the Diet or by independent institutions - is weak. The Hyogo Bar Association issued a statement from its president opposing enactment while safeguards such as an oversight body and human rights provisions remained inadequate [12]. The Japan Federation of Bar Associations' opinion of February 20, 2026 likewise calls for careful deliberation on both the strengthening of intelligence agencies and the foreign agent registration system, weighing both the potential for human rights violations and the question of necessity [10]. Internationally, Human Rights Watch and others sent a joint letter to Prime Minister Takaichi in April 2026, stating that protections for journalists and activists should be written into the law [13].

For my part, I think building the command function itself is necessary. But an organization with this much authority will, over the long run, inevitably run into trouble somewhere unless external oversight and disclosure mechanisms are packaged in with it. My honest wish is that the debate spend as much energy on "how to oversee it" as on "what to build."

---

How Far Can Current Law Punish Espionage?

When you hear "there is no anti-espionage law," you might imagine that espionage runs unchecked in Japan. In practice that is not the case; it is handled by combining individual laws. That combination, however, has a clear gap.

Lining up the penalties under the main current laws looks like this:

Current law	Main scope	Level of penalty
FEFTA (Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act)	Unauthorized exports and technology provision (service transactions), etc.	Individuals: up to 10 years' imprisonment and a fine up to 30 million yen (or five times the value); corporations: fine up to 1 billion yen
Unfair Competition Prevention Act (trade-secret infringement)	Unauthorized acquisition, use, or disclosure of trade secrets	Individuals: up to 10 years' imprisonment and a fine up to 20 million yen (up to 30 million yen where the intent is use abroad); corporations: up to 500 million yen (up to 1 billion yen for overseas use)
Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets	Leaking specially designated secrets in defense, diplomacy, counter-terrorism, and counter-espionage	Up to 10 years' imprisonment
Important Economic Security Information Protection Act	Leaking Important Economic Security Information	Up to 5 years' imprisonment and a fine up to 5 million yen

Set out this way, it looks as though fairly severe penalties are in place. Indeed, unauthorized technology outflow can be caught under FEFTA, the removal of trade secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and the leaking of specially designated secrets under the Specially Designated Secrets Act.

The problem is that each of these laws slices off a "specific situation." Consider, for example, someone who meets frequently with a foreign public official, receives compensation, and verbally conveys non-public information on domestic policy. There is no provision that directly polices such conduct as such. Exchanges of information that are neither exports, nor trade secrets, nor specially designated secrets do not fit neatly into the existing frames. CISTEC likewise points out that in the economic-security domain the gaps in current law are wide, and that operational standards and education are getting things by for now [11]. The many people who search for "why Japan has no anti-espionage law" are, I think, driven by unease about this state of limbo. From a company's standpoint, you will spend the next several years defending yourself with a patchwork of individual laws while multiple frameworks come into motion at once.

---

The Economic Security Information Protection Act and the Security Clearance System

The first thing to grasp is that this law is no longer "under discussion" - it is "in operation."

The Act on the Protection and Utilization of Important Economic Security Information was enacted on May 10, 2024 and came into force on May 16, 2025 [1]. Information that requires protection on economic-security grounds is designated as "Important Economic Security Information," and private operators handling that information through government contracts and the like are certified as "qualified business operators." Employees who access the information then handle it only after undergoing an "aptitude assessment" - a background check [2]. The first edition of the operational guideline (qualified business operators edition), which sets out the details of operation, was published by the Cabinet Office on May 2, 2025, and is now available for companies to reference [3].

The items examined in the aptitude assessment are close in content to the clearance system under the Specially Designated Secrets Act.

Assessment item	Main contents
Terrorism connections	Violent destructive activity, ties to terrorist organizations
Criminal and disciplinary record	Past criminal cases, disciplinary actions
Information handling	Past leaks, history of handling classified information
Substance use	Illegal drugs, problematic alcohol use
Financial situation	Debts, credit history, unexplained asset accumulation
Family and household	Nationality of spouse and household members, foreign ties
Travel history	Countries visited, purpose of stay

The assessment is conducted on the premise of the individual's consent; if consent is withheld, the person cannot be assigned to the relevant work. An aptitude assessment once received is valid for up to 10 years, and renewal burdens are designed within that window. Newton Consulting's analysis similarly notes that because the scope of inquiry is broad, the greatest practical issues for companies are consent procedures, complaint handling, and the design of operational rules [14].

