The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Changes from September 28, 2023 to January 30, 2024

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

The International Emergency Economic Powers ~~September 28, 2023~~January 30, 2024
Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use
Christopher A. Casey,
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the President broad The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the President broad
Coordinator
authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national
Analyst in International Analyst in International
emergency. IEEPA, like the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) from which it branched, sits at emergency. IEEPA, like the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) from which it branched, sits at
Trade and Finance Trade and Finance
the center of the modern U.S. sanctions regime. Changes in the use of IEEPA powers since the the center of the modern U.S. sanctions regime. Changes in the use of IEEPA powers since the

act’s enactment in 1977 have caused some to question whether the statute’s oversight provisions act’s enactment in 1977 have caused some to question whether the statute’s oversight provisions
Dianne E. Rennack
are robust enough given the sweeping economic powers it confers upon the President during a are robust enough given the sweeping economic powers it confers upon the President during a
Specialist in Foreign Policy Specialist in Foreign Policy
declared emergency. declared emergency.
Legislation Legislation

Over the course of the twentieth century, Congress delegated increasing amounts of emergency Over the course of the twentieth century, Congress delegated increasing amounts of emergency
power to the President by statute. TWEA was one such statute. Congress passed TWEA in 1917 power to the President by statute. TWEA was one such statute. Congress passed TWEA in 1917
Jennifer K. Elsea
Legislative Attorney Legislative Attorney
to regulate international transactions with enemy powers following the U.S. entry into the First to regulate international transactions with enemy powers following the U.S. entry into the First

World War. Congress expanded the act during the 1930s to allow the President to declare a World War. Congress expanded the act during the 1930s to allow the President to declare a
national emergency in times of peace and assume sweeping powers over both domestic and national emergency in times of peace and assume sweeping powers over both domestic and

international transactions. Between 1945 and the early 1970s, TWEA became the central means international transactions. Between 1945 and the early 1970s, TWEA became the central means
to impose sanctions as part of U.S. Cold War strategy. Presidents used TWEA to block to impose sanctions as part of U.S. Cold War strategy. Presidents used TWEA to block
international financial transactions, seize U.S.-based assets held by foreign nationals, restrict exports, modify regulations to international financial transactions, seize U.S.-based assets held by foreign nationals, restrict exports, modify regulations to
deter the hoarding of gold, limit foreign direct investment in U.S. companies, and impose tariffs on all imports into the deter the hoarding of gold, limit foreign direct investment in U.S. companies, and impose tariffs on all imports into the
United States. United States.
Following committee investigations that discovered that the United States had been in a state of emergency for more than 40 Following committee investigations that discovered that the United States had been in a state of emergency for more than 40
years, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA) in 1976 and IEEPA in 1977. The pair of statutes placed new years, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA) in 1976 and IEEPA in 1977. The pair of statutes placed new
limits on presidential emergency powers. Both included reporting requirements to increase transparency and track costs, and limits on presidential emergency powers. Both included reporting requirements to increase transparency and track costs, and
the NEA required the President to assess annually and extend, if appropriate, an emergency. However, some experts argue the NEA required the President to assess annually and extend, if appropriate, an emergency. However, some experts argue
that the renewal process has become that the renewal process has become pro forma. The NEA also afforded Congress the means to terminate a national . The NEA also afforded Congress the means to terminate a national
emergency by adopting a concurrent resolution in each chamber. A decision by the Supreme Court, in a landmark case, emergency by adopting a concurrent resolution in each chamber. A decision by the Supreme Court, in a landmark case,
however, found the use of concurrent resolutions to terminate an executive action unconstitutional. Congress amended the however, found the use of concurrent resolutions to terminate an executive action unconstitutional. Congress amended the
statute to require a joint resolution, significantly increasing the difficulty of terminating an emergency. statute to require a joint resolution, significantly increasing the difficulty of terminating an emergency.
Like TWEA, IEEPA has become an important means to impose economic-based sanctions since its enactment; like TWEA, Like TWEA, IEEPA has become an important means to impose economic-based sanctions since its enactment; like TWEA,
Presidents have frequently used IEEPA to restrict a variety of international transactions; and like TWEA, the subjects of the Presidents have frequently used IEEPA to restrict a variety of international transactions; and like TWEA, the subjects of the
restrictions, the frequency of use, and the duration of emergencies have expanded over time. Initially, Presidents targeted restrictions, the frequency of use, and the duration of emergencies have expanded over time. Initially, Presidents targeted
foreign states or their governments. Over the years, however, presidential administrations have increasingly used IEEPA to foreign states or their governments. Over the years, however, presidential administrations have increasingly used IEEPA to
target non-state individuals and groups, such as terrorists, persons who engage in malicious cyber-enabled activities, and target non-state individuals and groups, such as terrorists, persons who engage in malicious cyber-enabled activities, and
certain persons associated with the International Criminal Court. certain persons associated with the International Criminal Court.
As of As of ~~September 1, 2023~~January 15, 2024, Presidents had declared 69 national emergencies invoking IEEPA, 39 of which are ongoing. , Presidents had declared 69 national emergencies invoking IEEPA, 39 of which are ongoing.
History shows that national emergencies invoking IEEPA often last nearly a decade, although some have lasted significantly History shows that national emergencies invoking IEEPA often last nearly a decade, although some have lasted significantly
longer—the first state of emergency declared under the NEA and IEEPA, which was declared in response to the taking of longer—the first state of emergency declared under the NEA and IEEPA, which was declared in response to the taking of
U.S. embassy staff as hostages by Iran in 1979, is in its fifth decade. U.S. embassy staff as hostages by Iran in 1979, is in its fifth decade.
IEEPA grants sweeping powers to the President to control economic transactions. Despite these broad powers, until 2023, IEEPA grants sweeping powers to the President to control economic transactions. Despite these broad powers, until 2023,
Congress had never attempted to terminate a national emergency invoking IEEPA. Instead, Congress has directed the Congress had never attempted to terminate a national emergency invoking IEEPA. Instead, Congress has directed the
President on numerous occasions to use IEEPA authorities to impose sanctions. Congress may want to consider whether President on numerous occasions to use IEEPA authorities to impose sanctions. Congress may want to consider whether
IEEPA appropriately balances the need for swift action in a time of crisis with Congress’s duty to oversee executive action. IEEPA appropriately balances the need for swift action in a time of crisis with Congress’s duty to oversee executive action.
Congress may also want to consider IEEPA’s role in implementing its influence in U.S. foreign policy and national security Congress may also want to consider IEEPA’s role in implementing its influence in U.S. foreign policy and national security
decision-making. decision-making.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Introduction
The issue of executive discretion has been at the center of constitutional debates in liberal The issue of executive discretion has been at the center of constitutional debates in liberal
democracies throughout the twentieth century. Specifically, the question of how to balance a democracies throughout the twentieth century. Specifically, the question of how to balance a
commitment to the rule of law with the exigencies of modern political and economic crises has commitment to the rule of law with the exigencies of modern political and economic crises has
been a consistent concern of legislators and scholars in the United States and around the world.1 been a consistent concern of legislators and scholars in the United States and around the world.1
The U.S. Constitution is silent on the question of emergency power. As such, over the past two The U.S. Constitution is silent on the question of emergency power. As such, over the past two
centuries, Congress and the President have answered that question in varied and often centuries, Congress and the President have answered that question in varied and often ad hoc
ways. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the answer was often for the President to act ways. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the answer was often for the President to act
without congressional approval in a time of crisis, knowingly risking impeachment and personal without congressional approval in a time of crisis, knowingly risking impeachment and personal
civil liability.2 Congress claimed primacy over emergency action and would decide subsequently civil liability.2 Congress claimed primacy over emergency action and would decide subsequently
either to ratify the President’s actions through legislation or indemnify the President for any civil either to ratify the President’s actions through legislation or indemnify the President for any civil
liability.3 liability.3
By the twentieth century, a new pattern had begun to emerge. Instead of retroactively judging an By the twentieth century, a new pattern had begun to emerge. Instead of retroactively judging an
executive’s extraordinary actions in a time of emergency, Congress enacted statutes authorizing executive’s extraordinary actions in a time of emergency, Congress enacted statutes authorizing
the President to declare a state of emergency and make use of extraordinary delegated powers.4 the President to declare a state of emergency and make use of extraordinary delegated powers.4
The expanding delegation of emergency powers to executives, and the increase in governing via The expanding delegation of emergency powers to executives, and the increase in governing via
emergency power by executives, was a common trajectory among twentieth-century liberal emergency power by executives, was a common trajectory among twentieth-century liberal
democracies.5 As innovation quickened the pace of social change and global crises, some democracies.5 As innovation quickened the pace of social change and global crises, some
legislatures felt compelled to delegate to their executives, who traditional political theorists legislatures felt compelled to delegate to their executives, who traditional political theorists
assumed could operate with greater “dispatch” than the more deliberate and future-oriented assumed could operate with greater “dispatch” than the more deliberate and future-oriented

1 Clinton Rossiter, 1 Clinton Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies (Princeton, NJ: (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1948); Edward Corwin, Princeton University Press, 1948); Edward Corwin, Total War and the Constitution (New York: Knopf, 1963). Giorgio (New York: Knopf, 1963). Giorgio
Agamben, Agamben, State of Exception (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005); Carl Schmitt, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005); Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four
Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985). (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985).
2 Such an answer can be traced to, among others, John Locke, whose political theory was central to the development of 2 Such an answer can be traced to, among others, John Locke, whose political theory was central to the development of
American political institutions. John Locke, American political institutions. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Thomas Hollis (London: A. Millar et al., , ed. Thomas Hollis (London: A. Millar et al.,
1764), pp. 340-341: “This power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without the prescription of the law, 1764), pp. 340-341: “This power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without the prescription of the law,
and sometimes even against it, is that which is called prerogative […].” and sometimes even against it, is that which is called prerogative […].”
3 Jules Lobel, “Emergency Power and the Decline of Liberalism,” 3 Jules Lobel, “Emergency Power and the Decline of Liberalism,” Yale Law Journal 98, no. 7 (May 1989), pp. 1392- 98, no. 7 (May 1989), pp. 1392-
1398; John Fabian Witt, “A Lost Theory of American Emergency Constitutionalism,” 1398; John Fabian Witt, “A Lost Theory of American Emergency Constitutionalism,” Law and History Review 36, no. 36, no.
3 (August 2018); George M. Dennison, “Martial Law: The Development of a Theory of Emergency Powers, 1776-3 (August 2018); George M. Dennison, “Martial Law: The Development of a Theory of Emergency Powers, 1776-
1861,” 1861,” The American Journal of Legal History 18, no. 1 (January 1974); Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, 18, no. 1 (January 1974); Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, Imperial from
the Beginning: The Constitution of the Original Executive (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015), pp. 208-210; (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015), pp. 208-210;
Matthew Warshauer, Matthew Warshauer, Andrew Jackson and the Politics of Martial Law (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press,
2006). As Thomas Jefferson wrote, an executive officer acting illegally for what he determines to be the good of the 2006). As Thomas Jefferson wrote, an executive officer acting illegally for what he determines to be the good of the
country “does indeed risk himself on the justice of the controlling powers of the constitution, and his station makes it country “does indeed risk himself on the justice of the controlling powers of the constitution, and his station makes it
his duty to incur that risk.” Qtd. in Prakash, his duty to incur that risk.” Qtd. in Prakash, Imperial from the Beginning, p. 214. , p. 214.
4 U.S. Congress, Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, 4 U.S. Congress, Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, A Brief History of
Emergency Powers in the United States, committee print, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., July 1974 (Washington, DC: GPO, , committee print, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., July 1974 (Washington, DC: GPO,
1974), pp. 40-41. 1974), pp. 40-41.
5 For scholarship on this general trend, see, e.g., William E. Scheuerman, 5 For scholarship on this general trend, see, e.g., William E. Scheuerman, Liberal Democracy and the Social
Acceleration of Time (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004); John M. Carey and Matthew Soberg Shugart, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004); John M. Carey and Matthew Soberg Shugart,
eds, eds, Executive Decree Authority (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Peter L. Lindseth, “The Paradox of (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Peter L. Lindseth, “The Paradox of
Parliamentary Supremacy: Delegation, Democracy, and Dictatorship in Germany and France, 1920s-1950s,” Parliamentary Supremacy: Delegation, Democracy, and Dictatorship in Germany and France, 1920s-1950s,” Yale Law
Journal 113, no. 7 (May 2004); Jules Lobel, “Emergency Power and the Decline of Liberalism”; Mary L. Dudziak, 113, no. 7 (May 2004); Jules Lobel, “Emergency Power and the Decline of Liberalism”; Mary L. Dudziak,
War-Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); and Corwin, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); and Corwin, Total War
and the Constitution; Rossiter, ; Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship. .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1 1

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

legislatures.6 Whether such actions subvert the rule of law or are a standard feature of healthy legislatures.6 Whether such actions subvert the rule of law or are a standard feature of healthy
modern constitutional orders has been a subject of debate.7 modern constitutional orders has been a subject of debate.7
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is one example of a twentieth- The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is one example of a twentieth-
century delegation of emergency authority.8 One of 117 emergency statutes under the umbrella of century delegation of emergency authority.8 One of 117 emergency statutes under the umbrella of
the National Emergencies Act (NEA),9 IEEPA grants the President extensive power to regulate a the National Emergencies Act (NEA),9 IEEPA grants the President extensive power to regulate a
variety of economic transactions during a state of national emergency. Congress enacted IEEPA in variety of economic transactions during a state of national emergency. Congress enacted IEEPA in
1977 to limit the emergency economic powers that it had delegated to the President under the 1977 to limit the emergency economic powers that it had delegated to the President under the
Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA). Nevertheless, some scholars argue that judicial and Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA). Nevertheless, some scholars argue that judicial and
legislative actions subsequent to IEEPA’s enactment have made it, like TWEA, a source of legislative actions subsequent to IEEPA’s enactment have made it, like TWEA, a source of
expansive and unchecked executive authority in the economic realm.10 Other scholars argue that expansive and unchecked executive authority in the economic realm.10 Other scholars argue that
IEEPA is a useful tool for Presidents to implement quickly the will of Congress either as directed IEEPA is a useful tool for Presidents to implement quickly the will of Congress either as directed
by law or as encouraged by congressional activity.11 by law or as encouraged by congressional activity.11
Until the late 2010s, there had been little congressional discussion of modifying either IEEPA or Until the late 2010s, there had been little congressional discussion of modifying either IEEPA or
its umbrella statute, the NEA. Presidential actions in the late 2010s and early 2020s, however, its umbrella statute, the NEA. Presidential actions in the late 2010s and early 2020s, however,
have drawn renewed attention to presidential emergency powers under the NEA of which IEEPA have drawn renewed attention to presidential emergency powers under the NEA of which IEEPA
is the most frequently used. is the most frequently used.
Origins
The First World War and the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA)
The First World War (1914-1919) saw an unprecedented degree of economic mobilization.12 The The First World War (1914-1919) saw an unprecedented degree of economic mobilization.12 The
executive departments of European governments began to regulate their economies with or executive departments of European governments began to regulate their economies with or
without the support of their legislatures. The United States, in contrast, was in a privileged without the support of their legislatures. The United States, in contrast, was in a privileged

6 Scheuerman, 6 Scheuerman, Liberal Democracy and the Social Acceleration of Time, ch. 2; See, e.g., Carl Schmitt, “The Plight of , ch. 2; See, e.g., Carl Schmitt, “The Plight of
European Jurisprudence,” tr. G. L. Ulmen, European Jurisprudence,” tr. G. L. Ulmen, Telos 83 (Spring 1990); John Locke, 83 (Spring 1990); John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, pp. 340-, pp. 340-
341: “[…] since in some governments the lawmaking power is not always in being, and is usually too numerous, and so 341: “[…] since in some governments the lawmaking power is not always in being, and is usually too numerous, and so
too slow, for the dispatch requisite to execution; and because also it is impossible to foresee, and so by laws to provide too slow, for the dispatch requisite to execution; and because also it is impossible to foresee, and so by laws to provide
for, all accidents and necessities that may concern the public, or to make such laws as will do no harm, if they are for, all accidents and necessities that may concern the public, or to make such laws as will do no harm, if they are
executed with an inflexible rigour, on all occasions, and upon all persons that may come in their way; therefore there is executed with an inflexible rigour, on all occasions, and upon all persons that may come in their way; therefore there is
a latitude left to the executive power, to do many things of choice which the laws do not prescribe.” a latitude left to the executive power, to do many things of choice which the laws do not prescribe.”
7 For arguments that emergency government subverts the rule of law, see, e.g., Sanford Levinson, “Constitutional 7 For arguments that emergency government subverts the rule of law, see, e.g., Sanford Levinson, “Constitutional
Norms in a State of Permanent Emergency,” Norms in a State of Permanent Emergency,” Georgia Law Review 40, no. 3 (Spring 2006); Bruce Ackerman, 40, no. 3 (Spring 2006); Bruce Ackerman, The
Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010). For arguments that (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010). For arguments that
states of emergency can be a standard feature of healthy modern constitutional orders or that they can reflect or states of emergency can be a standard feature of healthy modern constitutional orders or that they can reflect or
anticipate the preferences of the legislature, see, e.g., Kim Lane Scheppele, “Small Emergencies,” anticipate the preferences of the legislature, see, e.g., Kim Lane Scheppele, “Small Emergencies,” Georgia Law Review
40, no. 3 (Spring 2006), p. 836; Carey and Shugart, 40, no. 3 (Spring 2006), p. 836; Carey and Shugart, Executive Decree Authority, p. 3. , p. 3.
8 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, P.L. 95-223 (October 28, 1977), 91 Stat. 1626, codified as amended 8 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, P.L. 95-223 (October 28, 1977), 91 Stat. 1626, codified as amended
at 50 U.S.C. §§1701 at 50 U.S.C. §§1701 et seq. (2018) (IEEPA). (2018) (IEEPA).
9 National Emergencies Act, P.L. 94-412 (September 14, 1976), 90 Stat. 1255, codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. 9 National Emergencies Act, P.L. 94-412 (September 14, 1976), 90 Stat. 1255, codified as amended at 50 U.S.C.
§§1601 §§1601 et seq. (2018) (NEA); CRS Report R46379, . (2018) (NEA); CRS Report R46379, Emergency Authorities Under the National Emergencies Act,
Stafford Act, and Public Health Service Act, coordinated by Jennifer K. Elsea. , coordinated by Jennifer K. Elsea.
10 See, e.g., Patrick 10 See, e.g., Patrick A. Thronson, “Toward Comprehensive Reform of America’s Emergency Law Regime,” Thronson, “Toward Comprehensive Reform of America’s Emergency Law Regime,” Michigan
Journal of Law Reform 46, no. 2 (2013), pp. 757-759; “The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: A 46, no. 2 (2013), pp. 757-759; “The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: A
Congressional Attempt to Control Presidential Emergency Power,” Congressional Attempt to Control Presidential Emergency Power,” Harvard Law Review 96, no. 5 (March 1983), p. 96, no. 5 (March 1983), p.
1120. 1120.
11 See, e.g., Scheppele, “Small Emergencies,” pp. 845-847: Statutes like IEEPA show “that emergencies have been 11 See, e.g., Scheppele, “Small Emergencies,” pp. 845-847: Statutes like IEEPA show “that emergencies have been
brought inside the constitutional order by being normalized in the ordinary legislative process.” brought inside the constitutional order by being normalized in the ordinary legislative process.”
12 See Stephen Broadberry and Mark Harrison, eds., 12 See Stephen Broadberry and Mark Harrison, eds., The Economics of World War I (Cambridge: Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2005). University Press, 2005).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
2 2

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

position relative to its allies in Europe. Separated by an ocean from Germany and Austria- position relative to its allies in Europe. Separated by an ocean from Germany and Austria-
Hungary, the United States was never under substantial threat of invasion. Rather than relying on Hungary, the United States was never under substantial threat of invasion. Rather than relying on
the inherent powers of the presidency, or acting unconstitutionally and hoping for a subsequent the inherent powers of the presidency, or acting unconstitutionally and hoping for a subsequent
congressional ratification, President Wilson sought explicit pre-authorization for expansive new congressional ratification, President Wilson sought explicit pre-authorization for expansive new
powers to meet the global crisis.13 Between 1916 and the end of 1917, Congress passed 22 powers to meet the global crisis.13 Between 1916 and the end of 1917, Congress passed 22
statutes empowering the President to take control of private property for public use during the statutes empowering the President to take control of private property for public use during the
war.14 These statutes gave the President broad authority to control railroads, shipyards, cars, war.14 These statutes gave the President broad authority to control railroads, shipyards, cars,
telegraph and telephone systems, water systems, and many other sectors of the American telegraph and telephone systems, water systems, and many other sectors of the American
economy.15 economy.15
TWEA was one of those 22 statutes.16 It granted to the executive an extraordinary degree of TWEA was one of those 22 statutes.16 It granted to the executive an extraordinary degree of
control over international trade, investment, migration, and communications between the United control over international trade, investment, migration, and communications between the United
States and its enemies.17 TWEA defined “enemy” broadly and included “any individual, States and its enemies.17 TWEA defined “enemy” broadly and included “any individual,
partnership, or other body of individuals [including corporations], of any nationality, resident partnership, or other body of individuals [including corporations], of any nationality, resident
within the territory ... of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside of within the territory ... of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside of
the United States and doing business within such a territory....the United States and doing business within such a territory.... ”18 The first four sections of the act ”18 The first four sections of the act
granted the President extensive powers to limit trading with, communicating with, or transporting granted the President extensive powers to limit trading with, communicating with, or transporting
enemies (or their allies) of the United States.19 These sections also empowered the President to enemies (or their allies) of the United States.19 These sections also empowered the President to
censor foreign communications and place extensive restrictions on enemy insurance or censor foreign communications and place extensive restrictions on enemy insurance or
reinsurance companies.20 reinsurance companies.20
It was Section 5(b) of TWEA, however, that would form one of the central bases of presidential It was Section 5(b) of TWEA, however, that would form one of the central bases of presidential
emergency economic power in the twentieth century. Section 5(b), as originally enacted, states emergency economic power in the twentieth century. Section 5(b), as originally enacted, states
That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations
as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign
exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of
credit in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly credit in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly
within the United States), and transfers of evidences of indebtedness or of the ownership within the United States), and transfers of evidences of indebtedness or of the ownership
of property between the United States and any foreign country, whether enemy, ally of of property between the United States and any foreign country, whether enemy, ally of
enemy or otherwise, or between residents of one or more foreign countries, by any person enemy or otherwise, or between residents of one or more foreign countries, by any person
within the United States; and he may require any such person engaged in any such within the United States; and he may require any such person engaged in any such
transaction to furnish, under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the transaction to furnish, under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the
production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection
therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after such transaction is therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after such transaction is
completed.21 completed.21

13 Rossiter, 13 Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship, pp. 241-243; U.S. Congress, , pp. 241-243; U.S. Congress, A Brief History of Emergency Powers in the
United States, pp. 40-41. , pp. 40-41.
14 J. Reuben Clark, 14 J. Reuben Clark, Emergency Legislation Passed Prior to December, 1917: Dealing with the Control and Taking of
Private Property for the Public Use, Benefit, or Welfare (Washington, DC: GPO, 1918), pp. 1-125. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1918), pp. 1-125.
15 Clark, 15 Clark, Emergency Legislation Passed Prior to December, 1917, pp. 1-125; Rossiter, , pp. 1-125; Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship, p. , p.
243; David M. Kennedy, 243; David M. Kennedy, Over Here: The First World War and American Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2004), ch. 2. 2004), ch. 2.
16 For an overview of TWEA’s development, see Benjamin A. Coates, “The Secret Life of Statutes: A Century of the 16 For an overview of TWEA’s development, see Benjamin A. Coates, “The Secret Life of Statutes: A Century of the
Trading with the Enemy Act,” Trading with the Enemy Act,” Modern American History 1, no. 2 (2018). 1, no. 2 (2018).
17 Trading with the Enemy Act, P.L. 65-91 (October 6, 1917) §2, 40 Stat. 411, codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §4305 17 Trading with the Enemy Act, P.L. 65-91 (October 6, 1917) §2, 40 Stat. 411, codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §4305
(2018) (TWEA). (2018) (TWEA).
18 TWEA §2. 18 TWEA §2.
19 TWEA §3. 19 TWEA §3.
20 TWEA §4. 20 TWEA §4.
21 TWEA §5b. 21 TWEA §5b.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
3 3

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

The statute gave the President expansive control over private international economic transactions The statute gave the President expansive control over private international economic transactions
in times of war.22 While Congress terminated many of the war powers in 1921, TWEA was in times of war.22 While Congress terminated many of the war powers in 1921, TWEA was
specifically exempted because the U.S. government had yet to dispose of a large amount of alien specifically exempted because the U.S. government had yet to dispose of a large amount of alien
property in its custody.23 Indeed, the disposition of property seized under emergency powers property in its custody.23 Indeed, the disposition of property seized under emergency powers
would become a central tension in the structure of emergency authority over the next century. would become a central tension in the structure of emergency authority over the next century.
The Expansion of TWEA
The Great Depression, a massive global economic downturn that began in 1929, presented a The Great Depression, a massive global economic downturn that began in 1929, presented a
challenge to liberal democracies in Europe and the Americas. To address the complexities challenge to liberal democracies in Europe and the Americas. To address the complexities
presented by the crisis, nearly all such democracies began delegating discretionary authority to presented by the crisis, nearly all such democracies began delegating discretionary authority to
their executives to a degree that had previously been done only in times of war.24 The U.S. their executives to a degree that had previously been done only in times of war.24 The U.S.
Congress responded, in part, by dramatically expanding the scope of TWEA, delegating to the Congress responded, in part, by dramatically expanding the scope of TWEA, delegating to the
President the power to declare states of emergency in peacetime and assume expansive domestic President the power to declare states of emergency in peacetime and assume expansive domestic
economic powers. economic powers.
Such a delegation was made politically possible by analogizing economic crises to war. In public Such a delegation was made politically possible by analogizing economic crises to war. In public
speeches, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asserted that the Depression was to be “attacked,” speeches, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asserted that the Depression was to be “attacked,”
“fought against,” “mobilized for,” and “combatted” by “great arm[ies] of people.”25 The “fought against,” “mobilized for,” and “combatted” by “great arm[ies] of people.”25 The
economic mobilization of the First World War had blurred the lines between the executive’s economic mobilization of the First World War had blurred the lines between the executive’s
military and economic powers. As the Depression was likened to “armed strife”26 and declared to military and economic powers. As the Depression was likened to “armed strife”26 and declared to
be “an emergency more serious than war”27 by a Justice of the Supreme Court, it became routine be “an emergency more serious than war”27 by a Justice of the Supreme Court, it became routine
to use emergency economic legislation enacted in wartime as the basis for extraordinary to use emergency economic legislation enacted in wartime as the basis for extraordinary
economic authority in peacetime.28 economic authority in peacetime.28
As the Depression entered its third year, the newly-elected President Roosevelt asked Congress As the Depression entered its third year, the newly-elected President Roosevelt asked Congress
for “broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that for “broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that
would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”29 In his first act as President, would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”29 In his first act as President,
Roosevelt proclaimed a bank holiday, suspending all transactions at all banking institutions Roosevelt proclaimed a bank holiday, suspending all transactions at all banking institutions
located in the United States and its territories for four days.30 In his proclamation, Roosevelt located in the United States and its territories for four days.30 In his proclamation, Roosevelt
claimed to have authority to declare the holiday under Section 5(b) of TWEA.31 However, claimed to have authority to declare the holiday under Section 5(b) of TWEA.31 However,
because the United States was not in a state of war and the suspended transactions were primarily because the United States was not in a state of war and the suspended transactions were primarily
domestic, the President’s authority to issue such an order was dubious.32 domestic, the President’s authority to issue such an order was dubious.32

22 TWEA §2. 22 TWEA §2.
23 U.S. Congress, House, 23 U.S. Congress, House, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, Report of the Committee on International
Relations on H.R. 7738, 95th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 95-459 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1977), p. 4. , 95th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 95-459 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1977), p. 4.
24 William E. Scheuerman, “The Economic State of Emergency,” 24 William E. Scheuerman, “The Economic State of Emergency,” Cardozo Law Review 21 (2000), p. 1872. 21 (2000), p. 1872.
25 See, e.g., Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Inaugural Address of 1933 (Washington, DC: National Archives and Records 25 See, e.g., Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Inaugural Address of 1933 (Washington, DC: National Archives and Records
Administration, 1988); Rossiter, Administration, 1988); Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship, p. 256; U.S. Congress, , p. 256; U.S. Congress, A Brief History of Emergency
Powers in the United States, p. 56. , p. 56.
26 Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Inaugural Address of 1933. 26 Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Inaugural Address of 1933.
27 New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 306 (1932) (J. Brandeis, dissenting). 27 New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 306 (1932) (J. Brandeis, dissenting).
28 Scheuerman, “The Economic State of Emergency,” p. 1878. 28 Scheuerman, “The Economic State of Emergency,” p. 1878.
29 Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Inaugural Address of 1933. 29 Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Inaugural Address of 1933.
30 Proclamation 2039 (March 6, 1933). 30 Proclamation 2039 (March 6, 1933).
31 In his proclamation, President Roosevelt did not refer to the “Trading with the Enemy Act,” but instead chose to use 31 In his proclamation, President Roosevelt did not refer to the “Trading with the Enemy Act,” but instead chose to use
the more opaque “Act of October 6, 1917.” Proclamation 2039. the more opaque “Act of October 6, 1917.” Proclamation 2039.
32 President Herbert Hoover had likewise contemplated using TWEA for such a purpose. However, Hoover’s Attorney 32 President Herbert Hoover had likewise contemplated using TWEA for such a purpose. However, Hoover’s Attorney
General, William D. Mitchell, had expressed serious doubts about the legality of such an action. In the last days of General, William D. Mitchell, had expressed serious doubts about the legality of such an action. In the last days of
(continued...) (continued...)
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
4 4

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Despite the tenuous legality, Congress ratified Roosevelt’s actions by passing the Emergency Despite the tenuous legality, Congress ratified Roosevelt’s actions by passing the Emergency
Banking Relief Act three days after his proclamation.33 The act amended Section 5(b) of TWEA Banking Relief Act three days after his proclamation.33 The act amended Section 5(b) of TWEA
to readto read:
During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the
President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise,
investigate, regulate, or prohibit....investigate, regulate, or prohibit.... 34 34
This amendment gave the President the authority to declare that a national emergency existed and This amendment gave the President the authority to declare that a national emergency existed and
assume extensive controls over the national economy previously only available in times of war. assume extensive controls over the national economy previously only available in times of war.
By 1934, Roosevelt had used these extensive new powers to regulate “[e]very transaction in By 1934, Roosevelt had used these extensive new powers to regulate “[e]very transaction in
foreign exchange, transfer of credit between any banking institution within the United States and foreign exchange, transfer of credit between any banking institution within the United States and
any banking institution outside of the United States.”35 any banking institution outside of the United States.”35
With America’s entry into the Second World War in 1941, Congress again amended TWEA to With America’s entry into the Second World War in 1941, Congress again amended TWEA to
grant the President extensive powers over the disposition of private property, adding the so-called grant the President extensive powers over the disposition of private property, adding the so-called
“vesting” power, which authorized the permanent seizure of property.36 Now in its most “vesting” power, which authorized the permanent seizure of property.36 Now in its most
expansive form, TWEA authorized the President to declare a national emergency and, in so doing, expansive form, TWEA authorized the President to declare a national emergency and, in so doing,
to regulate foreign exchange, domestic banking, possession of precious metals, and property in to regulate foreign exchange, domestic banking, possession of precious metals, and property in
which any foreign country or foreign national had an interest.37 which any foreign country or foreign national had an interest.37
The Second World War ended in 1945. Following the conflict, the allied powers constructed The Second World War ended in 1945. Following the conflict, the allied powers constructed
institutions and signed agreements designed to keep the peace and to liberalize world trade. institutions and signed agreements designed to keep the peace and to liberalize world trade.
However, the United States did not immediately resume a peacetime posture with respect to However, the United States did not immediately resume a peacetime posture with respect to
emergency powers. Instead, the onset of the Cold War rationalized the continued use of TWEA emergency powers. Instead, the onset of the Cold War rationalized the continued use of TWEA
and other emergency powers outside the context of a declared war.38 Over the next several and other emergency powers outside the context of a declared war.38 Over the next several
decades, Presidents declared four national emergencies and assumed expansive authority over decades, Presidents declared four national emergencies and assumed expansive authority over
economic transactions in the postwar period.39 economic transactions in the postwar period.39
During the Cold War, economic sanctions became an increasingly popular foreign policy and During the Cold War, economic sanctions became an increasingly popular foreign policy and
national security tool, and TWEA was a prominent source of presidential authority to use the tool. national security tool, and TWEA was a prominent source of presidential authority to use the tool.

Hoover’s presidency, Mitchell said that Hoover “should not issue [such an] executive order unless it was unanimously Hoover’s presidency, Mitchell said that Hoover “should not issue [such an] executive order unless it was unanimously
agreed by [the] outgoing and incoming administrations that it was necessary and assurances [were] obtained from agreed by [the] outgoing and incoming administrations that it was necessary and assurances [were] obtained from
Congressional leaders that [such an action] would be ratified promptly and that enabling legislation would be passed” Congressional leaders that [such an action] would be ratified promptly and that enabling legislation would be passed”
as there was only a “shoe string” on which to base the legality of such an order. Raymond Moley, as there was only a “shoe string” on which to base the legality of such an order. Raymond Moley, The First New Deal
(New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1966), pp. 146-147. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1966), pp. 146-147.
33 Emergency Banking Relief Act, P.L. 73-1 (March 9, 1933), 48 Stat. 1 (EBRA). The House, despite having no copies 33 Emergency Banking Relief Act, P.L. 73-1 (March 9, 1933), 48 Stat. 1 (EBRA). The House, despite having no copies
of the bill and relying upon a draft text read aloud by the Speaker, passed the bill after only 38 minutes of debate. The of the bill and relying upon a draft text read aloud by the Speaker, passed the bill after only 38 minutes of debate. The
Senate voted to pass the measure the same evening. U.S. Congress, Senate voted to pass the measure the same evening. U.S. Congress, A Brief History of Emergency Powers in the United
States, p. 57. , p. 57.
34 TWEA as amended by EBRA. Italics show the language added by EBRA. 34 TWEA as amended by EBRA. Italics show the language added by EBRA.
35 E.O. 6560 (January 15, 1934). These actions came in the context of greater participation by the executive in 35 E.O. 6560 (January 15, 1934). These actions came in the context of greater participation by the executive in
international economic transactions generally. The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 gave the President the international economic transactions generally. The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 gave the President the
authority to negotiate bilateral trade agreements, marking the beginning of a period of increasing U.S. trade authority to negotiate bilateral trade agreements, marking the beginning of a period of increasing U.S. trade
liberalization through executive action. Douglas A. Irwin, liberalization through executive action. Douglas A. Irwin, Clashing Over Commerce (Chicago: Chicago University (Chicago: Chicago University
Press, 2017), chap. 9. Press, 2017), chap. 9.
36 P.L. 77-354 (December 18, 1941), 55 Stat. 838. 36 P.L. 77-354 (December 18, 1941), 55 Stat. 838.
37 Ibid. 37 Ibid.
38 Scheuerman, “The Economic State of Emergency,” p. 1879; Robert S. Rankin and Winfried R. Dallmyr, 38 Scheuerman, “The Economic State of Emergency,” p. 1879; Robert S. Rankin and Winfried R. Dallmyr, Freedom
and Emergency Powers in the Cold War (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964). (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964).
39 Proclamation 2914 (December 16, 1950); Proclamation 3972 (March 23, 1970); Proclamation 3972 (February 23, 39 Proclamation 2914 (December 16, 1950); Proclamation 3972 (March 23, 1970); Proclamation 3972 (February 23,
1971); Proclamation 4074 (August 15, 1971). See also CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10267, 1971); Proclamation 4074 (August 15, 1971). See also CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10267, Definition of National
Emergency under the National Emergencies Act, by Jennifer K. Elsea; CRS Report 98-505, , by Jennifer K. Elsea; CRS Report 98-505, National Emergency
Powers, by L. Elaine Halchin. , by L. Elaine Halchin.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
5 5

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

In 1950, President Harry S. Truman declared a national emergency, citing TWEA, to impose In 1950, President Harry S. Truman declared a national emergency, citing TWEA, to impose
economic sanctions on North Korea and China.40 Subsequent Presidents referenced that national economic sanctions on North Korea and China.40 Subsequent Presidents referenced that national
emergency as authority for imposing sanctions on Vietnam, Cuba, and Cambodia.41 Truman emergency as authority for imposing sanctions on Vietnam, Cuba, and Cambodia.41 Truman
likewise used Section 5(b) of TWEA to maintain regulations on foreign exchange, transfers of likewise used Section 5(b) of TWEA to maintain regulations on foreign exchange, transfers of
credit, and the export of coin and currency that had been in place since the early 1930s.42 credit, and the export of coin and currency that had been in place since the early 1930s.42
Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford invoked TWEA to continue export controls Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford invoked TWEA to continue export controls
established under the Export Administration Act when the act expired.43 established under the Export Administration Act when the act expired.43
TWEA was also a prominent instrument of postwar presidential monetary policy. Presidents TWEA was also a prominent instrument of postwar presidential monetary policy. Presidents
Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy used TWEA and the national emergency declared by Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy used TWEA and the national emergency declared by
President Roosevelt in 1933 to maintain and modify regulations controlling the hoarding and President Roosevelt in 1933 to maintain and modify regulations controlling the hoarding and
export of gold.44 In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson explicitly used Truman’s 1950 declaration export of gold.44 In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson explicitly used Truman’s 1950 declaration
of emergency under Section 5(b) of TWEA to limit direct foreign investment by U.S. companies of emergency under Section 5(b) of TWEA to limit direct foreign investment by U.S. companies
in an effort to strengthen the balance of payments position of the United States after the in an effort to strengthen the balance of payments position of the United States after the
devaluation of the pound sterling by the United Kingdom.45 In 1971, after President Nixon devaluation of the pound sterling by the United Kingdom.45 In 1971, after President Nixon
suspended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold, he made use of Section 5(b) of TWEA to suspended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold, he made use of Section 5(b) of TWEA to
declare a state of emergency and place a 10% declare a state of emergency and place a 10% ad valorem supplemental duty on all dutiable goods supplemental duty on all dutiable goods
entering the United States.46 entering the United States.46
The reliance by the executive on the powers granted by Section 5(b) of TWEA meant that The reliance by the executive on the powers granted by Section 5(b) of TWEA meant that
postwar sanctions regimes and significant parts of U.S. international monetary policy relied on postwar sanctions regimes and significant parts of U.S. international monetary policy relied on
continued states of emergency for their operation. continued states of emergency for their operation.
The Efforts of Congress to Limit Executive Emergency Authorities
By the mid-1970s, following U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, revelations of domestic By the mid-1970s, following U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, revelations of domestic
spying, assassinations of foreign political leaders, the Watergate break-in, and other related spying, assassinations of foreign political leaders, the Watergate break-in, and other related
abuses of power, Congress increasingly focused on checking the executive branch. The Senate abuses of power, Congress increasingly focused on checking the executive branch. The Senate
formed a bipartisan special committee chaired by Senators Frank Church and Charles Mathias to formed a bipartisan special committee chaired by Senators Frank Church and Charles Mathias to

40 Proclamation 2914 (December 16, 1950). This emergency would remain in place until 1976 and would be used to 40 Proclamation 2914 (December 16, 1950). This emergency would remain in place until 1976 and would be used to
justify a host of emergency powers. See the partial list of executive orders issued pursuant to Proclamation 2914 in U.S. justify a host of emergency powers. See the partial list of executive orders issued pursuant to Proclamation 2914 in U.S.
Congress, Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, Congress, Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers, Executive Orders in Times
of War and National Emergency, Report of the Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency
Powers, committee print, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., June 1974 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1974), p. 15. , committee print, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., June 1974 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1974), p. 15.
41 U.S. Congress, House Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on Trade and Commerce, 41 U.S. Congress, House Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on Trade and Commerce, United States
Embargo on Trade with South Vietnam and Cambodia, 94th Cong. 1st sess., June 4, 1975 (Washington, D.C., GPO, , 94th Cong. 1st sess., June 4, 1975 (Washington, D.C., GPO,
1975), p. 2; 31 C.F.R. 500.101-500.808 (1975). 1975), p. 2; 31 C.F.R. 500.101-500.808 (1975).
42 E.O. 10348 (April 26, 1952). 42 E.O. 10348 (April 26, 1952).
43 E.O. 11677 (August 1, 1972); E.O. 11683 (August 29, 1972); E.O. 11796 (July 30, 1974); E.O. 11798 (August 14, 43 E.O. 11677 (August 1, 1972); E.O. 11683 (August 29, 1972); E.O. 11796 (July 30, 1974); E.O. 11798 (August 14,
1974); E.O. 11810 (September 30, 1974); E.O. 11818 (November 5, 1974); E.O. 11940 (September 30, 1976). 1974); E.O. 11810 (September 30, 1974); E.O. 11818 (November 5, 1974); E.O. 11940 (September 30, 1976).
44 E.O. 10896 (November 29, 1960); E.O. 11037 (July 20, 1962). 44 E.O. 10896 (November 29, 1960); E.O. 11037 (July 20, 1962).
45 E.O. 11387 (January 1, 1968). 45 E.O. 11387 (January 1, 1968).
46 Pres. Proclamation No. 4074 (January 21, 1971). Although the proclamation did not explicitly refer to TWEA in 46 Pres. Proclamation No. 4074 (January 21, 1971). Although the proclamation did not explicitly refer to TWEA in
order to avoid the possible embarrassment of using a statute named the “Trading with the Enemy Act” to impose a order to avoid the possible embarrassment of using a statute named the “Trading with the Enemy Act” to impose a
tariff principally aimed at U.S. allies, the proclamation was carefully worded to not exclude TWEA as an authority tariff principally aimed at U.S. allies, the proclamation was carefully worded to not exclude TWEA as an authority
under which the proclamation was issued. When a legal challenge was issued, the Government argued, and the U.S. under which the proclamation was issued. When a legal challenge was issued, the Government argued, and the U.S.
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals agreed, that TWEA was the source of the authority for the proclamation. United Court of Customs and Patent Appeals agreed, that TWEA was the source of the authority for the proclamation. United
States v. Yoshida Int'l, IncStates v. Yoshida Int'l, Inc., 526 F.2d 560, 584 (C.C.P.A. 1975). See also CRS Insight IN11129, , 526 F.2d 560, 584 (C.C.P.A. 1975). See also CRS Insight IN11129, The International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Tariffs: Historical Background and Key Issues, by Christopher A. , by Christopher A.
Casey. Casey.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
6 6

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

reevaluate delegations of emergency authority to the President.47 The special committee issued a reevaluate delegations of emergency authority to the President.47 The special committee issued a
report surveying the President’s emergency powers in which it asserted that the United States had report surveying the President’s emergency powers in which it asserted that the United States had
technically “been in a state of national emergency since March 9, 1933” and that there were four technically “been in a state of national emergency since March 9, 1933” and that there were four
distinct declarations of national emergency in effect.48 The report also noted that the United States distinct declarations of national emergency in effect.48 The report also noted that the United States
had “on the books at least 470 significant emergency statutes without time limitations delegating had “on the books at least 470 significant emergency statutes without time limitations delegating
to the Executive extensive discretionary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Legislature, which to the Executive extensive discretionary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Legislature, which
affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing ways.”49 affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing ways.”49
In the course of the Committee’s investigations, Senator Mathias, a committee co-chair, noted, “A In the course of the Committee’s investigations, Senator Mathias, a committee co-chair, noted, “A
majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency
government.” Senator Church, the other co-chair, said the central question before the committee government.” Senator Church, the other co-chair, said the central question before the committee
was “whether it [was] possible for a democratic government such as ours to exist under its present was “whether it [was] possible for a democratic government such as ours to exist under its present
Constitution and system of three separate branches equal in power under a continued state of Constitution and system of three separate branches equal in power under a continued state of
emergency.”50 emergency.”50
Among the more controversial statutes highlighted by the committee was TWEA. In 1977, during Among the more controversial statutes highlighted by the committee was TWEA. In 1977, during
the House markup of a bill revising TWEA, Representative Jonathan Bingham, Chairperson of the House markup of a bill revising TWEA, Representative Jonathan Bingham, Chairperson of
the House International Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Economic Policy, described the House International Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Economic Policy, described
TWEA as conferring “on the President what could have been dictatorial powers that he could TWEA as conferring “on the President what could have been dictatorial powers that he could
have used without any restraint by Congress.”51 According to the Department of Justice, TWEA have used without any restraint by Congress.”51 According to the Department of Justice, TWEA
granted the President four major groups of powers in a time of war or other national emergency: granted the President four major groups of powers in a time of war or other national emergency:
(a) Regulatory powers with respect to foreign exchange, banking transfers, coin, bullion, (a) Regulatory powers with respect to foreign exchange, banking transfers, coin, bullion,
currency, and securities; currency, and securities;
(b) Regulatory powers with respect to “any property in which any foreign country or a (b) Regulatory powers with respect to “any property in which any foreign country or a
national thereof has any interest”; national thereof has any interest”;

47 The bipartisan special committee was called the “Senate Special Committee on the Termination of the National 47 The bipartisan special committee was called the “Senate Special Committee on the Termination of the National
Emergency,” and was charged with conducting “a study and investigation with respect to the matter of terminating the Emergency,” and was charged with conducting “a study and investigation with respect to the matter of terminating the
national emergency proclaimed by the President of the United States on December 16, 1950.” U.S. Congress, Senate national emergency proclaimed by the President of the United States on December 16, 1950.” U.S. Congress, Senate
Subcommittee on International Trade and Commerce of the Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on International Trade and Commerce of the Committee on International Relations, Trading with the
Enemy: Legislative and Executive Documents Concerning Regulation of International Transactions in Time of
Declared National Emergency, committee print, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., November 1976 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1976), , committee print, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., November 1976 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1976),
p. iii. p. iii.
48 U.S. Congress, 48 U.S. Congress, A Brief History of Emergency Powers in the United States, p. v. The four national emergencies were , p. v. The four national emergencies were
those proclaimed by President Roosevelt in 1933, President Truman in 1950, and the two proclaimed by President those proclaimed by President Roosevelt in 1933, President Truman in 1950, and the two proclaimed by President
Nixon in 1970 and 1971. Nixon in 1970 and 1971.
49 U.S. Congress, 49 U.S. Congress, A Brief History of Emergency Powers in the United States, p. v. , p. v.
50 Qtd. in U.S. Congress, 50 Qtd. in U.S. Congress, Trading with the Enemy: Legislative and Executive Documents, p. iii. , p. iii.
51 U.S. Congress51 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on International Relations, House, Committee on International Relations, Revision of the Trading with the Enemy Act: Markup
before the Committee on International Relations (“House Markup”), 95th Cong., 1st sess., June 1977 (Washington, DC: , 95th Cong., 1st sess., June 1977 (Washington, DC:
GPO, 1977), p. 5. House and Senate committee reports expressed the view that past Presidents had abused the authority GPO, 1977), p. 5. House and Senate committee reports expressed the view that past Presidents had abused the authority
to regulate economic transactions in a national emergency conferred by TWEA by using it in circumstances far to regulate economic transactions in a national emergency conferred by TWEA by using it in circumstances far
removed from those that originally gave rise to the declaration of national emergency. H. Rept. No. 95-459 (June 23, removed from those that originally gave rise to the declaration of national emergency. H. Rept. No. 95-459 (June 23,
1977); S. Rept. No. 95-466 (October 3, 1977). Both reports noted that President Lyndon B. Johnson, citing President 1977); S. Rept. No. 95-466 (October 3, 1977). Both reports noted that President Lyndon B. Johnson, citing President
Truman’s declaration of national emergency with respect to Korea in 1950, had imposed controls on direct investment Truman’s declaration of national emergency with respect to Korea in 1950, had imposed controls on direct investment
abroad by U.S. nationals in 1968, and that President Gerald R. Ford had used President Nixon’s declaration of national abroad by U.S. nationals in 1968, and that President Gerald R. Ford had used President Nixon’s declaration of national
emergency with respect to the balance of payments in 1971 to justify extending the controls and regulations of the emergency with respect to the balance of payments in 1971 to justify extending the controls and regulations of the
Export Administration Act when that act lapsed temporarily in 1976. H. Rept. No. 95-459, at 5; S. Rept. No. 95-466, at Export Administration Act when that act lapsed temporarily in 1976. H. Rept. No. 95-459, at 5; S. Rept. No. 95-466, at
2. More generally, the House report noted that the national emergency authority of TWEA had been used by President 2. More generally, the House report noted that the national emergency authority of TWEA had been used by President
Franklin D. Roosevelt to regulate the banking industry in 1933 and to impose consumer credit controls in 1941 and by Franklin D. Roosevelt to regulate the banking industry in 1933 and to impose consumer credit controls in 1941 and by
President Richard M. Nixon to impose a surcharge on imports into the United States in 1971. Thus, the House report President Richard M. Nixon to impose a surcharge on imports into the United States in 1971. Thus, the House report
concluded, TWEA “has become essentially an unlimited grant of authority for the President to exercise, at his concluded, TWEA “has become essentially an unlimited grant of authority for the President to exercise, at his
discretion, broad powers in both the domestic and international economic arena, without congressional review.” discretion, broad powers in both the domestic and international economic arena, without congressional review.” ~~Ibid.,~~
p. H. Rept. No. 95-459, 7. 7.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
7 7