Certification as a qualified business operator examines not only the individuals but the organization itself. Specifically, the judgment is made by comprehensively weighing factors such as the degree of foreign ownership, control, or influence (shareholder composition and the status of officers), whether the protection managers and business supervisors can properly fulfill their roles, whether internal education is provided, and whether the equipment of protected facilities meets the standards. In other words, you are asked whether you are "an organization that can be entrusted with the information," down to capital relationships and internal structures.

There is one more thing companies should know: the transparency mechanism. Under this law, there is an obligation to report to and publish before the Diet, once a year and accompanied by the opinions of experts, the designation and de-designation of Important Economic Security Information, the status of aptitude assessments, and the status of qualified-operator certifications. The existence of a channel opening the system to the outside, so that it does not become a closed operation, is a reassuring point when you explain the system internally.

The scope is not limited to Defense Equipment Agency projects. As BUSINESS LAWYERS' analysis notes, it reaches broad fields such as space, cyber, quantum, semiconductors, AI, and bio - including the Program for Fostering Economic Security Important Technologies (K Program) [10]. Companies involved in government procurement or international joint research will have little choice but to keep qualified-operator certification in view.

For my part, I see little reason to oppose the introduction of the system itself. So long as you participate in information sharing with allies or in international tenders, a personnel-assurance mechanism that holds up in your counterpart countries is unavoidable. That said, since the inquiry reaches into family and travel history, you need to build internal rules and an audit structure from the outset so that it is not diverted into HR evaluations or operated in a discriminatory way.

---

A FARA-Style Foreign Agent Registry, and How It Compares Internationally

One of the centerpieces of the second stage is a foreign agent registration system.

Modeled on the U.S. FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act), it would have actors who conduct policy-influence or public-opinion activity in Japan on behalf of foreign governments, foreign political parties, foreign companies, and the like register their activities and funding sources with the government [10]. Its essence is not "prohibition" but "disclosure": deterring foreign influence operations by making transparent who is doing what, and for the benefit of which country. Enactment was written into the coalition agreement between the LDP and Nippon Ishin no Kai in October 2025, and the matter has entered the stage of setting up an expert panel in summer 2026 for examination. The timing of bill submission is now expected to slip from the originally envisaged autumn extraordinary Diet session to the 2027 ordinary Diet session or later [7] [8].

Similar systems are already running in major countries. Comparing them helps bring the outline of Japan's debate into focus.

Country	System	Features
United States	FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act, 1938)	Requires agents acting for a foreign principal to register and disclose. Enforcement has been strengthened in recent years
Australia	FITS (Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme, 2018)	Registers influence activity on behalf of foreign governments, parties, and the like
United Kingdom	FIRS (Foreign Influence Registration Scheme)	Under the 2023 National Security Act, operational from 2025. Sets an enhanced tier for specified countries
Japan	Under consideration (Japanese FARA)	Expert panel to be set up in summer 2026

The point to grasp here is that Japanese companies are not entirely unrelated to this. The details of the bill are still to come, but looking at how the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. operate their regimes, the following actors are likely to come up for discussion in Japan too: PR firms that conduct public relations in Japan under contracts with foreign governments; lobbyists and consultants retained by foreign political parties or foreign companies; Japan bureaus of foreign government-affiliated media; and the policy-advocacy activities of foreign-affiliated think tanks. On top of that, when a company lobbies Japanese regulators at the request of an overseas group company, or runs a public-opinion campaign in partnership with foreign media, the Japanese company itself may enter a grey zone.

The lines of debate are worth looking at too. Supporters argue that existing laws such as the Self-Defense Forces Act, the National Public Service Act, and the Specially Designated Secrets Act provide no mechanism to grasp foreign influence operations preventively; that similar systems function in the U.S., U.K., and Australia, and it is a security gap that Japan alone lacks one; and that because it is disclosure rather than regulation, it does not directly restrict freedom of expression. Those urging caution - the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, in its opinion of February 20, 2026 - note that existing legislation such as the Self-Defense Forces Act can address the concern to a certain extent, and that the impact on constitutional rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of association is large, arguing that the discussion should begin by verifying necessity [10]. There is also the point that the very label of "foreign agent" carries a stigmatizing effect and could have a chilling effect on the activities of journalists, researchers, and civic groups. Even in the U.S., the home of the system, there is a history of over-application being questioned in the course of strengthened enforcement.