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

(c) The power to vest “any property or interest of any foreign country or national thereof”; (c) The power to vest “any property or interest of any foreign country or national thereof”;
and and
(d) The powers to hold, use, administer, liquidate, sell, or otherwise deal with “such interest (d) The powers to hold, use, administer, liquidate, sell, or otherwise deal with “such interest
or property” in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States.52 or property” in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States.52
The House report on the reform legislation called TWEA “essentially an unlimited grant of The House report on the reform legislation called TWEA “essentially an unlimited grant of
authority for the President to exercise, at his discretion, broad powers in both the domestic and authority for the President to exercise, at his discretion, broad powers in both the domestic and
international economic arena, without congressional review.”53 The criticisms of TWEA centered international economic arena, without congressional review.”53 The criticisms of TWEA centered
on the following: on the following:
(a) It required no consultation or reports to Congress with regard to the use of powers or (a) It required no consultation or reports to Congress with regard to the use of powers or
the declaration of a national emergency. the declaration of a national emergency.
(b) It set no time limits on a state of emergency, no mechanism for congressional review, (b) It set no time limits on a state of emergency, no mechanism for congressional review,
and no way for Congress to terminate it. and no way for Congress to terminate it.
(c) It stated no limits on the scope of TWEA’s economic powers and the circumstances (c) It stated no limits on the scope of TWEA’s economic powers and the circumstances
under which such authority could be used. under which such authority could be used.
(d) The actions taken under the authority of TWEA were rarely related to the circumstances (d) The actions taken under the authority of TWEA were rarely related to the circumstances
in which the national emergency was declared.54 in which the national emergency was declared.54
In testimony before the House Committee on International Relations, Professor Harold G. Maier, In testimony before the House Committee on International Relations, Professor Harold G. Maier,
a noted legal scholar, summed up the development and the main criticisms of TWEA: a noted legal scholar, summed up the development and the main criticisms of TWEA:
Section 5(b)’s effect is no longer confined to “emergency situations” in the sense of Section 5(b)’s effect is no longer confined to “emergency situations” in the sense of
existing imminent danger. The continuing retroactive approval, either explicit or implicit, existing imminent danger. The continuing retroactive approval, either explicit or implicit,
by Congress of broad executive interpretations of the scope of powers which it confers has by Congress of broad executive interpretations of the scope of powers which it confers has
converted the section into a general grant of legislative authority to the Presidentconverted the section into a general grant of legislative authority to the President….”55 ”55
The Enactment of the National Emergencies Act and the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act
Congress’s reforms to emergency powers under TWEA came in two acts. First, Congress enacted Congress’s reforms to emergency powers under TWEA came in two acts. First, Congress enacted
the National Emergencies Act (NEA) in 1976.56 The NEA provided for the termination of all the National Emergencies Act (NEA) in 1976.56 The NEA provided for the termination of all
existing emergencies in 1978, except those making use of Section 5(b) of TWEA, and placed new existing emergencies in 1978, except those making use of Section 5(b) of TWEA, and placed new
restrictions on the manner of declaring and the duration of new states of emergency, including restrictions on the manner of declaring and the duration of new states of emergency, including
• Requiring the President to transmit immediately to Congress a notification of the • Requiring the President to transmit immediately to Congress a notification of the
declaration of national emergency. declaration of national emergency.
• Requiring a biannual review whereby “each House of Congress shall meet to • Requiring a biannual review whereby “each House of Congress shall meet to
consider a vote on a concurrent [now joint, see below] resolution to determine consider a vote on a concurrent [now joint, see below] resolution to determine
whether that emergency shall be terminated.” whether that emergency shall be terminated.”
• Authorizing Congress to terminate the national emergency through a privileged • Authorizing Congress to terminate the national emergency through a privileged
concurrent [now joint] resolution.57 concurrent [now joint] resolution.57

52 U.S. Congress, 52 U.S. Congress, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, p. 2. , p. 2.
53 Ibid. 53 Ibid.
54 Ibid., 54 Ibid., p. 9. 9.
55 Ibid. 55 Ibid.
56 P.L. 94-412 (September 14, 1976), 90 Stat. 1255, codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§1601 56 P.L. 94-412 (September 14, 1976), 90 Stat. 1255, codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§1601 et seq. (2018). (2018).
57 Ibid. While the NEA terminated the national emergencies on September 14, 1978, it explicitly enabled the 57 Ibid. While the NEA terminated the national emergencies on September 14, 1978, it explicitly enabled the
continuation of those emergencies with respect to Section 5(b) of TWEA to give the Congress more time to consider continuation of those emergencies with respect to Section 5(b) of TWEA to give the Congress more time to consider
(continued...) (continued...)
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
8 8

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Second, Congress tackled the more complicated question of TWEA. Because the authorities Second, Congress tackled the more complicated question of TWEA. Because the authorities
granted by TWEA were heavily entwined with postwar international monetary policy and the use granted by TWEA were heavily entwined with postwar international monetary policy and the use
of sanctions in U.S. foreign policy, unwinding it was a difficult undertaking.58 The exclusion of of sanctions in U.S. foreign policy, unwinding it was a difficult undertaking.58 The exclusion of
Section 5(b) reflected congressional interest in preserving existing regulations regarding foreign Section 5(b) reflected congressional interest in preserving existing regulations regarding foreign
assets, foreign funds, and exports of strategic goods.59 Similarly, establishing a means to continue assets, foreign funds, and exports of strategic goods.59 Similarly, establishing a means to continue
existing uses of TWEA reflected congressional interest in “improving future use rather than existing uses of TWEA reflected congressional interest in “improving future use rather than
remedying past abuses.”60 remedying past abuses.”60
The subcommittee charged with reforming TWEA spent more than a year preparing reports, The subcommittee charged with reforming TWEA spent more than a year preparing reports,
including the first complete legislative history of TWEA, a tome that ran nearly 700 pages.61 In including the first complete legislative history of TWEA, a tome that ran nearly 700 pages.61 In
the resulting legislation, Congress did three things. First, Congress amended TWEA so that it the resulting legislation, Congress did three things. First, Congress amended TWEA so that it
was, as originally intended, only applicable “during a time of war.”62 Second, Congress expanded was, as originally intended, only applicable “during a time of war.”62 Second, Congress expanded
the Export Administration Act to include powers that previously were authorized by reference to the Export Administration Act to include powers that previously were authorized by reference to
Section 5(b) of TWEA.63 Finally, Congress wrote the International Emergency Economic Powers Section 5(b) of TWEA.63 Finally, Congress wrote the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act (IEEPA) to confer “upon the President a new set of authorities for use in time of national Act (IEEPA) to confer “upon the President a new set of authorities for use in time of national
emergency which are both more limited in scope than those of section 5(b) and subject to emergency which are both more limited in scope than those of section 5(b) and subject to
procedural limitations, including those of the [NEA].”64 procedural limitations, including those of the [NEA].”64
The Report of the House Committee on International Relations summarized the nature of an The Report of the House Committee on International Relations summarized the nature of an
“emergency” in its “new approach” to international emergency economic powers: “emergency” in its “new approach” to international emergency economic powers:
[G]iven the breadth of the authorities, and their availability at the President’s discretion [G]iven the breadth of the authorities, and their availability at the President’s discretion
upon a declaration of a national emergency, their exercise should be subject to various upon a declaration of a national emergency, their exercise should be subject to various
substantive restrictions. The main one stems from a recognition that emergencies are by substantive restrictions. The main one stems from a recognition that emergencies are by
their nature rare and brief, and are not to be equated with normal ongoing problems. A their nature rare and brief, and are not to be equated with normal ongoing problems. A
national emergency should be declared and emergency authorities employed only with national emergency should be declared and emergency authorities employed only with
respect to a specific set of circumstances which constitute a real emergency, and for no respect to a specific set of circumstances which constitute a real emergency, and for no
other purpose. The emergency should be terminated in a timely manner when the factual other purpose. The emergency should be terminated in a timely manner when the factual

how to address the issue of sanctions and international economic regulation. The International Emergency Economic how to address the issue of sanctions and international economic regulation. The International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (IEEPA) grandfathered powers that “were being exercised [under TWEA] with respect to a country on July Powers Act (IEEPA) grandfathered powers that “were being exercised [under TWEA] with respect to a country on July
1, 1977,” including those with respect to Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia. P.L. 95-223 (December 28, 1, 1977,” including those with respect to Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia. P.L. 95-223 (December 28,
1977) §101(b). The grandfathered powers, however, would require a declaration or renewal. See, e.g., Memorandum of 1977) §101(b). The grandfathered powers, however, would require a declaration or renewal. See, e.g., Memorandum of
September 8, 1978, 45 September 8, 1978, 45 Federal Register 40,695; Memorandum of September 12, 1979; Presidential Determination of 40,695; Memorandum of September 12, 1979; Presidential Determination of
September 8, 1980, 45 September 8, 1980, 45 Federal Register 59,549; Memorandum of September 10, 1981, 46 59,549; Memorandum of September 10, 1981, 46 Federal Register 45,321; 45,321;
Memorandum of September 8, 1982, 47 Memorandum of September 8, 1982, 47 Federal Register 39,797; Memorandum of September 7, 1983, 48 39,797; Memorandum of September 7, 1983, 48 Federal
Register 40,695; Memorandum of September 11, 1984, 49 40,695; Memorandum of September 11, 1984, 49 Federal Register 35,927. 35,927.
58 U.S. Congress, 58 U.S. Congress, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, pp. 6-7. , pp. 6-7.
59 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 59 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, International Emergency Economic
Powers Legislation, Report to Accompany H.R. 7738, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., S.Rept. 95-466 (Washington, DC: GPO, Report to Accompany H.R. 7738, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., S.Rept. 95-466 (Washington, DC: GPO,
1977), p. 3. 1977), p. 3.
60 U.S. Congress, 60 U.S. Congress, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, 10. , 10.
61 61 House Markup, p. 9; U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on International Trade and Commerce of the Committee , p. 9; U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on International Trade and Commerce of the Committee
on International Relations, on International Relations, Trading with the Enemy: Legislative and Executive Documents Concerning Regulation of
International Transactions in a Time of Declared Emergency, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., November 1976, committee print , 94th Cong., 2nd sess., November 1976, committee print
(Washington, DC: GPO, 1976)(Washington, DC: GPO, 1976).
62 P.L. 95-223 (December 28, 1977) (Title I) (“Section 5(b)(1) of the Trading With the Enemy Act // 50 USC app. 5. // 62 P.L. 95-223 (December 28, 1977) (Title I) (“Section 5(b)(1) of the Trading With the Enemy Act // 50 USC app. 5. //
is amended by striking out “or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President” in the text is amended by striking out “or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President” in the text
preceding subparagraph (A).”); 91 Stat. 1625, codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §4305 (2018); House, preceding subparagraph (A).”); 91 Stat. 1625, codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §4305 (2018); House, Trading with the
Enemy Act Reform Legislation, p. 2. , p. 2.
63 Ibid. (Title III); House, 63 Ibid. (Title III); House, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, p. 2 (“Title III of the bill makes a series of , p. 2 (“Title III of the bill makes a series of
conforming amendments to the Export Administration Act, which transfer to that act the authority, heretofore exercised conforming amendments to the Export Administration Act, which transfer to that act the authority, heretofore exercised
under section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act to regulate exports of non-U.S.-origin goods and technology by under section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act to regulate exports of non-U.S.-origin goods and technology by
foreign subsidiaries of U.S. concerns.”). foreign subsidiaries of U.S. concerns.”).
64 Ibid. (Title II); House, 64 Ibid. (Title II); House, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, p. 2. , p. 2.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
9 9

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

state of emergency is over and not continued in effect for use in other circumstances. A state of emergency is over and not continued in effect for use in other circumstances. A
state of national emergency should not be a normal state of affairs.65 state of national emergency should not be a normal state of affairs.65
IEEPA’s Statute, its Use, and Judicial Interpretation
IEEPA’s Statute
IEEPA, as currently amended, empowers the president to IEEPA, as currently amended, empowers the president to
(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit: (A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit:
(i) any transactions in foreign exchange, (i) any transactions in foreign exchange,
(ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, (ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution,
to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country
or national thereof, or national thereof,
(iii) the importing or exporting of currencies or securities; and (iii) the importing or exporting of currencies or securities; and
(B) investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, (B) investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel,
nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer,
withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any
right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which
any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to
any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign (C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign
country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he
determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against
the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest,
when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the
President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the
President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered,
liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United
States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the
accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.66 accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.66
These powers may be exercised “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its These powers may be exercised “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its
source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign
policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with
respect to such threat.”67 Presidents may invoke IEEPA under the procedures set forth in the respect to such threat.”67 Presidents may invoke IEEPA under the procedures set forth in the
NEA. When declaring a national emergency, the NEA requires that the President “immediately” NEA. When declaring a national emergency, the NEA requires that the President “immediately”
transmit the proclamation declaring the emergency to Congress and publish it in the transmit the proclamation declaring the emergency to Congress and publish it in the Federal
Register.68 The President must also specify the provisions of law that he or she intends to use.69 .68 The President must also specify the provisions of law that he or she intends to use.69
In addition to the requirements of the NEA, IEEPA provides several further restrictions. In addition to the requirements of the NEA, IEEPA provides several further restrictions.
Preliminarily, IEEPA requires that the President consult with Congress “in every possible Preliminarily, IEEPA requires that the President consult with Congress “in every possible

65 House, 65 House, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, p. 11. , p. 11.
66 50 U.S.C. §1702. 66 50 U.S.C. §1702.
67 50 U.S.C. §1701. 67 50 U.S.C. §1701.
6868 50 U.S.C50 U.S.C. §1621. §1621.
69 50 U.S.C69 50 U.S.C. §1631. §1631.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
10 10

link to page 15 link to page 15 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

instance” before exercising any of the authorities granted under IEEPA.70 Once the President instance” before exercising any of the authorities granted under IEEPA.70 Once the President
declares a national emergency invoking IEEPA, he or she must immediately transmit a report to declares a national emergency invoking IEEPA, he or she must immediately transmit a report to
Congress specifyingCongress specifying:
(1) the circumstances which necessitate such exercise of authority; (1) the circumstances which necessitate such exercise of authority;
(2) why the President believes those circumstances constitute an unusual and extraordinary (2) why the President believes those circumstances constitute an unusual and extraordinary
threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the
national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States; national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States;
(3) the authorities to be exercised and the actions to be taken in the exercise of those (3) the authorities to be exercised and the actions to be taken in the exercise of those
authorities to deal with those circumstances; authorities to deal with those circumstances;
(4) why the President believes such actions are necessary to deal with those circumstances; (4) why the President believes such actions are necessary to deal with those circumstances;
and and
(5) any foreign countries with respect to which such actions are to be taken and why such (5) any foreign countries with respect to which such actions are to be taken and why such
actions are to be taken with respect to those countries.71 actions are to be taken with respect to those countries.71
The President subsequently is to report on the actions taken under the IEEPA at least once in The President subsequently is to report on the actions taken under the IEEPA at least once in
every succeeding six-month interval that the authorities are exercised.72 As per the NEA, the every succeeding six-month interval that the authorities are exercised.72 As per the NEA, the
emergency may be terminated by the President, by a privileged joint resolution of Congress, or emergency may be terminated by the President, by a privileged joint resolution of Congress, or
automatically if the President does not publish in the automatically if the President does not publish in the Federal Register and transmit to Congress a and transmit to Congress a
notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect after such anniversary.73 notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect after such anniversary.73
Amendments to IEEPA
Congress has amended IEEPA eight times Congress has amended IEEPA eight times (Table 1). Five of the eight amendments have altered . Five of the eight amendments have altered
civil and criminal penalties for violations of orders issued under the statute. Other amendments civil and criminal penalties for violations of orders issued under the statute. Other amendments
excluded certain informational materials and expanded IEEPA’s scope following the terrorist excluded certain informational materials and expanded IEEPA’s scope following the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. Congress also amended the NEA in response to a ruling by the attacks of September 11, 2001. Congress also amended the NEA in response to a ruling by the
Supreme Court to require a joint rather than a concurrent resolution to terminate a national Supreme Court to require a joint rather than a concurrent resolution to terminate a national
emergency. emergency.
Table 1. Amendments to IEEPA
Date
Action
December 28, 1977 December 28, 1977
IEEPA Enacted IEEPA Enacted
(P.L. 95-223; 91 Stat. 1625) (P.L. 95-223; 91 Stat. 1625)
August 16, 1985* August 16, 1985*
Fol owing the Supreme Court’s holding in Fol owing the Supreme Court’s holding in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) finding so-, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) finding so-
called legislative vetoes unconstitutional, Congress amends the NEA to change called legislative vetoes unconstitutional, Congress amends the NEA to change
“concurrent” resolution to “joint” resolution. (P.L. 99-93; 99 Stat. 407, 448). “concurrent” resolution to “joint” resolution. (P.L. 99-93; 99 Stat. 407, 448).
* While not technically an amendment to IEEPA, IEEPA is tied to the NEA’s provisions * While not technically an amendment to IEEPA, IEEPA is tied to the NEA’s provisions
relating to the declaration and termination of national emergencies. relating to the declaration and termination of national emergencies.
August 23, 1988 August 23, 1988
IEEPA amended to exclude informational materials (Berman Amendment, see IEEPA amended to exclude informational materials (Berman Amendment, see
elaboration below). elaboration below).
(Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988; P.L. 100-418; 102 Stat. 1107, 1371) (Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988; P.L. 100-418; 102 Stat. 1107, 1371)

70 50 U.S.C. §1703(a). 70 50 U.S.C. §1703(a).
71 50 U.S.C. §1703(b). 71 50 U.S.C. §1703(b).
72 50 U.S.C. §1703(c). 72 50 U.S.C. §1703(c).
73 50 U.S.C. §1622. 73 50 U.S.C. §1622.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
11 11

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Date
Action
October 6, 1992 October 6, 1992
Section 206 of IEEPA amended to increase civil and criminal penalties under the act. Section 206 of IEEPA amended to increase civil and criminal penalties under the act.
(Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1993; P.L. 102-(Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1993; P.L. 102-
393; 106 Stat. 1729) 393; 106 Stat. 1729)
October 6, 1992 October 6, 1992
Section 206 of IEEPA amended to decrease civil and criminal penalties under the act. Section 206 of IEEPA amended to decrease civil and criminal penalties under the act.
(Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993; P.L. 102-396; 106 Stat. 1876) (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993; P.L. 102-396; 106 Stat. 1876)
April 30, 1994 April 30, 1994
IEEPA amended to update the definition of informational materials. IEEPA amended to update the definition of informational materials.
(Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995; P.L. 103-236; 108 (Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995; P.L. 103-236; 108
Stat. 382) Stat. 382)
September 23, 1996 September 23, 1996
IEEPA amended to penalize attempted violations of licenses, orders, regulations or IEEPA amended to penalize attempted violations of licenses, orders, regulations or
prohibitions issued under the authority of IEEPA. prohibitions issued under the authority of IEEPA.
(National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997; P.L. 104-201; 110 Stat. 2725) (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997; P.L. 104-201; 110 Stat. 2725)
October 26, 2001 October 26, 2001
USA PATRIOT Act Amendments, see elaboration below. USA PATRIOT Act Amendments, see elaboration below.
(Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001; P.L. 107-56; 115 Stat. Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001; P.L. 107-56; 115 Stat.
272) 272)
March 9, 2006 March 9, 2006
Section 206 of IEEPA amended to increase civil and criminal penalties under the act. Section 206 of IEEPA amended to increase civil and criminal penalties under the act.
(USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005; P.L. 109-177; 120 Stat. (USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005; P.L. 109-177; 120 Stat.
192) 192)
October 16, 2007 October 16, 2007
The International Emergency Economic Powers Enhancement Act amended Section 206 The International Emergency Economic Powers Enhancement Act amended Section 206
of IEEPA to increase civil and criminal penalties and added conspiracy to violate of IEEPA to increase civil and criminal penalties and added conspiracy to violate
licenses, orders, regulations or prohibitions issued under the authority of IEEPA. Civil licenses, orders, regulations or prohibitions issued under the authority of IEEPA. Civil
penalties are capped at $250,000 or twice the amount of the transaction found to have penalties are capped at $250,000 or twice the amount of the transaction found to have
violated the law. Criminal penalties now include a fine of up to $1,000,000 and violated the law. Criminal penalties now include a fine of up to $1,000,000 and
imprisonment of up to 20 years. imprisonment of up to 20 years.
(International Emergency Economic Powers Enhancement Act; P.L. 110-96; 121 Stat. (International Emergency Economic Powers Enhancement Act; P.L. 110-96; 121 Stat.
1011) 1011)
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on United States Code, annotated. , annotated.
The Informational Materials Amendments to IEEPA
As originally enacted, IEEPA protected the rights of U.S. persons to participate in the exchange of As originally enacted, IEEPA protected the rights of U.S. persons to participate in the exchange of
“any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a “any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a
transfer of anything of value” with a foreign person otherwise subject to sanctions. Amendments transfer of anything of value” with a foreign person otherwise subject to sanctions. Amendments
in 1988 and 1994 updated this list of protected rights to include the exchange of published in 1988 and 1994 updated this list of protected rights to include the exchange of published
information in a variety of formats.74 As amended, the act currently protects the exchange of information in a variety of formats.74 As amended, the act currently protects the exchange of
“information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, “information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters,
phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs,
artworks, and news wire feeds,” provided such exchange is not otherwise controlled for national artworks, and news wire feeds,” provided such exchange is not otherwise controlled for national
security or foreign policy reasons related to weapons proliferation or international terrorism.75 security or foreign policy reasons related to weapons proliferation or international terrorism.75

74 P.L. 100-418 (August 23, 1988); P.L. 103-236 (April 30, 1994). The amendments were introduced by Rep. Howard 74 P.L. 100-418 (August 23, 1988); P.L. 103-236 (April 30, 1994). The amendments were introduced by Rep. Howard
Berman (D-CA) and are occasionally referred to as the “Berman Amendments.” For more background, see, “Sleeping Berman (D-CA) and are occasionally referred to as the “Berman Amendments.” For more background, see, “Sleeping
with the Enemy? OFAC Rules and First Amendment Freedoms,” with the Enemy? OFAC Rules and First Amendment Freedoms,” Perspectives on History (May 2004). (May 2004).
75 Codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §1702(b)(3). 75 Codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §1702(b)(3).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
12 12

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

USA PATRIOT Act Amendments to IEEPA
Unlike the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), IEEPA did not allow the President to vest assets Unlike the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), IEEPA did not allow the President to vest assets
as originally enacted.76 In 2001, at the request of the George W. Bush Administration, Congress as originally enacted.76 In 2001, at the request of the George W. Bush Administration, Congress
amended IEEPA as part of the USA PATRIOT Act77 to return to the President the authority to vest amended IEEPA as part of the USA PATRIOT Act77 to return to the President the authority to vest
frozen assets, but only under certain circumstances: frozen assets, but only under certain circumstances:
[T]he President may ... when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been [T]he President may ... when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been
attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign
country that [the President] determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such country that [the President] determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such
hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any
property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President,
in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such
terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held,
used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the
benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and
all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.78 all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.78
Speaking about the efforts of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to identify and disrupt Speaking about the efforts of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to identify and disrupt
the flow of terrorist finances, Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress the flow of terrorist finances, Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress
At present the President’s powers are limited to freezing assets and blocking transactions At present the President’s powers are limited to freezing assets and blocking transactions
with terrorist organizations. We need the capacity for more than a freeze. We must be able with terrorist organizations. We need the capacity for more than a freeze. We must be able
to seize. Doing business with terrorist organization must be a losing proposition. Terrorist to seize. Doing business with terrorist organization must be a losing proposition. Terrorist
financiers must pay a price for their support of terrorism, which kills innocent Americans. financiers must pay a price for their support of terrorism, which kills innocent Americans.
Consistent with the President’s [issuance of E.O. 1322479] and his statements [of Consistent with the President’s [issuance of E.O. 1322479] and his statements [of
September 24, 2001], our proposal gives law enforcement the ability to seize the terrorists’ September 24, 2001], our proposal gives law enforcement the ability to seize the terrorists’
assets. Further, criminal liability is imposed on those who knowingly engage in financial assets. Further, criminal liability is imposed on those who knowingly engage in financial
transactions, money-laundering involving the proceeds of terrorist acts.80 transactions, money-laundering involving the proceeds of terrorist acts.80
The House Judiciary Committee report explaining the amendments described its purpose as The House Judiciary Committee report explaining the amendments described its purpose as
follows: follows:
Section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. §1702) Section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. §1702)
grants to the President the power to exercise certain authorities relating to commerce with grants to the President the power to exercise certain authorities relating to commerce with
foreign nations upon his determination that there exists an unusual and extraordinary threat foreign nations upon his determination that there exists an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the United States. Under this authority, the President may, among other things, freeze to the United States. Under this authority, the President may, among other things, freeze
certain foreign assets within the jurisdiction of the United States. A separate law, the certain foreign assets within the jurisdiction of the United States. A separate law, the
Trading With the Enemy Act, authorizes the President to take title to enemy assets when Trading With the Enemy Act, authorizes the President to take title to enemy assets when
Congress has declared war. Congress has declared war.
Section 159 of this bill amends section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Section 159 of this bill amends section 203 of the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act to provide the President with authority similar to what he currently has under Powers Act to provide the President with authority similar to what he currently has under
the Trading With the Enemy Act in circumstances where there has been an armed attack the Trading With the Enemy Act in circumstances where there has been an armed attack

76 P.L. 95-223. House, 76 P.L. 95-223. House, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, p. 15 (“This grant of authorities does not , p. 15 (“This grant of authorities does not
include the following authorities … : (1) the power to vest … property.”); Senate, include the following authorities … : (1) the power to vest … property.”); Senate, International Emergency Economic
Powers Legislation, p. 5 (“Authority to vest property, seize records and regulate purely domestic economic transactions , p. 5 (“Authority to vest property, seize records and regulate purely domestic economic transactions
would not be granted.”). would not be granted.”).
77 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism 77 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
(USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, P.L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272. (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, P.L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272.
78 P.L. 107-56 §106, 115 Stat. 272, 277, codified at 50 U.S.C. §1702(a)(1)(C) (2018). 78 P.L. 107-56 §106, 115 Stat. 272, 277, codified at 50 U.S.C. §1702(a)(1)(C) (2018).
79 E.O. 13224, 66 79 E.O. 13224, 66 Federal Register 49,079 (September 24, 2001). 49,079 (September 24, 2001).
80 80 Administration’s Draft Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001: Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st , 107th Cong., 1st
sess., serial no. 39 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), p. 7 (testimony of Attorney General Ashcroft). sess., serial no. 39 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), p. 7 (testimony of Attorney General Ashcroft).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
13 13

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

on the United States, or where Congress has enacted a law authorizing the President to use on the United States, or where Congress has enacted a law authorizing the President to use
armed force against a foreign country, foreign organization, or foreign national. The armed force against a foreign country, foreign organization, or foreign national. The
proceeds of any foreign assets to which the President takes title under this authority must proceeds of any foreign assets to which the President takes title under this authority must
be placed in a segregated account can only be used in accordance with a statute authorizing be placed in a segregated account can only be used in accordance with a statute authorizing
the expenditure of such proceeds. the expenditure of such proceeds.
Section 159 also makes a number of clarifying and technical changes to section 203 of the Section 159 also makes a number of clarifying and technical changes to section 203 of the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, most of which will not change the way International Emergency Economic Powers Act, most of which will not change the way
that provision currently is implemented.81 that provision currently is implemented.81
The government has apparently never employed the vesting power to seize Al Qaeda assets The government has apparently never employed the vesting power to seize Al Qaeda assets
within the United States. Instead, the government has sought to confiscate them through forfeiture within the United States. Instead, the government has sought to confiscate them through forfeiture
procedures.82 procedures.82
The first, and to date, apparently only, use of this power under IEEPA occurred on March 20, The first, and to date, apparently only, use of this power under IEEPA occurred on March 20,
2003.83 On that date, in Executive Order 13290, President George W. Bush ordered the blocked 2003.83 On that date, in Executive Order 13290, President George W. Bush ordered the blocked
“property of the Government of Iraq and its agencies, instrumentalities, or controlled entities” to “property of the Government of Iraq and its agencies, instrumentalities, or controlled entities” to
be vested “in the Department of the Treasury ... [to] be used to assist the Iraqi people and to assist be vested “in the Department of the Treasury ... [to] be used to assist the Iraqi people and to assist
in the reconstruction of Iraq.”84 However, the President’s order excluded from confiscation Iraq’s in the reconstruction of Iraq.”84 However, the President’s order excluded from confiscation Iraq’s
diplomatic and consular property, as well as assets that had, prior to March 20, 2003, been diplomatic and consular property, as well as assets that had, prior to March 20, 2003, been
ordered attached in satisfaction of judgments against Iraq rendered pursuant to the terrorist suit ordered attached in satisfaction of judgments against Iraq rendered pursuant to the terrorist suit
provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and Section 201 of the Terrorism Risk provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and Section 201 of the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Act85 (which reportedly totaled about $300 million)Insurance Act85 (which reportedly totaled about $300 million)~~86.~~.86
A subsequent executive order blocked the property of former Iraqi officials and their families, A subsequent executive order blocked the property of former Iraqi officials and their families,
vesting title of such blocked funds in the Department of the Treasury for transfer to the vesting title of such blocked funds in the Department of the Treasury for transfer to the
Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) to be “used to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) to be “used to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people,
for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq’s infrastructure, for the continued disarmament for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq’s infrastructure, for the continued disarmament
of Iraq, for the cost of Iraqi civilian administration, and for other purposes benefitting of the Iraqi of Iraq, for the cost of Iraqi civilian administration, and for other purposes benefitting of the Iraqi
people.”87 The DFI was established by UN Security Council Resolution 1483, which required people.”87 The DFI was established by UN Security Council Resolution 1483, which required
member states to freeze all assets of the former Iraqi government and of Saddam Hussein, senior member states to freeze all assets of the former Iraqi government and of Saddam Hussein, senior
officials of his regime and their family members, and transfer such assets to the DFI, which was officials of his regime and their family members, and transfer such assets to the DFI, which was
then administered by the United States. Most of the vested assets were used by the Coalition then administered by the United States. Most of the vested assets were used by the Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA) for reconstruction projects and ministry operations.88 Provisional Authority (CPA) for reconstruction projects and ministry operations.88
The USA PATRIOT Act made three other amendments to Section 203 of IEEPA.89 After the The USA PATRIOT Act made three other amendments to Section 203 of IEEPA.89 After the
power to investigate, it added the power to block assets during the pendency of an investigation.90 power to investigate, it added the power to block assets during the pendency of an investigation.90

81 U.S. Congress, House, 81 U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Committee on the Judiciary to Accompany H.R. 2975, 107th Cong., 1st sess., , 107th Cong., 1st sess.,
H.Rept. 107-236 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), p. 62. H.Rept. 107-236 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), p. 62.
82 See United States v. All Funds on Deposit with R.J. O'Brien & Assocs., 783 F.3d 607, 617 (7th Cir. 2015) (insurance 82 See United States v. All Funds on Deposit with R.J. O'Brien & Assocs., 783 F.3d 607, 617 (7th Cir. 2015) (insurance
companies’ attempt to intercede in civil forfeiture action involving Al Qaeda assets). companies’ attempt to intercede in civil forfeiture action involving Al Qaeda assets).
83 E.O. 13290, 68 83 E.O. 13290, 68 Federal Register 14,307 (March 24, 2003). 14,307 (March 24, 2003).
84 Ibid.84 Ibid.
85 P.L. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322 (2002). 85 P.L. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322 (2002).
86 See Tom Schoenberg, “Fights Loom for Iraqi Riches,” 86 See Tom Schoenberg, “Fights Loom for Iraqi Riches,” Legal Times (March 31, 2003). Judgment creditors were paid (March 31, 2003). Judgment creditors were paid
about $140 million from the vested assets to cover the unsatisfied portions of judgments and interest. about $140 million from the vested assets to cover the unsatisfied portions of judgments and interest.
87 E.O. 13315, 68 87 E.O. 13315, 68 Federal Register 52,315 (September 3, 2003). 52,315 (September 3, 2003).
88 GAO-04-579T Recovering Iraq’s Assets (March 18, 2004). As of March 2004, according to GAO, the CPA had 88 GAO-04-579T Recovering Iraq’s Assets (March 18, 2004). As of March 2004, according to GAO, the CPA had
spent $1.67 billion of the $1.9 billion for “emergency needs, including salaries for civil servants and pensions, and for spent $1.67 billion of the $1.9 billion for “emergency needs, including salaries for civil servants and pensions, and for
ministry operations.” Ibid.ministry operations.” Ibid. at, 7. The CPA was also authorized to use the more than $900 million in assets seized by the 7. The CPA was also authorized to use the more than $900 million in assets seized by the
U.S. military in Iraq for humanitarian and reconstruction activities. Ibid. U.S. military in Iraq for humanitarian and reconstruction activities. Ibid.
89 P.L. 107-56 §106, 115 Stat. 277 (2001). 89 P.L. 107-56 §106, 115 Stat. 277 (2001).
90 P.L. 107-56 §106, codified at 50 U.S.C. §1702(a)(1)(B) (2018). 90 P.L. 107-56 §106, codified at 50 U.S.C. §1702(a)(1)(B) (2018).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
14 14

link to page link to page 6162 link to page 20 link to page 27 link to page 20 link to page 27 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

It clarified that the type of interest in property subject to IEEPA is an “interest by any person, or It clarified that the type of interest in property subject to IEEPA is an “interest by any person, or
with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”91 It also added with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”91 It also added
subsection (c), which provides subsection (c), which provides
In any judicial review of a determination made under this section, if the determination was In any judicial review of a determination made under this section, if the determination was
based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the Classified Information based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the Classified Information
Procedures Act) such information may be submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in Procedures Act) such information may be submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in
camera. This subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review.92 camera. This subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review.92
As described in the House Judiciary Committee report, these provisions were meant to clarify and As described in the House Judiciary Committee report, these provisions were meant to clarify and
codify existing practices.93 codify existing practices.93
IEEPA Trends
Like TWEA prior to its amendment in 1977, the President and Congress together have often Like TWEA prior to its amendment in 1977, the President and Congress together have often
turned to IEEPA to impose economic sanctions in furtherance of U.S. foreign policy, national turned to IEEPA to impose economic sanctions in furtherance of U.S. foreign policy, national
security, and economic objectives. While initially enacted to circumscribe presidential emergency security, and economic objectives. While initially enacted to circumscribe presidential emergency
authority,94 presidential emergency use of IEEPA has expanded in scale, scope, and frequency authority,94 presidential emergency use of IEEPA has expanded in scale, scope, and frequency
since the statute’s enactment. The House report on IEEPA stated, “emergencies are by their nature since the statute’s enactment. The House report on IEEPA stated, “emergencies are by their nature
rare and brief, and are not to be equated with normal, ongoing problems.”95 National emergencies rare and brief, and are not to be equated with normal, ongoing problems.”95 National emergencies
invoking IEEPA, however, have increased in frequency and length since its enactment. invoking IEEPA, however, have increased in frequency and length since its enactment.
Between 1977 and Between 1977 and ~~September 1, 2023~~January 15, 2024, Presidents have invoked IEEPA in 69 new declarations of , Presidents have invoked IEEPA in 69 new declarations of
national emergency under the NEA.96 On average, these emergencies last nearly nine years. Most national emergency under the NEA.96 On average, these emergencies last nearly nine years. Most
emergencies have been geographically specific, targeting a specific country or government. emergencies have been geographically specific, targeting a specific country or government.
However, since 1990, Presidents have declared non-geographically-specific emergencies in However, since 1990, Presidents have declared non-geographically-specific emergencies in
response to issues like weapons proliferation, global terrorism, and malicious cyber-enabled response to issues like weapons proliferation, global terrorism, and malicious cyber-enabled
activities.97 The erosion of geographic limitations has been accompanied by an expansion in the activities.97 The erosion of geographic limitations has been accompanied by an expansion in the
nature of the targets of sanctions issued under IEEPA authority. Originally, IEEPA was used to nature of the targets of sanctions issued under IEEPA authority. Originally, IEEPA was used to
target foreign governments; however, Presidents have increasingly targeted groups and target foreign governments; however, Presidents have increasingly targeted groups and
individuals.98 Usually Presidents use IEEPA as an emergency power; however, Congress has individuals.98 Usually Presidents use IEEPA as an emergency power; however, Congress has
directed the President to use IEEPA or expressed its approval of presidential emergency use in directed the President to use IEEPA or expressed its approval of presidential emergency use in
several statutes.99 Between 1976, when the NEA was enacted, and 2019, Congress had never several statutes.99 Between 1976, when the NEA was enacted, and 2019, Congress had never
affirmatively voted to terminate a national emergency. However, in the late-2010s, some affirmatively voted to terminate a national emergency. However, in the late-2010s, some
Members of Congress began to express concern with the NEA. Between 2019 and Members of Congress began to express concern with the NEA. Between 2019 and ~~September 1,~~
~~2023~~January 15, 2024, Members of Congress have introduced 15 joint resolutions to terminate a national , Members of Congress have introduced 15 joint resolutions to terminate a national

91 P.L. 107-56 §106, codified at 50 U.S.C. §1702(a) (2018). 91 P.L. 107-56 §106, codified at 50 U.S.C. §1702(a) (2018).
92 P.L. 107-56 §106, codified at 50 U.S.C. §1702(c) (2018). 92 P.L. 107-56 §106, codified at 50 U.S.C. §1702(c) (2018).
93 House, 93 House, Report of the Committee on the Judiciary to Accompany H.R. 2975, , p. 62. 62.
94 House, 94 House, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, pp. 2-9. , pp. 2-9.
95 Ibid95 Ibid., ~~, p.~~ 11. 11.
96 This tally does not include IEEPA invocations made in connection with executive orders expanding the scope of an 96 This tally does not include IEEPA invocations made in connection with executive orders expanding the scope of an
initial declaration of national emergency. Seeinitial declaration of national emergency. See Table A-1.
97 E.g., E.O. 13694, Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled 97 E.g., E.O. 13694, Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled
Activities (April 1, 2015); E.O. 13818, Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Activities (April 1, 2015); E.O. 13818, Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or
Corruption (December 20, 2017); E.O. 13848, Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a Corruption (December 20, 2017); E.O. 13848, Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a
United States Election (September 12, 2018); E.O. 13873, Securing the Information and Communications Technology United States Election (September 12, 2018); E.O. 13873, Securing the Information and Communications Technology
and Services Supply Chain (May 15, 2019); E.O. 13920, Securing the United States Bulk-Power System (May 1, and Services Supply Chain (May 15, 2019); E.O. 13920, Securing the United States Bulk-Power System (May 1,
2020); E.O. 13928, Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated With the International Criminal Court (June 11, 2020); E.O. 13928, Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated With the International Criminal Court (June 11,
2020). 2020).
98 See 98 See “Presidential Emergency Use.”
99 See 99 See “Congressional Nonemergency Use and Retroactive Approval.”
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
15 15

link to page link to page 6667 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

emergency, five of those resolutions involved IEEPA emergency, five of those resolutions involved IEEPA (Table A-2). Despite this new interest in . Despite this new interest in
terminating national emergencies, no emergency declared under the NEA has been terminated terminating national emergencies, no emergency declared under the NEA has been terminated
without Presidential assent. without Presidential assent.
Presidential Emergency Use100
IEEPA is the most frequently cited emergency authority when the President declares a national IEEPA is the most frequently cited emergency authority when the President declares a national
emergency under the NEA. Rather than referencing the same set of emergencies, as had been the emergency under the NEA. Rather than referencing the same set of emergencies, as had been the
case with TWEA, IEEPA has required the President to declare a national emergency for each case with TWEA, IEEPA has required the President to declare a national emergency for each
independent use. As a result, the number of national emergencies declared under the terms of the independent use. As a result, the number of national emergencies declared under the terms of the
NEA has proliferated over the past four decades. Presidents declared only four national NEA has proliferated over the past four decades. Presidents declared only four national
emergencies under the auspices of TWEA in the four decades prior to IEEPA’s enactment. In emergencies under the auspices of TWEA in the four decades prior to IEEPA’s enactment. In
contrast, Presidents have invoked IEEPA in 70 of the 79 declarations of national emergency contrast, Presidents have invoked IEEPA in 70 of the 79 declarations of national emergency
issued under the National Emergencies Act.101 As of issued under the National Emergencies Act.101 As of ~~September 1, 2023~~January 15, 2024, there were 42 ongoing , there were 42 ongoing
national emergencies; all but three involved IEEPA.102 national emergencies; all but three involved IEEPA.102

100 The numbers here define emergencies by executive orders declaring an emergency. This choice causes some 100 The numbers here define emergencies by executive orders declaring an emergency. This choice causes some
anomalies in the data. For example, the national emergency with regard to controlling the whereabouts of highly anomalies in the data. For example, the national emergency with regard to controlling the whereabouts of highly
enriched uranium extracted from nuclear weapons in Russia lapsed when the notice extending the emergency was not enriched uranium extracted from nuclear weapons in Russia lapsed when the notice extending the emergency was not
published in the published in the Federal Register by the emergency’s anniversary date on June 21, 2012. As such, President Barack by the emergency’s anniversary date on June 21, 2012. As such, President Barack
Obama issued an executive order declaring a new national emergency to reinstate the restrictions. For consistency, such Obama issued an executive order declaring a new national emergency to reinstate the restrictions. For consistency, such
anomalies have been treated as two distinct national emergencies. Such treatment decreases the average duration of anomalies have been treated as two distinct national emergencies. Such treatment decreases the average duration of
emergencies. See, e.g., E.O. 13159, Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the emergencies. See, e.g., E.O. 13159, Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the
Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons (June 21, 2000); E.O. 13617, Blocking Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons (June 21, 2000); E.O. 13617, Blocking
Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium
Extracted From Nuclear Weapons (June 25, 2012). Extracted From Nuclear Weapons (June 25, 2012).
101 The eight declarations of emergency under the NEA that did not involve IEEPA as of March 25, 2022 were all made 101 The eight declarations of emergency under the NEA that did not involve IEEPA as of March 25, 2022 were all made
by presidential proclamation. See Proclamation 6491, To Suspend the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, Within a by presidential proclamation. See Proclamation 6491, To Suspend the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, Within a
Limited Geographic Area in Response to the National Emergency Caused by Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki (October Limited Geographic Area in Response to the National Emergency Caused by Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki (October
14, 1992); Proclamation 6867, Declaration of a National Emergency and Invocation of Emergency Authority Relating 14, 1992); Proclamation 6867, Declaration of a National Emergency and Invocation of Emergency Authority Relating
to the Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels around Cuba (March 1, 1996); Proclamation 6907, to the Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels around Cuba (March 1, 1996); Proclamation 6907,
Declaration of a State of Emergency and Release of Feed Grain From the Disaster Reserve (July 1, 1996); Declaration of a State of Emergency and Release of Feed Grain From the Disaster Reserve (July 1, 1996);
Proclamation 7463, Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (September 14, 2001); Proclamation 7463, Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (September 14, 2001);
Proclamation 7924, To Suspend Subchapter IV of Chapter 31 of Title 40, United States Code, Within a Limited Proclamation 7924, To Suspend Subchapter IV of Chapter 31 of Title 40, United States Code, Within a Limited
Geographic Area in Response to the National Emergency Caused by Hurricane Katrina (September 8, 2005); Geographic Area in Response to the National Emergency Caused by Hurricane Katrina (September 8, 2005);
Proclamation 8443, Declaration of a National Emergency With Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic Proclamation 8443, Declaration of a National Emergency With Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic
(October 23, 2009); Proclamation 9844, Declaration of a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the (October 23, 2009); Proclamation 9844, Declaration of a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the
United States (February 15, 2019); Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease United States (February 15, 2019); Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease
(COVID-19) Outbreak (March 13, 2020). (COVID-19) Outbreak (March 13, 2020).
102 The three ongoing emergencies not involving IEEPA as of 102 The three ongoing emergencies not involving IEEPA as of ~~July 17, 2023~~January 15, 2024 were declared in: Proclamation 6867, were declared in: Proclamation 6867,
Proclamation 7463, Proclamation 10371. All were declared in response to foreign threats. Notably, while IEEPA was Proclamation 7463, Proclamation 10371. All were declared in response to foreign threats. Notably, while IEEPA was
not invoked in the first declaration of national emergency following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, not invoked in the first declaration of national emergency following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
President George W. Bush declared a second state of emergency invoking IEEPA. E.O. 13224, Blocking Property and President George W. Bush declared a second state of emergency invoking IEEPA. E.O. 13224, Blocking Property and
Prohibiting Transaction with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism (September 23, 2001). Prohibiting Transaction with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism (September 23, 2001).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
16 16

link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 23 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 23

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Figure 1. Declarations and Executive Orders Citing IEEPA

Source: CRS. 2020s current as of CRS. 2020s current as of ~~September 1, 2023~~January 15, 2024. .
Note: Executive orders include declarations of national emergency that cite IEEPA that were made by executive Executive orders include declarations of national emergency that cite IEEPA that were made by executive
order and any subsequent modifications or amendments to an emergency or such an order. order and any subsequent modifications or amendments to an emergency or such an order.
Each year since 1990, Presidents have issued roughly 4.5 executive orders citing IEEPA and Each year since 1990, Presidents have issued roughly 4.5 executive orders citing IEEPA and
declared 1.5 new national emergencies citing IEEPA.103 declared 1.5 new national emergencies citing IEEPA.103 (Figure 1.) )
On average, emergencies invoking IEEPA last more than nine years.104 The longest emergency On average, emergencies invoking IEEPA last more than nine years.104 The longest emergency
was also the first. President Jimmy Carter, in response to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, was also the first. President Jimmy Carter, in response to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979,
declared the first national emergency under the provisions of the National Emergencies Act and declared the first national emergency under the provisions of the National Emergencies Act and
invoked IEEPA.105 Seven successive Presidents have renewed that emergency annually for more invoked IEEPA.105 Seven successive Presidents have renewed that emergency annually for more
than 40 years. As of than 40 years. As of ~~September 1, 2023~~January 15, 2024, that emergency is still in effect, largely to provide a legal , that emergency is still in effect, largely to provide a legal
basis for resolving matters of ownership of the Shah’s disputed assets.106 That initial emergency basis for resolving matters of ownership of the Shah’s disputed assets.106 That initial emergency
aside, the length of emergencies invoking IEEPA has increased each decade. The average length aside, the length of emergencies invoking IEEPA has increased each decade. The average length
of an emergency invoking IEEPA declared in the 1980s was four years. That average extended to of an emergency invoking IEEPA declared in the 1980s was four years. That average extended to
11 years for emergencies declared in the 1990s and 15 years for emergencies declared in the 11 years for emergencies declared in the 1990s and 15 years for emergencies declared in the
2000s 2000s (Figure 2).107 As such, the number of ongoing national emergencies has grown nearly .107 As such, the number of ongoing national emergencies has grown nearly
continuously since the enactment of IEEPA and the NEAcontinuously since the enactment of IEEPA and the NEA (Figure 3). Between January 1, 1979, Between January 1, 1979,
and and ~~September 1, 2023~~January 15, 2024, there were on average 15 ongoing national emergencies each year, 14 of , there were on average 15 ongoing national emergencies each year, 14 of
which invoked IEEPA. which invoked IEEPA.

103 The practice of issuing IEEPA-related executive orders has also changed over time. During the Iran hostage-taking 103 The practice of issuing IEEPA-related executive orders has also changed over time. During the Iran hostage-taking
in 1979, for example, President Carter issued a new and separate E.O. with each fine-tuning of the initial national in 1979, for example, President Carter issued a new and separate E.O. with each fine-tuning of the initial national
emergency declaration; overall from November 1979 to his last day in office in January 1981, President Carter issued emergency declaration; overall from November 1979 to his last day in office in January 1981, President Carter issued
12 executive orders relating to the hostage crisis and negotiations with Iran. Later presidents have opted, instead, to 12 executive orders relating to the hostage crisis and negotiations with Iran. Later presidents have opted, instead, to
issue one executive order to declare the existence of a national emergency, and then to revisit that order to adjust or issue one executive order to declare the existence of a national emergency, and then to revisit that order to adjust or
expand its reach by amending the original language. expand its reach by amending the original language.
104 Emergencies invoking IEEPA that have been terminated lasted an average of 6.5 years. However, most emergencies 104 Emergencies invoking IEEPA that have been terminated lasted an average of 6.5 years. However, most emergencies
citing IEEPA have not been terminated, including the first ever declared, which has been ongoing since 1979. citing IEEPA have not been terminated, including the first ever declared, which has been ongoing since 1979.
105 E.O. 12170, Blocking Iranian Government Property (November 14, 1979). 105 E.O. 12170, Blocking Iranian Government Property (November 14, 1979).
106 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran, 87 106 Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran, 87 Federal Register 68,013 (November 8, 2022). 68,013 (November 8, 2022).
107 Not enough time has passed to understand whether the trend will continue with those national emergencies declared 107 Not enough time has passed to understand whether the trend will continue with those national emergencies declared
in the 2010s. in the 2010s.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
17 17

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

In most cases, the declared emergencies citing In most cases, the declared emergencies citing
IEEPA have been geographically specific. For IEEPA have been geographically specific. For
Figure 2. Average Length of Emergencies
example, in the first use of IEEPA, President example, in the first use of IEEPA, President
Citing IEEPA
Jimmy Carter issued an executive order that Jimmy Carter issued an executive order that
both declared a national emergency with both declared a national emergency with
respect to the “situation in Iran” and “blocked respect to the “situation in Iran” and “blocked
all property and interests in property of the all property and interests in property of the
Government of Iran.”108 Five months later, Government of Iran.”108 Five months later,
President Carter issued a second order President Carter issued a second order
dramatically expanding the scope of the first dramatically expanding the scope of the first
EO and effectively blocked the transfer of all EO and effectively blocked the transfer of all
goods, money, or credit destined for Iran by goods, money, or credit destined for Iran by
anyone subject to the jurisdiction of the anyone subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.109 A further order expanded the United States.109 A further order expanded the
coverage to block imports to the United States coverage to block imports to the United States
from Iran.110 Together, these orders touched from Iran.110 Together, these orders touched
upon virtually all economic contacts between upon virtually all economic contacts between
any place or legal person subject to the any place or legal person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States and the jurisdiction of the United States and the
territory and government of Iran.111 territory and government of Iran.111
Many of the executive orders invoking IEEPA Many of the executive orders invoking IEEPA

have followed this pattern of limiting the have followed this pattern of limiting the
Source: CRS. Current as of CRS. Current as of ~~September 1, 2023~~January 15, 2024. .
scope to a specific territory, government, or scope to a specific territory, government, or
Notes: A single emergency was declared in the A single emergency was declared in the
its nationals. Executive Order 12513, for its nationals. Executive Order 12513, for
1970s (Iran) and that has lasted 40 years. 2010s do 1970s (Iran) and that has lasted 40 years. 2010s do
not have sufficient data to create an average length not have sufficient data to create an average length
example, prohibited “imports into the United example, prohibited “imports into the United
that would be meaningful for the purposes of analysis. that would be meaningful for the purposes of analysis.
States of goods and services of Nicaraguan States of goods and services of Nicaraguan
origin” and “exports from the United States of goods to or destined for Nicaragua.” The order origin” and “exports from the United States of goods to or destined for Nicaragua.” The order
likewise prohibited Nicaraguan air carriers and vessels of Nicaraguan registry from entering U.S. likewise prohibited Nicaraguan air carriers and vessels of Nicaraguan registry from entering U.S.
ports.112 Executive Order 12532 prohibited various transactions with the “Government of South ports.112 Executive Order 12532 prohibited various transactions with the “Government of South
Africa or to entities owned or controlled by that Government.”113 Africa or to entities owned or controlled by that Government.”113

108 E.O. 12170. 108 E.O. 12170.
109 E.O. 12205, Economic Sanctions Against Iran (April 7, 1980). The order exempted “food, medicine and supplies 109 E.O. 12205, Economic Sanctions Against Iran (April 7, 1980). The order exempted “food, medicine and supplies
intended strictly for medical purposes, and donations of clothing intended to be used to relieve human suffering.” intended strictly for medical purposes, and donations of clothing intended to be used to relieve human suffering.”
110 E.O. 12211, Economic Sanctions Against Iran (April 17, 1980). 110 E.O. 12211, Economic Sanctions Against Iran (April 17, 1980).
111 Exceptions were made for family remittances. 111 Exceptions were made for family remittances.
112 E.O. 12513, Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving Nicaragua (May 1, 1985). 112 E.O. 12513, Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving Nicaragua (May 1, 1985).
113 E.O. 12532, Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving South Africa (September 9, 1985). 113 E.O. 12532, Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving South Africa (September 9, 1985).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
18 18

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Figure 3. Cumulative Number of Ongoing National Emergencies by Year

Source: CRS. Current as of CRS. Current as of ~~September 1, 2023.~~
January 15, 2024. Notes: Orange dashed line indicates national emergencies citing IEEPA. Hashed space indicates all national Orange dashed line indicates national emergencies citing IEEPA. Hashed space indicates all national
emergencies. emergencies.
While the majority of national emergencies invoking IEEPA have been geographically specific, While the majority of national emergencies invoking IEEPA have been geographically specific,
many recent emergencies have lacked explicit geographic limitations.114 President George H.W. many recent emergencies have lacked explicit geographic limitations.114 President George H.W.
Bush declared the first geographically nonspecific emergency in response to the threat posed by Bush declared the first geographically nonspecific emergency in response to the threat posed by
the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons.115 Similarly, President George W. Bush the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons.115 Similarly, President George W. Bush
declared a national emergency in response to the threat posed by “persons who commit, threaten declared a national emergency in response to the threat posed by “persons who commit, threaten
to commit, or support terrorism.”116 President Barack Obama declared emergencies to respond to to commit, or support terrorism.”116 President Barack Obama declared emergencies to respond to
the threats of “transnational criminal organizations” and “persons engaging in malicious cyber-the threats of “transnational criminal organizations” and “persons engaging in malicious cyber-
enabled activities.”117 President Donald Trump declared an emergency to respond to “foreign enabled activities.”117 President Donald Trump declared an emergency to respond to “foreign
adversaries” who were “creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in information and adversaries” who were “creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in information and
communications technologies and services.”118 Without explicit geographic limitations, these communications technologies and services.”118 Without explicit geographic limitations, these
orders have included provisions that are global in scope. These geographically nonspecific orders have included provisions that are global in scope. These geographically nonspecific
emergencies invoking IEEPA have increased in frequency over the past 40 years.119 emergencies invoking IEEPA have increased in frequency over the past 40 years.119

114 This number excludes those emergencies declared to extend the Export Administration Act of 1979. 114 This number excludes those emergencies declared to extend the Export Administration Act of 1979.
115 E.O. 12735, Chemical and Biological Weapons Proliferation (November 16, 1990). 115 E.O. 12735, Chemical and Biological Weapons Proliferation (November 16, 1990).
116 E.O. 13224, Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or 116 E.O. 13224, Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or
Support Terrorism (September 23, 2001). Support Terrorism (September 23, 2001).
117 E.O. 13581, Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (July 24, 2011); E.O. 13694, Blocking the 117 E.O. 13581, Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (July 24, 2011); E.O. 13694, Blocking the
Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (April 1, 2015). Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (April 1, 2015).
118 E.O. 13873, Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain (May 14, 2019). 118 E.O. 13873, Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain (May 14, 2019).
119 See, E.g., E.O. 13694, Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled 119 See, E.g., E.O. 13694, Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled
Activities (April 1, 2015); E.O. 13818, Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Activities (April 1, 2015); E.O. 13818, Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or
Corruption (December 20, 2017); E.O. 13848, Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a Corruption (December 20, 2017); E.O. 13848, Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a
United States Election (September 12, 2018); E.O. 13873, Securing the Information and Communications Technology United States Election (September 12, 2018); E.O. 13873, Securing the Information and Communications Technology
and Services Supply Chain (May 15, 2019); E.O. 13920, Securing the United States Bulk-Power System (May 1, and Services Supply Chain (May 15, 2019); E.O. 13920, Securing the United States Bulk-Power System (May 1,
2020); E.O. 13928, Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated With the International Criminal Court (June 11, 2020); E.O. 13928, Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated With the International Criminal Court (June 11,
2020). Some have argued that this shift was the result of humanitarian concerns about the effects of sanctions on the 2020). Some have argued that this shift was the result of humanitarian concerns about the effects of sanctions on the
populations of the targeted states. Beginning in the 1990s, United Nations Security Council sanctions began to target populations of the targeted states. Beginning in the 1990s, United Nations Security Council sanctions began to target
the political and economic elites of a state, rather than the whole population. Kern Alexander, the political and economic elites of a state, rather than the whole population. Kern Alexander, Economic Sanctions:
Law and Public Policy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. xi. However, use of such orders has expanded beyond (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. xi. However, use of such orders has expanded beyond
political and economic elites. See, e.g., E.O. 13928. political and economic elites. See, e.g., E.O. 13928.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
19 19

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Figure 4. National Emergency Act Declarations

Source: Federal Register; CRS. Federal Register; CRS.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
20 20

link to page 70 link to page 70 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

In addition to the erosion of geographic In addition to the erosion of geographic
limitations, the stated motivations for limitations, the stated motivations for
Examples of Actions Taken in Non-
declaring national emergencies have expanded declaring national emergencies have expanded
Geographic Emergencies Citing IEEPA
in scope as well. Initially, stated rationales for in scope as well. Initially, stated rationales for
• •
Chemical and biological weapons proliferation Chemical and biological weapons proliferation
declarations of national emergency citing declarations of national emergency citing
• •
Measures to restrict the participation by United Measures to restrict the participation by United
IEEPA were short and often referenced either IEEPA were short and often referenced either
States persons in weapons proliferation activities States persons in weapons proliferation activities
a specific geography or the specific actions of a specific geography or the specific actions of
• •
Measures to prevent proliferation of weapons of Measures to prevent proliferation of weapons of
a government. Presidents found that a government. Presidents found that
mass destruction mass destruction
circumstances like “the situation in Iran,”120 or circumstances like “the situation in Iran,”120 or
• •
Prohibiting transactions with terrorists who Prohibiting transactions with terrorists who
the “policies and actions of the Government of the “policies and actions of the Government of
threaten to disrupt the Middle East peace process threaten to disrupt the Middle East peace process
Nicaragua,”121 constituted “unusual and Nicaragua,”121 constituted “unusual and
• •
Blocking property and prohibiting transactions Blocking property and prohibiting transactions
extraordinary threat[s] to the national security extraordinary threat[s] to the national security
with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or
support terrorism support terrorism
and foreign policy of the United States” and and foreign policy of the United States” and
• •
would therefore declare a national would therefore declare a national

Blocking property of transnational criminal Blocking property of transnational criminal
organizations organizations
emergency.122 emergency.122
• •
Blocking the property of certain persons engaging Blocking the property of certain persons engaging
The stated rationales have, however, expanded The stated rationales have, however, expanded
in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities
over time in both the length and subject over time in both the length and subject
• •
Blocking the property of persons involved in Blocking the property of persons involved in
matter. Presidents have increasingly declared matter. Presidents have increasingly declared
serious human rights abuse or corruption serious human rights abuse or corruption
national emergencies, in part, to respond to national emergencies, in part, to respond to
• •
Imposing certain sanctions in the event of foreign Imposing certain sanctions in the event of foreign
human and civil rights abuses,123 slavery,124 human and civil rights abuses,123 slavery,124
interference in a United States election interference in a United States election
denial of religious freedom,125 political denial of religious freedom,125 political
• •
Limiting investments by U.S. persons in certain Limiting investments by U.S. persons in certain
repression,126 public corruption,127 and the repression,126 public corruption,127 and the
national security technologies in countries of national security technologies in countries of
concern concern
undermining of democratic processes.128 undermining of democratic processes.128
While the first reference to human rights While the first reference to human rights
violations as a rationale for a declaration of national emergency came in 1985,129 most of such violations as a rationale for a declaration of national emergency came in 1985,129 most of such
references have come in the past twenty years. references have come in the past twenty years. (Table A-3). .
Presidents have also expanded the nature of the targets of IEEPA sanctions. Originally, the targets Presidents have also expanded the nature of the targets of IEEPA sanctions. Originally, the targets
of sanctions issued under IEEPA were foreign governments. The first use of IEEPA targeted of sanctions issued under IEEPA were foreign governments. The first use of IEEPA targeted
“Iranian Government Property.”130 Use of IEEPA quickly expanded to target geographically “Iranian Government Property.”130 Use of IEEPA quickly expanded to target geographically
defined regions.131 Presidents have also increasingly targeted groups, such as political parties, defined regions.131 Presidents have also increasingly targeted groups, such as political parties,

120 E.O. 12170. 120 E.O. 12170.
121 E.O. 12513. 121 E.O. 12513.
122 Ibid. 122 Ibid.
123 E.O. 12532; E.O. 13396, Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Cote d'Ivoire 123 E.O. 12532; E.O. 13396, Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Cote d'Ivoire
(February 7, 2006); E.O. 13067, Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Sudan (February 7, 2006); E.O. 13067, Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Sudan
(November 3, 1997); E.O. 13692, Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the (November 3, 1997); E.O. 13692, Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Venezuela (March 8, 2015). Situation in Venezuela (March 8, 2015).
124 E.O. 13067. 124 E.O. 13067.
125 E.O. 13067. 125 E.O. 13067.
126 E.O. 13405, Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus 126 E.O. 13405, Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus
(June 16, 2006). (June 16, 2006).
127 Ibid. 127 Ibid.
128 Ibid. 128 Ibid.
129 E.O. 12532. 129 E.O. 12532.
130 E.O. 12170. 130 E.O. 12170.
131 See, e.g., E.O. 12513. 131 See, e.g., E.O. 12513.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
21 21

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

corporations, or terrorist organizations, and individuals, such as supporters of terrorism, suspected corporations, or terrorist organizations, and individuals, such as supporters of terrorism, suspected
narcotics traffickers, or associates of the International Criminal Court.132 narcotics traffickers, or associates of the International Criminal Court.132
The first instances of orders directed at groups or persons were limited to The first instances of orders directed at groups or persons were limited to foreign groups or groups or
persons. For example, in Executive Order 12978, President Bill Clinton targeted specific “foreign persons. For example, in Executive Order 12978, President Bill Clinton targeted specific “foreign
persons” and “persons determined .persons” and “persons determined . . .. to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of” . to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of”
such foreign persons.133 An excerpt is included below: such foreign persons.133 An excerpt is included below:
Except to the extent provided in section 203(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)) and in Except to the extent provided in section 203(b) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)) and in
regulations, orders, directives, orregulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant tolicenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and this order, and
notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the
effective date, I hereby order blocked all property and interests in property that are or effective date, I hereby order blocked all property and interests in property that are or
hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession
or control of United States persons, of: or control of United States persons, of:
(a) (a)
the the foreign persons listed in the Annex to this order; listed in the Annex to this order;
(b) (b)
foreign persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation
with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State: with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State:
(i) (i)
to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in
Colombia; or Colombia; or
(ii) (ii)
materially to assist in, or provide financial or technological support for materially to assist in, or provide financial or technological support for
or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons
designated in or pursuant to this order; and designated in or pursuant to this order; and
(c) (c)
persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the
Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to act Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to act
for or on behalf of, persons designated in or pursuant to this order.134 for or on behalf of, persons designated in or pursuant to this order.134
However, in 2001, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13219 to target “persons However, in 2001, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13219 to target “persons
who threaten international stabilization efforts in the Western Balkans.” While the order was who threaten international stabilization efforts in the Western Balkans.” While the order was
similar to that of Executive Order 12978, it removed the qualifier “foreign.” As such, persons in similar to that of Executive Order 12978, it removed the qualifier “foreign.” As such, persons in
the United States, including U.S. citizens, could be targets of the order.135 The following is an the United States, including U.S. citizens, could be targets of the order.135 The following is an
excerpt of the order: excerpt of the order:
Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C.
1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of
2000 (title IX, P.L. 106-387), and in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may 2000 (title IX, P.L. 106-387), and in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may
hereafter be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or hereafter be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or
any license or permit granted prior to the effective date, all property and interests in any license or permit granted prior to the effective date, all property and interests in
property of: property of:
(i) (i)
the persons listed in the Annex to this order; and listed in the Annex to this order; and

132 See, e.g., E.O. 12865 (prohibiting transactions with the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola 132 See, e.g., E.O. 12865 (prohibiting transactions with the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola
(UNITA), the second largest political party in Angola); E.O. 13129 (prohibiting transactions with the Taliban); E.O. (UNITA), the second largest political party in Angola); E.O. 13129 (prohibiting transactions with the Taliban); E.O.
13224 (prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism); E.O. 12978 13224 (prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism); E.O. 12978
(prohibiting transactions with certain narcotics traffickers); E.O. 13928 (blocking property of certain persons associated (prohibiting transactions with certain narcotics traffickers); E.O. 13928 (blocking property of certain persons associated
with the International Criminal Court). See also CRS Insight IN11428, with the International Criminal Court). See also CRS Insight IN11428, International Criminal Court: U.S. Sanctions in
Response to Investigation of War Crimes in Afghanistan, by Matthew C. Weed and Dianne E. Rennack. , by Matthew C. Weed and Dianne E. Rennack.
133 E.O. 12978, Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions With Significant Narcotics Traffickers (October 21, 133 E.O. 12978, Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions With Significant Narcotics Traffickers (October 21,
1995). 1995).
134 Ibid. Emphasis added. 134 Ibid. Emphasis added.
135 See, e.g., Aaran Money Wire Serv., Inc. v. United States, 135 See, e.g., Aaran Money Wire Serv., Inc. v. United States, , 2003 WL 22143735, at *3 (D. Minn. August 21, 2003). 2003 WL 22143735, at *3 (D. Minn. August 21, 2003).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
22 22

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

(ii) (ii)
persons designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, because they are found: Secretary of State, because they are found:
(A) (A)
to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of
violence ... 136 violence ... 136
Several subsequent invocations of IEEPA have similarly not been limited to foreign targets.137 Several subsequent invocations of IEEPA have similarly not been limited to foreign targets.137
In sum, presidential emergency use of IEEPA was directed at foreign states initially, with targets In sum, presidential emergency use of IEEPA was directed at foreign states initially, with targets
that were delimited by geography or nationality. Since the 1990s, however, Presidents have that were delimited by geography or nationality. Since the 1990s, however, Presidents have
expanded the scope of their declarations to include groups and individual persons, regardless of expanded the scope of their declarations to include groups and individual persons, regardless of
nationality or geographic location, who are engaged in specific activities. nationality or geographic location, who are engaged in specific activities.
Congressional Nonemergency Use and Retroactive Approval
While IEEPA is often categorized as an emergency statute, Congress has used IEEPA outside of While IEEPA is often categorized as an emergency statute, Congress has used IEEPA outside of
the context of national emergencies. When Congress legislates sanctions, it often authorizes or the context of national emergencies. When Congress legislates sanctions, it often authorizes or
directs the President to use IEEPA authorities to impose those sanctions. directs the President to use IEEPA authorities to impose those sanctions.
In the Nicaragua Human Rights and Anticorruption Act of 2018, for example, Congress directed In the Nicaragua Human Rights and Anticorruption Act of 2018, for example, Congress directed
the President to exercise “all powers granted to the President [by IEEPA] to the extent necessary the President to exercise “all powers granted to the President [by IEEPA] to the extent necessary
to block and prohibit [certain transactions].”138 Penalties for violations by a person of a measure to block and prohibit [certain transactions].”138 Penalties for violations by a person of a measure
imposed by the President under the act would be, likewise, determined by reference to IEEPA.139 imposed by the President under the act would be, likewise, determined by reference to IEEPA.139
This trend has been long-term. Congress first directed the President to make use of IEEPA This trend has been long-term. Congress first directed the President to make use of IEEPA
authorities in 1986 as part of an effort to assist Haiti in the recovery of assets illegally diverted by authorities in 1986 as part of an effort to assist Haiti in the recovery of assets illegally diverted by
its former government. That statute provided its former government. That statute provided
The President shall exercise the authorities granted by section 203 of the International The President shall exercise the authorities granted by section 203 of the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act [50 USC 1702] to assist the Government of Haiti in its Emergency Economic Powers Act [50 USC 1702] to assist the Government of Haiti in its
efforts to recover, through legal proceedings, assets which the Government of Haiti alleges efforts to recover, through legal proceedings, assets which the Government of Haiti alleges
were stolen by former president-for-life Jean Claude Duvalier and other individuals were stolen by former president-for-life Jean Claude Duvalier and other individuals
associated with the Duvalier regime. This subsection shall be deemed to satisfy the associated with the Duvalier regime. This subsection shall be deemed to satisfy the
requirements of section 202 of that Act. [50 USC 1701]140 requirements of section 202 of that Act. [50 USC 1701]140
In directing the President to use IEEPA, Congress waived the requirement that he declare a In directing the President to use IEEPA, Congress waived the requirement that he declare a
national emergency (and none was declared).141 national emergency (and none was declared).141
Subsequent legislation has followed this general pattern, with slight variations in language and Subsequent legislation has followed this general pattern, with slight variations in language and
specificity.142 The following is an example of current legislative language that has appeared in specificity.142 The following is an example of current legislative language that has appeared in
several recent statutes: several recent statutes:

136 E.O. 13219, Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans 136 E.O. 13219, Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans
(June 26, 2001). Emphasis added. (June 26, 2001). Emphasis added.
137 See, e.g., E.O. 13224, Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to 137 See, e.g., E.O. 13224, Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to
Commit, or Support Terrorism (September 23, 2001); E.O. 13396, Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing Commit, or Support Terrorism (September 23, 2001); E.O. 13396, Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing
to the Conflict in Côte d'Ivoire (February 7, 2006). to the Conflict in Côte d'Ivoire (February 7, 2006).
138 P.L. 115-335 (December 20, 2018), 132 Stat. 5019. 138 P.L. 115-335 (December 20, 2018), 132 Stat. 5019.
139 Ibid. 139 Ibid.
140 P.L. 99-529 (October 24, 1986), 100 Stat. 3010. 140 P.L. 99-529 (October 24, 1986), 100 Stat. 3010.
141 Ibid. 141 Ibid.
142 See, e.g., National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, P.L. 102-484 (October 23, 1992), 106 Stat. 142 See, e.g., National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, P.L. 102-484 (October 23, 1992), 106 Stat.
2315; Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, P.L. 104-1172 (August 5, 1996), 110 Stat. 1541; Strom Thurmond 2315; Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, P.L. 104-1172 (August 5, 1996), 110 Stat. 1541; Strom Thurmond
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, P.L. 105-261 (October 17, 1998) 112 Stat. 1920; Victims of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, P.L. 105-261 (October 17, 1998) 112 Stat. 1920; Victims of
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, P.L. 106-386 (October 28, 2000), 114 Stat. 1464; Comprehensive Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, P.L. 106-386 (October 28, 2000), 114 Stat. 1464; Comprehensive
(continued...) (continued...)
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
23 23

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall impose the sanctions described in subsection (b) (a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall impose the sanctions described in subsection (b)
with respect to— with respect to—
... ...
(b) SANCTIONS DESCRIBED.— (b) SANCTIONS DESCRIBED.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The sanctions described in this subsection are the following: (1) IN GENERAL.—The sanctions described in this subsection are the following:
(A) ASSET BLOCKING.—The exercise of all powers granted to the President (A) ASSET BLOCKING.—The exercise of all powers granted to the President
by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)
to the extent necessary to block and prohibit all transactions in all property and to the extent necessary to block and prohibit all transactions in all property and
interests in property of a person determined by the President to be subject to interests in property of a person determined by the President to be subject to
subsection (a) if such property and interests in property are in the United States, subsection (a) if such property and interests in property are in the United States,
come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of
a United States person. a United States person.
... ...
(2) PENALTIES.—A person that violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or (2) PENALTIES.—A person that violates, attempts to violate, conspires to violate, or
causes a violation of paragraph (1)(A) or any regulation, license, or order issued to causes a violation of paragraph (1)(A) or any regulation, license, or order issued to
carry out paragraph (1)(A) shall be subject to the penalties set forth in subsections (b) carry out paragraph (1)(A) shall be subject to the penalties set forth in subsections (b)
and (c) of section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 and (c) of section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1705) to the same extent as a person that commits an unlawful act described in U.S.C. 1705) to the same extent as a person that commits an unlawful act described in
subsection (a) of that section.143 subsection (a) of that section.143
Congress has also expressed, retroactively, its approval of unilateral presidential invocations of Congress has also expressed, retroactively, its approval of unilateral presidential invocations of
IEEPA in the context of a national emergency. In the Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities IEEPA in the context of a national emergency. In the Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities
Act of 2017, for example, Congress declared, “It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Act of 2017, for example, Congress declared, “It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Secretary of State should continue to implement Executive Order No. 13382.”144 Treasury and the Secretary of State should continue to implement Executive Order No. 13382.”144
Presidents, however, have also used IEEPA to preempt or modify parallel congressional activity. Presidents, however, have also used IEEPA to preempt or modify parallel congressional activity.
On September 9, 1985, President Reagan, finding “that the policies and actions of the On September 9, 1985, President Reagan, finding “that the policies and actions of the
Government of South Africa constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy Government of South Africa constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy
~~and economy of the United States,” declared a national emergency and limited transactions with~~

Peace in Sudan Act of 2004, P.L. 108-497 (December 23, 2004), 118 Stat. 4012; Darfur Peace and Accountability Act Peace in Sudan Act of 2004, P.L. 108-497 (December 23, 2004), 118 Stat. 4012; Darfur Peace and Accountability Act
of 2006, P.L. 109-344 (October 13, 2006), 120 Stat. 1869; Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and of 2006, P.L. 109-344 (October 13, 2006), 120 Stat. 1869; Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and
Divestment Act of 2010, P.L. 111-195 (July 1, 2010) 124 Stat 1312; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Divestment Act of 2010, P.L. 111-195 (July 1, 2010) 124 Stat 1312; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012, P.L. 112-81, December 31, 2011, 125 Stat 1298; Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of Year 2012, P.L. 112-81, December 31, 2011, 125 Stat 1298; Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of
2012, P.L. 112-158 (August 10, 2012) 126 Stat 1214 (makes some of the most extensive use of IEEPA); Russia and 2012, P.L. 112-158 (August 10, 2012) 126 Stat 1214 (makes some of the most extensive use of IEEPA); Russia and
Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, P.L. 112-208 Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, P.L. 112-208
(December 14, 2012) 126 Stat 1496; Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act (December 14, 2012) 126 Stat 1496; Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
P.L. 113-291 (December 19, 2014), 128 Stat. 3293; Hizballah International Financing Prevention Amendments Act of P.L. 113-291 (December 19, 2014), 128 Stat. 3293; Hizballah International Financing Prevention Amendments Act of
2018, P.L. 115-272 (October 25, 2018) 132 Stat. 4144. 2018, P.L. 115-272 (October 25, 2018) 132 Stat. 4144.
143 Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014, P.L. 113-95 143 Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014, P.L. 113-95
(April 3, 2014) 128 Stat. 1088. Identical language can be found, for example, in: The Venezuela Defense of Human (April 3, 2014) 128 Stat. 1088. Identical language can be found, for example, in: The Venezuela Defense of Human
Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014, P.L. 113-278 (December 18, 2014) 128 Stat. 3011; National Defense Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014, P.L. 113-278 (December 18, 2014) 128 Stat. 3011; National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, P.L. 114-328 (December 23, 2016) 130 Stat. 2000. Similar language can be Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, P.L. 114-328 (December 23, 2016) 130 Stat. 2000. Similar language can be
found, for example, in: the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016, P.L. 114-122 (February 18, found, for example, in: the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016, P.L. 114-122 (February 18,
2016) 130 Stat. 93; the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act, P.L. 115-44 (August 2, 2017) 130 2016) 130 Stat. 93; the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act, P.L. 115-44 (August 2, 2017) 130
Stat 886. Depending on the circumstance, Congress also includes a clause waiving the requirement to declare a national Stat 886. Depending on the circumstance, Congress also includes a clause waiving the requirement to declare a national
emergency. See, e.g., P.L. 115-44; P.L. 115-272 (“(1) ASSET BLOCKING.—The exercise of all powers granted to the emergency. See, e.g., P.L. 115-44; P.L. 115-272 (“(1) ASSET BLOCKING.—The exercise of all powers granted to the
President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (except that the requirements President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (except that the requirements
of section 202 of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1701) shall not apply) to the extent necessary to block and prohibit all of section 202 of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1701) shall not apply) to the extent necessary to block and prohibit all
transactions [ ... ].”). transactions [ ... ].”).
144 Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017, title I of the Countering America’s Adversaries through 144 Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017, title I of the Countering America’s Adversaries through
Sanctions Act, P.L. 115-44 (August 2, 2017) §104 (22 U.S.C. Sanctions Act, P.L. 115-44 (August 2, 2017) §104 (22 U.S.C. §9403); E.O. 13382 of June 28, 2005, “Blocking Property 9403); E.O. 13382 of June 28, 2005, “Blocking Property
of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters,” 70 of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters,” 70 Federal Register 38,567 (July 1, 2005). 38,567 (July 1, 2005).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
24 24

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

and economy of the United States,” declared a national emergency and limited transactions with South Africa.145 The President declared the emergency despite the fact that legislation limiting South Africa.145 The President declared the emergency despite the fact that legislation limiting
transactions with South Africa was quickly making its way through Congress.146 In remarks about transactions with South Africa was quickly making its way through Congress.146 In remarks about
the declaration, President Reagan stated that he had been opposed to the bill contemplated by the declaration, President Reagan stated that he had been opposed to the bill contemplated by
Congress because unspecified provisions “would have harmed the very people [the U.S. was] Congress because unspecified provisions “would have harmed the very people [the U.S. was]
trying to help.”147 Nevertheless, members of the press at the time148 (and at least one scholar trying to help.”147 Nevertheless, members of the press at the time148 (and at least one scholar
since)149 noted that the limitations imposed by the executive order and the provisions in since)149 noted that the limitations imposed by the executive order and the provisions in
legislation then winding its way through Congress were “substantially similar.”150 legislation then winding its way through Congress were “substantially similar.”150
Current Uses of IEEPA
In general, IEEPA has served as an integral part of the postwar international sanctions regime.151 In general, IEEPA has served as an integral part of the postwar international sanctions regime.151
The President, either through a declaration of emergency or via statutory direction, has used The President, either through a declaration of emergency or via statutory direction, has used
IEEPA to limit economic transactions in support of administrative and congressional national IEEPA to limit economic transactions in support of administrative and congressional national
security and foreign policy goals. Much of the action taken pursuant to IEEPA has involved security and foreign policy goals. Much of the action taken pursuant to IEEPA has involved
blocking transactions and freezing assets. blocking transactions and freezing assets.
Once the President declares that a national emergency exists, he may use the authority in Section Once the President declares that a national emergency exists, he may use the authority in Section
203 of IEEPA (Grants of Authorities; 50 U.S.C. §1702) to investigate, regulate, or prohibit 203 of IEEPA (Grants of Authorities; 50 U.S.C. §1702) to investigate, regulate, or prohibit
foreign exchange transactions, transfers of credit, transfers of securities, payments, and may take foreign exchange transactions, transfers of credit, transfers of securities, payments, and may take
specified actions relating to property in which a foreign country or person has interest—freezing specified actions relating to property in which a foreign country or person has interest—freezing
assets, blocking property and interests in property, prohibiting U.S. persons from entering into assets, blocking property and interests in property, prohibiting U.S. persons from entering into
transactions related to frozen assets and blocked property, and in some instances denying entry transactions related to frozen assets and blocked property, and in some instances denying entry
into the United States. into the United States.
Pursuant to Section 203, Presidents have Pursuant to Section 203, Presidents have
• prohibited transactions with and blocked property of those designated as • prohibited transactions with and blocked property of those designated as
engaging in malicious cyber-enabled activities, including “interfering with or engaging in malicious cyber-enabled activities, including “interfering with or
undermining election processes or institutions” [Executive Order 13694 of April undermining election processes or institutions” [Executive Order 13694 of April
1, 2015, as amended; 50 U.S.C. §1701 note. See also Executive Order 13848 of 1, 2015, as amended; 50 U.S.C. §1701 note. See also Executive Order 13848 of
September 12, 2018; 83 F.R. 46843.]; September 12, 2018; 83 F.R. 46843.];
• prohibited transactions with and blocked property of those designated as illicit • prohibited transactions with and blocked property of those designated as illicit
narcotics traffickers including foreign drug kingpins; narcotics traffickers including foreign drug kingpins;
• prohibited transactions with and blocked property of those designated as • prohibited transactions with and blocked property of those designated as
engaging in human rights abuses or significant corruption; engaging in human rights abuses or significant corruption;
• prohibited transactions related to illicit trade in rough diamonds; • prohibited transactions related to illicit trade in rough diamonds;
• prohibited transactions with and blocked property of those designated as • prohibited transactions with and blocked property of those designated as
Transnational Criminal Organizations; Transnational Criminal Organizations;
• prohibited transactions with “those who disrupt the Middle East peace process;” • prohibited transactions with “those who disrupt the Middle East peace process;”
~~• prohibited transactions related to overflights with certain nations;~~

145 E.O. 12532. 145 E.O. 12532.
146 99 H.R. 1460; See also P.L. 99-440 (October 2, 1986). 146 99 H.R. 1460; See also P.L. 99-440 (October 2, 1986).
147 Economic Sanctions Against South Africa, Remarks and a Question-and-Answer-Session with Reporters on Signing 147 Economic Sanctions Against South Africa, Remarks and a Question-and-Answer-Session with Reporters on Signing
E.O. 12532, September 9, 1985, 21 E.O. 12532, September 9, 1985, 21 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1048, 1050. . 1048, 1050.
148 See, e.g., questions by Helen Thomas, United Press International, 148 See, e.g., questions by Helen Thomas, United Press International, ~~Ibid~~Ibid.,, 1050.1050.
149 Carter, 149 Carter, International Economic Sanctions, p. 201. , p. 201.
150 Ibid. 150 Ibid.
151 Ibid., ch. 9. 151 Ibid., ch. 9.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
25 25

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

• • prohibited transactions related to overflights with certain nations; • instituted and maintained maritime restrictions; instituted and maintained maritime restrictions;
• prohibited transactions related to weapons of mass destruction, in coordination • prohibited transactions related to weapons of mass destruction, in coordination
with export controls authorized by the Arms Export Control Act and the Export with export controls authorized by the Arms Export Control Act and the Export
Administration Act of 1979,152 and in furtherance of efforts to deter the weapons Administration Act of 1979,152 and in furtherance of efforts to deter the weapons
programs of specific countries (i.e., Iran, North Korea); programs of specific countries (i.e., Iran, North Korea);
• prohibited transactions with those designated as “persons who commit, threaten • prohibited transactions with those designated as “persons who commit, threaten
to commit, or support terrorism;” to commit, or support terrorism;”
• maintained the dual-use export control system at times when its then-underlying • maintained the dual-use export control system at times when its then-underlying
authority, the Export Administration Act authority had lapsed; authority, the Export Administration Act authority had lapsed;
• blocked property of, and prohibited transactions with, those designated as • blocked property of, and prohibited transactions with, those designated as
engaged in cyber activities that compromise critical infrastructures including engaged in cyber activities that compromise critical infrastructures including
election processes or the private sector’s trade secrets; election processes or the private sector’s trade secrets;
• blocked property of, and prohibited transactions with, those designated as • blocked property of, and prohibited transactions with, those designated as
responsible for serious human rights abuse or engaged in corruption; responsible for serious human rights abuse or engaged in corruption;
• blocked certain property of, and prohibited transactions with, foreign nationals of • blocked certain property of, and prohibited transactions with, foreign nationals of
specific countries and those designated as engaged in activities that constitute an specific countries and those designated as engaged in activities that constitute an
extraordinary threat; extraordinary threat;
• prohibited transactions with those who pose “an undue risk of sabotage to or • prohibited transactions with those who pose “an undue risk of sabotage to or
subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution,
installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications
technology or services in the United States.” technology or services in the United States.”
No President has used IEEPA to place tariffs on imported products from a specific country or on No President has used IEEPA to place tariffs on imported products from a specific country or on
products imported to the United States in general. However, IEEPA’s similarity to TWEA, products imported to the United States in general. However, IEEPA’s similarity to TWEA,
coupled with its relatively frequent use to ban imports and exports, suggests that such an action coupled with its relatively frequent use to ban imports and exports, suggests that such an action
could happen.153 In addition, no President has used IEEPA to enact a policy that was primarily could happen.153 In addition, no President has used IEEPA to enact a policy that was primarily
domestic in effect. Some scholars argue, however, that the interconnectedness of the global domestic in effect. Some scholars argue, however, that the interconnectedness of the global
economy means it would probably be permissible to use IEEPA to take an action that was economy means it would probably be permissible to use IEEPA to take an action that was
primarily domestic in effect.154 primarily domestic in effect.154
IEEPA vs Section 232 for Imposing Tariffs in Response to a
National Security Threat
While a President could likely use IEEPA to impose additional tariffs on imported goods as President Nixon did While a President could likely use IEEPA to impose additional tariffs on imported goods as President Nixon did
under TWEA, no President has done so. Instead, Presidents have turned to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion under TWEA, no President has done so. Instead, Presidents have turned to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion
Act of 1962 in cases of purported emergency.155 Section 232 provides that if the Secretary of Commerce “finds Act of 1962 in cases of purported emergency.155 Section 232 provides that if the Secretary of Commerce “finds
that an article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to that an article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to
~~threaten to impair the national security,” then the President may take action to adjust the imports such that they~~

152 Legislation to replace the Export Administration Act was passed as part of the John S. McCain National Defense 152 Legislation to replace the Export Administration Act was passed as part of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, P.L. 115-232 (August 13, 2018), as the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, P.L. 115-232 (August 13, 2018), as the Export Control Reform Act of 2018,
Title XVII(B). Title XVII(B).
153 President Nixon, in effect, used TWEA to place a 10% ad valorem tariff on all imports to the U.S. Pres. 153 President Nixon, in effect, used TWEA to place a 10% ad valorem tariff on all imports to the U.S. Pres.
Proclamation No. 4074 (January 21, 1971; United States v. Yoshida Int'l, Inc., 526 F.2d 560, 584 (C.C.P.A. 1975); See Proclamation No. 4074 (January 21, 1971; United States v. Yoshida Int'l, Inc., 526 F.2d 560, 584 (C.C.P.A. 1975); See
also Jason Luong, “Forcing Constraint: The Case for Amending the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,” also Jason Luong, “Forcing Constraint: The Case for Amending the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,”
Texas Law Review 78 (2000), p. 1190. 78 (2000), p. 1190.
154 “The International Emergency Economic Powers Act,” p. 1111; 154 “The International Emergency Economic Powers Act,” p. 1111; ~~Patrick A.~~ Thronson, “Toward Comprehensive Thronson, “Toward Comprehensive
Reform of America’s Emergency Law Regime,” Reform of America’s Emergency Law Regime,” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 46, no. 2 (2013), pp.
pp. 757-758. 757-758.
155 Trade Expansion Act of 1962, P.L. 87-794, §232(b)–(c), 76 Stat. 877 (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. §1862(b)– 155 Trade Expansion Act of 1962, P.L. 87-794, §232(b)–(c), 76 Stat. 877 (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. §1862(b)–
(c)). (c)).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
26 26

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

threaten to impair the national security,” then the President may take action to adjust the imports such that they wil no longer impair national security.156 While the use of Section 232 requires findings by the Secretary of wil no longer impair national security.156 While the use of Section 232 requires findings by the Secretary of
Commerce, the restrictions and reporting requirements of the NEA do not apply. For that reason, Section 232 Commerce, the restrictions and reporting requirements of the NEA do not apply. For that reason, Section 232
may be an attractive source of presidential authority for imposing additional tariffs for national security purposes. may be an attractive source of presidential authority for imposing additional tariffs for national security purposes.
Using this authority, President Donald J. Trump applied additional duties on steel and aluminum in March 2018.157 Using this authority, President Donald J. Trump applied additional duties on steel and aluminum in March 2018.157
However, IEEPA is not subject to the same procedural restraints as Section 232. As no investigation is required, However, IEEPA is not subject to the same procedural restraints as Section 232. As no investigation is required,
IEEPA authorities can be invoked at any time in response to a national emergency based on an “unusual and IEEPA authorities can be invoked at any time in response to a national emergency based on an “unusual and
extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States.” As such, IEEPA extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States.” As such, IEEPA
may be a source of authority for the President to impose a tariff quickly. On May 30, 2019, President Trump may be a source of authority for the President to impose a tariff quickly. On May 30, 2019, President Trump
announced his intention to use IEEPA to impose and gradually increase a five percent tariff on all goods imported announced his intention to use IEEPA to impose and gradually increase a five percent tariff on all goods imported
from Mexico until “the il egal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico.”158 The tariffs from Mexico until “the il egal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico.”158 The tariffs
were scheduled to be implemented on June 10, 2019, with five percent increases to take effect at the beginning of were scheduled to be implemented on June 10, 2019, with five percent increases to take effect at the beginning of
each subsequent month. On June 7, 2019, President Trump announced that that “The Tariffs scheduled to be each subsequent month. On June 7, 2019, President Trump announced that that “The Tariffs scheduled to be
implemented by the U.S. [on June 10], against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended.”159 implemented by the U.S. [on June 10], against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended.”159
Use of Assets Frozen under IEEPA
The ultimate disposition of assets frozen under IEEPA may serve as an important part of the The ultimate disposition of assets frozen under IEEPA may serve as an important part of the
leverage economic sanctions provide to influence the behavior of foreign actors. The President leverage economic sanctions provide to influence the behavior of foreign actors. The President
and Congress have each at times determined the fate of blocked assets to further foreign policy and Congress have each at times determined the fate of blocked assets to further foreign policy
goals. goals.
Presidential Use of Foreign Assets Frozen under IEEPA
Presidents have used frozen assets as a bargaining tool during foreign policy crises and to bring a Presidents have used frozen assets as a bargaining tool during foreign policy crises and to bring a
resolution to such crises, at times by unfreezing the assets, returning them to the sanctioned entity, resolution to such crises, at times by unfreezing the assets, returning them to the sanctioned entity,
or channeling them to a follow-on government. The following are some examples of how or channeling them to a follow-on government. The following are some examples of how
Presidents have used blocked assets to resolve foreign policy issues. Presidents have used blocked assets to resolve foreign policy issues.
President Carter invoked authority under IEEPA to impose trade sanctions against Iran, freezing President Carter invoked authority under IEEPA to impose trade sanctions against Iran, freezing
Iranian assets in the United States, in response to the hostage crisis in 1979.160 On January 19, Iranian assets in the United States, in response to the hostage crisis in 1979.160 On January 19,
1981, the United States and Iran entered into a series of executive agreements brokered by 1981, the United States and Iran entered into a series of executive agreements brokered by
Algeria under which the hostages were freed and the frozen assets were distributed to various Algeria under which the hostages were freed and the frozen assets were distributed to various
entities.161 Of the blocked assets, the agreements directed $5.1 billion to repay outstanding U.S. entities.161 Of the blocked assets, the agreements directed $5.1 billion to repay outstanding U.S.