My own read: the direction of designing it as a disclosure regime is itself sound. On the other hand, a design that leaves the line-drawing of "who is a target" to government discretion is dangerous. It is more realistic to write the scope concretely into the body of the law itself. A method that later broadens the scope through operational standards tends, in the end, to invite abuse - as the recent debate abroad also shows.

---

A Practical Corporate Checklist, and How TRAFEED Can Help

From here it is a practical matter. Rather than scrambling once a law is in place, here are the areas to act on within 2026, ordered from the easiest to start.

First, companies that expect to handle Important Economic Security Information - that is, companies in fields such as defense, space, cyber, quantum, semiconductors, AI, and bio that are involved in government procurement or international joint research - should get ahead on preparing for qualified-operator status and aptitude assessments. As PwC's column lays out, building an internal framework aligned with the operational standards and guidelines early reduces the load when you actually aim for certification [15].

• Development of information-management rules and pledge templates
• Consent processes for aptitude assessments, and the design of alternative work for those who decline
• Establishment of internal channels for complaint handling and appeals
• Meeting the standards for information compartmentalization and physical security
• An inventory of capital structure and officers' foreign ties (preparing for the factors weighed in qualified-operator certification)

Next is the screening structure for counterparties and joint researchers. As the National Intelligence Bureau launches and the foreign agent registry debate advances, checking "whether a counterparty is under foreign influence" will be folded into ordinary business rather than being a special task. In practice, cross-referencing against the following lists is indispensable.

• METI's Foreign User List (entities of concern for military-related demand)
• The U.S. OFAC SDN List (Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons)
• The U.S. EAR Entity List, Unverified List, and Military End User List
• EU, U.K., and U.N. sanctions lists
• The latest versions of each country's export-control and sanctions lists

These are updated frequently, and because names appear in multiple languages with spelling variations, maintaining accuracy by hand alone is not realistic. For the broader picture of the related regulations, reading China's export controls on Japan and the latest on rare earths and semiconductors and dual-use technology and military-diversion risk together will give you a more three-dimensional view.

Third is reviewing personnel and contracts: systematizing the explanation and consent process for accepting foreign researchers and engineers; pre-screening clauses on foreign-agent status in contracts with overseas consultants, lobbyists, and PR firms; and internal approval workflows for lobbying the Japanese government at the request of overseas group companies. Building the internal templates here before the second-stage frameworks take concrete shape means you will not be caught off guard later.

The export control AI agent TRAFEED (formerly ZEROCK ExCHECK) (TRAFEED service catalog (PDF)) that we at TIMEWELL developed was built to automate exactly this counterparty and personnel screening. Enter a counterparty's name, address, and related companies, and it automatically cross-references multiple sanctions and regulatory lists, returning the basis for any hit and the points at issue for classification within seconds. It is built around METI's FEFTA standards and handles multilingual name variations. The final classification is of course made on the premise that your export control officer decides - the tool is positioned to make that judgment faster and more accurate.

If you are considering automating export control or counterparty screening, please start with the TRAFEED introduction page. In a 30-minute online consultation (book here), we hear about your product portfolio and the outline of your overseas transactions, and then propose concretely which parts of your current process can be automated.

---

Closing

From a "bill" six months ago to an "enacted law" now. The National Intelligence Council Establishment Act was enacted on May 27, 2026, and in July the National Intelligence Bureau - the command hub - will launch. As Prime Minister Takaichi herself said at her press conference, however, this is the first step of the reform; the concrete shape of an anti-espionage law and an external intelligence agency is still to be debated. The second-stage foreign agent registration system, too, will have its expert panel start this summer, with a bill expected no earlier than the 2027 ordinary Diet session.

How to balance the demands of security against human rights, freedom of expression, and an open international research environment - there is no single correct answer to that question. Even so, from the standpoint of corporate practice, operations move ahead while you wait for the debate to be sorted out. The Economic Security Information Protection Act is already in motion, and the companies that digitize their counterparty screening and personnel management now will carry a lighter practical burden down the road. To grasp the overall picture of these frameworks, what economic security is and research integrity and research security are good starting points as well.