156 Ibid.; CRS In Focus IF10667, 156 Ibid.; CRS In Focus IF10667, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, by Rachel F. Fefer and Vivian C. , by Rachel F. Fefer and Vivian C.
Jones; CRS Report R44707, Jones; CRS Report R44707, Presidential Authority over Trade: Imposing Tariffs and Duties, by Caitlain Devereaux , by Caitlain Devereaux
Lewis. Lewis.
157 Procl. 9704, 83 157 Procl. 9704, 83 Federal Register 11,619 (March 15, 2019); Procl. 9705, 83 11,619 (March 15, 2019); Procl. 9705, 83 Federal Register 13,361 (March 15, 13,361 (March 15,
2019). CRS Report R45249, 2019). CRS Report R45249, Section 232 Investigations: Overview and Issues for Congress, coordinated by Rachel F. , coordinated by Rachel F.
Fefer and Vivian C. Jones. Fefer and Vivian C. Jones.
158 Statement from the President Regarding Emergency Measures to Address the Border Crisis, May 30, 2019, 158 Statement from the President Regarding Emergency Measures to Address the Border Crisis, May 30, 2019,
available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-regarding-emergency-measures-available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-regarding-emergency-measures-
address-border-crisis/. address-border-crisis/.
159 President Donald J. Trump, Twitter Post, June 7, 2018, 5:31 p.m., https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/. 159 President Donald J. Trump, Twitter Post, June 7, 2018, 5:31 p.m., https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/.
1137155056044826626. The suspension preceded the release of a U.S. Mexico Joint Declaration on migration. 1137155056044826626. The suspension preceded the release of a U.S. Mexico Joint Declaration on migration.
Department of State, Office of the Spokesperson, U.S.-Mexico Joint Declaration, June 7, 2019, available at Department of State, Office of the Spokesperson, U.S.-Mexico Joint Declaration, June 7, 2019, available at
https://www.state.gov/u-s-mexico-joint-declaration/. https://www.state.gov/u-s-mexico-joint-declaration/.
160 E.O. 12170, 44 160 E.O. 12170, 44 Federal Register 65,729 (November 14, 1979). 65,729 (November 14, 1979).
161 The Algiers Accords comprise the following five documents: The Declaration of the Government of the Democratic 161 The Algiers Accords comprise the following five documents: The Declaration of the Government of the Democratic
and Popular Republic of Algeria, January 19, 1981, 81 Dep’t St. Bull., No. 2047 1, 1 (1981) [hereinafter “General and Popular Republic of Algeria, January 19, 1981, 81 Dep’t St. Bull., No. 2047 1, 1 (1981) [hereinafter “General
Declaration”], reprinted in 1 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 3; The Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Declaration”], reprinted in 1 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 3; The Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and
Popular Republic of Algeria Concerning the Settlement of Claims by the Government of the United States of America Popular Republic of Algeria Concerning the Settlement of Claims by the Government of the United States of America
~~and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, January 19, 1981, 81 Dep't St. Bull., No. 2047, at 3, reprinted in 1~~
(continued...) (continued...)
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
27 27

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

bank loans to Iran, $2.8 billion returned to Iran, $1 billion transferred into a security account in bank loans to Iran, $2.8 billion returned to Iran, $1 billion transferred into a security account in
the Hague to pay other U.S. claims against Iran as arbitrated by the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal the Hague to pay other U.S. claims against Iran as arbitrated by the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal
(IUSCT), and $2 billion remained blocked pending further agreement with Iran or decision of the (IUSCT), and $2 billion remained blocked pending further agreement with Iran or decision of the
Tribunal. The United States also froze the assets of the former Shah’s estate along with those of Tribunal. The United States also froze the assets of the former Shah’s estate along with those of
the Shah’s close relatives pending litigation in U.S. courts to ascertain Iran’s right to their return. the Shah’s close relatives pending litigation in U.S. courts to ascertain Iran’s right to their return.
Iran’s litigation was unsuccessful, and none of the contested assets were returned to Iran.162 Iran’s litigation was unsuccessful, and none of the contested assets were returned to Iran.162
Presidents have also channeled frozen assets to opposition governments in cases where the United Presidents have also channeled frozen assets to opposition governments in cases where the United
States continued to recognize a previous government that had been removed by coup d’état or States continued to recognize a previous government that had been removed by coup d’état or
otherwise replaced as the legitimate government of a country. For example, after Panamanian otherwise replaced as the legitimate government of a country. For example, after Panamanian
President Eric Arturo Delvalle tried to dismiss de facto military ruler General Manuel Noriega President Eric Arturo Delvalle tried to dismiss de facto military ruler General Manuel Noriega
from his post as head of the Panamanian Defense Forces, which resulted in Delvalle’s own from his post as head of the Panamanian Defense Forces, which resulted in Delvalle’s own
dismissal by the Panamanian Legislative Assembly, President Reagan recognized Delvalle as the dismissal by the Panamanian Legislative Assembly, President Reagan recognized Delvalle as the
legitimate head of government and instituted economic sanctions against the Noriega regime.163 legitimate head of government and instituted economic sanctions against the Noriega regime.163
As part of these sanctions, the Department of State, in February 1988, advised U.S. banks not to As part of these sanctions, the Department of State, in February 1988, advised U.S. banks not to
disburse funds to the Noriega regime, and Delvalle obtained court orders permitting him access to disburse funds to the Noriega regime, and Delvalle obtained court orders permitting him access to
those funds.164 In April 1988, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12635, which “blocked those funds.164 In April 1988, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12635, which “blocked
all property and interests in property of the Government of Panama that are in the United States ... all property and interests in property of the Government of Panama that are in the United States ...
or that come within the possession or control of persons located within the United States.”165 In or that come within the possession or control of persons located within the United States.”165 In
June 1988, the Department of the Treasury issued regulations directing most payments from the June 1988, the Department of the Treasury issued regulations directing most payments from the
U.S. government owed to Panama and all payments owed “to Panama from the operation of the U.S. government owed to Panama and all payments owed “to Panama from the operation of the
Panama Canal Commission” to an escrow account established at the Federal Reserve Bank of Panama Canal Commission” to an escrow account established at the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York.166 One escrow account contained funds for the payment of operating expenses of the New York.166 One escrow account contained funds for the payment of operating expenses of the
Delvalle government.167 After the U.S. invasion of Panama ended in early 1990, President George Delvalle government.167 After the U.S. invasion of Panama ended in early 1990, President George
H.W. Bush lifted economic sanctions against the country168 and used some of the frozen funds to H.W. Bush lifted economic sanctions against the country168 and used some of the frozen funds to
repay debts owed by Panama to foreign creditors, with remaining funds turned over to the repay debts owed by Panama to foreign creditors, with remaining funds turned over to the
successor government.169 successor government.169
The Obama and Trump Administrations took similar actions in response to the political situation The Obama and Trump Administrations took similar actions in response to the political situation
in Venezuela. President Barack Obama initially froze Venezuelan government assets in 2015 in Venezuela. President Barack Obama initially froze Venezuelan government assets in 2015

and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, January 19, 1981, 81 Dep't St. Bull., No. 2047, at 3, reprinted in 1 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 9; Undertakings of the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 9; Undertakings of the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran with Respect to the Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Islamic Republic of Iran with Respect to the Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of
Algeria, 19 January 1981, 81 Dep't St. Bull., No. 2047, at 4, reprinted in 1 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 13; Escrow Algeria, 19 January 1981, 81 Dep't St. Bull., No. 2047, at 4, reprinted in 1 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 13; Escrow
Agreement Among the United States, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Bank Markazi Iran, and the Banque Agreement Among the United States, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Bank Markazi Iran, and the Banque
Centrale d'Algerie, January 20, 1981, 81 Dep't St. Bull., No. 2047, at 6, reprinted in 1 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 16; and Centrale d'Algerie, January 20, 1981, 81 Dep't St. Bull., No. 2047, at 6, reprinted in 1 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 16; and
Technical Arrangement Between Banque Centrale d'Algerie and the Governor and Company of the Bank of England Technical Arrangement Between Banque Centrale d'Algerie and the Governor and Company of the Bank of England
and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, January 20, 1981, 81 Dep't St. Bull., No. 2047, at 14, reprinted in 1 Iran-and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, January 20, 1981, 81 Dep't St. Bull., No. 2047, at 14, reprinted in 1 Iran-
U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 20 (hereinafter “Algiers Accords”). U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 20 (hereinafter “Algiers Accords”).
162 Sean D. Murphy, 162 Sean D. Murphy, Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law, 94 Am. J. Int'l L. 677, , 94 Am. J. Int'l L. 677,
704 (October 2000) (explaining that “[a]ll of Iran’s lawsuits in U.S. courts [to recover the Shah’s assets] were 704 (October 2000) (explaining that “[a]ll of Iran’s lawsuits in U.S. courts [to recover the Shah’s assets] were
eventually dismissed, principally on grounds of forum non conveniens”). eventually dismissed, principally on grounds of forum non conveniens”).
163 GAO Review of Economic Sanctions Imposed Against Panama, GAO/T-NSIAD-89-44, 4-5 (July 26, 1989). 163 GAO Review of Economic Sanctions Imposed Against Panama, GAO/T-NSIAD-89-44, 4-5 (July 26, 1989).
164 Ibid164 Ibid~~., p.~~., 5. 5.
165 E.O. 12635, 53 165 E.O. 12635, 53 Federal Register 12,134 (April 8, 1988). 12,134 (April 8, 1988).
166 GAO Report, 166 GAO Report, supra note 159, at 5. note 159, at 5.
167 Ibid.,167 Ibid., p. 7. 7.
168 E.O. 12,710, 55 168 E.O. 12,710, 55 Federal Register 13,099 (April 5, 1990). 13,099 (April 5, 1990).
169 See 1989 Cong. Q. Almanac 607 (reporting that the Department of the Treasury had concluded “that the net amount 169 See 1989 Cong. Q. Almanac 607 (reporting that the Department of the Treasury had concluded “that the net amount
still due Panama, after ‘offsets, was about $200 million”). still due Panama, after ‘offsets, was about $200 million”).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
28 28

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

under IEEPA and the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014.170 In under IEEPA and the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014.170 In
January 2019, the Trump Administration officially recognized Venezuelan opposition leader Juan January 2019, the Trump Administration officially recognized Venezuelan opposition leader Juan
Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president171 and permitted Guaidó access to the frozen Venezuelan Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president171 and permitted Guaidó access to the frozen Venezuelan
government assets that were “held at the United States Federal Reserve and other insured United assets that were “held at the United States Federal Reserve and other insured United
States financial institutions.”172 The Trump Administration also imposed additional sanctions States financial institutions.”172 The Trump Administration also imposed additional sanctions
under IEEPA to freeze the assets of the main Venezuelan state-owned oil company, Petróleos de under IEEPA to freeze the assets of the main Venezuelan state-owned oil company, Petróleos de
Venezuela (Pdvsa),173 which significantly reduced funds available to the regime of Nicolas Venezuela (Pdvsa),173 which significantly reduced funds available to the regime of Nicolas
Maduro.174 The Biden Administration continued to recognize Guaidó’s interim government175 Maduro.174 The Biden Administration continued to recognize Guaidó’s interim government175
until its dissolution in December 2022, and now recognizes the 2015 National Assembly as the until its dissolution in December 2022, and now recognizes the 2015 National Assembly as the
“last remaining democratic institution in Venezuela.”176 The disposition of Venezuelan assets “last remaining democratic institution in Venezuela.”176 The disposition of Venezuelan assets
frozen abroad is uncertain, after negotiations between the Maduro government and the opposition frozen abroad is uncertain, after negotiations between the Maduro government and the opposition
to establish a U.N.-administered fund for humanitarian programs supported by these assets has to establish a U.N.-administered fund for humanitarian programs supported by these assets has
proceeded very slowly since its announcement in November 2022.177 The United States proceeded very slowly since its announcement in November 2022.177 The United States
reportedly assured the U.N. that assets in the fund would be shielded from creditors.178 In reportedly assured the U.N. that assets in the fund would be shielded from creditors.178 In
September 2023, Francisco Palmieri, Chief of Mission of the Venezuelan Affairs Unit at the U.S. September 2023, Francisco Palmieri, Chief of Mission of the Venezuelan Affairs Unit at the U.S.
Embassy to Columbia, repeated past U.S. offers to provide sanctions relief, which could include Embassy to Columbia, repeated past U.S. offers to provide sanctions relief, which could include
unfreezing some assets in the United States, if the Maduro administration allows for the release of unfreezing some assets in the United States, if the Maduro administration allows for the release of
political prisoners, allows all opposition candidates to run, and allows international observers to political prisoners, allows all opposition candidates to run, and allows international observers to
monitor the 2024 elections.monitor the 2024 elections.~~179There~~179 There is also precedent for using frozen foreign assets for purposes is also precedent for using frozen foreign assets for purposes
authorized by the U.N. Security Council. After the first war with Iraq, President George H.W. authorized by the U.N. Security Council. After the first war with Iraq, President George H.W.
Bush ordered the transfer of frozen Iraqi assets derived from the sale of Iraqi petroleum held by Bush ordered the transfer of frozen Iraqi assets derived from the sale of Iraqi petroleum held by
U.S. banks to a holding account in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to fulfill “the rights U.S. banks to a holding account in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to fulfill “the rights
and obligations of the and obligations of the ~~United States under U.N. Security Council Resolution No. 778.”180 The~~

170 E.O. 13692, 80 170 E.O. 13692, 80 Federal Register 12,747 (March 8, 2015). For information about current sanctions against 12,747 (March 8, 2015). For information about current sanctions against
Venezuela, see CRS In Focus IF10715, Venezuela, see CRS In Focus IF10715, Venezuela: Overview of U.S. Sanctions Policy, by Clare Ribando Seelke. , by Clare Ribando Seelke.
171 171 President Donald J. Trump Supports the Venezuelan People’s Efforts to Restore Democracy in Their Country, ,
White House Fact Sheet January 29, 2019, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-White House Fact Sheet January 29, 2019, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-
supports-venezuelan-peoples-efforts-restore-democracy-country/. For background of the situation in Venezuela, see supports-venezuelan-peoples-efforts-restore-democracy-country/. For background of the situation in Venezuela, see
CRS Report R44841, CRS Report R44841, Venezuela: Background and U.S. Relations, coordinated by Clare Ribando Seelke. , coordinated by Clare Ribando Seelke.
172 172 Trump Supports the Venezuelan People’s Efforts. .
173 E.O. 13857, 84 173 E.O. 13857, 84 Federal Register 509 (January 25, 2019); 509 (January 25, 2019); Treasury Sanctions Venezuela’s State-Owned Oil
Company Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., U.S. Department of the Treasury (January 28, 2019), https://home.treasury.gov/, U.S. Department of the Treasury (January 28, 2019), https://home.treasury.gov/
news/press-releases/sm594. news/press-releases/sm594.
174 Marianna Parraga, “Venezuela’s oil exports sink to 17-year low, choked by U.S. sanctions,” 174 Marianna Parraga, “Venezuela’s oil exports sink to 17-year low, choked by U.S. sanctions,” Reuters, June 2, 2020, , June 2, 2020,
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-oil-exports/venezuelas-oil-exports-sink-to-17-year-low-choked-by-us-https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-oil-exports/venezuelas-oil-exports-sink-to-17-year-low-choked-by-us-
sanctions-idUSKBN2392SG. sanctions-idUSKBN2392SG.
175 Press Statement, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Recognition of Venezuela’s 2015 National Assembly and Interim 175 Press Statement, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Recognition of Venezuela’s 2015 National Assembly and Interim
President Guaidó, January 4, 2022, https://www.state.gov/u-s-recognition-of-venezuelas-2015-national-assembly-and-President Guaidó, January 4, 2022, https://www.state.gov/u-s-recognition-of-venezuelas-2015-national-assembly-and-
interim-president-guaido/. interim-president-guaido/.
176 Press Statement, U.S. Department of State, Venezuela’s Interim Government and the 2015 National Assembly, 176 Press Statement, U.S. Department of State, Venezuela’s Interim Government and the 2015 National Assembly,
January 3, 2023, https://www.state.gov/venezuelas-interim-government-and-the-2015-national-assembly/. January 3, 2023, https://www.state.gov/venezuelas-interim-government-and-the-2015-national-assembly/.
177 Geoff Ramsey and Ignacia Ulloa Peters, “Getting Venezuela’s historic humanitarian accord up and running,” 177 Geoff Ramsey and Ignacia Ulloa Peters, “Getting Venezuela’s historic humanitarian accord up and running,”
Atlantic Council Issue Brief, August 11, 2023, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-Atlantic Council Issue Brief, August 11, 2023, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-
brief/getting-venezuelas-historic-humanitarian-accord-up-and-running/. For more information, see CRS In Focus brief/getting-venezuelas-historic-humanitarian-accord-up-and-running/. For more information, see CRS In Focus
IF10230, IF10230, Venezuela: Political Crisis and U.S. Policy, by Clare Ribando Seelke. , by Clare Ribando Seelke.
178 Matt Spetalnick, Vivian Sequera and Mayela Armas, “US tells UN it will shield Venezuela humanitarian fund from 178 Matt Spetalnick, Vivian Sequera and Mayela Armas, “US tells UN it will shield Venezuela humanitarian fund from
creditors.” creditors.” Reuters, May, 18, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-tells-un-it-will-shield-venezuela-, May, 18, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-tells-un-it-will-shield-venezuela-
humanitarian-fund-creditors-sources-2023-05-18/. humanitarian-fund-creditors-sources-2023-05-18/.
179 Luz Mely Reyes, “Venezuela 2024: Looking beyond María Corina Machado,” 179 Luz Mely Reyes, “Venezuela 2024: Looking beyond María Corina Machado,” El País, September 6, 2023, , September 6, 2023,
https://english.elpais.com/opinion/2023-09-26/venezuela-2024-looking-beyond-maria-corina-machado.html. https://english.elpais.com/opinion/2023-09-26/venezuela-2024-looking-beyond-maria-corina-machado.html.
~~180 E.O. 12817, 3 C.F.R. §317 (1992). President George H.W. Bush froze Iraqi assets under U.S. jurisdiction pursuant~~
~~(continued...)~~
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
29 29

link to page 17 link to page 17 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

United States under U.N. Security Council Resolution No. 778.”180 The President cited a section of the United Nations Participation Act (UNPA),181 as well as IEEPA, as President cited a section of the United Nations Participation Act (UNPA),181 as well as IEEPA, as
authority to take the action.182 The President ordered the transferred funds to be used to provide authority to take the action.182 The President ordered the transferred funds to be used to provide
humanitarian relief and to finance the United Nations Compensation Commission,183 which was humanitarian relief and to finance the United Nations Compensation Commission,183 which was
established to adjudicate claims against Iraq arising from the invasion.184 Other Iraqi assets established to adjudicate claims against Iraq arising from the invasion.184 Other Iraqi assets
remained frozen and accumulated interest until the United States vested them in 2003 pursuant to remained frozen and accumulated interest until the United States vested them in 2003 pursuant to
IEEPA.185 IEEPA.185
In some cases, the United States has ended sanctions and returned frozen assets to successor In some cases, the United States has ended sanctions and returned frozen assets to successor
governments. For example, as a condition of releasing sanctions, the United States released governments. For example, as a condition of releasing sanctions, the United States released
$237.6 million in frozen funds that had belonged to the Central Bank of the Socialist Federal $237.6 million in frozen funds that had belonged to the Central Bank of the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia to the central banks of the successor states in 2003.186 In 2002, the United Republic of Yugoslavia to the central banks of the successor states in 2003.186 In 2002, the United
States released $217 million in frozen funds that had belonged to the Taliban to the Afghan States released $217 million in frozen funds that had belonged to the Taliban to the Afghan
Interim Authority.187 Interim Authority.187
As of the date of this report, the fate of the Afghan Central Bank (DaB) assets held in the United As of the date of this report, the fate of the Afghan Central Bank (DaB) assets held in the United
States at the time of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021 remains undecided. Some States at the time of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021 remains undecided. Some
victims—including survivors and family members—of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks victims—including survivors and family members—of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
with judgments against the Taliban have obtained a writ of attachment with respect to the with judgments against the Taliban have obtained a writ of attachment with respect to the
assets.188 The Biden Administration subsequently blocked the funds pursuant to IEEPA189 and assets.188 The Biden Administration subsequently blocked the funds pursuant to IEEPA189 and
filed a statement of interest190 asking the district court for permission to make half ($3.5 billion) filed a statement of interest190 asking the district court for permission to make half ($3.5 billion)
of the assets available for transfer under the OFAC license191 issued on behalf of the people of of the assets available for transfer under the OFAC license191 issued on behalf of the people of
Afghanistan to “to address significant humanitarian and economic concerns and to avoid further Afghanistan to “to address significant humanitarian and economic concerns and to avoid further
regional instability and other conditions contrary to the foreign policy interests of the United regional instability and other conditions contrary to the foreign policy interests of the United
States.”192 The other half of the assets would remain blocked to avail the judgment plaintiffs of States.”192 The other half of the assets would remain blocked to avail the judgment plaintiffs of
~~the opportunity to make their case for entitlement to attach them in satisfaction of their~~

180 E.O. 12817, 3 C.F.R. §317 (1992). President George H.W. Bush froze Iraqi assets under U.S. jurisdiction pursuant to IEEPA in response to Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. E.O. 12,722, 55 to IEEPA in response to Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait. E.O. 12,722, 55 Federal Register 31,803 (August 2, 31,803 (August 2,
1990). 1990).
181 22 U.S.C. §287c (2018). The provision authorizes the President to give effect to U.N. Security Council resolutions 181 22 U.S.C. §287c (2018). The provision authorizes the President to give effect to U.N. Security Council resolutions
by “investigat[ing], regulat[ing], or prohibit[ing], in whole or in part, economic relations or rail, sea, air, postal, by “investigat[ing], regulat[ing], or prohibit[ing], in whole or in part, economic relations or rail, sea, air, postal,
telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication between any foreign country or any national thereof or any telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication between any foreign country or any national thereof or any
person therein and the United States or any person subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or involving any property subject person therein and the United States or any person subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or involving any property subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States.” The provision does not explicitly mention asset confiscation. to the jurisdiction of the United States.” The provision does not explicitly mention asset confiscation.
182 E.O. 12817, 57 182 E.O. 12817, 57 Federal Register 48,433 (October 23, 1992). 48,433 (October 23, 1992).
183 See Ronald J. Bettauer, “Establishment of the United Nations Compensation Commission: The U.S. Government 183 See Ronald J. Bettauer, “Establishment of the United Nations Compensation Commission: The U.S. Government
Perspective,” Perspective,” The United Nations Compensation Commission (Leiden: Brill, 1994), p. 35. (Leiden: Brill, 1994), p. 35.
184 S.C. Res. 687, para. 16 (April 8, 1991) (reaffirming that “Iraq ... is liable under international law for any direct loss, 184 S.C. Res. 687, para. 16 (April 8, 1991) (reaffirming that “Iraq ... is liable under international law for any direct loss,
damage, ... or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations, as a result of Iraq’s unlawful invasion and damage, ... or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations, as a result of Iraq’s unlawful invasion and
occupation of Kuwait”; S.C. Res. 692 (May 20, 1991) (establishing the United Nations Compensation Commission occupation of Kuwait”; S.C. Res. 692 (May 20, 1991) (establishing the United Nations Compensation Commission
(UNCC) to administer a system to provide compensation for claims for which Iraq is liable under paragraph 16 of S.C. (UNCC) to administer a system to provide compensation for claims for which Iraq is liable under paragraph 16 of S.C.
Res. 687); S.C. Res. 706 and 712 (1991) (establishing an escrow account administered by the U.N. Secretary General to Res. 687); S.C. Res. 706 and 712 (1991) (establishing an escrow account administered by the U.N. Secretary General to
fund the costs of the UNCC and other activities); S.C. Res. 778 (1992) (directing all States in possession of funds due fund the costs of the UNCC and other activities); S.C. Res. 778 (1992) (directing all States in possession of funds due
to Iraq for the sale of petroleum and petroleum products to transfer those funds to the U.N. escrow account). to Iraq for the sale of petroleum and petroleum products to transfer those funds to the U.N. escrow account).
185 See 185 See “USA PATRIOT Act Amendments to IEEPA.”
186 Foreign Regimes’ Assets, GAO-04-1006, 11 (September 2004).186 Foreign Regimes’ Assets, GAO-04-1006, 11 (September 2004).
187 Ibid.187 Ibid. at, 12. 12.
188 Havlish v. Bin Laden, No. 3-cv-09848 (S.D.N.Y. September 13, 2021). 188 Havlish v. Bin Laden, No. 3-cv-09848 (S.D.N.Y. September 13, 2021).
189 E.O. 14064, 87 189 E.O. 14064, 87 Federal Register 8391 (February 15, 2022). 8391 (February 15, 2022).
190 United States Government Statement of Interest, Havlish v. Bin Laden, No. 3-cv-09848, ECF 563 (S.D.N.Y. 190 United States Government Statement of Interest, Havlish v. Bin Laden, No. 3-cv-09848, ECF 563 (S.D.N.Y.
February 11, 2022) (hereinafter SOI). February 11, 2022) (hereinafter SOI).
191 OFAC License No. DABRESERVES-EO-2022-886895-1, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21226931/ex-b- 191 OFAC License No. DABRESERVES-EO-2022-886895-1, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21226931/ex-b-
ofac-license.pdf. ofac-license.pdf.
192 Ibid. 192 Ibid., SOI. SOI.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
30 30

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

the opportunity to make their case for entitlement to attach them in satisfaction of their judgments. In the statement of interest, the Administration did not take a position with respect to judgments. In the statement of interest, the Administration did not take a position with respect to
the plaintiffs’ right to the assets, but set forth some legal considerations that seem to militate the plaintiffs’ right to the assets, but set forth some legal considerations that seem to militate
against the judgment plaintiffs.193 In February, 2023, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ against the judgment plaintiffs.193 In February, 2023, the district court denied the plaintiffs’
motion for post-judgment attachment of the DaB assets, holding that, “[p]ursuant to the FSIA, motion for post-judgment attachment of the DaB assets, holding that, “[p]ursuant to the FSIA,
TRIA, and the U.S. Constitution, the Taliban—not the former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan or TRIA, and the U.S. Constitution, the Taliban—not the former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan or
the Afghan people—must pay for the Taliban’s liability in the 9/11 Attacks.”194 The court found the Afghan people—must pay for the Taliban’s liability in the 9/11 Attacks.”194 The court found
that recognizing the DaB as an “agency or instrumentality” of the Taliban would require the court that recognizing the DaB as an “agency or instrumentality” of the Taliban would require the court
to recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, and that such authority to recognize to recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, and that such authority to recognize
governments is entrusted solely to the President.195 Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of governments is entrusted solely to the President.195 Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.196 Appeals for the Second Circuit.196
Congressionally Mandated Use of Frozen Foreign Assets and Proceeds
of Sanctions
The executive branch has traditionally resisted congressional efforts to vest foreign assets to pay The executive branch has traditionally resisted congressional efforts to vest foreign assets to pay
U.S. claimants without first obtaining a settlement agreement with the country in question.197 U.S. claimants without first obtaining a settlement agreement with the country in question.197
Congress has overcome such resistance in the case of foreign governments that have been Congress has overcome such resistance in the case of foreign governments that have been
designated as “State Supporters of Terrorism.”198 U.S. nationals who are victims of state-designated as “State Supporters of Terrorism.”198 U.S. nationals who are victims of state-
supported terrorism involving designated states have been able to sue those countries for damages supported terrorism involving designated states have been able to sue those countries for damages
under an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) since 1996.199 under an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) since 1996.199
To facilitate the payment of judgments under the exception, Congress passed Section 117 of the To facilitate the payment of judgments under the exception, Congress passed Section 117 of the
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999,200 which further amended the FSIA Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999,200 which further amended the FSIA
by allowing attachment and execution against state property with respect to which financial by allowing attachment and execution against state property with respect to which financial
transactions are prohibited or regulated under Section 5(b) TWEA, Section 620(a) of the Foreign transactions are prohibited or regulated under Section 5(b) TWEA, Section 620(a) of the Foreign
Assistance Act (authorizing the trade embargo against Cuba), or Sections 202 and 203 of IEEPA, Assistance Act (authorizing the trade embargo against Cuba), or Sections 202 and 203 of IEEPA,
or any orders, licenses or other authority issued under these statutes. Because of the Clinton or any orders, licenses or other authority issued under these statutes. Because of the Clinton
Administration’s continuing objections, however, Section 117 also gave the President authority to Administration’s continuing objections, however, Section 117 also gave the President authority to
“waive the requirements of this section in the interest of national security,” an authority President “waive the requirements of this section in the interest of national security,” an authority President
Clinton promptly exercised in signing the statute into law.201 Clinton promptly exercised in signing the statute into law.201
The Section 117 waiver authority protecting blocked foreign government assets from attachment The Section 117 waiver authority protecting blocked foreign government assets from attachment
to satisfy terrorism judgments has continued in effect ever since, prompting Congress to take to satisfy terrorism judgments has continued in effect ever since, prompting Congress to take
other actions to make frozen assets available to judgment holders. Congress enacted Section 2002 other actions to make frozen assets available to judgment holders. Congress enacted Section 2002
~~of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA)202 to mandate the~~

193 CRS In Focus IF12052, 193 CRS In Focus IF12052, Afghanistan Central Bank Reserves, coordinated by Martin A. Weiss. , coordinated by Martin A. Weiss.
194 194 In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, ~~No. 01-CV-10132, 2023 WL 2138691, at *14~~657 F. Supp. 3d 311, 336 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2023) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2023) (consolidated cases). .
195 Ibid.195 Ibid. ~~p. *12~~, 335. .
196 John Does 1 Through 7 v. The Taliban, No. 23-263 (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2023). 196 John Does 1 Through 7 v. The Taliban, No. 23-263 (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2023).
197 See, generally, 22 U.S.C. §§1621-1645o (Settlement of International Claims). 197 See, generally, 22 U.S.C. §§1621-1645o (Settlement of International Claims).
198 Current states designated as sponsors of terrorism are Iran (1984), Cuba (2021), North Korea (2017) and Syria 198 Current states designated as sponsors of terrorism are Iran (1984), Cuba (2021), North Korea (2017) and Syria
(1979). (1979). See U.S. Department of State, State Sponsors of Terrorism, https://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm.U.S. Department of State, State Sponsors of Terrorism, https://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm.
199 The so-called terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) was originally codified at 28 199 The so-called terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) was originally codified at 28
U.S.C. §1605(a)(7), but an amended version is now codified at 28 U.S.C. §1605A (2018). U.S.C. §1605(a)(7), but an amended version is now codified at 28 U.S.C. §1605A (2018). See CRS Report RL31258, CRS Report RL31258,
Suits Against Terrorist States by Victims of Terrorism, by Jennifer K. Elsea. , by Jennifer K. Elsea.
200 P.L. 105-277, Div. A, Title I, §117, 112 Stat. 2681-491 (1998), 200 P.L. 105-277, Div. A, Title I, §117, 112 Stat. 2681-491 (1998), codified at 28 U.S.C. §1610(f)(1)(A) (2018). 28 U.S.C. §1610(f)(1)(A) (2018).
201 Presidential Determination 99-1 (October 21, 1998), reprinted in 34 WEEKLY COMP. PRES. DOC. 2088 (October 201 Presidential Determination 99-1 (October 21, 1998), reprinted in 34 WEEKLY COMP. PRES. DOC. 2088 (October
26, 1998). 26, 1998).
~~202 P.L. 106-386, §2002, 114 Stat. 1541 (2000). Section 2002(b)(1) required the President to “vest and liquidate up to~~
~~and not exceeding the amount of property of the Government of Cuba and sanctioned entities in the United States or~~
~~(continued...)~~
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
31 31

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (VTVPA)202 to mandate the payment from frozen Cuban assets of compensatory damages awarded against Cuba under the payment from frozen Cuban assets of compensatory damages awarded against Cuba under the
FSIA terrorism exception on or prior to July 20, 2000. FSIA terrorism exception on or prior to July 20, 2000.
The Department of the Treasury subsequently vested $96.7 million in funds generated from long- The Department of the Treasury subsequently vested $96.7 million in funds generated from long-
distance telephone services between the United States and Cuba in order to compensate claimants distance telephone services between the United States and Cuba in order to compensate claimants
in in Alejandre v. Republic of Cuba, the lawsuit based on the 1996 downing of two unarmed U.S. , the lawsuit based on the 1996 downing of two unarmed U.S.
civilian airplanes by the Cuban air force.203 Another payment of more than $7 million was made civilian airplanes by the Cuban air force.203 Another payment of more than $7 million was made
using vested Cuban assets to a Florida woman who had won a lawsuit against Cuba based on her using vested Cuban assets to a Florida woman who had won a lawsuit against Cuba based on her
marriage to a Cuban spy.204 marriage to a Cuban spy.204
As unpaid judgments against designated state sponsors of terrorism continued to mount, Congress As unpaid judgments against designated state sponsors of terrorism continued to mount, Congress
enacted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA).205 Section 201 of TRIA overrode long-standing enacted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA).205 Section 201 of TRIA overrode long-standing
objections by the executive branch to make the frozen assets of terrorist states available to satisfy objections by the executive branch to make the frozen assets of terrorist states available to satisfy
judgments for compensatory damages against such states (and organizations and persons) as judgments for compensatory damages against such states (and organizations and persons) as
follows: follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in subsection (b), in Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in subsection (b), in
every case in which a person has obtained a judgment against a terrorist party on a claim every case in which a person has obtained a judgment against a terrorist party on a claim
based upon an act of terrorism, or for which a terrorist party is not immune under section based upon an act of terrorism, or for which a terrorist party is not immune under section
1605A or 1605(a)(7) (as such section was in effect on January 27, 2008) of title 28, United 1605A or 1605(a)(7) (as such section was in effect on January 27, 2008) of title 28, United
States Code, the blocked assets of that terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any States Code, the blocked assets of that terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any
agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party) shall be subject to execution or attachment agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party) shall be subject to execution or attachment
in aid of execution in order to satisfy such judgment to the extent of any compensatory in aid of execution in order to satisfy such judgment to the extent of any compensatory
damages for which such terrorist party has been adjudged liable.206 damages for which such terrorist party has been adjudged liable.206
~~Subsection (b) of Section 201 provided waiver authority “in the national security interest,” but~~
~~only with respect to frozen foreign government “property subject to the Vienna Convention on~~

202 P.L. 106-386, §2002, 114 Stat. 1541 (2000). Section 2002(b)(1) required the President to “vest and liquidate up to and not exceeding the amount of property of the Government of Cuba and sanctioned entities in the United States or any commonwealth, territory, or possession thereof that has been blocked pursuant to [TWEA or IEEPA]” to pay the any commonwealth, territory, or possession thereof that has been blocked pursuant to [TWEA or IEEPA]” to pay the
compensatory damages portion of such judgments. Judgments against Iran were paid from appropriated funds. compensatory damages portion of such judgments. Judgments against Iran were paid from appropriated funds.
203 Alejandre v. Republic of Cuba, 996 F. Supp. 1239 (S.D. Fla. 1997) ($50 million in compensatory damages and 203 Alejandre v. Republic of Cuba, 996 F. Supp. 1239 (S.D. Fla. 1997) ($50 million in compensatory damages and
$137.7 million in punitive damages awarded to the families of three of the four persons who were killed when Cuban $137.7 million in punitive damages awarded to the families of three of the four persons who were killed when Cuban
aircraft shot down two Brothers to the Rescue planes in 1996). The payment represented compensatory damages, aircraft shot down two Brothers to the Rescue planes in 1996). The payment represented compensatory damages,
judicially imposed sanctions, and interest. judicially imposed sanctions, and interest.
204 Martinez v. Republic of Cuba, No. 13-1999-CA 018208 (Miami-Dade Co., Fla., Cir. Ct. 2001) (awarding $7.1 204 Martinez v. Republic of Cuba, No. 13-1999-CA 018208 (Miami-Dade Co., Fla., Cir. Ct. 2001) (awarding $7.1
million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages). million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages).
205 P.L. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322 (2002), codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. §1610 note. 205 P.L. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322 (2002), codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. §1610 note.
206 Ibid. The term “blocked asset” is defined in §201(d) of TRIA to mean 206 Ibid. The term “blocked asset” is defined in §201(d) of TRIA to mean
(A) any asset seized or frozen by the United States under [TWEA or IEEPA]; and (A) any asset seized or frozen by the United States under [TWEA or IEEPA]; and
(B) does not include property that— (B) does not include property that—
(i) is subject to a license issued by the United States Government for final payment, transfer, or (i) is subject to a license issued by the United States Government for final payment, transfer, or
disposition by or to a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in connection with a disposition by or to a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in connection with a
transaction for which the issuance of such license has been specifically required by statute other transaction for which the issuance of such license has been specifically required by statute other
than [IEEPA] or the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287 than [IEEPA] or the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.); or .); or
(ii) in the case of property subject to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna (ii) in the case of property subject to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations, or that enjoys equivalent privileges and immunities under the Convention on Consular Relations, or that enjoys equivalent privileges and immunities under the
law of the United States, is being used exclusively for diplomatic or consular purposes. law of the United States, is being used exclusively for diplomatic or consular purposes.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in March 2023, that the United States, acting pursuant to TRIA, violated The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in March 2023, that the United States, acting pursuant to TRIA, violated
the now-defunct Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, Iran-U.S., Aug. 15, 1955, U.S.T. 900, by the now-defunct Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, Iran-U.S., Aug. 15, 1955, U.S.T. 900, by
permitting judgment creditors, to enforce terrorism judgments against Iran through the attachment of assets of Iranian permitting judgment creditors, to enforce terrorism judgments against Iran through the attachment of assets of Iranian
agencies or instrumentalities who were not participants in the underlying lawsuit. The ICJ found the United States agencies or instrumentalities who were not participants in the underlying lawsuit. The ICJ found the United States
unreasonably ignored those companies’ separate juridical status and deprived Iranian companies of the independent unreasonably ignored those companies’ separate juridical status and deprived Iranian companies of the independent
legal personality conferred on them by such status. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. U.S.), Judgment, ¶ 159 (Mar. 30, legal personality conferred on them by such status. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. U.S.), Judgment, ¶ 159 (Mar. 30,
2023), https://icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/164/164-20230330-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf. The ICJ will decide the 2023), https://icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/164/164-20230330-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf. The ICJ will decide the
amount of damages the United States owes to Iran at a later phase of the case. Ibid.amount of damages the United States owes to Iran at a later phase of the case. Ibid., ¶ 231. ¶ 231.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
32 32

~~link to page 41 link to page 43~~ The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Subsection (b) of Section 201 provided waiver authority “in the national security interest,” but only with respect to frozen foreign government “property subject to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.” When Congress Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.” When Congress
amended the FSIA in 2008207 to revamp the terrorism exception, it provided that judgments amended the FSIA in 2008207 to revamp the terrorism exception, it provided that judgments
entered under the new exception could be satisfied out of the property of a foreign state entered under the new exception could be satisfied out of the property of a foreign state
notwithstanding the fact that the property in question is regulated by the United States notwithstanding the fact that the property in question is regulated by the United States
government pursuant to TWEA or IEEPA.208 Congress has also crafted legislation on occasion government pursuant to TWEA or IEEPA.208 Congress has also crafted legislation on occasion
that makes specific assets available to satisfy specific judgments.209 that makes specific assets available to satisfy specific judgments.209
Congress has also directed that the proceeds from certain sanctions violations be paid into a fund Congress has also directed that the proceeds from certain sanctions violations be paid into a fund
for providing compensation to the former hostages of Iran and terrorist state judgment for providing compensation to the former hostages of Iran and terrorist state judgment
creditors.210 To fund the program, Congress designated that certain real property and bank creditors.210 To fund the program, Congress designated that certain real property and bank
accounts owned by Iran and forfeited to the United States could go into the United States Victims accounts owned by Iran and forfeited to the United States could go into the United States Victims
of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, along with the sum of $1,025,000,000, representing the of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, along with the sum of $1,025,000,000, representing the
amount paid to the United States pursuant to the June 27, 2014, plea agreement and settlement amount paid to the United States pursuant to the June 27, 2014, plea agreement and settlement
between the United States and BNP Paribas for sanctions violations.211 The fund is replenished between the United States and BNP Paribas for sanctions violations.211 The fund is replenished
through criminal penalties and forfeitures for violations of IEEPA or TWEA-based regulations, or through criminal penalties and forfeitures for violations of IEEPA or TWEA-based regulations, or
any related civil or criminal conspiracy, scheme, or other federal offense related to doing business any related civil or criminal conspiracy, scheme, or other federal offense related to doing business
or acting on behalf of a state sponsor of terrorism.212 Three-quarters of all civil penalties and or acting on behalf of a state sponsor of terrorism.212 Three-quarters of all civil penalties and
forfeitures relating to the same offenses are also deposited into the fund.213 The Fund sunsets in forfeitures relating to the same offenses are also deposited into the fund.213 The Fund sunsets in
2039. 2039.
Russia’s 2022 large-scale invasion of Ukraine has led the executive branch to levy new sanctions Russia’s 2022 large-scale invasion of Ukraine has led the executive branch to levy new sanctions
against Russia, in addition to sanctions imposed for other reasons.214 Some Members of Congress against Russia, in addition to sanctions imposed for other reasons.214 Some Members of Congress
have introduced legislation seeking to seize and repurpose Russian frozen assets for the benefit of have introduced legislation seeking to seize and repurpose Russian frozen assets for the benefit of
UkraineUkraine~~.215~~,215 or impose a tax on any earnings.216 Some of the proposals, to the extent that they permit the seizure of assets of aliens Some of the proposals, to the extent that they permit the seizure of assets of aliens
with significant ties to or property in the United States, if enacted, may invite legal challenges with significant ties to or property in the United States, if enacted, may invite legal challenges
based on the Fifth Amendment Takings and Due Process based on the Fifth Amendment Takings and Due Process ~~Clauses.216~~

207 P.L. 110-181 §1083 (2008) (amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act). 207 P.L. 110-181 §1083 (2008) (amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act).
208 28 U.S.C. §1610(g) (2018). It is unclear whether “regulated” property and “blocked asset” are meant to be 208 28 U.S.C. §1610(g) (2018). It is unclear whether “regulated” property and “blocked asset” are meant to be
synonymous. The provision also overrides the separate juridical status ordinarily accorded to agencies and synonymous. The provision also overrides the separate juridical status ordinarily accorded to agencies and
instrumentalities of foreign states. Ibid. The ICJ determined that this provision violated the Treaty of Amity for the instrumentalities of foreign states. Ibid. The ICJ determined that this provision violated the Treaty of Amity for the
same reason it found TRIA to be “unreasonable.” same reason it found TRIA to be “unreasonable.” ~~Op. cit.~~ Certain Iranian Assets, ¶ 159. , ¶ 159.
209 P.L. 112-158, Title V, §502, 126 Stat. 1258 (2012); P.L. 116-92, div. A, Title XII, §1226, 133 Stat. 1645 (2019), 209 P.L. 112-158, Title V, §502, 126 Stat. 1258 (2012); P.L. 116-92, div. A, Title XII, §1226, 133 Stat. 1645 (2019),
both codified at 22 USC §8772. The Supreme Court upheld this approach in Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 136 S. Ct. 1310 both codified at 22 USC §8772. The Supreme Court upheld this approach in Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 136 S. Ct. 1310
(2016). For an explanation of the case, see CRS Report R44967, (2016). For an explanation of the case, see CRS Report R44967, Congress’s Power over ~~Courts~~Court Decisions: Jurisdiction Stripping
and the Rule of Klein, , ~~coordinated by Kevin M. Lewis~~by Joanna R. Lampe. In . In Certain Iranian Assets, the ICJ found that Bank Markazi, as , the ICJ found that Bank Markazi, as
Iran’s central bank, was not a “company” entitled to favorable treatment under the Treaty of Amity, and the ICJ did not Iran’s central bank, was not a “company” entitled to favorable treatment under the Treaty of Amity, and the ICJ did not
have jurisdiction over the claim based on have jurisdiction over the claim based on Peterson. . ~~Op. cit.~~Certain Iranian Assets ¶ 54. ¶ 54.
210 See the Justice for United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act, div. O, title IV (2015), 129 Stat. 3007, 210 See the Justice for United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act, div. O, title IV (2015), 129 Stat. 3007,
codified as amended at 34 U.S.C. §20144 (2020). codified as amended at 34 U.S.C. §20144 (2020).
211 Ibid 211 Ibid., for more information about the program and funding for it, see CRS In Focus IF10341, , for more information about the program and funding for it, see CRS In Focus IF10341, Justice for United
States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act: Eligibility and Funding, by Jennifer K. Elsea. , by Jennifer K. Elsea.
212 34 U.S.C. §20144(e) (2021). 212 34 U.S.C. §20144(e) (2021).
213 Ibid213 Ibid.
214 See CRS Report R45415, 214 See CRS Report R45415, U.S. Sanctions on Russia, coordinated by Cory Welt; CRS Insight IN11869, , coordinated by Cory Welt; CRS Insight IN11869, Russia’s War
Against Ukraine: Overview of U.S. ~~Sanctions and Other Responses~~Assistance and Sanctions, by Cory Welt; CRS In Focus IF12062, , by Cory Welt; CRS In Focus IF12062, Russia’s
War on Ukraine: Financial and Trade Sanctions, coordinated by Rebecca M. Nelson. , coordinated by Rebecca M. Nelson.
215 From the 117th Cong., see, e.g., H.R. 3838; H.R. 6869; H.R. 6930; H.R. 7015; H.R. 7083; H.R. 7086; S. 3723; S. 215 From the 117th Cong., see, e.g., H.R. 3838; H.R. 6869; H.R. 6930; H.R. 7015; H.R. 7083; H.R. 7086; S. 3723; S.
3838. From the 118th Cong., see e.g., H.R. 892; H.R. 4175; H.R. 5370; 3838. From the 118th Cong., see e.g., H.R. 892; H.R. 4175; H.R. 5370; H.R. 5925; H.R. 6491;S. 536; S. 1254; S. 2003; S. 3359. 216 H.R. 6416. Congressional Research Service 33 link to page 41 link to page 43 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Clauses.217 Separately, Congress in the Consolidated Appropriates Act, 2023, authorized the Attorney General to “transfer to the Secretary of State the proceeds of any covered forfeited property for use by the Secretary of State to provide assistance to Ukraine to remediate the harms of Russian aggression towards Ukraine.”218 The provision appears to authorize forfeiture of property involved in certain sanctions violations as well as blocked property owned or controlled by a person designated under the specified executive orders pertaining to Russia, which is forfeitable under the identified statutes. There is a proposal to expand that authority to cover additional parties and offenses.219~~S. 536; S. 1254; S. 2003.~~
~~216 See sections below “Fifth Amendment Takings Clause” and “Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause”.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
33

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

Judicial Interpretation of IEEPA
A number of lawsuits seeking to overturn actions taken pursuant to IEEPA have made their way A number of lawsuits seeking to overturn actions taken pursuant to IEEPA have made their way
through the judicial system, including challenges to the breadth of presidential authority and through the judicial system, including challenges to the breadth of presidential authority and
congressionally delegated authority, and challenges asserting violations of constitutional rights. congressionally delegated authority, and challenges asserting violations of constitutional rights.
Most of these challenges have failed, and the few challenges that succeeded did not seriously Most of these challenges have failed, and the few challenges that succeeded did not seriously
undermine the overarching statutory scheme for sanctions. undermine the overarching statutory scheme for sanctions.
Dames & Moore v. Regan
The breadth of presidential power under IEEPA is illustrated by the Supreme Court’s 1981 The breadth of presidential power under IEEPA is illustrated by the Supreme Court’s 1981
opinion in opinion in Dames & Moore v. Regan..~~217~~220 In In Dames & Moore, petitioners had challenged President , petitioners had challenged President
Carter’s executive order establishing regulations to further compliance with the terms of the Carter’s executive order establishing regulations to further compliance with the terms of the
Algiers Accords, which the President had entered into to end the hostage crisis with Iran.Algiers Accords, which the President had entered into to end the hostage crisis with Iran.~~218~~221 Under Under
these agreements, the United States was obligated (1) to terminate all legal proceedings in U.S. these agreements, the United States was obligated (1) to terminate all legal proceedings in U.S.
courts involving claims of U.S. nationals against Iran, (2) to nullify all attachments and courts involving claims of U.S. nationals against Iran, (2) to nullify all attachments and
judgments, and (3) to resolve outstanding claims exclusively through binding arbitration in the judgments, and (3) to resolve outstanding claims exclusively through binding arbitration in the
Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal (IUSCT). The President, through executive orders, revoked all licenses Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal (IUSCT). The President, through executive orders, revoked all licenses
that permitted the exercise of “any right, power, or privilege” with regard to Iranian funds, that permitted the exercise of “any right, power, or privilege” with regard to Iranian funds,
nullified all non-Iranian interests in assets acquired after a previous blocking order, and required nullified all non-Iranian interests in assets acquired after a previous blocking order, and required
banks holding Iranian assets to transfer them to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be held banks holding Iranian assets to transfer them to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be held
or transferred as directed by the Secretary of the Treasury.or transferred as directed by the Secretary of the Treasury.~~219~~222
Dames & Moore had sued Iran for breach of contract to recover compensation for work Dames & Moore had sued Iran for breach of contract to recover compensation for work
performed.performed.~~220~~223 The district court had entered summary judgment in favor of Dames & Moore and The district court had entered summary judgment in favor of Dames & Moore and
issued an order attaching certain Iranian assets for satisfaction of any judgment that might issued an order attaching certain Iranian assets for satisfaction of any judgment that might
~~result,221 but stayed the case pending appeal.222 The executive orders and regulations~~
~~implementing the Algiers Accords resulted in the nullification of this prejudgment attachment and~~
~~the dismissal of the case against Iran, directing that it be filed at the IUSCT.~~
~~In response, Dames & Moore sued the government. The plaintiff claimed that the President and~~
~~the Secretary of the Treasury exceeded their statutory and constitutional powers to the extent they~~
~~adversely affected Dames & Moore’s judgment against Iran, the execution of that judgment, the~~
~~prejudgment attachments, and the plaintiff’s ability to continue litigation against the Iranian~~
~~banks.223~~
~~The government defended its actions, relying largely on IEEPA, which provided explicit support~~
~~for most of the measures taken—nullification of the prejudgment attachment and transfer of the~~

~~217 453 U.S. 654 (1981).~~
~~218~~ 217 See sections below “Fifth Amendment Takings Clause” and “Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause”. 218 P.L. 117-328, § 1708, 136. Stat. 5200 (2022). 219 See S. 1905 (proposal to expand §1708 authority to cover forfeitures by additional persons in relation to offenses such as export control violations). 220 453 U.S. 654 (1981). 221 Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria Relating to the Commitments Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria Relating to the Commitments
Made by Iran and the United States and Declaration of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria Concerning the Made by Iran and the United States and Declaration of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria Concerning the
Settlement of Claims by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Islamic Republic Settlement of Claims by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Islamic Republic
of Iran, 20 I.L.M. 223 (1981) (collectively “Algiers Accords”). of Iran, 20 I.L.M. 223 (1981) (collectively “Algiers Accords”).
~~219~~222 E.O. 12170, 44 E.O. 12170, 44 Federal Register 65,729 (November 14, 1979); E.O. 12279, 46 65,729 (November 14, 1979); E.O. 12279, 46 Federal Register 7,919 (January 19, 7,919 (January 19,
1981). On February 24, 1981 President Reagan ratified the Executive orders that President Carter had signed on 1981). On February 24, 1981 President Reagan ratified the Executive orders that President Carter had signed on
January 19, 1981. E.O. 13294, 46 January 19, 1981. E.O. 13294, 46 Federal Register 14,111 (1981). 14,111 (1981).
~~220~~223 Dames & Moore, 453 U.S., 453 U.S. at 644at 644.
~~221 Ibid~~.
~~222 Ibid. at 666.~~
~~223 Ibid.~~ ~~at 666-67~~. .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
34 34

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

result,224 but stayed the case pending appeal.225 The executive orders and regulations implementing the Algiers Accords resulted in the nullification of this prejudgment attachment and the dismissal of the case against Iran, directing that it be filed at the IUSCT. In response, Dames & Moore sued the government. The plaintiff claimed that the President and the Secretary of the Treasury exceeded their statutory and constitutional powers to the extent they adversely affected Dames & Moore’s judgment against Iran, the execution of that judgment, the prejudgment attachments, and the plaintiff’s ability to continue litigation against the Iranian banks.226 The government defended its actions, relying largely on IEEPA, which provided explicit support for most of the measures taken—nullification of the prejudgment attachment and transfer of the property to Iran—but could not be read to authorize actions affecting the suspension of claims in property to Iran—but could not be read to authorize actions affecting the suspension of claims in
U.S. courts. Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority: U.S. courts. Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority:
Although we have declined to conclude that the IEEPA Although we have declined to conclude that the IEEPA… … directly authorizes the directly authorizes the
President’s suspension of claims for the reasons noted, we cannot ignore the general tenor President’s suspension of claims for the reasons noted, we cannot ignore the general tenor
of Congress’ legislation in this area in trying to determine whether the President is acting of Congress’ legislation in this area in trying to determine whether the President is acting
alone or at least with the acceptance of Congress. As we have noted, Congress cannot alone or at least with the acceptance of Congress. As we have noted, Congress cannot
anticipate and legislate with regard to every possible action the President may find it anticipate and legislate with regard to every possible action the President may find it
necessary to take or every possible situation in which he might act. Such failure of Congress necessary to take or every possible situation in which he might act. Such failure of Congress
specifically to delegate authority does not, “especially ... in the areas of foreign policy and specifically to delegate authority does not, “especially ... in the areas of foreign policy and
national security,” imply “congressional disapproval” of action taken by the Executive. On national security,” imply “congressional disapproval” of action taken by the Executive. On
the contrary, the enactment of legislation closely related to the question of the President’s the contrary, the enactment of legislation closely related to the question of the President’s
authority in a particular case which evinces legislative intent to accord the President broad authority in a particular case which evinces legislative intent to accord the President broad
discretion may be considered to “invite” “measures on independent presidential discretion may be considered to “invite” “measures on independent presidential
responsibility.” At least this is so where there is no contrary indication of legislative intent responsibility.” At least this is so where there is no contrary indication of legislative intent
and when, as here, there is a history of congressional acquiescence in conduct of the sort and when, as here, there is a history of congressional acquiescence in conduct of the sort
engaged in by the President.engaged in by the President.~~224~~227
The Court remarked that Congress’s implicit approval of the long-standing presidential practice The Court remarked that Congress’s implicit approval of the long-standing presidential practice
of settling international claims by executive agreement was critical to its holding that the of settling international claims by executive agreement was critical to its holding that the
challenged actions were not in conflict with acts of Congress.challenged actions were not in conflict with acts of Congress.~~225~~228 For support, the Court cited For support, the Court cited
Justice Frankfurter’s concurrence in Justice Frankfurter’s concurrence in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer,~~226~~,229 which stated which stated
that “a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress that “a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress
and never before questioned … may be treated as a gloss on ‘Executive Power’ vested in the and never before questioned … may be treated as a gloss on ‘Executive Power’ vested in the
President by §1 of Art. II.”President by §1 of Art. II.”~~227~~230 Consequently, it may be argued that Congress’s exclusion of certain Consequently, it may be argued that Congress’s exclusion of certain
express powers in IEEPA do not necessarily preclude the President from exercising them, at least express powers in IEEPA do not necessarily preclude the President from exercising them, at least
where a court finds sufficient precedent exists. where a court finds sufficient precedent exists.
Lower courts have examined IEEPA under a number of other constitutional doctrines. Lower courts have examined IEEPA under a number of other constitutional doctrines.
224 Ibid. 225 Ibid., 666. 226 Ibid., 666-67. 227 Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 678-79 (internal citations omitted). 228 Ibid., 680 (citing the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, 64 Stat. 13, codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. §§1621 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV)). 229 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 610-11 (1952). 230 Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 686 (citing Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 610-11 (Frankfurter, J., concurring)). Congressional Research Service 35 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Separation of Powers—Non-Delegation Doctrine
Courts have reviewed whether Congress violated the non-delegation principle of separation of Courts have reviewed whether Congress violated the non-delegation principle of separation of
powers by delegating too much power to the President to legislate, in particular by creating new powers by delegating too much power to the President to legislate, in particular by creating new
crimes.crimes.~~228~~231 These challenges have generally failed. These challenges have generally failed.~~229~~232 As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit explained while evaluating IEEPA, delegations of congressional authority are Circuit explained while evaluating IEEPA, delegations of congressional authority are
constitutional so long as Congress provides through a legislative act an “intelligible principle” constitutional so long as Congress provides through a legislative act an “intelligible principle”

~~224 Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 678-79 (internal citations omitted).~~
~~225 Ibid. at 680 (citing the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, 64 Stat. 13, codified as amended at 22 U.S.C.~~
~~§§1621 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV)).~~
~~226 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 610-11 (1952).~~
~~227 Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 686 (citing Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 610-11 (Frankfurter, J., concurring)).~~
~~228~~governing the exercise of the delegated authority.233 Even if the standards are higher for delegations of authority to define criminal offenses, the court held, IEEPA provides sufficient guidance.234 The court stated The IEEPA “meaningfully constrains the [President’s] discretion,” by requiring that “[t]he authorities granted to the President ... may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.” And the authorities delegated are defined and limited.235 The Second Circuit found it significant that “IEEPA relates to foreign affairs—an area in which the President has greater discretion,”236 bolstering its view that IEEPA does not violate the non-delegation doctrine. Conversely, plaintiffs have had little success challenging IEEPA sanctions where Congress has imposed limitations on the President’s authority. The Ninth Circuit rejected a challenge to the then-existing Iraq travel ban based on the claim that the ban imposed an indirect restriction on the 231 United States v. Dhafir, 461 F.3d 211, 212-13 (2d Cir. 2006) (appeal of whether IEEPA constitutes an appropriate United States v. Dhafir, 461 F.3d 211, 212-13 (2d Cir. 2006) (appeal of whether IEEPA constitutes an appropriate
delegation of congressional authority to the executive). delegation of congressional authority to the executive).
~~229~~232 United States v. Amirnazmi, 645 F.3d 564, 576 (3d Cir. 2011) (upholding IEEPA’s delegation of authority to the United States v. Amirnazmi, 645 F.3d 564, 576 (3d Cir. 2011) (upholding IEEPA’s delegation of authority to the
President); United States v. Mirza, 454 F. App’x 249, 256 (5th Cir. 2011) (same); President); United States v. Mirza, 454 F. App’x 249, 256 (5th Cir. 2011) (same); Dhafir, 461 F.3d at 216-17 (same); , 461 F.3d at 216-17 (same);
United States v. Arch Trading Co., 987 F.2d 1087, 1092–94 (4th Cir.1993) (same); see alsoUnited States v. Arch Trading Co., 987 F.2d 1087, 1092–94 (4th Cir.1993) (same); see also United States v. United States v.
Nazemzadeh, No. 11 CR 5726 L, 2014 WL 310460, at *8 (S.D. Cal. January 28, 2014); United States v. Vaghari, No. Nazemzadeh, No. 11 CR 5726 L, 2014 WL 310460, at *8 (S.D. Cal. January 28, 2014); United States v. Vaghari, No.
CRIM.A. 08-693-01-02, 2009 WL 2245097, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2009); Clancy v. Office of Foreign Assets Control, CRIM.A. 08-693-01-02, 2009 WL 2245097, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2009); Clancy v. Office of Foreign Assets Control,
No. 05–C–580, 2007 WL 1051767, at *20–21 (E.D. Wis. March 31, 2007), No. 05–C–580, 2007 WL 1051767, at *20–21 (E.D. Wis. March 31, 2007), aff'd, 559 F.3d 595 (7th Cir.2009); United , 559 F.3d 595 (7th Cir.2009); United
States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555, 566–68 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); United States v. Esfahani, No. 05–CR–0255, 2006 States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555, 566–68 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); United States v. Esfahani, No. 05–CR–0255, 2006
WL 163025, at *1–4 (N.D. Ill. January 17, 2006); United States v. Anvari-Hamedani, 378 F. Supp. 2d 821, 829–30 WL 163025, at *1–4 (N.D. Ill. January 17, 2006); United States v. Anvari-Hamedani, 378 F. Supp. 2d 821, 829–30
(N.D. Ohio 2005); Global Relief Found., Inc. v. O'Neill, 207 F. Supp. 2d 779, 807 (N.D. Ill. 2002), (N.D. Ohio 2005); Global Relief Found., Inc. v. O'Neill, 207 F. Supp. 2d 779, 807 (N.D. Ill. 2002), aff'd, 315 F.3d 748 , 315 F.3d 748
(7th Cir. 2002). (7th Cir. 2002).
~~Congressional Research Service~~
35

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~governing the exercise of the delegated authority.230 Even if the standards are higher for~~
~~delegations of authority to define criminal offenses, the court held, IEEPA provides sufficient~~
~~guidance.231 The court stated:~~
~~The IEEPA “meaningfully constrains the [President’s] discretion,” by requiring that “[t]he~~
~~authorities granted to the President ... may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and~~
~~extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.” And~~
~~the authorities delegated are defined and limited.232~~
~~The Second Circuit found it significant that “IEEPA relates to foreign affairs—an area in which~~
~~the President has greater discretion,”233 bolstering its view that IEEPA does not violate the non-~~
~~delegation doctrine.~~
~~Conversely, plaintiffs have had little success challenging IEEPA sanctions where Congress has~~
~~imposed limitations on the President’s authority. The Ninth Circuit rejected a challenge to the~~
~~then-existing Iraq travel ban based on the claim that the ban imposed an indirect restriction on the~~
~~provision of medical supplies in violation of IEEPA.234 In a case where plaintiffs sought~~
~~injunctive relief from the imposition of sanctions by arguing that the President’s authority did not~~
~~extend to imposing sanctions involving medical supplies and humanitarian aid for Iran, the~~
~~district court dismissed the claim in part because the statutory restrictions on such sanctions do~~
~~not create a private right of action.235~~
~~Separation of Powers—Legislative Veto~~
~~The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit considered whether Section 207(b) of IEEPA~~
~~is an unconstitutional legislative veto. That provision states:~~

~~230~~233 Dhafir, 461 F.3d at 215 (citing , 461 F.3d at 215 (citing Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 372 (1989)). , 488 U.S. 361, 372 (1989)).
~~231~~234 Ibid. Ibid. at, 216 (“Even if a heightened standard should apply to delegations concerning criminal offenses, the IEEPA’s 216 (“Even if a heightened standard should apply to delegations concerning criminal offenses, the IEEPA’s
delegation is subject to constraints similar to those found sufficient in [Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160, 111 delegation is subject to constraints similar to those found sufficient in [Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160, 111
(1991)]”); see also (1991)]”); see also Amirnazmi, 645 F.3d at 576 (“We too conclude that IEEPA “meaningfully constrains” the , 645 F.3d at 576 (“We too conclude that IEEPA “meaningfully constrains” the
President’s discretion.”); President’s discretion.”); Arch Trading Co., 987 F.2d at 1092–94 (holding “constraining factors” in IEEPA sufficient to ., 987 F.2d at 1092–94 (holding “constraining factors” in IEEPA sufficient to
conclude the President’s powers are “explicitly defined and circumscribed”). conclude the President’s powers are “explicitly defined and circumscribed”).
~~232~~235 Dhafir, 461 F.3d at 216-17 (internal citations omitted). See also United States v. Shih, 73 F.4th 1077, 1092 (9th Cir. , 461 F.3d at 216-17 (internal citations omitted). See also United States v. Shih, 73 F.4th 1077, 1092 (9th Cir.
2023) (upholding the use of IEEPA to maintain the Export Administration Regulations despite lapse of the Export 2023) (upholding the use of IEEPA to maintain the Export Administration Regulations despite lapse of the Export
Administration Act did not violate the non-delegation doctrine because IEEPA “specifies the steps the President must Administration Act did not violate the non-delegation doctrine because IEEPA “specifies the steps the President must
take before invoking an emergency, including consultation with Congress, and establishes reporting requirements”) take before invoking an emergency, including consultation with Congress, and establishes reporting requirements”)
The court further held that IEEPA “limits the President’s authority to prohibit certain types of transactions, and The court further held that IEEPA “limits the President’s authority to prohibit certain types of transactions, and
prohibits the punishment of unwitting violators.”). Ibid. The court explained that, “[b]ecause these statutory restrictions prohibits the punishment of unwitting violators.”). Ibid. The court explained that, “[b]ecause these statutory restrictions
strike ‘a careful balance between affording the President a degree of authority to address the exigencies of national strike ‘a careful balance between affording the President a degree of authority to address the exigencies of national
emergencies and restraining his ability to perpetuate emergency situations indefinitely by creating more opportunities emergencies and restraining his ability to perpetuate emergency situations indefinitely by creating more opportunities
for congressional input,’” it agreed with every Circuit to have considered the issue, and determined “that IEEPA is for congressional input,’” it agreed with every Circuit to have considered the issue, and determined “that IEEPA is
constitutional.” Ibid. (citing United States v. Amirnazmi, 645 F.3d 564, 577 (3d Cir. 2011); see also United States v. constitutional.” Ibid. (citing United States v. Amirnazmi, 645 F.3d 564, 577 (3d Cir. 2011); see also United States v.
Dhafir, 461 F.3d 211, 215–17 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Arch Trading Co., 987 F.2d 1087, 1092–94 (4th Cir. Dhafir, 461 F.3d 211, 215–17 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Arch Trading Co., 987 F.2d 1087, 1092–94 (4th Cir.
1993); United States v. Mirza, 454 F. App’x 249, 255–56 (5th Cir. 2011)). 1993); United States v. Mirza, 454 F. App’x 249, 255–56 (5th Cir. 2011)).
~~233~~236 Dhafir, 461 F.3d. at 217 (citing Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 675). Congressional Research Service 36 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use provision of medical supplies in violation of IEEPA.237 In a case where plaintiffs sought injunctive relief from the imposition of sanctions by arguing that the President’s authority did not extend to imposing sanctions involving medical supplies and humanitarian aid for Iran, the district court dismissed the claim in part because the statutory restrictions on such sanctions do not create a private right of action.238 Separation of Powers—Legislative Veto The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit considered whether Section 207(b) of IEEPA is an unconstitutional legislative veto. That provision states Dhafir, 461 F.3d. at 217 (citing Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 675).
~~234 Sacks v. Off. of Foreign Assets Control, 466 F.3d 764, 775 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that IEEPA does not burden the~~
~~President's powers with respect to humanitarian aid when he acts under the UNPA). IEEPA does not provide authority~~
~~to regulate “donations . . .of articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human~~
~~suffering, except to the extent that the President determines that such donations” would risk certain harms. 50 U.S.C.~~
~~§1702(b)(2).~~
~~235 Iran Thalassemia Soc’y v. Off. of Foreign Assets Control, No. 3:22-CV-1195-HZ, 2022 WL 9888593, at *5 (D. Or.~~
~~Oct. 14, 2022) (declining to enjoin “maximum pressure” sanctions against Iran for violating the Trade Sanction Reform~~
~~and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA, P.L. 106-387, §1, found at 22 U.S.C. § 7202) and the Iran financial sector~~
~~sanctions provision, found at 22 U.S.C. § 8513a(d)(2)), appeal dismissed, No. 22-35850, 2022 WL 18461465 (9th Cir.~~
~~Dec. 1, 2022).~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
36

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

The authorities described in subsection (a)(1) may not continue to be exercised under this The authorities described in subsection (a)(1) may not continue to be exercised under this
section if the national emergency is terminated by the Congress by concurrent resolution section if the national emergency is terminated by the Congress by concurrent resolution
pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. §1622] and if the pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. §1622] and if the
Congress specifies in such concurrent resolution that such authorities may not continue to Congress specifies in such concurrent resolution that such authorities may not continue to
be exercised under this section.be exercised under this section.~~236~~239
In In U.S. v. Romero-Fernandez, two defendants convicted of violating the terms of an executive , two defendants convicted of violating the terms of an executive
order issued under IEEPA argued on appeal that IEEPA was unconstitutional, in part, because of order issued under IEEPA argued on appeal that IEEPA was unconstitutional, in part, because of
the above provision. The Eleventh Circuit accepted that the provision was an unconstitutional the above provision. The Eleventh Circuit accepted that the provision was an unconstitutional
legislative veto (as conceded by the government) based on legislative veto (as conceded by the government) based on INS v. Chadha,,~~237~~240 in which the in which the
Supreme Court held that Congress cannot void the exercise of power by the executive branch Supreme Court held that Congress cannot void the exercise of power by the executive branch
through concurrent resolution, but can act only through bicameral passage followed by through concurrent resolution, but can act only through bicameral passage followed by
presentment of the law to the President.presentment of the law to the President.~~238~~241 The Eleventh Circuit nevertheless upheld the The Eleventh Circuit nevertheless upheld the
defendants’ convictions for violations of IEEPA regulations,defendants’ convictions for violations of IEEPA regulations,~~239~~242 holding that the legislative veto holding that the legislative veto
provision was severable from the rest of the statute.provision was severable from the rest of the statute.~~240~~243
Fifth Amendment Takings Clause
Courts have also addressed whether certain actions taken pursuant to IEEPA have effected an Courts have also addressed whether certain actions taken pursuant to IEEPA have effected an
uncompensated taking of property rights in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth uncompensated taking of property rights in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth
Amendment’s Takings Clause prohibits “private property [from being] taken for public use, Amendment’s Takings Clause prohibits “private property [from being] taken for public use,
~~without just compensation.”241 The Fifth Amendment’s prohibitions apply as well to regulatory~~
~~takings, in which the government does not physically take property but instead imposes~~
~~restrictions on the right of enjoyment that decreases the value of the property or right therein.242~~
~~The Supreme Court has held that the nullification of prejudgment attachments pursuant to~~
~~regulations issued under IEEPA was not an uncompensated taking, suggesting that the reason for~~
~~this position was the contingent nature of the licenses that had authorized the attachments.243 The~~
~~Court also suggested that the broader purpose of the statute supported the view that there was no~~
~~uncompensated taking:~~

~~236 50 U.S.C. §1706(b) (2018).~~
~~237~~ 237 Sacks v. Off. of Foreign Assets Control, 466 F.3d 764, 775 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that IEEPA does not burden the President’s powers with respect to humanitarian aid when he acts under the UNPA). IEEPA does not provide authority to regulate “donations ... of articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human suffering, except to the extent that the President determines that such donations” would risk certain harms. 50 U.S.C. §1702(b)(2). 238 Iran Thalassemia Soc’y v. Off. of Foreign Assets Control, No. 3:22-CV-1195-HZ, 2022 WL 9888593, at *5 (D. Or. Oct. 14, 2022) (declining to enjoin “maximum pressure” sanctions against Iran for violating the Trade Sanction Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSREEA, P.L. 106-387, §1, found at 22 U.S.C. §7202) and the Iran financial sector sanctions provision, found at 22 U.S.C. §8513a(d)(2)), appeal dismissed, No. 22-35850, 2022 WL 18461465 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2022). 239 50 U.S.C. §1706(b) (2018). 240 United States v. Romero-Fernandez, 983 F.2d 195, 196 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Romero-Fernandez, 983 F.2d 195, 196 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)). , 462 U.S. 919 (1983)).
~~238~~241 Chadha, 462 U.S. at 954–55. , 462 U.S. at 954–55.
~~239~~242 Romero-Fernandez, 983 F.2d at 197 (“Because [defendants] were charged and convicted under 50 U.S.C. §1705(b), , 983 F.2d at 197 (“Because [defendants] were charged and convicted under 50 U.S.C. §1705(b),
and this section is not affected by the unconstitutionality of §1706(b), the constitutionality of the legislative veto is and this section is not affected by the unconstitutionality of §1706(b), the constitutionality of the legislative veto is
irrelevant to their convictions.”). Although the original NEA authorized termination through a concurrent resolution, irrelevant to their convictions.”). Although the original NEA authorized termination through a concurrent resolution,
which does not require the President’s signature, Congress amended the provision in 1985 to require a joint resolution which does not require the President’s signature, Congress amended the provision in 1985 to require a joint resolution
as a response to as a response to Chadha. Notwithstanding this amendment, Section 207 of IEEPA continues to refer to termination by . Notwithstanding this amendment, Section 207 of IEEPA continues to refer to termination by
concurrent resolution. concurrent resolution.
~~240~~243 Ibid., Ibid., at 196 (finding that the balance of IEEPA is capable of functioning independently and noting Congress’s 196 (finding that the balance of IEEPA is capable of functioning independently and noting Congress’s
inclusion of a severability clause). inclusion of a severability clause).
~~241 U.S. CONST. Amdt. V. For more information, see Congressional Research Service, Takings Clause: Overview,~~
~~CONSTITUTION ANNOTATED, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-5-1-1/ALDE_00000920/.~~
~~242 See Paradissiotis v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 16, 20 (2001) (describing a regulatory taking as “not involv[ing]~~
~~physical invasion or seizure of property [but rather] concern[ing] action that affects an owner’s use of property, …~~
~~based on the ‘general rule ... that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be~~
~~recognized as a taking’”) (citing Penn. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922)), aff’d, 304 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir.~~
~~2002).~~
~~243 Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 673 n. 6. (noting that “an American claimant may not use an attachment that is subject~~
~~to a revocable license and that has been obtained after the entry of a freeze order to limit in any way the actions the~~
President may take” pursuant to IEEPA).
~~Congressional Research Service~~
37

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~
Congressional Research Service 37 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use without just compensation.”244 The Fifth Amendment’s prohibitions apply as well to regulatory takings, in which the government does not physically take property but instead imposes restrictions on the right of enjoyment that decreases the value of the property or right therein.245 The Supreme Court has held that the nullification of prejudgment attachments pursuant to regulations issued under IEEPA was not an uncompensated taking, suggesting that the reason for this position was the contingent nature of the licenses that had authorized the attachments.246 The Court also suggested that the broader purpose of the statute supported the view that there was no uncompensated taking:
This Court has previously recognized that the congressional purpose in authorizing This Court has previously recognized that the congressional purpose in authorizing
blocking orders is “to put control of foreign assets in the hands of the President....blocking orders is “to put control of foreign assets in the hands of the President.... ” Such ” Such
orders permit the President to maintain the foreign assets at his disposal for use in orders permit the President to maintain the foreign assets at his disposal for use in
negotiating the resolution of a declared national emergency. The frozen assets serve as a negotiating the resolution of a declared national emergency. The frozen assets serve as a
“bargaining chip” to be used by the President when dealing with a hostile country. “bargaining chip” to be used by the President when dealing with a hostile country.
Accordingly, it is difficult to accept petitioner’s argument because the practical effect of it Accordingly, it is difficult to accept petitioner’s argument because the practical effect of it
is to allow individual claimants throughout the country to minimize or wholly eliminate is to allow individual claimants throughout the country to minimize or wholly eliminate
this “bargaining chip” through attachments, garnishments, or similar encumbrances on this “bargaining chip” through attachments, garnishments, or similar encumbrances on
property. Neither the purpose the statute was enacted to serve nor its plain language property. Neither the purpose the statute was enacted to serve nor its plain language
supports such a result.supports such a result.~~244~~247
Similarly, a lower court held that the extinguishment of contractual rights due to sanctions Similarly, a lower court held that the extinguishment of contractual rights due to sanctions
enacted pursuant to IEEPA does not amount to a regulatory taking requiring compensation under enacted pursuant to IEEPA does not amount to a regulatory taking requiring compensation under
the Fifth Amendment.the Fifth Amendment.~~245~~248 Even though the plaintiff suffered “obvious economic loss” due to the Even though the plaintiff suffered “obvious economic loss” due to the
sanctions regulations, that factor alone was not enough to sustain plaintiff’s claim of a sanctions regulations, that factor alone was not enough to sustain plaintiff’s claim of a
compensable taking.compensable taking.~~246~~249 The court quoted long-standing Supreme Court precedent to support its The court quoted long-standing Supreme Court precedent to support its
finding: finding:
A new tariff, an embargo, a draft, or a war may inevitably bring upon individuals great A new tariff, an embargo, a draft, or a war may inevitably bring upon individuals great
losses; may, indeed, render valuable property almost valueless. They may destroy the worth losses; may, indeed, render valuable property almost valueless. They may destroy the worth
of contracts. But whoever supposed that, because of this, a tariff could not be changed, or of contracts. But whoever supposed that, because of this, a tariff could not be changed, or
a non-intercourse act, ora non-intercourse act, or an embargo be enacted, or a war be declared?an embargo be enacted, or a war be declared?~~.... [W]as it ever~~
~~imagined this was taking private property without compensation or without due process of~~
~~law?247~~
~~Accordingly, it seems unlikely that entities whose business interests are harmed by the imposition~~
~~of sanctions pursuant to IEEPA will be entitled to compensation from the government for their~~
~~losses.~~
~~Persons whose assets have been directly blocked by the U.S. Department of the Treasury Office~~
~~of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) pursuant to IEEPA have likewise found little success~~
~~challenging the loss of the use of their assets as uncompensated takings.248 Many courts have~~
~~recognized that a temporary blocking of assets does not constitute a taking because it is a~~
~~temporary action that does not vest title in the United States.249 This conclusion is apparently so~~

~~244 Ibid. at~~ ... [W]as it ever 244 U.S. CONST. Amdt. V. For more information, see Congressional Research Service, Takings Clause: Overview, CONSTITUTION ANNOTATED, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-9-1/ALDE_00013280/. 245 See Paradissiotis v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 16, 20 (2001) (describing a regulatory taking as “not involv[ing] physical invasion or seizure of property [but rather] concern[ing] action that affects an owner’s use of property, … based on the ‘general rule ... that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking’”) (citing Penn. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922)), aff’d, 304 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 246 Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 673 n. 6. (noting that “an American claimant may not use an attachment that is subject to a revocable license and that has been obtained after the entry of a freeze order to limit in any way the actions the President may take” pursuant to IEEPA). 247 Ibid., 673–674; 673–674; see also Marschalk Co. v. Iran Nat. Airlines Corp., 657 F.2d 3, 4 (2d Cir. 1981) (“The President’s Marschalk Co. v. Iran Nat. Airlines Corp., 657 F.2d 3, 4 (2d Cir. 1981) (“The President’s
action in nullifying the attachments did not constitute a taking of property for which compensation must be paid.”). action in nullifying the attachments did not constitute a taking of property for which compensation must be paid.”).
~~245~~248 767 Third Ave. Assocs. v. United States, 48 F.3d 1575, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (landlord leasing office space to a 767 Third Ave. Assocs. v. United States, 48 F.3d 1575, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (landlord leasing office space to a
foreign government “did so against the backdrop of the government’s foreign policy power” and did not have foreign government “did so against the backdrop of the government’s foreign policy power” and did not have
reasonable investment-backed expectation that its contract would be fulfilled); Rockefeller Ctr. Properties v. United reasonable investment-backed expectation that its contract would be fulfilled); Rockefeller Ctr. Properties v. United
States, 32 Fed. Cl. 586, 592 (1995) (“[T]hose who trade with foreign governments mustStates, 32 Fed. Cl. 586, 592 (1995) (“[T]hose who trade with foreign governments must … take the President’s power … take the President’s power
into account in structuring their transactions.”); Chang v. United States, 859 F.2d 893, 897 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (into account in structuring their transactions.”); Chang v. United States, 859 F.2d 893, 897 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“[T]hose [T]hose
who enter into employment contracts overseas do so in light of one salient fact of economic life: that their ability to who enter into employment contracts overseas do so in light of one salient fact of economic life: that their ability to
perform and compel performance is contingent upon the continuation of friendly relations between nations” (citing perform and compel performance is contingent upon the continuation of friendly relations between nations” (citing
Chang v. United States, 13 Cl. Ct. 555, 559-60 (1987)); , 13 Cl. Ct. 555, 559-60 (1987)); Paradissiotis, 49 Fed. Cl. at 21 (holding there was no taking , 49 Fed. Cl. at 21 (holding there was no taking
because “plaintiff’’s [stock options] were ‘in every sense subordinate to the President’s power under the IEEPA.’”). because “plaintiff’’s [stock options] were ‘in every sense subordinate to the President’s power under the IEEPA.’”).
~~246~~249 Paradissiotis, 49 Fed. Cl. at 21. Congressional Research Service 38 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use imagined this was taking private property without compensation or without due process of law?250 Accordingly, it seems unlikely that entities whose business interests are harmed by the imposition of sanctions pursuant to IEEPA will be entitled to compensation from the government for their losses. Persons whose assets have been directly blocked by the U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) pursuant to IEEPA have likewise found little success challenging the loss of the use of their assets as uncompensated takings.251 Many courts have recognized that a temporary blocking of assets does not constitute a taking because it is a temporary action that does not vest title in the United States.252 This conclusion is apparently so even if the blocking of assets necessitates the closing altogether of a business enterprise.253 Paradissiotis, 49 Fed. Cl. at 21.
~~247 Ibid. (citing Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. 457, 551 (1870), quoted in Chang, 859 F.2d at 897).~~
~~248 Glob. Relief Found., Inc. v. O’Neill, 207 F. Supp. 2d 779, 802 (N.D. Ill.) (“Takings claims have often been raised—~~
~~and consistently rejected—in the IEEPA context.”), aff'd, 315 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2002).~~
~~249 Ibid. (citing Tran Qui Than v. Regan, 658 F.2d 1296, 1304 (9th Cir.1981); Miranda v. Secretary of Treasury, 766~~
~~F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1985)); Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 219 F. Supp. 2d 57, 78–79 (D.D.C. 2002)~~
~~(“[T]he case law is clear that a blocking of this nature does not constitute a seizure.” (citations omitted)), aff'd, 333 F.3d~~
~~156 (D.C. Cir. 2003).~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
38

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~even if the blocking of assets necessitates the closing altogether of a business enterprise.250~~ In In
some circumstances, however, a court may analyze at least the initial blocking of assets under a some circumstances, however, a court may analyze at least the initial blocking of assets under a
Fourth Amendment standard for seizure.Fourth Amendment standard for seizure.~~251~~254 One court found a blocking to be unreasonable under One court found a blocking to be unreasonable under
a Fourth Amendment standard where there was no reason that OFAC could not have first a Fourth Amendment standard where there was no reason that OFAC could not have first
obtained a judicial warrant.obtained a judicial warrant.~~252~~255
Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause
Some persons whose assets have been blocked have asserted that their right to due process has Some persons whose assets have been blocked have asserted that their right to due process has
been violated. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be been violated. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.~~253~~256 Where one company protested Where one company protested
that the blocking of its assets without a pre-deprivation hearing violated its right to due process, a that the blocking of its assets without a pre-deprivation hearing violated its right to due process, a
district court found that a temporary deprivation of property does not necessarily give rise to a district court found that a temporary deprivation of property does not necessarily give rise to a
right to notice and an opportunity to be heard.right to notice and an opportunity to be heard.~~254~~257 A second district court stated that the exigencies A second district court stated that the exigencies
of national security and foreign policy considerations that are implicated in IEEPA cases have of national security and foreign policy considerations that are implicated in IEEPA cases have
meant that OFAC historically has not provided pre-deprivation notice in sanctions programs.meant that OFAC historically has not provided pre-deprivation notice in sanctions programs.~~255~~258 A A
third district court stated that OFAC’s failure to provide a charitable foundation with notice or a third district court stated that OFAC’s failure to provide a charitable foundation with notice or a
hearing prior to its designation as a terrorist organization and blocking of its assets did not violate hearing prior to its designation as a terrorist organization and blocking of its assets did not violate
its right to procedural due process, because the OFAC designation and blocking order serve the its right to procedural due process, because the OFAC designation and blocking order serve the
important governmental interest of combating terrorism by curtailing the flow of terrorist important governmental interest of combating terrorism by curtailing the flow of terrorist
~~financing.256 That same court also held that prompt action by the government was necessary to~~
~~protect against the transfer of assets subject to the blocking order.257~~
~~In Al Haramain Islamic Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Court of~~
~~Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether OFAC’s use of classified information without~~
~~any disclosure of its content in its decision to freeze the assets of a charitable organization, and its~~
~~failure to provide adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond, violated the~~
~~organization’s right to procedural due process.258 The court applied the balancing test set forth by~~
~~the Supreme Court in its landmark case Mathews v. Eldridge259 to resolve these questions.260~~
~~Under the Eldridge test, to determine if an individual has received constitutional due process,~~
~~courts must weigh~~
~~(1) [the person’s or entity’s] private property interest,~~

~~250~~ 250 Ibid. (citing Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. 457, 551 (1870), quoted in Chang, 859 F.2d at 897). 251 Glob. Relief Found., Inc. v. O’Neill, 207 F. Supp. 2d 779, 802 (N.D. Ill.) (“Takings claims have often been raised—and consistently rejected—in the IEEPA context.”), aff'd, 315 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2002). 252 Ibid. (citing Tran Qui Than v. Regan, 658 F.2d 1296, 1304 (9th Cir.1981); Miranda v. Secretary of Treasury, 766 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1985)); Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 219 F. Supp. 2d 57, 78–79 (D.D.C. 2002) (“[T]he case law is clear that a blocking of this nature does not constitute a seizure.” (citations omitted)), aff'd, 333 F.3d 156 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 253 IPT Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 92 CIV. 5542 (JFK), 1994 WL 613371, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (holding that IPT Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 92 CIV. 5542 (JFK), 1994 WL 613371, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (holding that
the blocking of assets is not a taking as title to the property has not vested in the Government, the company IPT did not the blocking of assets is not a taking as title to the property has not vested in the Government, the company IPT did not
become a government-owned enterprise, and any proceeds from a sale of the business or its assets will still vest in its become a government-owned enterprise, and any proceeds from a sale of the business or its assets will still vest in its
owners, who may claim such assets when the blocking order is lifted). owners, who may claim such assets when the blocking order is lifted).
~~251~~254 KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Dev., Inc. v. Geithner, 647 F. Supp. 2d 857, 872 (N.D. Ohio 2009); Al KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Dev., Inc. v. Geithner, 647 F. Supp. 2d 857, 872 (N.D. Ohio 2009); Al
Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 585 F. Supp.2d 1233, 1263 (D. Or. 2008). Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 585 F. Supp.2d 1233, 1263 (D. Or. 2008).
~~252~~255 KindHearts, 647 F. Supp. 2d at 883. , 647 F. Supp. 2d at 883.
~~253~~256 U.S. Constitution, Amdt. V. U.S. Constitution, Amdt. V.
~~254~~257 IPT Co., 1994 WL 613371, at *6 (citing , 1994 WL 613371, at *6 (citing United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 114 S. Ct. 492, 498 , 114 S. Ct. 492, 498
(1993); (1993); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333–34 (1976)). , 424 U.S. 319, 333–34 (1976)).
~~255~~258 Glob. Relief Found., 207 F. Supp. 2d at 803-04 (emphasizing “the Executive’s need for speed in these matters, and , 207 F. Supp. 2d at 803-04 (emphasizing “the Executive’s need for speed in these matters, and
the need to prevent the flight of assets and destruction of records”), the need to prevent the flight of assets and destruction of records”), aff'd, 315 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2002). , 315 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2002).
~~256 Holy Land Found., 219 F. Supp. 2d at 77 (D.D.C. 2002).~~
~~257 Ibid.~~
~~258 686 F.3d 965, 979 (9th Cir. 2012).~~
~~259 424 U.S. 319 (1976).~~
~~260 Al Haramain, 686 F.3d at 979.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
39

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

Congressional Research Service 39 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use financing.259 That same court also held that prompt action by the government was necessary to protect against the transfer of assets subject to the blocking order.260 In Al Haramain Islamic Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether OFAC’s use of classified information without any disclosure of its content in its decision to freeze the assets of a charitable organization, and its failure to provide adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond, violated the organization’s right to procedural due process.261 The court applied the balancing test set forth by the Supreme Court in its landmark case Mathews v. Eldridge262 to resolve these questions.263 Under the Eldridge test, to determine if an individual has received constitutional due process, courts must weigh (1) [the person’s or entity’s] private property interest, (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, as (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, as
well as the value of additional safeguards, and well as the value of additional safeguards, and
(3) the Government’s interest in maintaining its procedures, including the burdens of (3) the Government’s interest in maintaining its procedures, including the burdens of
additional procedural requirements.”additional procedural requirements.”~~261~~264
While weighing the interests and risks at issue in While weighing the interests and risks at issue in Al Haramain, the Ninth Circuit found the , the Ninth Circuit found the
organization’s property interest to be significant: organization’s property interest to be significant:
By design, a designation by OFAC completely shutters all domestic operations of an entity. By design, a designation by OFAC completely shutters all domestic operations of an entity.
All assets are frozen. No person or organization may conduct any business whatsoever with All assets are frozen. No person or organization may conduct any business whatsoever with
the entity, other than a very narrow category of actions such as legal defense. Civil penalties the entity, other than a very narrow category of actions such as legal defense. Civil penalties
attach even for unwitting violations. Criminal penalties, including up to 20 years’ attach even for unwitting violations. Criminal penalties, including up to 20 years’
imprisonment, attach for willful violations. For domestic organizations such as AHIF–imprisonment, attach for willful violations. For domestic organizations such as AHIF–
Oregon, a designation means that it conducts no business at all. The designation is Oregon, a designation means that it conducts no business at all. The designation is
indefinite. Although an entity can seek administrative reconsideration and limited judicial indefinite. Although an entity can seek administrative reconsideration and limited judicial
relief, those remedies take considerable time, as evidenced by OFAC’s long administrative relief, those remedies take considerable time, as evidenced by OFAC’s long administrative
delay in this case and the ordinary delays inherent in our judicial system. In sum, delay in this case and the ordinary delays inherent in our judicial system. In sum,
designation is not a mere inconvenience or burden on certain property interests; designation designation is not a mere inconvenience or burden on certain property interests; designation
indefinitely renders a domestic organization financially defunct.indefinitely renders a domestic organization financially defunct.~~262~~265
Nevertheless, the court found “the government’s interest in national security [could not] be Nevertheless, the court found “the government’s interest in national security [could not] be
understated.”understated.”~~263~~266 In evaluating the government’s interest in maintaining its procedures, the Ninth In evaluating the government’s interest in maintaining its procedures, the Ninth
Circuit explained that the Constitution requires that the government “take reasonable measures to Circuit explained that the Constitution requires that the government “take reasonable measures to
ensure basic fairness to the private party and that the government follow procedures reasonably ensure basic fairness to the private party and that the government follow procedures reasonably
designed to protect against erroneous deprivation of the private party’s interests.”designed to protect against erroneous deprivation of the private party’s interests.”~~264~~267 While the While the
Ninth Circuit had previously held that the use of undisclosed information in a case involving the Ninth Circuit had previously held that the use of undisclosed information in a case involving the
exclusion of certain longtime resident aliens should be considered presumptively exclusion of certain longtime resident aliens should be considered presumptively
~~unconstitutional,265 the court found that the presumption had been overcome in this case.266 The~~
~~Ninth Circuit noted that all federal courts that have considered the argument that OFAC may not~~
~~use undisclosed classified information in making its determinations have rejected it.267 Although~~
~~the court found that OFAC’s failure to provide even an unclassified summary of the information~~
~~at issue was a violation of the organization’s due process rights,268 the court deemed the error~~
~~harmless because it would not likely have affected the outcome of the case.269~~

~~261~~ 259 Holy Land Found., 219 F. Supp. 2d at 77 (D.D.C. 2002). 260 Ibid. 261 686 F.3d 965, 979 (9th Cir. 2012). 262 424 U.S. 319 (1976). 263 Al Haramain, 686 F.3d at 979. 264 Ibid. Ibid. (citing (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35). , 424 U.S. at 334-35).
~~262~~265 Ibid. Ibid. at, 979–80 (internal citations omitted). 979–80 (internal citations omitted).
~~263~~266 Ibid. Ibid. at, 980. 980.
~~264~~267 Ibid. Congressional Research Service 40 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use unconstitutional,268 the court found that the presumption had been overcome in this case.269 The Ninth Circuit noted that all federal courts that have considered the argument that OFAC may not use undisclosed classified information in making its determinations have rejected it.270 Although the court found that OFAC’s failure to provide even an unclassified summary of the information at issue was a violation of the organization’s due process rights,271 the court deemed the error harmless because it would not likely have affected the outcome of the case.272 ~~Ibid.~~
~~265 Al Haramain, 686 F.3d at 981 (stating the use of classified information “should be presumptively unconstitutional”~~
~~(citing Am.–Arab Anti–Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1070 (9th Cir.1995)).~~
~~266 Ibid. at 982 “[T]the use of classified information in the fight against terrorism, during a presidentially declared~~
~~“national emergency,” qualifies as sufficiently “extraordinary” to overcome the presumption.”).~~
~~267 Ibid. at 981 (citing Holy Land, 333 F.3d at 164; Global Relief Found., Inc. v. O'Neill, 315 F.3d 748, 754 (7th Cir.~~
~~2002); KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Dev., Inc. v. Geithner (KindHearts II), 710 F. Supp. 2d 637, 660 (N.D.~~
~~Ohio 2010); Al–Aqeel v. Paulson, 568 F. Supp. 2d 64, 72 (D.D.C. 2008)). See also Olenga v. Gacki, 507 F. Supp. 3d~~
~~260, 278 (D.D.C. 2020) (“[G]iven the overriding governmental interest at stake in protecting classified information and~~
~~the wide berth afforded the executive branch in matters relating to foreign affairs and national security, the Court~~
~~concludes that OFAC has provided Olenga with sufficient notice of the reasons for his designation to comply with the~~
~~due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.”).~~
~~268 Al Haramain, 686 F.3d at 984 (“OFAC’s failure to pursue potential mitigation measures violated AHIF–Oregon’s~~
~~due process rights.”).~~
~~269 Ibid. at 990.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
40

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

In the same case, the Ninth Circuit also considered the organization’s argument that it had been In the same case, the Ninth Circuit also considered the organization’s argument that it had been
denied adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.denied adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.~~270~~273 Specifically, the organization asserted Specifically, the organization asserted
that OFAC had refused to disclose its reasons for investigating and designating the organization, that OFAC had refused to disclose its reasons for investigating and designating the organization,
leaving it unable to respond adequately to OFAC’s unknown suspicions.leaving it unable to respond adequately to OFAC’s unknown suspicions.~~271~~274 Because OFAC had Because OFAC had
provided the organization with only one document to support its designation over the four-year provided the organization with only one document to support its designation over the four-year
period between the freezing of its assets and its redesignation as a specially designated global period between the freezing of its assets and its redesignation as a specially designated global
terrorist (SDGT), the court agreed that OFAC had deprived the organization’s procedural due terrorist (SDGT), the court agreed that OFAC had deprived the organization’s procedural due
process rights.process rights.~~272~~275 However, the court found that this error too was harmless. However, the court found that this error too was harmless.~~273~~276
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that a foreign individual could not The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that a foreign individual could not
challenge his designation as a specially designated national under IEEPA on due process grounds challenge his designation as a specially designated national under IEEPA on due process grounds
because he had not established a sufficient connection with the United States to warrant because he had not established a sufficient connection with the United States to warrant
constitutional protections.constitutional protections.~~274~~277 The court acknowledged that the D.C. Circuit has not articulated a The court acknowledged that the D.C. Circuit has not articulated a
specific test for determining whether a foreign national residing outside the United States specific test for determining whether a foreign national residing outside the United States
maintains the requisite “substantial connections” to avail himself of due process rights.maintains the requisite “substantial connections” to avail himself of due process rights.~~275~~278 The The
court held that, irrespective of the proper test, the individual had failed to meet the requisite court held that, irrespective of the proper test, the individual had failed to meet the requisite
constitutional standard because he “ha[d] not established constitutional standard because he “ha[d] not established any connection to the United States, let connection to the United States, let
~~alone a substantial one.”276 The court did, however, hold that the foreign national retained the~~
~~right to procedural review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).277~~
~~First Amendment Challenges~~
~~Some courts have considered whether asset blocking or penalties imposed pursuant to regulations~~
~~promulgated under IEEPA have violated the subjects’ First Amendment rights to free association,~~
~~free speech, or religion. Challenges on these grounds have typically failed.278 Courts have held~~

~~270 Ibid. at 984.~~
~~271 Ibid. at 984-85.~~
~~272~~ 268 Al Haramain, 686 F.3d at 981 (stating the use of classified information “should be presumptively unconstitutional” (citing Am.–Arab Anti–Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1070 (9th Cir. 1995)). 269 Ibid., 982 “[T]the use of classified information in the fight against terrorism, during a presidentially declared “national emergency,” qualifies as sufficiently “extraordinary” to overcome the presumption.”). 270 Ibid., 981 (citing Holy Land, 333 F.3d at 164; Global Relief Found., Inc. v. O'Neill, 315 F.3d 748, 754 (7th Cir. 2002); KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Dev., Inc. v. Geithner (KindHearts II), 710 F. Supp. 2d 637, 660 (N.D. Ohio 2010); Al–Aqeel v. Paulson, 568 F. Supp. 2d 64, 72 (D.D.C. 2008)). See also Olenga v. Gacki, 507 F. Supp. 3d 260, 278 (D.D.C. 2020) (“[G]iven the overriding governmental interest at stake in protecting classified information and the wide berth afforded the executive branch in matters relating to foreign affairs and national security, the Court concludes that OFAC has provided Olenga with sufficient notice of the reasons for his designation to comply with the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.”). 271 Al Haramain, 686 F.3d at 984 (“OFAC’s failure to pursue potential mitigation measures violated AHIF–Oregon’s due process rights.”). 272 Ibid., 990. 273 Ibid., 984. 274 Ibid., 984-85. 275 Al Haramain, 686 F.3d at 987 (holding that, at a minimum, OFAC must provide a timely statement of reasons for , 686 F.3d at 987 (holding that, at a minimum, OFAC must provide a timely statement of reasons for
the investigation). the investigation).
~~273~~276 Ibid. at 990 (“Even if [the organization] had enjoyed better access to classified information and constitutionally Ibid. at 990 (“Even if [the organization] had enjoyed better access to classified information and constitutionally
adequate notice, we are confident that it would not have changed OFAC’s ultimate designation determination.”). adequate notice, we are confident that it would not have changed OFAC’s ultimate designation determination.”).
~~274~~277 Rakhimov v. Gacki, No. CV 19-2554 (JEB), 2020 WL 1911561, at *5 (D.D.C. April 20, 2020) (citing People’s Rakhimov v. Gacki, No. CV 19-2554 (JEB), 2020 WL 1911561, at *5 (D.D.C. April 20, 2020) (citing People’s
Mojahedin Org. of Iran v. U.S. Dep't of State, 182 F.3d 17, 22 (D.C. Cir. 1999)); Mojahedin Org. of Iran v. U.S. Dep't of State, 182 F.3d 17, 22 (D.C. Cir. 1999)); see also Fulmen Co. v. Office of Fulmen Co. v. Office of
Foreign Assets Control, 547 F.Foreign Assets Control, 547 F. Supp.Supp. 3d 13, 22 (D.D.C. 2020) (“Because Fulmen’s own pleadings demonstrate no 3d 13, 22 (D.D.C. 2020) (“Because Fulmen’s own pleadings demonstrate no
property or presence in the United States, it cannot establish the ‘substantial connections’ necessary to potentially property or presence in the United States, it cannot establish the ‘substantial connections’ necessary to potentially
entitle it to constitutional protections as a non-resident alien.”). entitle it to constitutional protections as a non-resident alien.”).
~~275~~278 Rakhimov, 2020 WL 1911561 at *5 (citing Nat’l Council of Resistance of Iran v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 251 F.3d 192, , 2020 WL 1911561 at *5 (citing Nat’l Council of Resistance of Iran v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 251 F.3d 192,
201–03 (D.C. Cir. 2001); 32 Cty. Sovereignty Comm. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 292 F.3d 797, 799 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). 201–03 (D.C. Cir. 2001); 32 Cty. Sovereignty Comm. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 292 F.3d 797, 799 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).
~~276 Ibid.~~
~~277 See ibid. at *6 (observing that the court must follow “the APA’s [5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A)] ‘highly deferential~~
~~standard,’ meaning that [it] may set aside Treasury’s action ‘only if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or~~
~~otherwise not in accordance with law’”) (quoting Zevallos v. Obama, 793 F.3d 106, 112 (D.C. Cir. 2015)).~~
~~278 KindHearts, 647 F. Supp. 2d at 889 (“Courts have uniformly held that OFAC’s blocking and designation authorities~~
~~do not reach a substantial amount of protected speech, and that its restrictions are narrowly tailored.”). Islamic Am.~~
~~Relief Agency v. Unidentified FBI Agents, 394 F. Supp. 2d 34, 52-55 (D.D.C. 2005) (rejecting claims that OFAC~~
~~blocking action violated plaintiff’s First Amendment freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of~~
~~religion, and noting that “nothing in the IEEPA or the executive order prohibits [the plaintiff] from expressing its~~
~~views”); United States v. Lindh, 212 F. Supp. 2d 541, 570 (E.D. Va. 2002) (“The First Amendment’s guarantee of~~
~~associational freedom is no license to supply terrorist organizations with resources or material support in any form,~~
~~including services as a combatant.”).~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
41

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~that there is no First Amendment right to support terrorists.279~~Congressional Research Service 41 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use alone a substantial one.”279 The court did, however, hold that the foreign national retained the right to procedural review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).280 First Amendment Challenges Some courts have considered whether asset blocking or penalties imposed pursuant to regulations promulgated under IEEPA have violated the subjects’ First Amendment rights to free association, free speech, or religion. Challenges on these grounds have typically failed.281 Courts have held that there is no First Amendment right to support terrorists.282 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit distinguished advocacy from financial support and held that the District of Columbia Circuit distinguished advocacy from financial support and held that the
blocking of assets affected only the ability to provide financial support, but did not implicate the blocking of assets affected only the ability to provide financial support, but did not implicate the
organization’s freedom of association.organization’s freedom of association.~~280~~283 Similarly, a district court interpreted relevant case law to Similarly, a district court interpreted relevant case law to
hold that government actions prohibiting charitable contributions are subject to intermediate hold that government actions prohibiting charitable contributions are subject to intermediate
scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny, a higher standard that typically applies to regulations scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny, a higher standard that typically applies to regulations
implicating political contributions.implicating political contributions.~~281~~284
With respect to a free speech challenge brought by a charitable organization whose assets were With respect to a free speech challenge brought by a charitable organization whose assets were
temporarily blocked during the pendency of an investigation, a district court explained that “when temporarily blocked during the pendency of an investigation, a district court explained that “when
‘speech’ and ‘nonspeech’ elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently ‘speech’ and ‘nonspeech’ elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently
important government interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental important government interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental
limitations on First Amendment freedoms.”limitations on First Amendment freedoms.”~~282~~285 Accordingly, the district court applied the Accordingly, the district court applied the
following test to determine whether the designations and blocking actions were lawful. Citing the following test to determine whether the designations and blocking actions were lawful. Citing the
Supreme Court’s opinion in Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. O’Brien, the court stated that a government , the court stated that a government
regulation is sufficiently justified ifregulation is sufficiently justified if:
(1) it is within the constitutional power of the government; (1) it is within the constitutional power of the government;
(2) it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; (2) it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest;
(3) the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and (3) the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and
~~(4) the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is~~
~~essential to the furtherance of that interest.283~~
~~The court found the government’s actions fell within the bounds of this test:~~
~~First, the President clearly had the power to issue the Executive Order. Second, the~~
~~Executive Order promotes an important and substantial government interest—that of~~
~~preventing terrorist attacks. Third, the government’s action is unrelated to the suppression~~
~~of free expression; it prohibits the provision of financial and other support to terrorists.~~
~~Fourth, the incidental restrictions on First Amendment freedoms are no greater than~~
~~necessary.284~~
~~With respect to an organization that was not itself designated as an SDGT but wished to conduct~~
~~coordinated advocacy with another organization that was so designated, one appellate court found~~
~~that an OFAC regulation barring such coordinated advocacy based on its content was subject to~~
~~strict scrutiny.285 The court rejected the government’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in~~