I hope this article gives you a spur to take your own preparations one step further.

---

References

• [1] Act on the Protection and Utilization of Important Economic Security Information (in-force version, May 16, 2025), e-Gov https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/506AC0000000027/20250516_000000000000000
• [2] Cabinet Office, "Important Economic Security Information Protection and Utilization Act" https://www.cao.go.jp/keizai_anzen_hosho/hogokatsuyou/hogokatsuyou.html
• [3] Cabinet Office, "Guideline on the Operation of the Important Economic Security Information Protection and Utilization Act (Qualified Business Operators Edition), 1st Edition," May 2, 2025 https://www.cao.go.jp/keizai_anzen_hosho/hogokatsuyou/doc/jigyousyagl.pdf
• [4] Prime Minister's Office, "Press Conference on the Enactment of the National Intelligence Council Establishment Act," May 27, 2026 https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/105/statement/2026/0527kaiken.html
• [5] House of Representatives, "National Intelligence Council Establishment Bill" deliberation record https://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_gian.nsf/html/gian/honbun/houan/g22109024.htm
• [6] Nikkei, "National Intelligence Bureau to Launch as Early as July: Intelligence Command Hub, Establishment Act Enacted," May 2026 https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUA25A5W0V20C26A5000000/
• [7] Nikkei, "Anti-Espionage Law: Expert Panel as Early as Summer, with a Foreign Agent Registration System in Mind" https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUA170PF0X10C26A2000000/
• [8] Prime Minister's Office, "Press Conference on the Enactment of the National Intelligence Council Establishment Act" (Prime Minister's remarks that the second-stage measures are at the examination stage), May 27, 2026 https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/105/statement/2026/0527kaiken.html
• [9] Tokyo Shimbun, "What Would Happen to Japan If an Anti-Espionage Law Were Enacted? It Was Withdrawn 40 Years Ago, But... The Path to Strengthened Surveillance the Government Is Pursuing," May 24, 2025 https://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/406885
• [10] Japan Federation of Bar Associations, "Opinion on the Intelligence Agency Strengthening Legislation and the Foreign Agent Registration System Being Discussed Toward Enactment as an 'Anti-Espionage Law'," February 20, 2026 https://www.nichibenren.or.jp/library/pdf/document/opinion/2026/260220.pdf
• [11] CISTEC, "Trends in Japan's Security Trade Control and Economic Security Policy," December 24, 2025 https://www.cistec.or.jp/service/keizai_anzenhosho/yukan/data/20251224.pdf
• [12] Hyogo Bar Association, "President's Statement Opposing Enactment of the National Intelligence Council Establishment Bill - Being Advanced Toward a So-Called 'Anti-Espionage Law' - Without the Development or Examination of Provisions for Human Rights Safeguards Such as an Oversight Body" https://www.hyogoben.or.jp/news/iken/19584/
• [13] Human Rights Watch, "Joint NGO Letter to Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on Japan's Anti-Espionage Law and Economic Security," April 26, 2026 https://www.hrw.org/ja/news/2026/04/26/joint-letter-to-prime-minister-sanae-takaichi-on-japans-anti-espionage-law-and
• [14] Newton Consulting, "Act on the Protection and Utilization of Important Economic Security Information" https://www.newton-consulting.co.jp/itilnavi/guideline/economic_security_act.html
• [15] PwC Japan, "Latest Trends in the Legislation of the Security Clearance System and the Response Japanese Companies Should Take, Part 3" https://www.pwc.com/jp/ja/knowledge/column/awareness-cyber-security/economic-security/economic-security09.html

---

Related Articles

• China's Export Controls on Japan and the Latest on Rare Earths and Semiconductors [2026 Edition]
• The Revised Three Principles on Defense Equipment Transfer: How Japanese Companies' Defense Exports Will Change
• Dual-Use Technology and Military-Diversion Risk: Economic-Security Issues Researchers and Companies Should Know
• What Is Economic Security? Building a "Strong Japan," Learned from the Takaichi Administration's Policies
• What Are Research Integrity and Research Security? Why They Are Now Essential for Universities and Research Institutions