~~279~~ 279 Ibid. 280 See ibid., *6 (observing that the court must follow “the APA’s [5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A)] ‘highly deferential standard,’ meaning that [it] may set aside Treasury’s action ‘only if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law’”) (quoting Zevallos v. Obama, 793 F.3d 106, 112 (D.C. Cir. 2015)). 281 KindHearts, 647 F. Supp. 2d at 889 (“Courts have uniformly held that OFAC’s blocking and designation authorities do not reach a substantial amount of protected speech, and that its restrictions are narrowly tailored.”). Islamic Am. Relief Agency v. Unidentified FBI Agents, 394 F. Supp. 2d 34, 52-55 (D.D.C. 2005) (rejecting claims that OFAC blocking action violated plaintiff’s First Amendment freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion, and noting that “nothing in the IEEPA or the executive order prohibits [the plaintiff] from expressing its views”); United States v. Lindh, 212 F. Supp. 2d 541, 570 (E.D. Va. 2002) (“The First Amendment’s guarantee of associational freedom is no license to supply terrorist organizations with resources or material support in any form, including services as a combatant.”). 282 Islamic Am. Relief Agency v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 728, 735 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (holding that “where an organization is Islamic Am. Relief Agency v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 728, 735 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (holding that “where an organization is
found to have supported terrorism, government actions to suspend that support are not unconstitutional” under the First found to have supported terrorism, government actions to suspend that support are not unconstitutional” under the First
Amendment); Amendment); Holy Land, 333 F.3d at 166 (holding “as other courts have,” with respect to a First Amendment right to , 333 F.3d at 166 (holding “as other courts have,” with respect to a First Amendment right to
association claim, that “there is no First Amendment right nor any other constitutional right to support terrorists” (citing association claim, that “there is no First Amendment right nor any other constitutional right to support terrorists” (citing
Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno, 205 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2000)). Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno, 205 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2000)).
~~280~~283 Islamic Am. Relief Agency, 477 F.3d at 736 (“The blocking was not based on, nor does it prohibit, associational 477 F.3d at 736 (“The blocking was not based on, nor does it prohibit, associational
activity other than financial support.”). activity other than financial support.”).
~~281~~284 Kadi v. Geithner, 42 F. Supp. 3d 1, 32 (D.D.C. 2012) (noting cases that concluded that intermediate scrutiny applies Kadi v. Geithner, 42 F. Supp. 3d 1, 32 (D.D.C. 2012) (noting cases that concluded that intermediate scrutiny applies
to a designation as a specially designated global terrorist (SDGT) and blocking order affecting funds purportedly to a designation as a specially designated global terrorist (SDGT) and blocking order affecting funds purportedly
intended for charitable purposes). intended for charitable purposes).
~~282~~285 Glob. Relief Found., 207 F. Supp. 2d at 806 (citing ., 207 F. Supp. 2d at 806 (citing United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77 (1968)), , 391 U.S. 367, 376-77 (1968)), aff'd on
other grounds, 315 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2002). s, 315 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2002).
~~283 Ibid. (citing O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 376-77).~~
~~284 Ibid.~~
~~285 Al Haramain, 686 F.3d at 997 (holding strict scrutiny applies and that, “[a]ccordingly, the prohibition survives only~~
~~if it is narrowly tailored to advance the concededly compelling government interest of preventing terrorism”).~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
42

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project286 to find that the regulation impermissibly implicated the
~~organization’s right to free speech.287~~Congressional Research Service 42 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use (4) the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.286 The court found the government’s actions fell within the bounds of this test: First, the President clearly had the power to issue the Executive Order. Second, the Executive Order promotes an important and substantial government interest—that of preventing terrorist attacks. Third, the government’s action is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; it prohibits the provision of financial and other support to terrorists. Fourth, the incidental restrictions on First Amendment freedoms are no greater than necessary.287 With respect to an organization that was not itself designated as an SDGT but wished to conduct coordinated advocacy with another organization that was so designated, one appellate court found that an OFAC regulation barring such coordinated advocacy based on its content was subject to strict scrutiny.288 The court rejected the government’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project289 to find that the regulation impermissibly implicated the organization’s right to free speech.290 Accordingly, there may be some circumstances where the Accordingly, there may be some circumstances where the
First Amendment protects speech coordinated with (but not on behalf of) an organization First Amendment protects speech coordinated with (but not on behalf of) an organization
designated as an SDGT. designated as an SDGT.
First Amendment—Informational Materials and Communications Exception
under IEEPA
Although caselaw is sparse, it appears that criminal defendants have had little success asserting a Although caselaw is sparse, it appears that criminal defendants have had little success asserting a
defense that their conduct amounted to conduct under the provision of informational materials or defense that their conduct amounted to conduct under the provision of informational materials or
protected communications exception. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected a protected communications exception. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected a
claim that OFAC’s regulation, which exempts informational materials that were “not fully created claim that OFAC’s regulation, which exempts informational materials that were “not fully created
and in existence at the date of the transactions” from the scope of the statutory exception for and in existence at the date of the transactions” from the scope of the statutory exception for
informational materials, was ultra vires.informational materials, was ultra vires.~~288~~291 The Third Circuit upheld the defendant’s conviction The Third Circuit upheld the defendant’s conviction
for violating Iran sanctions regulations by marketing a dynamic chemical engineering software for violating Iran sanctions regulations by marketing a dynamic chemical engineering software
program to various Iranian entities.program to various Iranian entities.~~289~~292 A district court validated an indictment for IEEPA A district court validated an indictment for IEEPA
violations against a defendant who spoke at a conference in the Democratic People’s Republic of violations against a defendant who spoke at a conference in the Democratic People’s Republic of
North Korea (DPRK) involving cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies.North Korea (DPRK) involving cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies.~~290~~293 The court held The court held
that the jury could decide if the speech was part of a long-term conspiracy to persuade and assist that the jury could decide if the speech was part of a long-term conspiracy to persuade and assist
the DPRK in using cryptocurrency services in an effort to avoid U.S. sanctions and launder the DPRK in using cryptocurrency services in an effort to avoid U.S. sanctions and launder
money.money.~~291~~294 Another court upheld regulations that provided that software does not qualify as 286 Ibid. (citing O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 376-77). 287 Ibid. 288 Al Haramain, 686 F.3d at 997 (holding strict scrutiny applies and that, “[a]ccordingly, the prohibition survives only if it is narrowly tailored to advance the concededly compelling government interest of preventing terrorism”). 289 ~~Another court upheld regulations that provided that software does not qualify as~~
~~excepted “information and informational materials” if it is subject to export controls.292 Likewise,~~
~~source code was held not entitled to protection insofar as it was used to conduct cryptocurrency~~
~~transactions.293~~
~~Civil litigants have had some success challenging IEEPA regulations that effectively shut down~~
~~communications platforms altogether. On May 15, 2019, President Donald J. Trump, finding “that~~
~~the unrestricted acquisition or use in the United States of information and communications~~
~~technology or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by,~~
~~controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of foreign adversaries” constituted an~~
~~unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the~~
~~United States, declared a national emergency under the authority of the NEA and invoked~~
~~authorities granted by IEEPA.294~~
~~A little more than a year later, on August 6, 2020, President Trump issued two executive orders~~
~~under that same national emergency to address “the spread in the United States of mobile~~

~~286~~ 561 U.S. 1, 38 (2010) (upholding the prohibition on material support of terrorist organizations, 18 U.S.C. §2339B, 561 U.S. 1, 38 (2010) (upholding the prohibition on material support of terrorist organizations, 18 U.S.C. §2339B,
against First Amendment challenge). against First Amendment challenge).
~~287~~290 Al Haramain, 686 F.3d at 1001 (holding that under the prevailing fact circumstances, OFAC’s content-based , 686 F.3d at 1001 (holding that under the prevailing fact circumstances, OFAC’s content-based
prohibitions on speech violate the First Amendment). prohibitions on speech violate the First Amendment).
~~288~~291 United States v. Amirnazmi, 645 F.3d 564, 583 (3d Cir. 2011). United States v. Amirnazmi, 645 F.3d 564, 583 (3d Cir. 2011).
~~289~~292 Ibid. Ibid. at, 567. 567.
~~290~~293 United States v. Griffith, 515 F. Supp. 3d 106, 115 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). United States v. Griffith, 515 F. Supp. 3d 106, 115 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
~~291~~294 Ibid. Ibid. ~~at 117.~~
~~292 United States v. Alavi, No. CR 07-429-PHX-NVW, 2008 WL 1989773, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 5, 2008) (denying~~
~~motion to dismiss superseding indictment).~~
~~293 Van Loon v. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 1:23-CV-312-RP, 2023 WL 5313091, at *12 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2023).~~
~~294 E.O. 13873 (May 15, 2019), Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain,~~
~~84 Federal Register 22,689 (May 17, 2019).~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
43

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~applications developed and owned by companies in [China].”295 The executive orders applied to~~
~~the video sharing platform TikTok296 and the communications platform WeChat, among others,297~~, 117. Congressional Research Service 43 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use excepted “information and informational materials” if it is subject to export controls.295 Likewise, source code was held not entitled to protection insofar as it was used to conduct cryptocurrency transactions.296 Civil litigants have had some success challenging IEEPA regulations that effectively shut down communications platforms altogether. On May 15, 2019, President Donald J. Trump, finding “that the unrestricted acquisition or use in the United States of information and communications technology or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of foreign adversaries” constituted an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, declared a national emergency under the authority of the NEA and invoked authorities granted by IEEPA.297 A little more than a year later, on August 6, 2020, President Trump issued two executive orders under that same national emergency to address “the spread in the United States of mobile applications developed and owned by companies in [China].”298 The executive orders applied to the video sharing platform TikTok299 and the communications platform WeChat, among others,300
and prohibited certain transactions, as identified by the Secretary of Commerce, with ByteDance and prohibited certain transactions, as identified by the Secretary of Commerce, with ByteDance
Ltd., TikTok’s owner, and Tencent Holdings Ltd., WeChat’s owner.Ltd., TikTok’s owner, and Tencent Holdings Ltd., WeChat’s owner.~~298~~301
After the Trump Administration issued regulations barring transactions involving the TikTok and After the Trump Administration issued regulations barring transactions involving the TikTok and
WeChat communications applications (apps) in the United States, users of TikTok and WeChat WeChat communications applications (apps) in the United States, users of TikTok and WeChat
challenged the executive orders and the Commerce Department memorandums implementing challenged the executive orders and the Commerce Department memorandums implementing
them on constitutional and statutory grounds. Specifically, in two separate cases, litigants argued them on constitutional and statutory grounds. Specifically, in two separate cases, litigants argued
that orders and memorandums violated their First Amendment right to free speech and violated that orders and memorandums violated their First Amendment right to free speech and violated
the IEEPA restriction on regulating transactions of informational materials.the IEEPA restriction on regulating transactions of informational materials.~~299~~302 TikTok also TikTok also
brought a separate suit to enjoin the restrictions.brought a separate suit to enjoin the restrictions.~~300~~303
In the first case, In the first case, Marland v. Trump, plaintiffs, users of the video-sharing application TikTok, , plaintiffs, users of the video-sharing application TikTok,
challenged the Commerce Department’s memorandum that identified six prohibited transactions challenged the Commerce Department’s memorandum that identified six prohibited transactions
under E.O. 13942.under E.O. 13942.~~301~~304 The Commerce TikTok Identification specified that it bans only business-to- The Commerce TikTok Identification specified that it bans only business-to-
business transactions and does not apply to exchanges of business or personal information among business transactions and does not apply to exchanges of business or personal information among
~~TikTok users.302 An earlier Commerce Department memorandum noted that the effect of the~~
~~prohibitions, most of which were scheduled to apply on November 12, 2020, would be to~~
~~“significantly reduce the functionality and usability of the app in the United States,” and that~~
~~“these prohibitions may ultimately make the application less effective and may be challenging for~~
~~U.S.-based TikTok users.”303~~
~~The plaintiffs contended that the Commerce Identification violated the First and Fifth~~
~~Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the APA.304 The district court declined to address~~
~~the plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenges and certain other claims, and considered instead their~~
~~claim that the Commerce TikTok Identification was an ultra vires exercise of agency authority~~
~~under the APA because it violates IEEPA’s “informational material” exception as well as the~~
~~exception for “personal communication[s] ... not involv[ing] a transfer of anything of value.”305~~
~~The court employed a textual interpretation of IEEPA’s informational material bar to find that the~~
~~short-format videos exchanged via TikTok clearly fell into IEEPA’s nonexhaustive exemplary list~~
~~of informational materials protected from regulation or prohibition because they are “analogous~~

~~295~~ 295 United States v. Alavi, No. CR 07-429-PHX-NVW, 2008 WL 1989773, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 5, 2008) (denying motion to dismiss superseding indictment). 296 Van Loon v. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 1:23-CV-312-RP, 2023 WL 5313091, at *12 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2023). 297 E.O. 13873 (May 15, 2019), Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain, 84 Federal Register 22,689 (May 17, 2019). 298 E.O. 13942 (August 6, 2020), E.O. 13942 (August 6, 2020), Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok, and Taking Additional Steps To Address the
National Emergency With Respect to the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain, 85 , 85
Federal Register 48,637 (August 11, 2020); E.O. 13943 (August 6, 2020), 48,637 (August 11, 2020); E.O. 13943 (August 6, 2020), Addressing the Threat Posed by WeChat,
and Taking Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency With Respect to the Information and Communications
Technology and Services Supply Chain, 85 , 85 Federal Register 48,641 (August 11, 2020). 48,641 (August 11, 2020).
~~296~~299 E.O. 13942. E.O. 13942.
~~297~~300 E.O. 13943. E.O. 13943.
~~298~~301 E.O. 13942; E.O. 13943. E.O. 13942; E.O. 13943.
~~299~~302 Marland v. Trump, 498 F. Supp. 3d 624 (E.D. Pa. 2020), appeal dismissed, 2021 WL 5346749, at *1 (3d Cir. July Marland v. Trump, 498 F. Supp. 3d 624 (E.D. Pa. 2020), appeal dismissed, 2021 WL 5346749, at *1 (3d Cir. July
14, 2021); U.S. WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump, 488 F. Supp. 3d 912 (N.D. Cal. 2020), appeal dismissed, 2021 WL 14, 2021); U.S. WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump, 488 F. Supp. 3d 912 (N.D. Cal. 2020), appeal dismissed, 2021 WL
4692706 (9th Cir. August 9, 2021). 4692706 (9th Cir. August 9, 2021).
~~300~~303 TikTok, Inc. v. Trump, 507 F. Supp. 3d 92 (D.D.C. 2020), appeal dismissed, 2021 WL 3082803, at *1 (D.C. Cir. TikTok, Inc. v. Trump, 507 F. Supp. 3d 92 (D.D.C. 2020), appeal dismissed, 2021 WL 3082803, at *1 (D.C. Cir.
July 14, 2021). July 14, 2021).
~~301~~304 Marland, 498 F. Supp. 3d at 632. , 498 F. Supp. 3d at 632.
~~302 Identification of Prohibited Transactions to Implement Executive Order 13942 and Address the Threat Posed by~~
~~TikTok and the National Emergency with Respect to the Information and Communications Technology and Services~~
~~Supply Chain, 85 Federal Register 60,061 (September 24, 2020) (the “Commerce TikTok Identification”).~~
~~303 Marland, 498 F. Supp. 3d at 632 (quoting September 17 Commerce Department memorandum).~~
~~304 Ibid. at 634.~~
~~305 Ibid. (citing 5 U.S.C. §702; 50 U.S.C. §1702(b)(1) and (3)).~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
44

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~to the ‘films,’ ‘artworks,’ ‘photographs,’ and ‘news wire feeds’ expressly protected under~~
~~§1702(b)(3).”306~~ Congressional Research Service 44 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use TikTok users.305 An earlier Commerce Department memorandum noted that the effect of the prohibitions, most of which were scheduled to apply on November 12, 2020, would be to “significantly reduce the functionality and usability of the app in the United States,” and that “these prohibitions may ultimately make the application less effective and may be challenging for U.S.-based TikTok users.”306 The plaintiffs contended that the Commerce Identification violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the APA.307 The district court declined to address the plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenges and certain other claims, and considered instead their claim that the Commerce TikTok Identification was an ultra vires exercise of agency authority under the APA because it violates IEEPA’s “informational material” exception as well as the exception for “personal communication[s] ... not involv[ing] a transfer of anything of value.”308 The court employed a textual interpretation of IEEPA’s informational material bar to find that the short-format videos exchanged via TikTok clearly fell into IEEPA’s nonexhaustive exemplary list of informational materials protected from regulation or prohibition because they are “analogous to the ‘films,’ ‘artworks,’ ‘photographs,’ and ‘news wire feeds’ expressly protected under §1702(b)(3).”309
The court next determined that the Commerce TikTok Identification, even though it did not The court next determined that the Commerce TikTok Identification, even though it did not
directly ban TikTok users from communicating via TikTok, amounted, at minimum, to an indirect directly ban TikTok users from communicating via TikTok, amounted, at minimum, to an indirect
regulation of such communications by making them impossible to carry out.regulation of such communications by making them impossible to carry out.~~307~~310 The government The government
sought to characterize the burden on TikTok users as merely incidental to the Commerce sought to characterize the burden on TikTok users as merely incidental to the Commerce
Identification’s intended objective of prohibiting TikTok’s commercial transactions, and that any Identification’s intended objective of prohibiting TikTok’s commercial transactions, and that any
incidental burden cannot violated IEEPA.incidental burden cannot violated IEEPA.~~308~~311 The court, pointing to legislative history of the The court, pointing to legislative history of the
Berman Amendments, rejected the government’s contention that the object of the regulation must Berman Amendments, rejected the government’s contention that the object of the regulation must
itself involve transactions of informational material to be in violation of IEEPA’s informational itself involve transactions of informational material to be in violation of IEEPA’s informational
material exception.material exception.~~309~~312 The court observed, “[t]he Government’s suggested reading ignores The court observed, “[t]he Government’s suggested reading ignores
Congress’s deliberate insertion of the word ‘indirectly’ into IEEPA.”Congress’s deliberate insertion of the word ‘indirectly’ into IEEPA.”~~310~~313 While the court accepted While the court accepted
the notion that some burdens on transactions involving informational materials might be so the notion that some burdens on transactions involving informational materials might be so
tangential as to survive review, it declared that this case “does not present a line-drawing tangential as to survive review, it declared that this case “does not present a line-drawing
problem” between indirect regulation and tangential effects.problem” between indirect regulation and tangential effects.~~311~~314
In the next case, TikTok and its Beijing-based parent company ByteDance sued to enjoin the In the next case, TikTok and its Beijing-based parent company ByteDance sued to enjoin the
Commerce TikTok Identification prohibitions and were initially granted a nationwide preliminary Commerce TikTok Identification prohibitions and were initially granted a nationwide preliminary
injunction on the first of the prohibitions, which involved availability of the video-sharing app in injunction on the first of the prohibitions, which involved availability of the video-sharing app in
app stores.app stores.~~312~~315 The district court determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits 305 Identification of Prohibited Transactions to Implement Executive Order 13942 and Address the Threat Posed by TikTok and the National Emergency with Respect to the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain, 85 Federal Register 60,061 (September 24, 2020) (the “Commerce TikTok Identification”). 306 Marland, 498 F. Supp. 3d at 632 (quoting September 17 Commerce Department memorandum). 307 Ibid., 634. 308 Ibid. (citing 5 U.S.C. §702; 50 U.S.C. §1702(b)(1) and (3)). 309 Ibid., 636. 310 Ibid., 637 (“[T]he effect of the Identification will be to undermine the app’s functionality such that U.S. users will be prevented from exchanging data on the app.”). 311 Ibid. 312 Ibid., 638. 313 Ibid. 314 Ibid., 639. 315 TikTok, Inc. v. Trump, 490 F. Supp. 3d 73 (D.D.C. 2020). Congressional Research Service 45 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use ~~The district court determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits~~
of their claim that the prohibition contravened the informational material exception.of their claim that the prohibition contravened the informational material exception.~~313~~316 The court The court
explained that the content users share through TikTok falls into the category of informational explained that the content users share through TikTok falls into the category of informational
materials because it “appears to be (or to be analogous to) ‘publications, films, ... photographs, ... materials because it “appears to be (or to be analogous to) ‘publications, films, ... photographs, ...
artworks, ... and news wire feeds.’”artworks, ... and news wire feeds.’”~~314~~317 Like the court in Like the court in Marland, the district court in , the district court in TikTok Inc.
rejected the government’s contention that the prohibition involved only business-to-business rejected the government’s contention that the prohibition involved only business-to-business
transactions based on the finding that the “purpose and effect” of the prohibition on U.S. users transactions based on the finding that the “purpose and effect” of the prohibition on U.S. users
was “to limit, and ultimately reduce to zero, the number of U.S. users who can comment on the was “to limit, and ultimately reduce to zero, the number of U.S. users who can comment on the
platform and have their personal data on TikTok.”platform and have their personal data on TikTok.”~~315~~318 The court also found it implausible that The court also found it implausible that
information exchanged on TikTok would fall within a carve-out to the informational materials information exchanged on TikTok would fall within a carve-out to the informational materials
exception under the Espionage Act for “shar[ing] U.S. defense secrets ... with foreign exception under the Espionage Act for “shar[ing] U.S. defense secrets ... with foreign
adversariesadversaries~~”.316~~.”319
The IEEPA exception also covers “personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of The IEEPA exception also covers “personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of
anything of value.”anything of value.”~~317~~320 The government in The government in TikTok argued that, even if personal communications argued that, even if personal communications
shared over TikTok have no economic value to the creators and recipients, such communications shared over TikTok have no economic value to the creators and recipients, such communications

~~306 Ibid. at 636.~~
~~307 Ibid. at 637 (“[T]he effect of the Identification will be to undermine the app’s functionality such that U.S. users will~~
~~be prevented from exchanging data on the app.”).~~
~~308 Ibid.~~
~~309 Ibid. at 638.~~
~~310 Ibid.~~
~~311 Ibid. at 639.~~
~~312 TikTok, Inc. v. Trump, 490 F. Supp. 3d 73 (D.D.C. 2020).~~
~~313 Ibid. at 80.~~
~~314 Ibid. at 82 (quoting 50 U.S.C. §1702(b)(3)).~~
~~315 Ibid. at 81.~~
~~316 Ibid. at 83.~~
~~317 50 U.S.C. §1702(b)(1).~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
45

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~nevertheless have an economic value to the platform as a whole.318~~nevertheless have an economic value to the platform as a whole.321 The district court rejected this The district court rejected this
argument, stating “such an expansive reading of the phrase ‘anything of value’ would write the argument, stating “such an expansive reading of the phrase ‘anything of value’ would write the
personal-communications limitation out of the statute.”personal-communications limitation out of the statute.”~~319~~322 The court reasoned that, “[a]ll The court reasoned that, “[a]ll
communication service providers—from televisions stations and publishers to cellular phone communication service providers—from televisions stations and publishers to cellular phone
carriers—get some value from a user’s ‘presence on’ their platform.”carriers—get some value from a user’s ‘presence on’ their platform.”~~320~~323
The third case stems from the Commerce Secretary’s issuance of “Identification of Prohibited The third case stems from the Commerce Secretary’s issuance of “Identification of Prohibited
Transactions to Implement Executive Order 13943 and Address the Threat Posed by WeChat and Transactions to Implement Executive Order 13943 and Address the Threat Posed by WeChat and
the National Emergency with Respect to the Information and Communications Technology and the National Emergency with Respect to the Information and Communications Technology and
Services Supply Chain,” identifying the prohibited transactions (Commerce WeChat Services Supply Chain,” identifying the prohibited transactions (Commerce WeChat
Identification). Identification). ~~321~~324 The Commerce WeChat Identification further clarified that these prohibitions The Commerce WeChat Identification further clarified that these prohibitions
“only apply to the parties to business-to-business transactions” and did not apply to “[t]he “only apply to the parties to business-to-business transactions” and did not apply to “[t]he
exchange between or among WeChat mobile application users of personal or business exchange between or among WeChat mobile application users of personal or business
information using the WeChat mobile application, to include the transferring and receiving of information using the WeChat mobile application, to include the transferring and receiving of
funds,” among other things.funds,” among other things.~~322~~325 The U.S. users of the messaging, social-media, and mobile- The U.S. users of the messaging, social-media, and mobile-
payment app WeChat, sued to challenge the constitutionality of Executive Order 13943 on First payment app WeChat, sued to challenge the constitutionality of Executive Order 13943 on First
Amendment and Fifth Amendment grounds, as well its compliance with the IEEPA exception Amendment and Fifth Amendment grounds, as well its compliance with the IEEPA exception
precluding regulation of personal communications.precluding regulation of personal communications.~~323~~326 The government did not contest that the The government did not contest that the
prohibitions would result in shutting down WeChat for users as a platform for the exchange of prohibitions would result in shutting down WeChat for users as a platform for the exchange of
information.information.~~324~~327 316 Ibid., 80. 317 Ibid., 82 (quoting 50 U.S.C. §1702(b)(3)). 318 Ibid., 81. 319 Ibid., 83. 320 50 U.S.C. §1702(b)(1). 321 TikTok, 490 F. Supp. 3d at 83. 322 Ibid. 323 Ibid. 324 U.S. Commerce Department, https://www.commerce.gov/files/identification-prohibited-transactions-implement-executive-order-13943-and-address-threat. 325 Ibid. 326 U.S. WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump, 488 F. Supp. 3d 912 (N.D. Cal. 2020). 327 Ibid., 926 (referring to plaintiffs’ description of WeChat as “a public square for the Chinese-American and Chinese-speaking community in the U.S”). Congressional Research Service 46 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use
Addressing the plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge, the district court agreed that the plaintiffs Addressing the plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge, the district court agreed that the plaintiffs
established a strong showing that the WeChat ban unlawfully foreclosed “an entire medium of established a strong showing that the WeChat ban unlawfully foreclosed “an entire medium of
public expression” or amounted to an unlawful prior restraint of their communications. public expression” or amounted to an unlawful prior restraint of their communications. ~~325~~328 The The
court concluded that Chinese-American and Chinese-speaking WeChat users in the United States court concluded that Chinese-American and Chinese-speaking WeChat users in the United States
do not have any other viable means of communicating electronically, “not only because China do not have any other viable means of communicating electronically, “not only because China
bans other apps, but also because Chinese speakers with limited English proficiency have no bans other apps, but also because Chinese speakers with limited English proficiency have no
options other than WeChat.”options other than WeChat.”~~326~~329 The court suggested, without deciding, that the WeChat ban could The court suggested, without deciding, that the WeChat ban could
receive heightened First Amendment strict scrutiny if decided on the merits.receive heightened First Amendment strict scrutiny if decided on the merits.~~327~~330 With regard to With regard to
intermediate scrutiny, the court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their First intermediate scrutiny, the court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their First
Amendment challenge. An intermediate form of scrutiny is normally reserved for restrictions on Amendment challenge. An intermediate form of scrutiny is normally reserved for restrictions on
the “time, place, or manner,” and a time, place, or manner restriction survives such scrutiny if it the “time, place, or manner,” and a time, place, or manner restriction survives such scrutiny if it
“(1) is narrowly tailored, (2) serves a significant governmental interest unrelated to the content of “(1) is narrowly tailored, (2) serves a significant governmental interest unrelated to the content of

~~318 TikTok, 490 F. Supp. 3d at 83.~~
~~319 Ibid.~~
~~320 Ibid.~~
~~321 U.S. Commerce Department, https://www.commerce.gov/files/identification-prohibited-transactions-implement-~~
~~executive-order-13943-and-address-threat.~~
~~322 Ibid.~~
~~323 U.S. WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump, 488 F. Supp. 3d 912 (N.D. Cal. 2020).~~
~~324 Ibid. at 926 (referring to plaintiffs’ description of WeChat as “a public square for the Chinese-American and~~
~~Chinese-speaking community in the U.S”).~~
~~325 Ibid. at 927~~
~~326 Ibid. at (discounting government’s “argument that other substitute social-media apps permit communication”).~~
~~327 Ibid. at 926-27In order to justify a prior restraint, the government must demonstrate that the restraint is “narrowly~~
~~tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.” Twitter, Inc. v. Sessions, 263 F. Supp. 3d 803, 810 (N.D. Cal.~~
~~2017) (citing Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539. 571 (1979); Forsyth Cty., Ga. v. Nationalist Movement,~~
~~505 U.S. 123, 130 (1992); Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989)).~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
46

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~the speech, and (3) leaves open adequate channels for communication.”328~~the speech, and (3) leaves open adequate channels for communication.”331 The court agreed that The court agreed that
the government’s national security interest in preventing WeChat (and China) collection of data the government’s national security interest in preventing WeChat (and China) collection of data
from U.S. users is significant, but that the “effective ban” did not advance that interest in a from U.S. users is significant, but that the “effective ban” did not advance that interest in a
narrowly tailored way given the “obvious alternatives to a complete ban, such as barring WeChat narrowly tailored way given the “obvious alternatives to a complete ban, such as barring WeChat
from government devices” or enhancing data security.from government devices” or enhancing data security.~~329~~332 The court concluded that “[o]n this The court concluded that “[o]n this
limited record, the prohibited transactions burden substantially more speech than is necessary to limited record, the prohibited transactions burden substantially more speech than is necessary to
serve the government’s significant interest in national security, especially given the lack of serve the government’s significant interest in national security, especially given the lack of
substitute channels for communication.”substitute channels for communication.”~~330~~333
The court further determined that the immediate shutdown of WeChat would cause irreparable The court further determined that the immediate shutdown of WeChat would cause irreparable
harm to the plaintiffs by eliminating their platform for communication.harm to the plaintiffs by eliminating their platform for communication.~~331~~334 In assessing the balance In assessing the balance
of equities and the public interest (elements that merge where the government is a party),of equities and the public interest (elements that merge where the government is a party),~~332~~335 the the
court found that the balance of equities tipped in plaintiffs’ favor and the public interest favored court found that the balance of equities tipped in plaintiffs’ favor and the public interest favored
protecting the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.protecting the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.~~333~~336 The court framed the government’s contention The court framed the government’s contention
that an injunction would “frustrate and displace the President’s determination of how best to that an injunction would “frustrate and displace the President’s determination of how best to
address threats to national security”address threats to national security”~~334~~337 as important, but deemed the evidence of the threat posed as important, but deemed the evidence of the threat posed
specifically by WeChat to be only modest, noting that the wholesale shutdown of WeChat burdens specifically by WeChat to be only modest, noting that the wholesale shutdown of WeChat burdens
more speech than necessary to serve the government’s national security and foreign policy more speech than necessary to serve the government’s national security and foreign policy
interests.interests.~~335~~338 Accordingly, the court entered a preliminary nationwide injunction of the Commerce Accordingly, the court entered a preliminary nationwide injunction of the Commerce
WeChat Identification.WeChat Identification.~~336~~
~~All three courts adjudicating these disputes issued preliminary injunctions, and the government~~
~~appealed each decision.337 The Biden Administration initially sought to pause the litigation while~~
~~it reviewed U.S.-China policy and the effective social media platform bans.338 President Biden~~
~~subsequently issued an executive order rescinding the relevant executive orders and the~~
~~Commerce Department’s implementing memorandums,339 making the litigation moot.340 The~~
~~original underlying executive order related to the information and communications technology~~
~~and services supply chain, 341 however, remains intact with elaborations set forth in Executive~~
~~Order 14034. Consequently, should the Biden Administration decide to institute new restrictions~~

~~328~~339 328 Ibid., 927. 329 Ibid. (discounting government’s “argument that other substitute social-media apps permit communication”). 330 Ibid., 926-27. In order to justify a prior restraint, the government must demonstrate that the restraint is “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.” Twitter, Inc. v. Sessions, 263 F. Supp. 3d 803, 810 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (citing Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539. 571 (1979); Forsyth Cty., Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 130 (1992); Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989)). 331 U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, 488 F. Supp. 3d at 927 (citing , 488 F. Supp. 3d at 927 (citing Ward, 491 U.S. at 791; Pac. Coast Horseshoeing Sch., , 491 U.S. at 791; Pac. Coast Horseshoeing Sch.,
Inc. v. Kirchmeyer, 961 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020)). Inc. v. Kirchmeyer, 961 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020)).
~~329 Ibid.~~
~~330 Ibid. at~~332 U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, 488 F. Supp. 3d at 927. 333 Ibid., 928 (citing 928 (citing Ward, 491 U.S. at 791). , 491 U.S. at 791).
~~331~~334 Ibid. Ibid. at, 929. 929.
~~332~~335 Ibid. (citing California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 575 (9th Cir. 2018)). Ibid. (citing California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 575 (9th Cir. 2018)).
~~333~~336 Ibid. (citing Am. Beverage Ass’n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 916 F.3d 749, 758 (9th Cir. 2019)). Ibid. (citing Am. Beverage Ass’n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 916 F.3d 749, 758 (9th Cir. 2019)).
~~334~~337 Ibid. Ibid.
~~335~~338 Ibid. Ibid.
~~336~~339 Ibid. Ibid. ~~at 930.~~
~~337 Marland v. Trump, No. 20-3322 (3d Cir. filed November11, 2020); TikTok, Inc. v. Trump, No. 20-5381 (D.C. Cir.~~
~~filed December 29, 2020); U.S. WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump, No. 20-16908 (9th Cir. filed October 2, 2020).~~
~~338 Jeanne Whalen, Biden asks for pause in Trump’s effort to ban WeChat, WASH. POST, February 11, 2021,~~
~~https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/11/wechat-trump-biden-pause/.~~
~~339 E.O. 14034 of June 9, 2021, “Protecting Americans’ Sensitive Data From Foreign Adversaries,” 86~~ ~~Federal~~
~~Register~~ ~~31,423 (June11, 2021).~~
~~340 Marland v. Trump, No. 20-3322, 2021 WL 5346749, at *1 (3d Cir. July 14, 2021) (dismissing appeal pursuant to~~
~~agreement between parties); TikTok Inc. v. Biden, No. 20-5381, 2021 WL 3082803, at *1 (D.C. Cir. July 14, 2021)~~
~~(dismissing appeal at government’s request); WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump, No. 20-16908, 2021 WL 4692706, at~~
*1 (9th Cir. August 9, 2021) (same).
~~341 E.O. 13873 of May 15, 2019, “Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply~~
~~Chain,” 84 Federal Register 22,689 (May 17, 2019).~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
47

~~link to page 60 link to page 60~~ ~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

, 930. Congressional Research Service 47 link to page 60 link to page 60 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use All three courts adjudicating these disputes issued preliminary injunctions, and the government appealed each decision.340 The Biden Administration initially sought to pause the litigation while it reviewed U.S.-China policy and the effective social media platform bans.341 President Biden subsequently issued an executive order rescinding the relevant executive orders and the Commerce Department’s implementing memorandums,342 making the litigation moot.343 The original underlying executive order related to the information and communications technology and services supply chain, 344 however, remains intact with elaborations set forth in Executive Order 14034. Consequently, should the Biden Administration decide to institute new restrictions on the platforms, the First Amendment issue and the interpretation of IEEPA’s exception for on the platforms, the First Amendment issue and the interpretation of IEEPA’s exception for
informational materials and personal communications may arise again in litigation. informational materials and personal communications may arise again in litigation.
Use of IEEPA to Continue Enforcing the Export Administration Act (EAA)
Until the enactment of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, Until the enactment of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018,~~342~~345 export of dual use goods and export of dual use goods and
services was regulated pursuant to the authority of the Export Administration Act (EAA),services was regulated pursuant to the authority of the Export Administration Act (EAA),~~343~~346
which was subject to periodic expiry and reauthorization. President Reagan was the first President which was subject to periodic expiry and reauthorization. President Reagan was the first President
to use IEEPA as a vehicle for continuing the enforcement of the EAA’s export controls.to use IEEPA as a vehicle for continuing the enforcement of the EAA’s export controls.~~344~~347
After Congress did not extend the expired EAA, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12444 After Congress did not extend the expired EAA, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12444
in 1983, finding that “unrestricted access of foreign parties to United States commercial goods, in 1983, finding that “unrestricted access of foreign parties to United States commercial goods,
technology, and technical data and the existence of certain boycott practices of foreign nations technology, and technical data and the existence of certain boycott practices of foreign nations
constitute, in light of the expiration of the Export Administration Act of 1979, an unusual and constitute, in light of the expiration of the Export Administration Act of 1979, an unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security.”extraordinary threat to the national security.”~~345~~348 Although the EAA had been reauthorized for Although the EAA had been reauthorized for
short periods since its initial expiration in 1983, every subsequent President utilized the short periods since its initial expiration in 1983, every subsequent President utilized the
authorities granted under IEEPA to maintain the existing system of export controls during periods authorities granted under IEEPA to maintain the existing system of export controls during periods
of lapse. of lapse.
In the latest iteration, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13222 in 2001, finding In the latest iteration, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13222 in 2001, finding
the existence of a national emergency with respect to the expiration of the EAA and directing—the existence of a national emergency with respect to the expiration of the EAA and directing—
pursuant to the authorities allocated under IEEPA—that “the provisions for administration of the pursuant to the authorities allocated under IEEPA—that “the provisions for administration of the
[EAA] shall be carried out under this order so as to continue in full force and effect … the export [EAA] shall be carried out under this order so as to continue in full force and effect … the export
~~control system heretofore maintained.”346 Presidents Obama and Trump annually extended the~~
~~2001 executive order.347~~
~~Courts have generally treated this arrangement as authorized by Congress,348 although certain~~
~~provisions of the EAA in effect under IEEPA have led to challenges. The determining factor~~
~~appears to be whether IEEPA itself provides the President the authority to carry out the~~
~~challenged action. In one case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a conviction~~
~~for an attempt to violate the regulations even though the EAA had expired and did not expressly~~
~~criminalize such attempts.349 The circuit court rejected the defendants’ argument that the President~~

~~342, Title XVIII(B). In 2018, Congress passed the Export Control Reform Act~~ 340 Marland v. Trump, No. 20-3322 (3d Cir. filed November11, 2020); TikTok, Inc. v. Trump, No. 20-5381 (D.C. Cir. filed December 29, 2020); U.S. WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump, No. 20-16908 (9th Cir. filed October 2, 2020). 341 Jeanne Whalen, Biden asks for pause in Trump’s effort to ban WeChat, WASH. POST, February 11, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/11/wechat-trump-biden-pause/. 342 E.O. 14034 of June 9, 2021, “Protecting Americans’ Sensitive Data From Foreign Adversaries,” 86 Federal Register 31,423 (June11, 2021). 343 Marland v. Trump, No. 20-3322, 2021 WL 5346749, at *1 (3d Cir. July 14, 2021) (dismissing appeal pursuant to agreement between parties); TikTok Inc. v. Biden, No. 20-5381, 2021 WL 3082803, at *1 (D.C. Cir. July 14, 2021) (dismissing appeal at government’s request); WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump, No. 20-16908, 2021 WL 4692706, at *1 (9th Cir. August 9, 2021) (same). 344 E.O. 13873 of May 15, 2019, “Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain,” 84 Federal Register 22,689 (May 17, 2019). 345In 2018, Congress passed the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), P.L. 115-232 to repeal the Export to repeal the Export
Administration Act of 1979 and provide new statutory authority for the continuation of EAR. Administration Act of 1979 and provide new statutory authority for the continuation of EAR.
However, three sections However, three sections were not repealed and Congress directed their continued application were not repealed and Congress directed their continued application
through the exercise of IEEPAthrough the exercise of IEEPA. See “
The Export Control Reform Act of 2018” section below. section below.
~~343~~346 P.L. 96-72, §2, 93 Stat. 503 (1979), codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§4601-4623 (2018). P.L. 96-72, §2, 93 Stat. 503 (1979), codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§4601-4623 (2018).
~~344~~347 E.O. 12444, 48 E.O. 12444, 48 Federal Register 48,215 (October 18, 1983). 48,215 (October 18, 1983).
~~345~~348 Ibid. Congressional Research Service 48 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use control system heretofore maintained.”349 Presidents Obama and Trump annually extended the 2001 executive order.350 Courts have generally treated this arrangement as authorized by Congress,351 although certain provisions of the EAA in effect under IEEPA have led to challenges. The determining factor appears to be whether IEEPA itself provides the President the authority to carry out the challenged action. In one case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a conviction for an attempt to violate the regulations even though the EAA had expired and did not expressly criminalize such attempts.352 The circuit court rejected the defendants’ argument that the President ~~Ibid.~~
~~346 E.O. 13222, 66 Federal Register 44,025 (August 17, 2001).~~
~~347 See, e.g., Continuation of Emergency Regarding Export Control Regulations, 82 Federal Register 39,005 (August~~
~~15, 2017).~~
~~348 Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1, 22 (D.D.C. 2005) (“Courts uniformly have read [the executive~~
~~order preserving the EAA regulations under IEEPA] to mean that the statute remained in full effect during the periods~~
~~of lapse.”). In this case, Sudan challenged its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism pursuant to a provision of the~~
~~EAA because the statute had expired.~~
~~349 United States v. Mechanic, 809 F.2d 1111, 1112-13 (5th Cir. 1987).~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
48

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

had exceeded his delegated authority under the EEA by “enlarging” the crimes punishable under had exceeded his delegated authority under the EEA by “enlarging” the crimes punishable under
the regulations.the regulations.~~350~~353
Nevertheless, a district court held that the conspiracy provisions of the EAA regulations were Nevertheless, a district court held that the conspiracy provisions of the EAA regulations were
rendered inoperative by the lapse of the EAA and “could not be repromulgated by executive order rendered inoperative by the lapse of the EAA and “could not be repromulgated by executive order
under the general powers that IEEPA vests in the President.”under the general powers that IEEPA vests in the President.”~~351~~354 The district court found that, even The district court found that, even
if Congress intended to preserve the operation of the EAA through IEEPA, that intent was limited if Congress intended to preserve the operation of the EAA through IEEPA, that intent was limited
by the scope of the statutes’ substantive coverage at the time of IEEPA’s enactment, when no by the scope of the statutes’ substantive coverage at the time of IEEPA’s enactment, when no
conspiracy provision existed in either statute.conspiracy provision existed in either statute.~~352~~355
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the application of the EAA as a statute The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the application of the EAA as a statute
permitting the government to withhold information under exemption 3 of the Freedom of permitting the government to withhold information under exemption 3 of the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA),Information Act (FOIA),~~353~~356 which exempts from disclosure information exempted from disclosure which exempts from disclosure information exempted from disclosure
by statute, even though the EAA had expired.by statute, even though the EAA had expired.~~354~~357 Referring to legislative history it interpreted as Referring to legislative history it interpreted as
congressional approval of the use of IEEPA to continue the EAA provisions during periods of congressional approval of the use of IEEPA to continue the EAA provisions during periods of
lapse, the court statedlapse, the court stated:
Although the legislative history does not refer to the EAA’s confidentiality provision, it Although the legislative history does not refer to the EAA’s confidentiality provision, it
does evince Congress’s intent to authorize the President to preserve the operation of the does evince Congress’s intent to authorize the President to preserve the operation of the
export regulations promulgated under the EAA. Moreover, it is significant for purposes of export regulations promulgated under the EAA. Moreover, it is significant for purposes of
determining legislative intent that Congress acted with the knowledge that the EAA’s determining legislative intent that Congress acted with the knowledge that the EAA’s
export regulations had long provided for confidentiality and that the President’s ongoing export regulations had long provided for confidentiality and that the President’s ongoing
practice of extending the EAA by executive order had always included these confidentiality practice of extending the EAA by executive order had always included these confidentiality
protections.protections.~~355~~358
The D.C. Circuit distinguished this holding in a later case involving appellate jurisdiction over a The D.C. Circuit distinguished this holding in a later case involving appellate jurisdiction over a
decision by the Department of Commerce to apply sanctions for a company’s violation of the decision by the Department of Commerce to apply sanctions for a company’s violation of the
EAA regulations.EAA regulations.~~356~~359 Pursuant to the regulations and under the direction of the Commerce 349 E.O. 13222, 66 Federal Register 44,025 (August 17, 2001). 350 See, e.g., Continuation of Emergency Regarding Export Control Regulations, 82 Federal Register 39,005 (August 15, 2017). 351 Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1, 22 (D.D.C. 2005) (“Courts uniformly have read [ ~~Pursuant to the regulations and under the direction of the Commerce~~
~~Department, the company sought judicial review directly in the D.C. Circuit.357 The D.C. Circuit,~~
~~however, concluded that it lacked jurisdiction:~~
~~This court would have jurisdiction pursuant to the President’s order only if the President~~
~~has the authority to confer jurisdiction—an authority that, if it exists, must derive from~~
~~either the Executive’s inherent power under the Constitution or a permissible delegation of~~
~~power from Congress. The former is unavailing, as the Constitution vests the power to~~
~~confer jurisdiction in Congress alone. Whether~~ the executive the executive order preserving the EAA regulations under IEEPA] to mean that the statute remained in full effect during the periods of lapse.”). In this case, Sudan challenged its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism pursuant to a provision of the EAA because the statute had expired. 352 United States v. Mechanic, 809 F.2d 1111, 1112-13 (5th Cir. 1987). 353 Ibid.,~~order can provide the basis of~~
~~our jurisdiction, then, turns on whether the President can confer jurisdiction on this court~~
~~under the auspices of IEEPA…. We conclude that the President lacks that power. Nothing~~
~~in the text of IEEPA delegates to the President the authority to grant jurisdiction to any~~
~~federal court.358~~

~~350 Ibid. at~~ 1113-14 (emphasizing the foreign affairs connection served by the EAA). 1113-14 (emphasizing the foreign affairs connection served by the EAA).
~~351~~354 United States v. Quinn, 401 F. Supp. 2d 80, 93 (D.D.C. 2005). United States v. Quinn, 401 F. Supp. 2d 80, 93 (D.D.C. 2005).
~~352~~355 Ibid. Ibid. at, 95. 95.
~~353~~356 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(3) (2018). 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(3) (2018).
~~354~~357 Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 317 F.3d 275, 282 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 317 F.3d 275, 282 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
~~355~~358 Ibid. Ibid.
~~356~~359 Micei Int’l v. Dep't of Commerce, 613 F.3d 1147, 1150 (D.C. Cir. 2010 Micei Int’l v. Dep't of Commerce, 613 F.3d 1147, 1150 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
~~357 Ibid. at 1151.~~
~~358 Ibid. at 1153 (internal citations omitted~~). ).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
49 49

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Department, the company sought judicial review directly in the D.C. Circuit.360 The D.C. Circuit, however, concluded that it lacked jurisdiction: This court would have jurisdiction pursuant to the President’s order only if the President has the authority to confer jurisdiction—an authority that, if it exists, must derive from either the Executive’s inherent power under the Constitution or a permissible delegation of power from Congress. The former is unavailing, as the Constitution vests the power to confer jurisdiction in Congress alone. Whether the executive order can provide the basis of our jurisdiction, then, turns on whether the President can confer jurisdiction on this court under the auspices of IEEPA…. We conclude that the President lacks that power. Nothing in the text of IEEPA delegates to the President the authority to grant jurisdiction to any federal court.361 Consequently, the appeal of the agency decision was determined to belong in the district court Consequently, the appeal of the agency decision was determined to belong in the district court
according to the default rule under the APA.according to the default rule under the APA.~~359~~362
Issues and Options for Congress
Congress may address a number of issues with respect to IEEPA; three are addressed here. The Congress may address a number of issues with respect to IEEPA; three are addressed here. The
first pertains to how Congress has delegated its authority under IEEPA and its umbrella statute, first pertains to how Congress has delegated its authority under IEEPA and its umbrella statute,
the NEA. The second pertains to the termination of national emergencies invoking IEEPA. The the NEA. The second pertains to the termination of national emergencies invoking IEEPA. The
third pertains to choices made in the Export Control Reform Act of 2018. third pertains to choices made in the Export Control Reform Act of 2018.
Delegation of Authority under IEEPA
Although the stated aim of the drafters of the NEA and IEEPA was to restrain the use of Although the stated aim of the drafters of the NEA and IEEPA was to restrain the use of
emergency powers, the use of such powers has expanded by several measures. Presidents declare emergency powers, the use of such powers has expanded by several measures. Presidents declare
national emergencies and renew them for years or even decades. The limitation of IEEPA to national emergencies and renew them for years or even decades. The limitation of IEEPA to
transactions involving some foreign interest was intended to limit IEEPA’s domestic application. transactions involving some foreign interest was intended to limit IEEPA’s domestic application.
However, globalization has eroded that limit, as few transactions today do not involve some However, globalization has eroded that limit, as few transactions today do not involve some
foreign interest. Many of the other criticisms of TWEA that IEEPA was supposed to address—foreign interest. Many of the other criticisms of TWEA that IEEPA was supposed to address—
consultation, time limits, congressional review, scope of power, and logical relationship to the consultation, time limits, congressional review, scope of power, and logical relationship to the
emergency declared—are criticisms that scholars levy against IEEPA today.emergency declared—are criticisms that scholars levy against IEEPA today.~~360~~363 TWEA came under TWEA came under
criticism because the first national emergency declared pursuant to its authority had been ongoing criticism because the first national emergency declared pursuant to its authority had been ongoing
for 41 years.for 41 years.~~361~~364 In November In November ~~2022~~2023, the first emergency declared pursuant to authority under , the first emergency declared pursuant to authority under
IEEPA, the emergency with Iran declared in IEEPA, the emergency with Iran declared in November 1979, entered~~1979, will enter~~ its forty- its forty-~~third~~fourth year. year.
In general, four criticisms are levied by scholars with respect to the structure of the NEA and In general, four criticisms are levied by scholars with respect to the structure of the NEA and
IEEPA that may be of interest to Congress. First, the NEA and IEEPA do not define the phrases IEEPA that may be of interest to Congress. First, the NEA and IEEPA do not define the phrases
“national emergency” and “unusual and extraordinary threat” and Presidents have interpreted “national emergency” and “unusual and extraordinary threat” and Presidents have interpreted
these terms broadly. Second, the scope of presidential authority under IEEPA has become less these terms broadly. Second, the scope of presidential authority under IEEPA has become less
constrained in a highly globalized era. Third, owing to rulings by the Supreme Court and constrained in a highly globalized era. Third, owing to rulings by the Supreme Court and
amendments to the NEA, Congress must have a two-thirds majority rather than a simple majority amendments to the NEA, Congress must have a two-thirds majority rather than a simple majority
to terminate a national emergency without Presidential consent. Fourth, the structure of the U.S. to terminate a national emergency without Presidential consent. Fourth, the structure of the U.S.
360 Ibid., 1151. 361 Ibid., 1153 (internal citations omitted). 362 Ibid., 1152 (citing 5 U.S.C. §704 (2009)). 363 See, e.g., Jason Luong, “Forcing Constraint”; Jules Lobel, “Emergency Power and the Decline of Liberalism.” 364 See, e.g., “After 41 Years The Depression Finally Ending,” New York Times, October 13, 1974; “Senate Votes to Conclude 4 National Emergencies,” New York Times, October 8, 1974; U.S. Congress, A Brief History of Emergency Powers in the United States, p. v. Congressional Research Service 50 link to page 67 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use sanctions regime and its reliance on IEEPA has created emergencies that do not end. Despite these sanctions regime and its reliance on IEEPA has created emergencies that do not end. Despite these
criticisms, Congress has criticisms, Congress has never terminated an emergency declaration invoking IEEPA.terminated an emergency declaration invoking IEEPA.365 This absence of This absence of
any explicit statement of disapproval, coupled with explicit statements of approval in some any explicit statement of disapproval, coupled with explicit statements of approval in some
instances, may indicate congressional approval of presidential use of IEEPA thus far. Arguably, instances, may indicate congressional approval of presidential use of IEEPA thus far. Arguably,
then, IEEPA could be seen as an effective tool for carrying out the will of Congress. then, IEEPA could be seen as an effective tool for carrying out the will of Congress.
Definition of “National Emergency” and “Unusual and Extraordinary Threat”
Neither the NEA nor IEEPA define what constitutes a “national emergency.” IEEPA conditions its Neither the NEA nor IEEPA define what constitutes a “national emergency.” IEEPA conditions its
invocation in a declaration on its necessity for dealing with an “unusual and extraordinary threat invocation in a declaration on its necessity for dealing with an “unusual and extraordinary threat
… to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.”… to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.”~~362~~366 In the markup of In the markup of
IEEPA in the House, Fred Bergsten, then-Assistant Secretary for International Affairs in the IEEPA in the House, Fred Bergsten, then-Assistant Secretary for International Affairs in the
Department of the Treasury, praised the requirement that a national emergency for the purposes of Department of the Treasury, praised the requirement that a national emergency for the purposes of

~~359 Ibid. at 1152 (citing 5 U.S.C. §704 (2009)).~~
~~360 See, e.g., Jason Luong, “Forcing Constraint”; Jules Lobel, “Emergency Power and the Decline of Liberalism.”~~
~~361 See, e.g., “After 41 Years The Depression Finally Ending,” New York Times, October 13, 1974; “Senate Votes to~~
~~Conclude 4 National Emergencies,” New York Times, October 8, 1974; U.S. Congress,~~ ~~A Brief History of Emergency~~
~~Powers in the United States, p. v.~~
~~362 50 U.S.C. §1701.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
50

~~link to page 60 link to page 60~~ ~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

IEEPA be “based on an unusual and extraordinary threat” because such language “emphasizes IEEPA be “based on an unusual and extraordinary threat” because such language “emphasizes
that such powers should be available only in true emergencies.”that such powers should be available only in true emergencies.”~~363~~367 Because “unusual” and Because “unusual” and
“extraordinary” are also undefined, the usual and ordinary invocation of the statute seems to “extraordinary” are also undefined, the usual and ordinary invocation of the statute seems to
conflict with those statutory conditions. conflict with those statutory conditions.
If Congress wanted to refine the meaning of “national emergency” or “unusual and extraordinary If Congress wanted to refine the meaning of “national emergency” or “unusual and extraordinary
threat,” it could do so through statute. Additionally, Congress could consider requiring some sort threat,” it could do so through statute. Additionally, Congress could consider requiring some sort
of factual finding by a court prior to, or shortly after, the exercise of any authority, such as under of factual finding by a court prior to, or shortly after, the exercise of any authority, such as under
the First Militia Act of the First Militia Act of ~~1792364~~1792368 or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.~~365~~369 Alternatively, Alternatively,
Congress may consider that the ambiguity in the existing statute provides the executive with the Congress may consider that the ambiguity in the existing statute provides the executive with the
flexibility necessary to address national emergencies with the requisite dispatch. flexibility necessary to address national emergencies with the requisite dispatch.
Scope of the Authority
While IEEPA nominally applies only to foreign transactions, the breadth of the phrase, “any While IEEPA nominally applies only to foreign transactions, the breadth of the phrase, “any
interest of any foreign country or a national thereof” leaves a great deal of room for executive interest of any foreign country or a national thereof” leaves a great deal of room for executive
discretion. The interconnectedness of the modern global economy has left few major transactions discretion. The interconnectedness of the modern global economy has left few major transactions
in which a foreign interest is not involved.in which a foreign interest is not involved.~~366~~370 As a result, at least one scholar has concluded, “the As a result, at least one scholar has concluded, “the
exemption of purely domestic transactions from the President’s transaction controls seems to be a exemption of purely domestic transactions from the President’s transaction controls seems to be a
limitation without substance.”limitation without substance.”~~367~~371
Presidents have used IEEPA since the 1980s to control exports by maintaining the dual-use export Presidents have used IEEPA since the 1980s to control exports by maintaining the dual-use export
control system, enshrined in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) in times when its control system, enshrined in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) in times when its
~~underlying authorization, the Export Administration Act (EAA), periodically expired. During~~
~~those times when Congress did not reauthorize the EAA, Presidents have declared emergencies to~~
~~maintain the dual-use export control system.368 The current emergency has been ongoing since~~
~~2001.369~~
~~While Presidents have used IEEPA to implement trade restrictions against adversaries, it has not~~
~~been used as a general way to impose tariffs. However, as noted above, President Nixon used~~
~~TWEA to impose a 10% ad valorem tariff on goods entering the United States to avoid a balance~~
~~of payments crisis after he ended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold. Although the use of~~

~~363 House Markup, p. 12.~~
~~364~~ 365 Congress has only successfully terminated via joint resolution one national emergency declared under the NEA. That national emergency, which related to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID 19) pandemic, did not invoke IEEPA. See Table A-2. 366 50 U.S.C. §1701. 367 House Markup, p. 12. 368 Using the judiciary to determine whether an emergency authority can be exercised by the executive has been Using the judiciary to determine whether an emergency authority can be exercised by the executive has been
common. The First Militia Act of 1792, for example, required that either an associate justice of the Supreme Court of a common. The First Militia Act of 1792, for example, required that either an associate justice of the Supreme Court of a
district judge confirm that an insurrection “too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial district judge confirm that an insurrection “too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial
proceedings” existed. Act of May 2, 1792, ch. 28, 1 Stat. 264. Using a court to determine whether an emergency proceedings” existed. Act of May 2, 1792, ch. 28, 1 Stat. 264. Using a court to determine whether an emergency
existed and whether an action was necessary was also the method favored by the German-American jurist, advisor to existed and whether an action was necessary was also the method favored by the German-American jurist, advisor to
President Abraham Lincoln, and founder of American political science, Francis Lieber, who argued that the acts of President Abraham Lincoln, and founder of American political science, Francis Lieber, who argued that the acts of
officials in states of emergency should be adjudged in court “to be necessary in the judgment of a moderate and officials in states of emergency should be adjudged in court “to be necessary in the judgment of a moderate and
reasonable man.” Qtd. in Witt, “A Lost Theory of American Emergency Constitutionalism,” p. 588. reasonable man.” Qtd. in Witt, “A Lost Theory of American Emergency Constitutionalism,” p. 588.
~~365~~369 50 U.S.C. §§1803-1805. 50 U.S.C. §§1803-1805.
~~366~~370 “The International Emergency Economic Powers Act,” “The International Emergency Economic Powers Act,” Harvard Law Review, p. 1111 , p. 1111 ~~n49.~~
~~367~~n. 49. 371 Ibid.; See also Thronson, “Toward Comprehensive Reform of America’s Emergency Law Regime,” pp. 757-758. Ibid.; See also Thronson, “Toward Comprehensive Reform of America’s Emergency Law Regime,” pp. 757-758.
~~368 In 2018, Congress passed the Export Control Reform Act to provide new statutory authority~~
~~for the continuation of EAR. However, three sections were not repealed and Congress directed~~
~~their continued application through the exercise of IEEPA. See “~~
~~The Export Control Reform Act of 2018” below.~~
~~369 Ibid.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
51

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~TWEA in this instance was criticized at the time,370 the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent~~
~~Appeals upheld President Nixon’s actions371~~Congressional Research Service 51 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use underlying authorization, the Export Administration Act (EAA), periodically expired. During those times when Congress did not reauthorize the EAA, Presidents have declared emergencies to maintain the dual-use export control system.372 The current emergency has been ongoing since 2001.373 While Presidents have used IEEPA to implement trade restrictions against adversaries, it has not been used as a general way to impose tariffs. However, as noted above, President Nixon used TWEA to impose a 10% ad valorem tariff on goods entering the United States to avoid a balance of payments crisis after he ended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold. Although the use of TWEA in this instance was criticized at the time,374 the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals upheld President Nixon’s actions375 and Congress maintained the language that President and Congress maintained the language that President
Nixon relied upon in nearly identical form in the subsequent reforms resulting in the enactment of Nixon relied upon in nearly identical form in the subsequent reforms resulting in the enactment of
IEEPA.IEEPA.~~372~~376 In the 116th, 117th, and 118th Congresses, bills were introduced that would limit the In the 116th, 117th, and 118th Congresses, bills were introduced that would limit the
President’s authority to use IEEPA to impose tariffs.President’s authority to use IEEPA to impose tariffs.~~373~~377
The scope of powers over individual targets is also extensive. Under IEEPA, the President has the The scope of powers over individual targets is also extensive. Under IEEPA, the President has the
power to prohibit all financial transactions with individuals designated by executive order. Such power to prohibit all financial transactions with individuals designated by executive order. Such
power allows the President to block all the assets of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.power allows the President to block all the assets of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.~~374~~
~~Such uses of IEEPA may reflect the will of Congress or they may represent a grant of authority~~
~~that may have gone beyond what Congress originally intended.~~
~~Amending the NEA to Require Joint Resolutions of Approval~~
~~The heart of the curtailment of presidential power by the NEA and IEEPA was the provision that~~
~~Congress could terminate a state of emergency declared pursuant to the NEA with a concurrent~~
~~resolution. When the “legislative veto” was struck down by the Supreme Court (see above), it left~~
~~Congress with a steeper climb—presumably requiring passage of a veto-proof joint resolution—~~
~~to terminate a national emergency declared under the NEA.375 To date, no national emergency~~
~~declared under the NEA has been terminated without Presidential consent.~~
~~Since 2019, Members of Congress have introduced several bills that would amend the NEA to~~
~~place new limits on the exercise of emergency authorities. The most common strategy has been to~~

~~370~~378 372 In 2018, Congress passed the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, Title XVII, Subtitle B of P.L. 115-232, 132 Stat. 2208, codified at 50 U.S.C. §§4801 et seq. to provide new statutory authority for the continuation of EAR. However, three sections were not repealed and Congress directed their continued application through the exercise of IEEPA. See “The Export Control Reform Act of 2018” below. 373 Ibid. 374 See, e.g., the testimony of Andreas F. Lowenfeld before the House Subcommittee on International Economic Policy See, e.g., the testimony of Andreas F. Lowenfeld before the House Subcommittee on International Economic Policy
and Trade. U.S. Congress, House, and Trade. U.S. Congress, House, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade of
the Committee on International Relations and Markup of the Trading with the Enemy Reform Legislation, 95th Cong., , 95th Cong.,
1st sess. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1977), pp. 8-9. 1st sess. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1977), pp. 8-9.
~~371~~375 United States v. Yoshida Int'l, Inc., 526 F.2d 560, 573 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (“Congress, in enacting s 5(b) of the TWEA, United States v. Yoshida Int'l, Inc., 526 F.2d 560, 573 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (“Congress, in enacting s 5(b) of the TWEA,
authorized the President, during an emergency, to […] ‘regulate importation,’ by imposing an import duty surcharge or authorized the President, during an emergency, to […] ‘regulate importation,’ by imposing an import duty surcharge or
by other means appropriately and reasonably related […] to the particular nature of the emergency declared.”). by other means appropriately and reasonably related […] to the particular nature of the emergency declared.”).
~~372~~376 TWEA, codified as amended in 1971 at §5(b), provided that during a period of national emergency, the President TWEA, codified as amended in 1971 at §5(b), provided that during a period of national emergency, the President
may “investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent, or prohibit, any acquisition holding, withholding, may “investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent, or prohibit, any acquisition holding, withholding,
use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or
privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has
any interest.” IEEPA, as passed in 1977 at §203(a)(1)(B), provided that during a period of national emergency, the any interest.” IEEPA, as passed in 1977 at §203(a)(1)(B), provided that during a period of national emergency, the
President may “investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, President may “investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding,
withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any
right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a
national thereof has any interest.” national thereof has any interest.”
While he did not ultimately end up doing so, President Trump announced his intention to use IEEPA to impose and While he did not ultimately end up doing so, President Trump announced his intention to use IEEPA to impose and
gradually increase a five percent tariff on all goods imported from Mexico. Statement from the President Regarding gradually increase a five percent tariff on all goods imported from Mexico. Statement from the President Regarding
Emergency Measures to Address the Border Crisis, May 30, 2019, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-Emergency Measures to Address the Border Crisis, May 30, 2019, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-
statements/statement-president-regarding-emergency-measures-address-border-crisis/. See also CRS Insight IN11129, statements/statement-president-regarding-emergency-measures-address-border-crisis/. See also CRS Insight IN11129,
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Tariffs: Historical Background and Key Issues, by , by
Christopher A. Casey. Christopher A. Casey.
~~373~~377 E.g., Global Trade Accountability Act, S. 1060 (Lee), 118th Cong., 1st sess., March 29, 2023; Protecting Our E.g., Global Trade Accountability Act, S. 1060 (Lee), 118th Cong., 1st sess., March 29, 2023; Protecting Our
Democracy Act, S. 2921 (Klobuchar), 117th Cong., 1st sess., September 30, 2021; Global Trade Accountability Act of Democracy Act, S. 2921 (Klobuchar), 117th Cong., 1st sess., September 30, 2021; Global Trade Accountability Act of
2021, H.R. 2618 (Davidson), 117th Cong., 1st sess., April 16, 2021; Global Trade Accountability Act, S. 691 (Lee), 2021, H.R. 2618 (Davidson), 117th Cong., 1st sess., April 16, 2021; Global Trade Accountability Act, S. 691 (Lee),
117th Cong., 1st sess., March 10, 2021; Global Trade Accountability Act, H.R. 723 (Davidson), 116th Cong., 1st sess., 117th Cong., 1st sess., March 10, 2021; Global Trade Accountability Act, H.R. 723 (Davidson), 116th Cong., 1st sess.,
January 23, 2019; Reclaiming Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2019, S. 899 (Kaine), 116th Cong., 1st sess., March January 23, 2019; Reclaiming Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2019, S. 899 (Kaine), 116th Cong., 1st sess., March
27, 2019. 27, 2019.
~~374~~378 Thronson, “Toward Comprehensive Reform of America’s Emergency Law Regime,” p. 759. Thronson, “Toward Comprehensive Reform of America’s Emergency Law Regime,” p. 759.
~~375 Congress amended NEA in 1985 to require a joint resolution, which is subject to the President’s veto, to terminate~~
~~an emergency. P.L. 99-93 (August 16, 1985), 99 Stat. 405.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
52

~~link to page 58~~ ~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

Congressional Research Service 52 link to page 58 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Such uses of IEEPA may reflect the will of Congress or they may represent a grant of authority that may have gone beyond what Congress originally intended. Amending the NEA to Require Joint Resolutions of Approval The heart of the curtailment of presidential power by the NEA and IEEPA was the provision that Congress could terminate a state of emergency declared pursuant to the NEA with a concurrent resolution. When the “legislative veto” was struck down by the Supreme Court (see above), it left Congress with a steeper climb—presumably requiring passage of a veto-proof joint resolution—to terminate a national emergency declared under the NEA.379 To date, no national emergency declared under the NEA has been terminated without Presidential consent. Since 2019, Members of Congress have introduced several bills that would amend the NEA to place new limits on the exercise of emergency authorities. The most common strategy has been to require a joint resolution of approval. In the 116th, 117th, and 118th Congresses, bills were require a joint resolution of approval. In the 116th, 117th, and 118th Congresses, bills were
introduced to require a joint resolution of approval for an emergency to extend beyond a certain introduced to require a joint resolution of approval for an emergency to extend beyond a certain
number of days.number of days.~~376~~380 The National Security Powers Act of 2021, for example, would have required The National Security Powers Act of 2021, for example, would have required
that Congress pass a joint resolution approving of a national emergency within 30 days.that Congress pass a joint resolution approving of a national emergency within 30 days.~~377~~381
The NEA, IEEPA, and “Never Ending Emergencies”
Some Members of Congress, scholars, and civil society organizations have criticized the NEA for Some Members of Congress, scholars, and civil society organizations have criticized the NEA for
producing “never ending emergencies.”producing “never ending emergencies.”~~378~~382 The average length of an emergency declared under the The average length of an emergency declared under the
NEA is more than nine years, with one emergency well into its fifth decade. However, excluding NEA is more than nine years, with one emergency well into its fifth decade. However, excluding
emergencies declared to impose sanctions drops that average to three years. Of the nine emergencies declared to impose sanctions drops that average to three years. Of the nine
emergencies declared under the NEA that do not cite IEEPA, six were terminated or expired after emergencies declared under the NEA that do not cite IEEPA, six were terminated or expired after
fewer than three years. The remaining emergencies relate to Cuba, the September 11, 2001 fewer than three years. The remaining emergencies relate to Cuba, the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks, and restrictions on Russian-affiliated vessels put in place after Russia’s further terrorist attacks, and restrictions on Russian-affiliated vessels put in place after Russia’s further
invasion of Ukraine in 2022. invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
It is the emergencies citing IEEPA that frequently last decades. The reason for this may be It is the emergencies citing IEEPA that frequently last decades. The reason for this may be
structural. Should the President terminate an emergency, the authority to continue freezing assets structural. Should the President terminate an emergency, the authority to continue freezing assets
would, in many cases, also terminate.would, in many cases, also terminate.~~379~~383 Congress could provide non-emergency authority to Congress could provide non-emergency authority to
maintain blocks on transactions and freezes on assets made during a national emergency, maintain blocks on transactions and freezes on assets made during a national emergency,
otherwise Presidents will likely consider the continuation of national emergencies to be necessary otherwise Presidents will likely consider the continuation of national emergencies to be necessary
to prevent assets frozen under IEEPA from becoming accessible. to prevent assets frozen under IEEPA from becoming accessible.
~~The Status Quo~~
~~In testimony before the House Committee on International Relations in 1977, Professor Harold G.~~
~~Maier summed up the main criticisms of TWEA:~~
~~Section 5(b)’s effect is no longer confined to “emergency situations” in the sense of~~
~~existing imminent danger. The continuing retroactive approval, either explicit or implicit,~~
~~by Congress of broad executive interpretations of the scope of powers which it confers has~~
~~converted the section into a general grant of legislative authority to the President…”380~~
~~Like TWEA before it, IEEPA sits at the center of the modern U.S. sanction regime. Like TWEA~~
~~before it, Congress has often approved explicitly of the President’s use of IEEPA. In several~~
~~circumstances, Congress has directed the President to impose a variety of sanctions under IEEPA~~
~~and waived the requirement of an emergency declaration. Even when Congress has not given~~
~~explicit approval, until 2023, no Member of Congress had ever introduced a resolution to~~
~~terminate a national emergency citing IEEPA.381 The NEA requires that both houses of Congress~~

~~376~~ 379 Congress amended NEA in 1985 to require a joint resolution, which is subject to the President’s veto, to terminate an emergency. P.L. 99-93 (August 16, 1985), 99 Stat. 405. 380 E.g., ARTICLE ONE Act, S. 1912 (Lee), 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 8, 2023; Protecting Our Democracy Act, S. E.g., ARTICLE ONE Act, S. 1912 (Lee), 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 8, 2023; Protecting Our Democracy Act, S.
2921 (Klobuchar), 117th Cong., 1st sess., September 30, 2021; National Emergencies Reform Act , H.R. 9041 (Amash), 2921 (Klobuchar), 117th Cong., 1st sess., September 30, 2021; National Emergencies Reform Act , H.R. 9041 (Amash),
116th Cong., 2nd sess., December 22, 2020. 116th Cong., 2nd sess., December 22, 2020.
~~377~~381 National Security Powers Act of 2021, S. 2391 (Murphy), 117th Cong., 1st sess., July 20, 2021. For additional National Security Powers Act of 2021, S. 2391 (Murphy), 117th Cong., 1st sess., July 20, 2021. For additional
examples during the 116th Congress, see Global Trade Accountability Act of 2019, H.R. 723 (Davidson), 116th Cong., examples during the 116th Congress, see Global Trade Accountability Act of 2019, H.R. 723 (Davidson), 116th Cong.,
1st sess., January 23, 2019; Reclaiming Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2019, S. 899 (Kaine), 116th Cong., 1st 1st sess., January 23, 2019; Reclaiming Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2019, S. 899 (Kaine), 116th Cong., 1st
sess., March 27, 2019. sess., March 27, 2019.
~~378~~382 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, “Never Ending Emergencies – An U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, “Never Ending Emergencies – An
Examination of the National Emergencies Act,” 118th Cong., 1st sess., hearing, May 24, 2023; Catherine Padhi, Examination of the National Emergencies Act,” 118th Cong., 1st sess., hearing, May 24, 2023; Catherine Padhi,
“Emergencies Without End: A Primer on Federal States of Emergency,” Lawfare, December 8, 2017. “Emergencies Without End: A Primer on Federal States of Emergency,” Lawfare, December 8, 2017.
~~379~~383 See See “Implications of Terminating National Emergencies Invoking IEEPA”
~~380 House, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, p. 9.~~
~~381 Since the enactment of the NEA, two resolutions to terminate a national emergency have been introduced. The first~~
~~(continued...)~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
53

~~link to page 66~~ ~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~meet every six months to consider a vote on a joint resolution on terminating an emergency.382~~ Congressional Research Service 53 link to page 67 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use The Status Quo In testimony before the House Committee on International Relations in 1977, Professor Harold G. Maier summed up the main criticisms of TWEA: Section 5(b)’s effect is no longer confined to “emergency situations” in the sense of existing imminent danger. The continuing retroactive approval, either explicit or implicit, by Congress of broad executive interpretations of the scope of powers which it confers has converted the section into a general grant of legislative authority to the President.”384 Like TWEA before it, IEEPA sits at the center of the modern U.S. sanction regime. Like TWEA before it, Congress has often approved explicitly of the President’s use of IEEPA. In several circumstances, Congress has directed the President to impose a variety of sanctions under IEEPA and waived the requirement of an emergency declaration. Even when Congress has not given explicit approval, until 2023, no Member of Congress had ever introduced a resolution to terminate a national emergency citing IEEPA.385 The NEA requires that both houses of Congress meet every six months to consider a vote on a joint resolution on terminating an emergency.386
Neither house has ever met to do so with respect to an emergency citing IEEPA. In response to Neither house has ever met to do so with respect to an emergency citing IEEPA. In response to
concerns over the scale and scope of the emergency economic powers granted by IEEPA, concerns over the scale and scope of the emergency economic powers granted by IEEPA,
supporters of the status quo would argue that Congress has implicitly and explicitly expressed supporters of the status quo would argue that Congress has implicitly and explicitly expressed
approval of the statute and its use. Indeed, several bills proposing a limit on the length of national approval of the statute and its use. Indeed, several bills proposing a limit on the length of national
emergencies declared under the NEA explicitly exclude IEEPA.emergencies declared under the NEA explicitly exclude IEEPA.~~383~~387
Implications of Terminating National Emergencies Invoking IEEPA
Beginning in the late 2010s, some Members of Congress and civil society organizations began to Beginning in the late 2010s, some Members of Congress and civil society organizations began to
express concern with the NEA and IEEPA. Whereas one resolution to terminate a national express concern with the NEA and IEEPA. Whereas one resolution to terminate a national
emergency declared under the NEA was introduced between 1976 and 2018,emergency declared under the NEA was introduced between 1976 and 2018,~~384~~388 15 were 15 were
introduced between 2019 and introduced between 2019 and ~~September 1, 2023~~January 15, 2024 (Table A-2)..~~385~~389 In 2019, both houses of In 2019, both houses of
~~Congress passed, for the first time, a resolution to terminate a national emergency.386 President~~
~~Donald J. Trump vetoed that resolution and the House did not override the veto.387 In 2023, after~~
~~several attempts, Congress voted to terminate the national emergency concerning the Novel~~

Congress 384 House, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, p. 9. 385 Since the enactment of the NEA, two resolutions to terminate a national emergency have been introduced. The first was to terminate the national emergency declared in response to Hurricane Katrina, but the declaration of emergency in was to terminate the national emergency declared in response to Hurricane Katrina, but the declaration of emergency in
that case did not invoke IEEPA. H.J.Res. 69 (Miller), 109th Congress, 1st session, September 8, 2005. The second was that case did not invoke IEEPA. H.J.Res. 69 (Miller), 109th Congress, 1st session, September 8, 2005. The second was
to terminate the national emergency declared February 15, 2019 with respect to the Southern Border of the United to terminate the national emergency declared February 15, 2019 with respect to the Southern Border of the United
States. H.J.Res. 46 (Castro), 116th Cong., 1st sess., February 22, 2019; S.J.Res. 10 (Udall), 116th Cong., 1st sess., States. H.J.Res. 46 (Castro), 116th Cong., 1st sess., February 22, 2019; S.J.Res. 10 (Udall), 116th Cong., 1st sess.,
February 28, 2019. However, neither of the declarations of national emergency at issue invoked IEEPA. February 28, 2019. However, neither of the declarations of national emergency at issue invoked IEEPA.
~~382~~386 50 U.S.C. §1622(b). 50 U.S.C. §1622(b).
~~383~~387 E.g., Reforming Emergency Powers to Uphold the Balances and Limitations Inherent in the Constitution Act or the E.g., Reforming Emergency Powers to Uphold the Balances and Limitations Inherent in the Constitution Act or the
REPUBLIC Act, S. 463 (Paul), 117th Cong., 1st sess., February 25, 2021; Assuring that Robust, Thorough, and REPUBLIC Act, S. 463 (Paul), 117th Cong., 1st sess., February 25, 2021; Assuring that Robust, Thorough, and
Informed Congressional Leadership is Exercised Over National Emergencies Act or the ARTICLE One Act, S. 764 Informed Congressional Leadership is Exercised Over National Emergencies Act or the ARTICLE One Act, S. 764
(Lee), 116th Cong., 1st sess., March 12, 2019, as reported to the Senate November 19, 2019. (Lee), 116th Cong., 1st sess., March 12, 2019, as reported to the Senate November 19, 2019.
~~384~~388 In 2005, Rep. George Miller (CA) introduced a resolution to terminate the declaration of a national emergency as a In 2005, Rep. George Miller (CA) introduced a resolution to terminate the declaration of a national emergency as a
result of Hurricane Katrina. It was not considered. H.J.Res. 69 (Miller), 109th Cong., 1st sess., September 8, 2005. result of Hurricane Katrina. It was not considered. H.J.Res. 69 (Miller), 109th Cong., 1st sess., September 8, 2005.
While this resolution cited to the NEA, the declaration of national emergency that it sought to terminate (Proclamation While this resolution cited to the NEA, the declaration of national emergency that it sought to terminate (Proclamation
7924, 70 7924, 70 Federal Register 54227) did not. 54227) did not.
~~385~~389 Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019, H.J.Res. 46 (Castro), 116th Cong., Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019, H.J.Res. 46 (Castro), 116th Cong.,
1st sess., February 22, 2019; A joint resolution relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 1st sess., February 22, 2019; A joint resolution relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February
15, 2019, S.J.Res. 10 (Udall), 116th Cong., 1st sess., February 28, 2019; A joint resolution relating to a national 15, 2019, S.J.Res. 10 (Udall), 116th Cong., 1st sess., February 28, 2019; A joint resolution relating to a national
emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019, S.J.Res. 54 (Udall), 116th Cong., 1st sess., September 10, emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019, S.J.Res. 54 (Udall), 116th Cong., 1st sess., September 10,
2019; Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019, H.J.Res. 75 (Castro), 116th 2019; Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019, H.J.Res. 75 (Castro), 116th
Cong., 1st sess., September 19, 2019; Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019, Cong., 1st sess., September 19, 2019; Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019,
H.J.Res. 85 (Castro), 116th Cong., 2nd sess., February 14, 2020; Relating to a national emergency declared by the H.J.Res. 85 (Castro), 116th Cong., 2nd sess., February 14, 2020; Relating to a national emergency declared by the
President on March 13, 2020, H.J.Res. 46 (Gosar), 117th Cong., 2nd sess., May 20, 2021; Relating to a national President on March 13, 2020, H.J.Res. 46 (Gosar), 117th Cong., 2nd sess., May 20, 2021; Relating to a national
(continued...) Congressional Research Service 54 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use passed, for the first time, a resolution to terminate a national emergency.390 President Donald J. Trump vetoed that resolution and the House did not override the veto.391 In 2023, after several attempts, Congress voted to terminate the national emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) outbreak.392 President Joe Biden signed the resolution, terminating the national emergency.393 In 2023, several Members of Congress introduced five bills seeking to terminate, for the first time, national emergencies invoking IEEPA; all five failed to pass the House.394 IEEPA sits at the center of the modern U.S. sanction regime. Were Congress to terminate a national emergency invoking IEEPA, sanctions put into place under the authority of that emergency, including the blocking of assets, would terminate395 unless such sanctions could be kept in place under a different authority, such as the United Nations Participation Act.396 emergency declared by the President on March 13, 2020, H.J.Res. 52 (Gosar), 117th Cong., 2nd sess., June 16, 2021; A emergency declared by the President on March 13, 2020, H.J.Res. 52 (Gosar), 117th Cong., 2nd sess., June 16, 2021; A
joint resolution relating to a national emergency declared by the President on March 13, 2020, S.J.Res. 38 (Marshall), joint resolution relating to a national emergency declared by the President on March 13, 2020, S.J.Res. 38 (Marshall),
117th Cong., 2nd sess., February 14, 2022; A joint resolution relating to a national emergency declared by the President 117th Cong., 2nd sess., February 14, 2022; A joint resolution relating to a national emergency declared by the President
on March 13, 2020, S.J.Res. 63 (Marshall), 117th Cong., 2nd sess., September 22, 2022; Relating to a national on March 13, 2020, S.J.Res. 63 (Marshall), 117th Cong., 2nd sess., September 22, 2022; Relating to a national
emergency declared by the President on March 13, 2020, H.J.Res. 7 (Gosar), 118th Cong., 1st sess., January 9, 2023; emergency declared by the President on March 13, 2020, H.J.Res. 7 (Gosar), 118th Cong., 1st sess., January 9, 2023;
Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on October 27, 2006, H.J.Res. 68 (Boebert), 118th Cong., 1st Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on October 27, 2006, H.J.Res. 68 (Boebert), 118th Cong., 1st
sess., June 12, 2023; Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 25, 2011, H.J.Res. 70 sess., June 12, 2023; Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 25, 2011, H.J.Res. 70
(Gosar), 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 12, 2023; Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on May 22, (Gosar), 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 12, 2023; Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on May 22,
2003, H.J.Res. 71 (Crane), 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 14, 2023; Relating to a national emergency declared by the 2003, H.J.Res. 71 (Crane), 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 14, 2023; Relating to a national emergency declared by the
President on May 16, 2012, H.J.Res. 74 (Gosar), 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 15, 2023; Relating to a national emergency President on May 16, 2012, H.J.Res. 74 (Gosar), 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 15, 2023; Relating to a national emergency
declared by the President on May 11, 2004, H.J.Res. 79 (Gaetz), 118th Cong., 1st sess., July 6, 2023. declared by the President on May 11, 2004, H.J.Res. 79 (Gaetz), 118th Cong., 1st sess., July 6, 2023.
~~386~~390 In 2019, Rep. Castro and Sen. Udall introduced resolutions to terminate the declaration of a national emergency In 2019, Rep. Castro and Sen. Udall introduced resolutions to terminate the declaration of a national emergency
with respect to the Southern Border of the United States. H.J.Res. 46 (Castro), 116th Cong., 1st sess., February 22, 2019; with respect to the Southern Border of the United States. H.J.Res. 46 (Castro), 116th Cong., 1st sess., February 22, 2019;
S.J.Res. 10 (Udall), 116th Cong., 1st sess., February 28, 2019. S.J.Res. 10 (Udall), 116th Cong., 1st sess., February 28, 2019.
~~387 Ibid.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
54

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) outbreak.388 President Joe Biden signed the resolution,~~
~~terminating the national emergency.389 In 2023, several Members of Congress introduced five~~
~~bills seeking to terminate, for the first time, national emergencies invoking IEEPA; all five failed~~
~~to pass the House.390~~
~~IEEPA sits at the center of the modern U.S. sanction regime. Were Congress to terminate a~~
~~national emergency invoking IEEPA, sanctions put into place under the authority of that~~
~~emergency, including the blocking of assets, would terminate391 unless such sanctions could be~~
~~kept in place under a different authority, such as the United Nations Participation Act.392~~
~~IEEPA also contains a savings provision in the event a national emergency invoking IEEPA is~~
~~terminated, permitting the President to continue to block property if “the continuation of such~~
~~prohibition with respect to that property is necessary on account of claims involving such country~~
~~or its nationals,” unless Congress provides otherwise in a resolution terminating the emergency.393~~
~~The legislative history suggests that Congress may have considered the continued blocking of~~
~~assets that could be used for presidential settlements of claims by American citizens against~~
~~foreign countries.394 In at least one case, however, the President invoked the savings provision to~~
~~continue to block property pending claims among successor states.395~~

~~388~~391 Ibid. 392 Act of April 10, 2023, P.L. 118-3, 137 Stat. 6. Act of April 10, 2023, P.L. 118-3, 137 Stat. 6.
~~389~~393 Ibid. Ibid.
~~390~~394 Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on October 27, 2006, H.J.Res. 68 (Boebert), 118th Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on October 27, 2006, H.J.Res. 68 (Boebert), 118th
Cong., 1st sess., June 12, 2023; Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 25, 2011, Cong., 1st sess., June 12, 2023; Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 25, 2011,
H.J.Res. 70 (Gosar), 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 12, 2023; Relating to a national emergency declared by the President H.J.Res. 70 (Gosar), 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 12, 2023; Relating to a national emergency declared by the President
on May 22, 2003, H.J.Res. 71 (Crane), 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 14, 2023; Relating to a national emergency declared on May 22, 2003, H.J.Res. 71 (Crane), 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 14, 2023; Relating to a national emergency declared
by the President on May 16, 2012, H.J.Res. 74 (Gosar), 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 15, 2023; Relating to a national by the President on May 16, 2012, H.J.Res. 74 (Gosar), 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 15, 2023; Relating to a national
emergency declared by the President on May 11, 2004, H.J.Res. 79 (Gaetz), 118th Cong., 1st sess., July 6, 2023. emergency declared by the President on May 11, 2004, H.J.Res. 79 (Gaetz), 118th Cong., 1st sess., July 6, 2023.
~~391~~395 50 U.S.C. §1622(a) provides that: 50 U.S.C. §1622(a) provides that:
[A]ny powers or authorities exercised by reason of [the terminated] emergency shall cease to be [A]ny powers or authorities exercised by reason of [the terminated] emergency shall cease to be
exercised after [the date of termination], except that such termination shall not affect- exercised after [the date of termination], except that such termination shall not affect-
(A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date; (A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date;
(B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or (B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or
(C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date. (C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date.
~~392~~396 United Nations Participation Act, P.L. 79-264, §5, 59 Stat. 620 (1945), codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. §287c. The United Nations Participation Act, P.L. 79-264, §5, 59 Stat. 620 (1945), codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. §287c. The
extent to which the UNPA would permit the blocking of property by placing individuals or entities on the Specially extent to which the UNPA would permit the blocking of property by placing individuals or entities on the Specially
Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List is uncertain. The UNPA gives the President the authority to implement Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List is uncertain. The UNPA gives the President the authority to implement
U.N. sanctions and authorizes him to enforce such measures by issuing “such orders, rules, and regulations as may be U.N. sanctions and authorizes him to enforce such measures by issuing “such orders, rules, and regulations as may be
prescribed by him,” thereby allowing him to “investigate, regulate, or prohibit, in whole or in part, economic relations prescribed by him,” thereby allowing him to “investigate, regulate, or prohibit, in whole or in part, economic relations
or rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication between any foreign country or any or rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication between any foreign country or any
national thereof or any person therein and the United States or any person subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or national thereof or any person therein and the United States or any person subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or
involving any property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Ibid. IEEPA authority includes the authority for involving any property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Ibid. IEEPA authority includes the authority for
the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void,
prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or
exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any
property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any
property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” 50 U.S.C. §1702(a)(1)(B). property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” 50 U.S.C. §1702(a)(1)(B).
~~393 50 U.S.C. §1706(a)(1).~~
~~394 S. Rep. No. 95-466, at 6 (1977) (noting that “blocked assets may continue to be blocked by the President despite~~
~~termination of a state of emergency, the National Emergencies Act notwithstanding, unless Congress specifies~~
~~otherwise” and that “[n]othing in this act is intended by the committee to interfere with the authority of the President to~~
~~continue blocking assets which are presently blocked, or to impede the settlement of claims of U.S. citizens against~~
~~foreign countries”).~~
~~395 E.O. 13304, Termination of Emergencies With Respect to Yugoslavia and Modification of Executive Order 13219~~
~~of June 26, 2001, 68 Federal Register 32315 (May 29, 2003).~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
55

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~
Congressional Research Service 55 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use IEEPA also contains a savings provision in the event a national emergency invoking IEEPA is terminated, permitting the President to continue to block property if “the continuation of such prohibition with respect to that property is necessary on account of claims involving such country or its nationals,” unless Congress provides otherwise in a resolution terminating the emergency.397 The legislative history suggests that Congress may have considered the continued blocking of assets that could be used for presidential settlements of claims by American citizens against foreign countries.398 In at least one case, however, the President invoked the savings provision to continue to block property pending claims among successor states.399
The full scope of the savings provision with regard to the extent of prohibitions that may be The full scope of the savings provision with regard to the extent of prohibitions that may be
maintained following termination is unclear. “Property in which a foreign country or national maintained following termination is unclear. “Property in which a foreign country or national
thereof has any interest” has been interpreted broadly by the courts, defining “interest” to mean thereof has any interest” has been interpreted broadly by the courts, defining “interest” to mean
“an interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect.”“an interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect.”~~396~~400 In other words, the sanctioned entity In other words, the sanctioned entity
need not own the property at issue in order to have an interest in it.need not own the property at issue in order to have an interest in it.~~397~~401 The reference in the savings The reference in the savings
provision to “provision to “that property [deemed] necessary [for purpose of resolving] claims involving such property [deemed] necessary [for purpose of resolving] claims involving such
country or its nationals”country or its nationals”~~398~~402 arguably refers only to blocked property owned by the sanctioned arguably refers only to blocked property owned by the sanctioned
entity liable for claims. Under this interpretation, the full range of prohibitions under the relevant entity liable for claims. Under this interpretation, the full range of prohibitions under the relevant
sanctions regulations could no longer be enforced in the event the underlying national emergency sanctions regulations could no longer be enforced in the event the underlying national emergency
is terminated, even if outstanding claims exist. is terminated, even if outstanding claims exist.
The Export Control Reform Act of 2018
In 2018, Congress passed the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA).In 2018, Congress passed the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA).~~399~~403 The legislation repealed the The legislation repealed the
expired Export Administration Act of 1979,expired Export Administration Act of 1979,~~400~~404 the regulations of which had been continued by the regulations of which had been continued by
reference to IEEPA since 2001.reference to IEEPA since 2001.~~401~~405 ECRA became the new statutory authority for Export ECRA became the new statutory authority for Export
Administration Regulations. Nevertheless, several export controls addressed in the Export Administration Regulations. Nevertheless, several export controls addressed in the Export
Administration Act of 1979 were not updated in the Export Control Reform Act of 2018;Administration Act of 1979 were not updated in the Export Control Reform Act of 2018;~~402~~406
instead, Congress chose to require the President to continue to use IEEPA to continue to instead, Congress chose to require the President to continue to use IEEPA to continue to
implement the three sections of the Export Administration Act of 1979 that were not repealed.implement the three sections of the Export Administration Act of 1979 that were not repealed.~~403~~
~~Going forward, Congress may revisit these provisions, which all relate to deterring the~~
~~proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.~~

~~396~~407 397 50 U.S.C. §1706(a)(1). 398 S. Rep. No. 95-466, at 6 (1977) (noting that “blocked assets may continue to be blocked by the President despite termination of a state of emergency, the National Emergencies Act notwithstanding, unless Congress specifies otherwise” and that “[n]othing in this act is intended by the committee to interfere with the authority of the President to continue blocking assets which are presently blocked, or to impede the settlement of claims of U.S. citizens against foreign countries”). 399 E.O. 13304, Termination of Emergencies With Respect to Yugoslavia and Modification of Executive Order 13219 of June 26, 2001, 68 Federal Register 32315 (May 29, 2003). 400 See, e.g., Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 219 F. Supp. 2d 57, 67 (D.D.C. 2002), See, e.g., Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 219 F. Supp. 2d 57, 67 (D.D.C. 2002), aff'd, 333 F.3d , 333 F.3d
156 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 156 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
~~397~~401 See Glob. Relief Found., Inc. v. O'Neill, 315 F.3d 748, 753 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding that covered “interest” need not See Glob. Relief Found., Inc. v. O'Neill, 315 F.3d 748, 753 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding that covered “interest” need not
be a be a legal interest “in the way that a trustee is legal owner of the corpus even if someone else enjoys the beneficial interest “in the way that a trustee is legal owner of the corpus even if someone else enjoys the beneficial
interest”). interest”).
~~398~~402 50 U.S.C. §1706(a)(1) (emphasis added). 50 U.S.C. §1706(a)(1) (emphasis added).
~~399~~403 Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), P.L. 115-232. Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), P.L. 115-232.
~~400~~404 Ibid. §1766(a). Ibid. §1766(a).
~~401~~405 E.O. 13222. E.O. 13222.
~~402~~406 ECRA §1766(a). Sections 11A, 11B, and 11C of the Export Administration Act of 1979, codified at 50 U.S.C. ECRA §1766(a). Sections 11A, 11B, and 11C of the Export Administration Act of 1979, codified at 50 U.S.C.
§§4611, 4612, 4613, were not repealed. §§4611, 4612, 4613, were not repealed.
~~403~~407 ECRA §1766(b) (“The President shall implement [Sections 11A, 11B, and 11C of the Export Administration Act of ECRA §1766(b) (“The President shall implement [Sections 11A, 11B, and 11C of the Export Administration Act of
1979] by exercising the authorities of the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 1979] by exercising the authorities of the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).”). U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).”).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
56 56

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Going forward, Congress may revisit these provisions, which all relate to deterring the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Congressional Research Service 57 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Appendix A. NEA and IEEPA Use
Table A-1. National Emergencies Declared Pursuant to the NEA as of ~~September~~
~~1, 2023~~January 15, 2024
*Greyed lines indicate emergencies declared pursuant to the NEA but that did not invoke IEEPA. *Greyed lines indicate emergencies declared pursuant to the NEA but that did not invoke IEEPA.

Title of E.O. or Procl. Declaring National
Date of
Date of
Originating
Revoking
Emergency Pursuant to NEA
Declaration
Revocation
E.O./Procl.
E.O./Procl.
1 1
Blocking Iranian Government Property Blocking Iranian Government Property
11/14/1979 11/14/1979
Ongoing Ongoing
12170 12170

2 2
Sanctions Against Iran Sanctions Against Iran
4/17/1980 4/17/1980
4/17/1981 4/17/1981
12211 12211
Expired Expired
3 3
Continuation of Export Control Continuation of Export Control
Regulations Regulations
10/14/1983 10/14/1983
12/20/1983 12/20/1983
12444 12444
12451 12451
4 4
Continuation of Export Control Continuation of Export Control
Regulations Regulations
3/30/1984 3/30/1984
7/12/1985 7/12/1985
12470 12470
12525 12525
5 5
Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other
Transactions Involving Nicaragua Transactions Involving Nicaragua
5/1/1985 5/1/1985
3/13/1990 3/13/1990
12513 12513
12707 12707
6 6
Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other
Transactions Involving South Africa Transactions Involving South Africa
9/9/1985 9/9/1985
7/10/1991 7/10/1991
12532 12532
12769 12769
7 7
Prohibiting Trade and Certain Transactions Prohibiting Trade and Certain Transactions
Involving Libya Involving Libya
1/7/1986 1/7/1986
9/20/2004 9/20/2004
12543 12543
13357 13357
8 8
Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Prohibiting Certain Transactions With
Respect to Panama Respect to Panama
4/8/1988 4/8/1988
4/5/1990 4/5/1990
12635 12635
12710 12710
9 9
Blocking Iraqi Government Property and Blocking Iraqi Government Property and
Prohibiting Transactions with Iraq Prohibiting Transactions with Iraq
8/2/1990 8/2/1990
7/29/2004 7/29/2004
12722 12722
13350 13350
10 10
Continuation of Export Control Continuation of Export Control
Regulations Regulations
9/30/1990 9/30/1990
9/30/1993 9/30/1993
12730 12730
12867 12867
Chemical and Biological Weapons Chemical and Biological Weapons
11 11
Proliferation Proliferation
11/16/1990 11/16/1990
11/11/1994 11/11/1994
12735 12735
12938 12938
Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Prohibiting Certain Transactions with
12 12
Respect to Haiti Respect to Haiti
10/4/1991 10/4/1991
10/14/1994 10/14/1994
12775 12775
12932 12932
Blocking “Yugoslav Government" Property Blocking “Yugoslav Government" Property
13 13
and Property of the Governments of Serbia and Property of the Governments of Serbia
and Montenegro and Montenegro
5/30/1992 5/30/1992
5/28/2003 5/28/2003
12808 12808
13304 13304
To Suspend the Davis-Bacon Act of March To Suspend the Davis-Bacon Act of March
3, 1931, Within a Limited Geographic Area 3, 1931, Within a Limited Geographic Area
14 14
in Response to the National Emergency in Response to the National Emergency
Caused by Hurricane Andrewa Caused by Hurricane Andrewa
10/14/1992 10/14/1992
3/6/1993 3/6/1993
6491 6491
6534 6534
Prohibiting Certain Transactions Involving Prohibiting Certain Transactions Involving
15 15
UNITA UNITA
9/26/1993 9/26/1993
5/6/2003 5/6/2003
12865 12865
24857 24857
Measures To Restrict The Participation By Measures To Restrict The Participation By
16 16
United States Persons In Weapons United States Persons In Weapons
Proliferation Activities Proliferation Activities
9/30/1993 9/30/1993
9/29/1994 9/29/1994
12868 12868
12930 12930
Continuation of Export Control Continuation of Export Control
17 17
Regulations Regulations
6/30/1994 6/30/1994
8/19/1994 8/19/1994
12923 12923
12924 12924
Continuation of Export Control Continuation of Export Control
18 18
Regulations Regulations
8/19/1994 8/19/1994
4/4/2001 4/4/2001
12924 12924
13206 13206
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
5758

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Title of E.O. or Procl. Declaring National
Date of
Date of
Originating
Revoking
Emergency Pursuant to NEA
Declaration
Revocation
E.O./Procl.
E.O./Procl.
Measures To Restrict The Participation By Measures To Restrict The Participation By
19 19
United States Persons In Weapons United States Persons In Weapons
Proliferation Activities Proliferation Activities
9/29/1994 9/29/1994
11/14/1994 11/14/1994
12930 12930
12938 12938
20 20
Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction Destruction
11/14/1994 11/14/1994
Ongoing Ongoing
12938 12938

Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists
21 21
Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East
Peace Process Peace Process
1/23/1995 1/23/1995
09/09/2019 09/09/2019
12947 12947
12947 12947
Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Prohibiting Certain Transactions With
22 22
Respect to the Development of Iranian Respect to the Development of Iranian
Petroleum Resources Petroleum Resources
3/15/1995 3/15/1995
Ongoing Ongoing
12957 12957

Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Blocking Assets and Prohibiting
23 23
Transactions With Significant Narcotics Transactions With Significant Narcotics
Traffickers Traffickers
10/21/1995 10/21/1995
Ongoing Ongoing
12978 12978

24 24
Regulation of the Anchorage and Regulation of the Anchorage and
Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba 3/1/1996 Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba 3/1/1996
Ongoing Ongoing
6867 6867

Declaration of a State of Emergency and Declaration of a State of Emergency and
25 25
Release of Feed Grain from the Disaster Release of Feed Grain from the Disaster
Reserve Reserve
7/1/1996 7/1/1996
07/01/1997 07/01/1997
6907 6907
Expired Expired
26 26
Prohibiting New Investment in Burma Prohibiting New Investment in Burma
5/20/1997 5/20/1997
10/7/2016 10/7/2016
13047 13047
13742 13742
27 27
Blocking Sudanese Government Property Blocking Sudanese Government Property
and Prohibiting Transactions With Sudan and Prohibiting Transactions With Sudan
11/3/1997 11/3/1997
Ongoing Ongoing
13067 13067

Blocking Property of the Governments of Blocking Property of the Governments of
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia
and Montenegro), the Republic of Serbia, and Montenegro), the Republic of Serbia,
28 28
and the Republic of Montenegro, and and the Republic of Montenegro, and
Prohibiting New Investment in the Republic Prohibiting New Investment in the Republic
of Serbia in Response to the Situation in of Serbia in Response to the Situation in
Kosovo Kosovo
6/9/1998 6/9/1998
5/28/2003 5/28/2003
13088 13088
13304 13304
29 29
Blocking Property and Prohibiting Blocking Property and Prohibiting
Transactions With the Taliban Transactions With the Taliban
7/4/1999 7/4/1999
7/2/2002 7/2/2002
13129 13129
13268 13268
Blocking Property of the Government of Blocking Property of the Government of
the Russian Federation Relating to the the Russian Federation Relating to the
30 30
Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium
Extracted From Nuclear Weapons Extracted From Nuclear Weapons
6/21/2000 6/21/2000
6/21/2012 6/21/2012
13159 13159
Expired Expired
31 31
Prohibiting the Importation of Rough Prohibiting the Importation of Rough
Diamonds From Sierra Leone Diamonds From Sierra Leone
1/18/2001 1/18/2001
1/15/2004 1/15/2004
13194 13194
13324 13324
Blocking Property of Persons Who Blocking Property of Persons Who
32 32
Threaten International Stabilization Efforts Threaten International Stabilization Efforts
in the Western Balkans in the Western Balkans
6/26/2001 6/26/2001
Ongoing Ongoing
13219 13219

Continuation of Export Control Continuation of Export Control
33 33
Regulations Regulations
8/17/2001 8/17/2001
Ongoing Ongoing
13222 13222

34 34
Declaration of National Emergency by Declaration of National Emergency by
Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks
9/14/2001 9/14/2001
Ongoing Ongoing
7463 7463

35 35
Blocking Property and Prohibiting Blocking Property and Prohibiting
Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Transactions With Persons Who Commit,
9/23/2001 9/23/2001
Ongoing Ongoing
13224 13224

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
5859

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Title of E.O. or Procl. Declaring National
Date of
Date of
Originating
Revoking
Emergency Pursuant to NEA
Declaration
Revocation
E.O./Procl.
E.O./Procl.
Threaten To Commit, or Support Threaten To Commit, or Support
Terrorism Terrorism
Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Blocking Property of Persons Undermining
36 36
Democratic Processes or Institutions in Democratic Processes or Institutions in
Zimbabwe Zimbabwe
3/6/2003 3/6/2003
Ongoing Ongoing
13288 13288

Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq
37 37
and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq
Has an Interest Has an Interest
5/22/2003 5/22/2003
Ongoing Ongoing
13303 13303

Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Blocking Property of Certain Persons and
38 38
Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to
Syria Syria
5/11/2004 5/11/2004
Ongoing Ongoing
13338 13338

Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Blocking Property of Certain Persons and
39 39
Prohibiting the Importation of Certain Prohibiting the Importation of Certain
Goods From Liberia Goods From Liberia
7/22/2004 7/22/2004
11/12/2015 11/12/2015
13348 13348
13710 13710
To Suspend Subchapter IV of Chapter 31 of To Suspend Subchapter IV of Chapter 31 of
Title 40, United States Code, Within a Title 40, United States Code, Within a
40 40
Limited Geographic Area in Response to Limited Geographic Area in Response to
the National Emergency Caused by the National Emergency Caused by
Hurricane Katrinab Hurricane Katrinab
9/8/2005 9/8/2005
11/3/2005 11/3/2005
7924 7924
7959 7959
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Blocking Property of Certain Persons
41 41
Contributing to the Conflict in Cote Contributing to the Conflict in Cote
d'Ivoire d'Ivoire
2/7/2006 2/7/2006
9/14/2016 9/14/2016
13396 13396
13739 13739
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Blocking Property of Certain Persons
42 42
Undermining Democratic Processes or Undermining Democratic Processes or
Institutions in Belarus Institutions in Belarus
6/16/2006 6/16/2006
Ongoing Ongoing
13405 13405

Blocking Property of Certain Persons Blocking Property of Certain Persons
43 43
Contributing to the Conflict in the Contributing to the Conflict in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo Democratic Republic of the Congo
10/27/2006 10/27/2006
Ongoing Ongoing
13413 13413

Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Blocking Property of Persons Undermining
44 44
the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its
Democratic Processes and Institutions Democratic Processes and Institutions
8/1/2007 8/1/2007
Ongoing Ongoing
13441 13441

Continuing Certain Restrictions With Continuing Certain Restrictions With
45 45
Respect to North Korea and North Respect to North Korea and North
Korean Nationals Korean Nationals
6/26/2008 6/26/2008
Ongoing Ongoing
13466 13466

Declaration of a National Emergency With Declaration of a National Emergency With
46 46
Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza
Pandemic Pandemic
10/23/2009 10/23/2009
10/22/2010 10/22/2010
8443 8443
Expired Expired
47 47
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Blocking Property of Certain Persons
Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia
4/12/2010 4/12/2010
Ongoing Ongoing
13536 13536

48 48
Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain
Transactions Related to Libya Transactions Related to Libya
2/25/2011 2/25/2011
Ongoing Ongoing
13566 13566

Blocking Property of Transnational Blocking Property of Transnational
49 49
Criminal Organizations Criminal Organizations
7/24/2011 7/24/2011
Ongoing Ongoing
13581 13581

50 50
Blocking Property of Persons Threatening Blocking Property of Persons Threatening
the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen
5/16/2012 5/16/2012
Ongoing Ongoing
13611 13611

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
5960

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Title of E.O. or Procl. Declaring National
Date of
Date of
Originating
Revoking
Emergency Pursuant to NEA
Declaration
Revocation
E.O./Procl.
E.O./Procl.
Blocking Property of the Government of Blocking Property of the Government of
the Russian Federation Relating to the the Russian Federation Relating to the
51 51
Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium
Extracted From Nuclear Weapons Extracted From Nuclear Weapons
6/25/2012 6/25/2012
5/26/2015 5/26/2015
13617 13617
13695 13695
52 52
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Blocking Property of Certain Persons
Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine
3/6/2014 3/6/2014
Ongoing Ongoing
13660 13660

53 53
Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Blocking Property of Certain Persons With
Respect to South Sudan Respect to South Sudan
4/3/2014 4/3/2014
Ongoing Ongoing
13664 13664

Blocking Property of Certain Persons Blocking Property of Certain Persons
54 54
Contributing to the Conflict in the Central Contributing to the Conflict in the Central
African Republic African Republic
5/12/2014 5/12/2014
Ongoing Ongoing
13667 13667

Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of
55 55
Certain Persons Contributing to the Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Venezuela Situation in Venezuela
3/8/2015 3/8/2015
Ongoing Ongoing
13692 13692

Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Blocking the Property of Certain Persons
56 56
Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber- Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-
Enabled Activities Enabled Activities
4/1/2015 4/1/2015
Ongoing Ongoing
13694 13694

57 57
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Blocking Property of Certain Persons
Contributing to the Situation in Burundi Contributing to the Situation in Burundi
11/22/2015 11/22/2015
11/18/2021 11/18/2021
13712 13712
14059 14059
Blocking the Property of Persons Involved Blocking the Property of Persons Involved
58 58
in Serious Human Rights Abuse or in Serious Human Rights Abuse or
Corruption Corruption
12/20/2017 12/20/2017
Ongoing Ongoing
13818 13818

Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of
59 59
Foreign Interference in a United States Foreign Interference in a United States
Election Election
9/12/2018 9/12/2018
Ongoing Ongoing
13848 13848

60 60
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Blocking Property of Certain Persons
Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua
11/27/2018 11/27/2018
Ongoing Ongoing
13851 13851

Declaring a National Emergency Declaring a National Emergency
61 61
Concerning the Southern Border of the Concerning the Southern Border of the
United States United States
2/15/2019 2/15/2019
1/20/2021 1/20/2021
9844 9844
10142 10142
Securing the Information and Securing the Information and
62 62
Communications Technology and Services Communications Technology and Services
Supply Chain Supply Chain
5/15/2019 5/15/2019
Ongoing Ongoing
13873 13873

Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of
63 63
Certain Persons Contributing to the Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Mali Situation in Mali
07/26/2019 07/26/2019
Ongoing Ongoing
13882 13882

Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of
64 64
Certain Persons Contributing to the Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Syria Situation in Syria
10/17/2019 10/17/2019
Ongoing Ongoing
13894 13894

Declaring a National Emergency Declaring a National Emergency
65 65
Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease
(COVID-19) Outbreak (COVID-19) Outbreak
03/13/2020 03/13/2020
Ongoing Ongoing
9994 9994

66 66
Securing the United States Bulk-Power Securing the United States Bulk-Power
System System
05/01/2020 05/01/2020
05/01/2021 05/01/2021
13920 13920
Expired Expired
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Blocking Property of Certain Persons
67 67
Associated With the International Criminal Associated With the International Criminal
Court Court
06/11/2020 06/11/2020
04/01/2021 04/01/2021
13928 13928
14022 14022
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
6061

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Title of E.O. or Procl. Declaring National
Date of
Date of
Originating
Revoking
Emergency Pursuant to NEA
Declaration
Revocation
E.O./Procl.
E.O./Procl.
68 68
Hong Kong Normalization Hong Kong Normalization
07/14/2020 07/14/2020
Ongoing Ongoing
13936 13936

69 69
Critical Minerals Critical Minerals
09/30/2020 09/30/2020
09/30/2021 09/30/2021
13953 13953
Expired Expired
70 70
Investments that Finance Chinese Military Investments that Finance Chinese Military
Companies Companies
11/12/2020 11/12/2020
Ongoing Ongoing
13959 13959

71 71
Blocking Property With Respect to the Blocking Property With Respect to the
Situation in Burma Situation in Burma
02/10/2021 02/10/2021
Ongoing Ongoing
14014 14014

Blocking Property With Respect to Blocking Property With Respect to
72 72
Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the
Russian Federation Russian Federation
04/15/2021 04/15/2021
Ongoing Ongoing
14024 14024

Imposing Sanctions on Certain Persons Imposing Sanctions on Certain Persons
73 73
With Respect to the Humanitarian and With Respect to the Humanitarian and
Human Rights Crisis in Ethiopia Human Rights Crisis in Ethiopia
09/17/2021 09/17/2021
Ongoing Ongoing
14046 14046

74 74
Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons
Involved in the Global Il icit Drug Trade Involved in the Global Il icit Drug Trade
12/15/2021 12/15/2021
Ongoing Ongoing
14059 14059

Protecting Certain Property of Da Protecting Certain Property of Da
75 75
Afghanistan Bank for the Benefit of the Afghanistan Bank for the Benefit of the
People of Afghanistan People of Afghanistan
02/11/2022 02/11/2022
Ongoing Ongoing
14064 14064

Declaration of National Emergency and Declaration of National Emergency and
Invocation of Emergency Authority Relating Invocation of Emergency Authority Relating
76 76
to the Regulation of the Anchorage and to the Regulation of the Anchorage and
Movement of Russian-Affiliated Vessels to Movement of Russian-Affiliated Vessels to
United States Ports United States Ports
04/21/2022 04/21/2022
Ongoing Ongoing
10371 10371

Declaration of Emergency and Declaration of Emergency and
77 77
Authorization for Temporary Extensions of Authorization for Temporary Extensions of
Time and Duty-Free Importation of Solar Time and Duty-Free Importation of Solar
Cells and Modules From Southeast Asiac Cells and Modules From Southeast Asiac
06/06/2022 06/06/2022
Ongoing Ongoing
10414 10414

Bolstering Efforts To Bring Hostages and Bolstering Efforts To Bring Hostages and
78 78
Wrongful y Detained United States Wrongful y Detained United States
Nationals Home Nationals Home
07/19/2022 07/19/2022
Ongoing Ongoing
14078 14078

Addressing United States Investments in Addressing United States Investments in
79 79
Certain National Security Technologies and Certain National Security Technologies and
Products in Countries of Concern Products in Countries of Concern
08/09/2023 08/09/2023
Ongoing Ongoing
14105 14105

Source: CRS, as of CRS, as of ~~March 25, 2022~~January 15, 2024. .
Notes: Greyed lines indicate emergencies declared pursuant to the NEA that did not invoke IEEPA. This table Greyed lines indicate emergencies declared pursuant to the NEA that did not invoke IEEPA. This table
tracks emergencies that have been declared and their ultimate disposition. It does not include expansions or tracks emergencies that have been declared and their ultimate disposition. It does not include expansions or
amendments to those emergencies. For example, Executive Order 14024, which declared a national emergency amendments to those emergencies. For example, Executive Order 14024, which declared a national emergency
with respect to specified harmful activities of the Russian Federation in April of 2021, has been the basis of with respect to specified harmful activities of the Russian Federation in April of 2021, has been the basis of
certain actions taken under IEEPA against the Russian Federation since it invaded Ukraine in February 2022. See, certain actions taken under IEEPA against the Russian Federation since it invaded Ukraine in February 2022. See,
e.g., E.O. 14065 of February 21, 2022, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain e.g., E.O. 14065 of February 21, 2022, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain
Transactions with Respect to Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity Transactions with Respect to Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity
of Ukraine,” 87 of Ukraine,” 87 Federal Register 10293, February 23, 2022; E.O. 14066 of March 8, 2022, “Prohibiting Certain 10293, February 23, 2022; E.O. 14066 of March 8, 2022, “Prohibiting Certain
Imports and New Investments with Respect to Continued Russian Federation Efforts to Undermine the Imports and New Investments with Respect to Continued Russian Federation Efforts to Undermine the
Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine,” 87 Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine,” 87 Federal Register 13625, March 10, 2022; E.O. 14068 of March 13625, March 10, 2022; E.O. 14068 of March
11, 2022, “Prohibiting Certain Imports, Exports, and New Investment with Respect to Continued Russian 11, 2022, “Prohibiting Certain Imports, Exports, and New Investment with Respect to Continued Russian
Federation Aggression,” 87 Federation Aggression,” 87 Federal Register 14381, March 15, 2022. 14381, March 15, 2022.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
6162

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

a. Although the President did not explicitly use that phrase “declare a national emergency,” the Davis-Bacon a. Although the President did not explicitly use that phrase “declare a national emergency,” the Davis-Bacon
act, as amended at the date of the proclamation, and as noted in the proclamation, provided for the act, as amended at the date of the proclamation, and as noted in the proclamation, provided for the
suspension of the act’s provisions “in the event of a national emergency.” suspension of the act’s provisions “in the event of a national emergency.”
b. Similar to the suspension of the Davis-Bacon act in 1992, this proclamation was somewhat anomalous. The b. Similar to the suspension of the Davis-Bacon act in 1992, this proclamation was somewhat anomalous. The
proclamation did not cite to the NEA when declaring a national emergency for the purposes of suspending proclamation did not cite to the NEA when declaring a national emergency for the purposes of suspending
the act. However, the revoking proclamation did cite the NEA. Moreover, Rep. George Mil er (CA) the act. However, the revoking proclamation did cite the NEA. Moreover, Rep. George Mil er (CA)
introduced a resolution to terminate the declaration of a national emergency pursuant to the NEA. H.J.Res. introduced a resolution to terminate the declaration of a national emergency pursuant to the NEA. H.J.Res.
69 (Mil er), 109th Cong., 1st sess., September 8, 2005. 69 (Mil er), 109th Cong., 1st sess., September 8, 2005.
c. On June 6, 2022, President Biden declared an “an emergency to exist with respect to the threats to the c. On June 6, 2022, President Biden declared an “an emergency to exist with respect to the threats to the
availability of sufficient electricity generation capacity to meet expected customer demand.” Although the availability of sufficient electricity generation capacity to meet expected customer demand.” Although the
President did not cite the NEA, the statute he invoked may fall under the NEA. U.S. Congress, Senate President did not cite the NEA, the statute he invoked may fall under the NEA. U.S. Congress, Senate
Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, Emergency Powers Statutes: Provisions Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, Emergency Powers Statutes: Provisions
of Federal Law Now in Effect Delegating to the Executive Extraordinary Authority in Time of National of Federal Law Now in Effect Delegating to the Executive Extraordinary Authority in Time of National
Emergency, committee print, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., September 1973 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1973), pp. xi, Emergency, committee print, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., September 1973 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1973), pp. xi,
32, 243; U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Law and 32, 243; U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Law and
Governmental Relations, National Emergencies Act, hearing on H.R. 3884, 94th Cong., 1st sess., March 6, Governmental Relations, National Emergencies Act, hearing on H.R. 3884, 94th Cong., 1st sess., March 6,
18, 18, 19, and April 9, 1975 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1975), p. 117: “19, and April 9, 1975 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1975), p. 117: “…American importers have relied American importers have relied
extensively on the practice of warehousing merchandise in Customs bonded warehouses for periods in extensively on the practice of warehousing merchandise in Customs bonded warehouses for periods in
excess of the initial statutory periods afforded by sections 491, 557, and 550 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Such excess of the initial statutory periods afforded by sections 491, 557, and 550 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Such
extensions have been made possible by Customs regulations authorized by Proclamation 2048 which extensions have been made possible by Customs regulations authorized by Proclamation 2048 which
President Truman Issued under the authority of section 318 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (10 U.S.C. President Truman Issued under the authority of section 318 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (10 U.S.C. §1318), an 1318), an
emergency statute. Due to the extensive reliance on these Customs regulations in the past, a statutory emergency statute. Due to the extensive reliance on these Customs regulations in the past, a statutory
replacement for the existing authority conferred on this Department by Proclamation 2948 wil be replacement for the existing authority conferred on this Department by Proclamation 2948 wil be
recommended.” Although the letter was written in 1974 in response to other bil s, it was included in recommended.” Although the letter was written in 1974 in response to other bil s, it was included in
hearings on H.R. 3884, which was the bil that ultimately became the NEA. Commerce argued in subsequent hearings on H.R. 3884, which was the bil that ultimately became the NEA. Commerce argued in subsequent
regulations that the agency regulations that the agency "“[did] not agree that Proclamation 10414 fails to conform with the requirements [did] not agree that Proclamation 10414 fails to conform with the requirements
of the [NEA]." International Trade Administration, “Procedures Covering Suspension of Liquidation, Duties of the [NEA]." International Trade Administration, “Procedures Covering Suspension of Liquidation, Duties
and Estimated Duties in Accord With Presidential Proclamation 10414,” 87 Federal Register 56868, and Estimated Duties in Accord With Presidential Proclamation 10414,” 87 Federal Register 56868,
September 16, 2022. September 16, 2022.
Table A-2. Resolutions to Terminate National Emergencies
Targeted
Declaration of
National
Disposition of
Resolution
Cong.
Emergency
Resolution
IEEPA or Other
H.J.Res. 69 H.J.Res. 69
109 109
Proclamation 7924 Proclamation 7924
Introduced Introduced
Other Other
of September 8, of September 8,
2005, “To Suspend 2005, “To Suspend
Subchapter IV of Subchapter IV of
Chapter 31 of Title Chapter 31 of Title
40, United States 40, United States
Code, Within a Code, Within a
Limited Limited
Geographic Area Geographic Area
in Response to the in Response to the
National National
Emergency Caused Emergency Caused
by Hurricane by Hurricane
Katrina” Katrina”
H.J.Res. 46 116 Proclamation 9844 Failed to pass over veto Other of February 15, 2019, “Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States.” Congressional Research Service 63~~Congressional Research Service~~
62

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Targeted
Declaration of
National
Disposition of
Resolution
Cong.
Emergency
Resolution
IEEPA or Other
HS.J.Res. .J.Res. 46
10 116 116
Proclamation 9844 Proclamation 9844
~~Failed to pass over veto Other~~
Introduced Other of February 15, of February 15,
2019, “Declaring a 2019, “Declaring a
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Southern Border Southern Border
of the United of the United
States.” States.”
S.J.Res. S.J.Res. 10
54 116 116
Proclamation 9844 Proclamation 9844
~~Introduced~~
Failed to pass over veto Other Other

of February 15, of February 15,
2019, “Declaring a 2019, “Declaring a
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Southern Border Southern Border
of the United of the United
States.” States.”
SH.J.Res. .J.Res. 54
75 116 116
Proclamation 9844 Proclamation 9844
~~Failed to pass over veto Other~~

Introduced Other of February 15, of February 15,
2019, “Declaring a 2019, “Declaring a
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Southern Border Southern Border
of the United of the United
States.” States.”
H.J.Res. H.J.Res. 7585
116 116
Proclamation 9844 Proclamation 9844
Introduced Introduced
Other Other
of February 15, of February 15,
2019, “Declaring a 2019, “Declaring a
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Southern Border Southern Border
of the United of the United
States.” States.”
H.J.Res. H.J.Res. 85
~~116~~46 117
Proclamation Proclamation ~~9844~~9994
Introduced Introduced
Other Other
of of ~~February 15,~~
~~2019,~~ March 13, 2020, “Declaring a “Declaring a
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
~~Southern Border~~
~~of the United~~
~~States~~Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak.” .”
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
6364

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Targeted
Declaration of
National
Disposition of
Resolution
Cong.
Emergency
Resolution
IEEPA or Other
H.J.Res H.J.Res 46. 52
117 117
Proclamation 9994 Proclamation 9994
Introduced Introduced
Other Other
of March 13, 2020, of March 13, 2020,
“Declaring a “Declaring a
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Novel Coronavirus Novel Coronavirus
Disease (COVID-Disease (COVID-
19) Outbreak.” 19) Outbreak.”
HS.J.Res. .J.Res. 52
38 117 117
Proclamation 9994 Proclamation 9994
~~Introduced~~Passed Senate
Other Other
of March 13, 2020, of March 13, 2020,
“Declaring a “Declaring a
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Novel Coronavirus Novel Coronavirus
Disease (COVID-Disease (COVID-
19) Outbreak.” 19) Outbreak.”
S.J.Res. S.J.Res. 38
63 117 117
Proclamation 9994 Proclamation 9994
Passed Senate Passed Senate
Other Other
of March 13, 2020, of March 13, 2020,
“Declaring a “Declaring a
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Novel Coronavirus Novel Coronavirus
Disease (COVID-Disease (COVID-
19) Outbreak.” 19) Outbreak.”
SH.J.Res. .J.Res. 63
~~117~~7 118
Proclamation 9994 Proclamation 9994
~~Passed Senate~~Became Law
Other Other

of March 13, 2020, of March 13, 2020,
“Declaring a “Declaring a
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Novel Coronavirus Novel Coronavirus
Disease (COVID-Disease (COVID-
19) Outbreak.” 19) Outbreak.”
H.J.Res. H.J.Res. 768 118 Executive Order Failed House IEEPA 13413 of October 27, 2006, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
~~118~~
~~Proclamation 9994~~
~~Became Law~~
~~Other~~
~~of March 13, 2020,~~
~~“Declaring a~~
~~National~~
~~Emergency~~
~~Concerning the~~
~~Novel Coronavirus~~
~~Disease (COVID-~~
~~19) Outbreak~~.” .”
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
6465

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use

Targeted
Declaration of
National
Disposition of
Resolution
Cong.
Emergency
Resolution
IEEPA or Other
H.J.Res. H.J.Res. 68
~~118~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Failed House~~
~~IEEPA~~
~~13413 of October~~
~~27, 2006, “Blocking~~
~~Property of~~
~~Certain Persons~~
~~Contributing to~~
~~the Conflict in the~~
~~Democratic~~
~~Republic of the~~
~~Congo.”~~
~~H.J.Res.~~ 70 70
118 118
Executive Order Executive Order
Failed House Failed House
IEEPA IEEPA
13566 of February 13566 of February
25, 2011, “Blocking 25, 2011, “Blocking
Property and Property and
Prohibiting Certain Prohibiting Certain
Transactions Transactions
Related to Libya.” Related to Libya.”
H.J.Res. 71 H.J.Res. 71
118 118
Executive Order Executive Order
Failed House Failed House
IEEPA IEEPA
13303 of May 22, 13303 of May 22,
2003, “Protecting 2003, “Protecting
the Development the Development
Fund for Iraq and Fund for Iraq and
Certain Other Certain Other
Property in Which Property in Which
Iraq Has an Iraq Has an
Interest.” Interest.”
H.J.Res. 74 H.J.Res. 74
118 118
Executive Order Executive Order
Failed House Failed House
IEEPA IEEPA
13611 of May 16, 13611 of May 16,
2012, “Blocking 2012, “Blocking
Property of Property of
Persons Persons
Threatening the Threatening the
Peace, Security, or Peace, Security, or
Stability of Stability of
Yemen.” Yemen.”
H.J.Res. 79 H.J.Res. 79
118 118
Executive Order Executive Order
Failed House Failed House
IEEPA IEEPA
13338 of May 11, 13338 of May 11,
2004, “Blocking 2004, “Blocking
Property of Property of
Certain Persons Certain Persons
and Prohibiting the and Prohibiting the
Export of Certain Export of Certain
Goods to Syria.” Goods to Syria.”
Source: CRS as of CRS as of ~~September 1, 2023~~January 15, 2024. .
Notes: Greyed lines indicate emergencies declared pursuant to the NEA that did not invoke IEEPA. Greyed lines indicate emergencies declared pursuant to the NEA that did not invoke IEEPA.

~~Congressional Research Service~~
65

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

Table A-3. IEEPA National Emergency Use by Executive Order
In chronological order, from first use (1979) to In chronological order, from first use (1979) to ~~July 2023~~January 15, 2024
Country or Issue of
Executive Order
Concern
Sanction/Remedy
Current Status
Administration of President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
12170 12170
Iran (hostage taking) Iran (hostage taking)
Declares national Declares national
Emergency requires annual Emergency requires annual
(November 14. 1979; 44 (November 14. 1979; 44
emergency; blocks Iran emergency; blocks Iran
renewal; other parts renewal; other parts
FR 65729) FR 65729)
government property government property
revoked and replaced, E.O. revoked and replaced, E.O.
13599 (2012)13599 (2012) Congressional Research Service 66 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status
12205 12205
Iran (hostage taking) Iran (hostage taking)
Prohibits certain Prohibits certain
Revoked in part by E.O. Revoked in part by E.O.
(April. 7, 1980; 45 FR (April. 7, 1980; 45 FR
transactions transactions
12282 (1981) 12282 (1981)
24099) 24099)
12211 12211
Iran (hostage taking) Iran (hostage taking)
Prohibits transactions Prohibits transactions
Revoked in part by E.O. Revoked in part by E.O.
(April 17, 1980; 45 FR (April 17, 1980; 45 FR
12282 (1981) 12282 (1981)
26685) 26685)
12276 12276
Iran (hostage taking— Iran (hostage taking—
Establishes escrow Establishes escrow
Ratified by E.O. 12294 Ratified by E.O. 12294
(January 19, 1981; 46 FR (January 19, 1981; 46 FR
resolution) resolution)
accounts accounts
(1981) (1981)
7913) 7913)
12277 12277
Iran (hostage taking— Iran (hostage taking—
Transfers Iran Transfers Iran
Ratified by E.O. 12294 Ratified by E.O. 12294
(January 19, 1981; 46 FR (January 19, 1981; 46 FR
resolution) resolution)
government funds government funds
(1981) (1981)
7915) 7915)
12278 12278
Iran (hostage taking— Iran (hostage taking—
Transfers Iran Transfers Iran
Ratified by E.O. 12294 Ratified by E.O. 12294
(January 19, 1981; 46 FR (January 19, 1981; 46 FR
resolution) resolution)
government assets government assets
(1981) (1981)
7917) 7917)
overseas overseas
12279 12279
Iran (hostage taking— Iran (hostage taking—
Transfers Iran Transfers Iran
Ratified by E.O. 12294 Ratified by E.O. 12294
(January 19, 1981; 46 FR (January 19, 1981; 46 FR
resolution) resolution)
government assets held in government assets held in
(1981) (1981)
7917) 7917)
U.S. banks U.S. banks
12280 12280
Iran (hostage taking— Iran (hostage taking—
Transfers Iran Transfers Iran
Ratified by E.O. 12294 Ratified by E.O. 12294
(January 19, 1981; 46 FR (January 19, 1981; 46 FR
resolution) resolution)
government financial government financial
(1981) (1981)
7921) 7921)
assets held by non-banks assets held by non-banks
12281 12281
Iran (hostage taking— Iran (hostage taking—
Transfers other Iran Transfers other Iran
Ratified by E.O. 12294 Ratified by E.O. 12294
(January 19, 1981; 46 FR (January 19, 1981; 46 FR
resolution) resolution)
government assets government assets
(1981) (1981)
7923) 7923)
12282 12282
Iran (hostage taking— Iran (hostage taking—
Revokes prohibitions Revokes prohibitions
Ratified by E.O. 12294 Ratified by E.O. 12294
(January 19, 1981; 46 FR (January 19, 1981; 46 FR
resolution) resolution)
against transactions against transactions
(1981) (1981)
7925) 7925)
involving Iran involving Iran
12283 12283
Iran (hostage taking— Iran (hostage taking—
Non-prosecution of Non-prosecution of
Ratified by E.O. 12294 Ratified by E.O. 12294
(January 19, 1981; 46 FR (January 19, 1981; 46 FR
resolution) resolution)
claims of Iran hostages claims of Iran hostages
(1981) (1981)
7927) 7927)
12284 12284
Iran (hostage taking— Iran (hostage taking—
Restricts transfer of Restricts transfer of
Ratified by E.O. 12294 Ratified by E.O. 12294
(January 19, 1981; 46 FR (January 19, 1981; 46 FR
resolution) resolution)
property of the Shah property of the Shah
(1981) (1981)
7929) 7929)
12285 12285
Iran (hostage taking Iran (hostage taking--
— Establishes Commission Establishes Commission
Revoked by E.O. 12379 Revoked by E.O. 12379
(January 19, 1981; 46 FR (January 19, 1981; 46 FR
resolution resolution
on Hostage on Hostage
(1982) (1982)
7931) 7931)
Compensation Compensation
~~Congressional Research Service~~
66

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
Administration of President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
12294 12294
Iran (hostage taking— Iran (hostage taking—
Suspends claims and Suspends claims and
Amended by E.O. 12379 Amended by E.O. 12379
(February 24, 1981; 46 FR resolution) (February 24, 1981; 46 FR resolution)
litigation against Iran litigation against Iran
(1982) (1982)
14111) 14111)
12444 12444
Expiration of Export Expiration of Export
Continues Export Continues Export
Revoked by E.O. 12451 Revoked by E.O. 12451
(October 14, 1983; 48 FR (October 14, 1983; 48 FR
Administration Act of Administration Act of
Administration Administration
(1983) (EAA (1983) (EAA
48215) 48215)
1979 (EAA) 1979 (EAA)
Regulations (EAR) Regulations (EAR)
reauthorized) reauthorized) Congressional Research Service 67 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status
12470 12470
Expiration of EAA Expiration of EAA
Continues EAR Continues EAR
Revoked by E.O. 12525 Revoked by E.O. 12525
(March 30, 1984; 49 FR (March 30, 1984; 49 FR
(1985) (EAA (1985) (EAA
13099) 13099)
reauthorized) reauthorized)
12513 12513
Nicaragua (civil war) Nicaragua (civil war)
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 12707 Revoked by E.O. 12707
(May 1, 1985; 50 FR (May 1, 1985; 50 FR
emergency; prohibits emergency; prohibits
(1990) (1990)
18629) 18629)
imports, exports, air imports, exports, air
traffic, use of U.S. ports traffic, use of U.S. ports
12532 12532
South Africa (apartheid, South Africa (apartheid,
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 12769 Revoked by E.O. 12769
(September 9, 1985; 50 (September 9, 1985; 50
to meet requirements of to meet requirements of
emergency; prohibits emergency; prohibits
(1991) (1991)
FR 36861) FR 36861)
U.N. Security Council U.N. Security Council
loans to government, loans to government,
(UNSC) Resolution) (UNSC) Resolution)
crime control exports, crime control exports,
nuclear-related exports, nuclear-related exports,
military-related imports; military-related imports;
supports Sul ivan supports Sul ivan
Principles Principles
12535 12535
South Africa (apartheid, South Africa (apartheid,
Prohibits import of Prohibits import of
Revoked by E.O. 12769 Revoked by E.O. 12769
(October 1, 1985; 50 FR (October 1, 1985; 50 FR
to meet requirements of to meet requirements of
krugerrands krugerrands
(1991) (1991)
40325) 40325)
UNSC Resolution) UNSC Resolution)
12543 12543
Libya (terrorism, regional Libya (terrorism, regional
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 13357 Revoked by E.O. 13357
(January 1, 1986; 51 FR (January 1, 1986; 51 FR
unrest) unrest)
emergency; prohibits emergency; prohibits
(2004) (2004)
875) 875)
most imports and most imports and
exports, transactions exports, transactions
relating to transportation relating to transportation
to/from Libya, to/from Libya,
performance of contract performance of contract
obligations in support of obligations in support of
Libyan projects, bank Libyan projects, bank
loans, financial loans, financial
transactions related to transactions related to
travel to Libya travel to Libya
12544 12544
Libya (terrorism, regional Libya (terrorism, regional
Blocks Libyan Blocks Libyan
Revoked by E.O. 13357 Revoked by E.O. 13357
(January 8, 1986; 51 FR (January 8, 1986; 51 FR
unrest) unrest)
Government assets in Government assets in
(2004) (2004)
1235) 1235)
United States United States
12635 12635
Panama (finding Panama (finding
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 12710 Revoked by E.O. 12710
(April 8, 1988; 53 FR (April 8, 1988; 53 FR
government of Noriega government of Noriega
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
(1990) (1990)
12134) 12134)
and Palma a threat) and Palma a threat)
Panama assets in United Panama assets in United
StatesStates
~~Congressional Research Service~~
67

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
Administration of President George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
12722 12722
Iraq (invasion of Kuwait; Iraq (invasion of Kuwait;
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 13350 Revoked by E.O. 13350
(August 2, 1990; 55 FR (August 2, 1990; 55 FR
to meet requirements of to meet requirements of
emergency; blocks Iraq emergency; blocks Iraq
(2004) (2004)
31803) 31803)
UNSC Resolution) UNSC Resolution)
Government assets in Government assets in
U.S.; prohibits most U.S.; prohibits most
export and import; export and import;
restricts transactions restricts transactions
related to travel; prohibits related to travel; prohibits
loans loans
12723 12723
Kuwait (after Iraq’s Kuwait (after Iraq’s
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 12725 Revoked by E.O. 12725
(August 2, 1990; 55 FR (August 2, 1990; 55 FR
invasion; to meet invasion; to meet
emergency; blocks Kuwait (1990) emergency; blocks Kuwait (1990)
31805) 31805)
requirements of UNSC requirements of UNSC
Government assets in Government assets in
Resolution) Resolution)
U.S. U.S. Congressional Research Service 68 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status
12724 12724
Iraq (invasion of Kuwait; Iraq (invasion of Kuwait;
Blocks Iraq Government Blocks Iraq Government
Revoked by E.O. 13350 Revoked by E.O. 13350
(August 9, 1990; 55 FR (August 9, 1990; 55 FR
to meet requirements of to meet requirements of
assets in U.S.; prohibits assets in U.S.; prohibits
(2004) (2004)
33089) 33089)
UNSC Resolution) UNSC Resolution)
most export and import; most export and import;
restricts transactions restricts transactions
related to travel; prohibits related to travel; prohibits
loans loans
12725 12725
Kuwait (after Iraq’s Kuwait (after Iraq’s
Blocks Kuwait Blocks Kuwait
Revoked by E.O. 12771 Revoked by E.O. 12771
(August 9, 1990; 55 FR (August 9, 1990; 55 FR
invasion, to meet invasion, to meet
Government assets in Government assets in
(1991) (1991)
33091) 33091)
requirements of UNSC requirements of UNSC
U.S.; prohibits most U.S.; prohibits most
Resolution) Resolution)
export and import; export and import;
restricts transactions restricts transactions
related to travel; prohibits related to travel; prohibits
loans loans
12730 12730
Expiration of EAA Expiration of EAA
Continues EAR Continues EAR
Revoked by E.O. 12867 Revoked by E.O. 12867
(September 30, 1990; 55 (September 30, 1990; 55
(1993) (1993)
FR 40373) FR 40373)
12735 12735
Chemical and biological Chemical and biological
Declares national Declares national
Revoked and replaced by Revoked and replaced by
(November 16, 1990; 55 (November 16, 1990; 55
weapons proliferation weapons proliferation
emergency; prohibits emergency; prohibits
E.O. 12938 (1994) E.O. 12938 (1994)
FR 48587) FR 48587)
transactions transactions
12775 12775
Haiti (military coup) Haiti (military coup)
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 12932 Revoked by E.O. 12932
(October 4, 1991; 56 FR (October 4, 1991; 56 FR
emergency; blocks Haiti emergency; blocks Haiti
(1994) (1994)
50641) 50641)
Government assets in Government assets in
U.S.; prohibits U.S.; prohibits
transactions transactions
12779 12779
Haiti (military coup) Haiti (military coup)
Blocks Haiti Government Blocks Haiti Government
Revoked by E.O. 12932 Revoked by E.O. 12932
(October 28, 1991; 56 FR (October 28, 1991; 56 FR
assets in U.S.; prohibits assets in U.S.; prohibits
(1994) (1994)
55975) 55975)
export and import, export and import,
transactions transactions
12801 12801
Libya (to meet Libya (to meet
Bars overflight, takeoff Bars overflight, takeoff
Revoked by E.O. 13357 Revoked by E.O. 13357
(April 15, 1992; 57 FR (April 15, 1992; 57 FR
requirements of UNSC requirements of UNSC
and landing planes and landing planes
(2004) (2004)
14319) 14319)
Resolution) Resolution)
traveling to/from Libya traveling to/from Libya
12808 12808
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 13304 Revoked by E.O. 13304
(May 30, 1992; 57 FR (May 30, 1992; 57 FR
Montenegro) (regional Montenegro) (regional
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
(2003) (2003)
23299) 23299)
conflict; to meet conflict; to meet
Yugoslav Government Yugoslav Government
requirements of UNSC requirements of UNSC
assets in United States assets in United States

Resolution) Resolution)
~~Congressional Research Service~~
68

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
12810 12810
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Blocks Yugoslav Blocks Yugoslav
Revoked by E.O. 13304 Revoked by E.O. 13304
(June 5, 1992; 57 FR (June 5, 1992; 57 FR
Montenegro) (regional Montenegro) (regional
Government assets in Government assets in
(2003) (2003)
24347) 24347)
conflict; to meet conflict; to meet
U.S.; prohibits import and U.S.; prohibits import and
requirements of UNSC requirements of UNSC
export, transactions export, transactions
Resolution) Resolution)
related to travel, air related to travel, air
traffic, loans, completing traffic, loans, completing
contracts, sports contracts, sports
participation, tech/cultural participation, tech/cultural
exchanges exchanges
12817 12817
Iraq (postwar; to meet Iraq (postwar; to meet
Blocks assets Blocks assets
Revoked by E.O. 13350 Revoked by E.O. 13350
October 21, 1992; 57 FR October 21, 1992; 57 FR
requirements of UNSC requirements of UNSC
(2004) (2004)
48433) 48433)
Resolution) Resolution) Congressional Research Service 69 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status
12831 12831
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Prohibits transshipment Prohibits transshipment
Revoked by E.O. 13304 Revoked by E.O. 13304
(January 15, 1993; 58 FR (January 15, 1993; 58 FR
Montenegro) (regional Montenegro) (regional
(2003) (2003)
5253) 5253)
conflict) conflict)

Administration of President William Clinton (1993-2001)
12846 12846
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Tightens sanctions, Tightens sanctions,
Revoked by E.O. 13304 Revoked by E.O. 13304
(April 25, 1993; 58 FR (April 25, 1993; 58 FR
Montenegro) (regional Montenegro) (regional
especial y those relating especial y those relating
(2003) (2003)
25771) 25771)
conflict; to meet conflict; to meet
to maritime restrictions to maritime restrictions
requirements of UNSC requirements of UNSC
Resolution) Resolution)
12853 12853
Haiti (military coup) Haiti (military coup)
Blocks assets of regime; Blocks assets of regime;
Revoked by E.O. 12932 Revoked by E.O. 12932
(June 30, 1993; 58 FR (June 30, 1993; 58 FR
prohibits export of prohibits export of
(1994) (1994)
35843) 35843)
petroleum, arms, and petroleum, arms, and
related materiel related materiel
12865 12865
UNITA (Angola) (to meet UNITA (Angola) (to meet
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 13298 Revoked by E.O. 13298
(September 26, 1993; 58 (September 26, 1993; 58
requirements of UNSC requirements of UNSC
emergency; prohibits sales (2003) emergency; prohibits sales (2003)
FR 51005) FR 51005)
Resolution) Resolution)
to UNITA and UNITA- to UNITA and UNITA-
control ed regions control ed regions
12868 12868
Weapons proliferation Weapons proliferation
Declares national Declares national
Revoked and replaced by Revoked and replaced by
(September 30, 1993; 58 (September 30, 1993; 58
emergency; controls emergency; controls
E.O. 12930 (1994) E.O. 12930 (1994)
FR 51749) FR 51749)
exports; prohibits exports; prohibits
transactions with those transactions with those
found not in compliance found not in compliance
with controls with controls
12872 12872
Haiti (military coup) Haiti (military coup)
Blocks assets of those Blocks assets of those
Revoked by E.O. 12932 Revoked by E.O. 12932
(October 18, 1993; 58 FR (October 18, 1993; 58 FR
impeding democratization impeding democratization
(1994) (1994)
54029) 54029)
process process
12914 12914
Haiti (military coup) Haiti (military coup)
Blocks assets of military Blocks assets of military
Revoked by E.O. 12932 Revoked by E.O. 12932
(May 7, 1994; 59 FR (May 7, 1994; 59 FR
and participants in 1991 and participants in 1991
(1994) (1994)
24339) 24339)
overthrow; prohibits air overthrow; prohibits air
traffic traffic
12917 12917
Haiti (military coup) Haiti (military coup)
Prohibits imports Prohibits imports
Revoked by E.O. 12932 Revoked by E.O. 12932
(May 21, 1994; 59 FR (May 21, 1994; 59 FR
(1994) (1994)
26925) 26925)
12920 12920
Haiti (military coup) Haiti (military coup)
Prohibits certain financial Prohibits certain financial
Revoked by E.O. 12932 Revoked by E.O. 12932
(June 10, 1994; 59 FR (June 10, 1994; 59 FR
transactions, exports transactions, exports
(1994) (1994)
30501) 30501)
~~Congressional Research Service~~
69

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
12922 12922
Haiti (military coup) Haiti (military coup)
Blocks assets of certain Blocks assets of certain
Revoked by E.O. 12932 Revoked by E.O. 12932
(June 21, 1994; 59 FR (June 21, 1994; 59 FR
individuals individuals
(1994) (1994)
32645) 32645)
12923 12923
Expiration of EAA Expiration of EAA
Continues EAR Continues EAR
Revoked and replaced by Revoked and replaced by
(June 30, 1994; 59 FR (June 30, 1994; 59 FR
E.O. 12924 (1994) E.O. 12924 (1994)
34551) 34551)
12924 12924
Expiration of EAA Expiration of EAA
Continues EAR Continues EAR
~~Amended~~Revoked by E.O. by E.O. ~~12981~~13206
(August 19, 1994; 59 FR (August 19, 1994; 59 FR
( (~~1995)~~2001); previously 34551) amended by E.O. 12981 (1995) Congressional Research Service 70 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status
~~34551)~~
12930 12930
Proliferation of weapons Proliferation of weapons
Declares national Declares national
Revoked and replaced by Revoked and replaced by
(September 29, 1994; 59 (September 29, 1994; 59
of mass destruction of mass destruction
emergency; controls emergency; controls
E.O. 12938 (1994) E.O. 12938 (1994)
FR 50475) FR 50475)
exports; prohibits exports; prohibits
transactions with those transactions with those
found not in compliance found not in compliance
with controls with controls
12934 12934
Bosnian Serb-control ed Bosnian Serb-control ed
Blocks assets; prohibits Blocks assets; prohibits
Revoked by E.O. 13304 Revoked by E.O. 13304
(October 25, 1994; 59 FR (October 25, 1994; 59 FR
areas of Bosnia and areas of Bosnia and
export, maritime access export, maritime access
(2003) (2003)
54117) 54117)
Herzegovina (to meet Herzegovina (to meet
to certain ports to certain ports
requirements of UNSC requirements of UNSC
resolution) resolution)
12938 12938
Proliferation of weapons Proliferation of weapons
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(November 19, 1994; 59 (November 19, 1994; 59
of mass destruction of mass destruction
emergency; controls emergency; controls
amended by E.O. 13094 amended by E.O. 13094
FR 59099) FR 59099)
exports; prohibits exports; prohibits
(1998); E.O. 13128 (1998); E.O. 13128
transactions with those transactions with those
(1999); E.O. 13382 (2005) (1999); E.O. 13382 (2005)
found not in compliance found not in compliance
with controls with controls
12947 12947
Terrorists who disrupt Terrorists who disrupt
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 13886 Revoked by E.O. 13886
(January 23, 1995; 60 FR (January 23, 1995; 60 FR
Middle East peace process emergency; blocks assets; Middle East peace process emergency; blocks assets;
(2019) (2019)
5079) 5079)
prohibits transactions prohibits transactions
12957 12957
Iran (weapons Iran (weapons
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(March 15, 1995; 60 FR (March 15, 1995; 60 FR
proliferation) proliferation)
emergency; prohibits emergency; prohibits
other parts revoked and other parts revoked and
14615) 14615)
investment in oil investment in oil
restated in E.O. 12959 restated in E.O. 12959
development development
(1995) (1995)
12959 12959
Iran (weapons Iran (weapons
Prohibits investment in oil Revoked in part by E.O. Prohibits investment in oil Revoked in part by E.O.
(May 6, 1995; 60 FR (May 6, 1995; 60 FR
proliferation) proliferation)
development development
13059 (1997) 13059 (1997)
24757) 24757)
12978 12978
Significant narcotics Significant narcotics
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(October 21, 1995; 60 FR (October 21, 1995; 60 FR
traffickers (initially traffickers (initially
emergency; blocks assets; emergency; blocks assets;
technical amendments in technical amendments in
54579) 54579)
Colombia) Colombia)
prohibits transactions prohibits transactions
E.O. 13286 (2003) E.O. 13286 (2003)
12981 12981
EAA EAA
Amends the Amends the
Amended by E.O. 13020 Amended by E.O. 13020
(December 5, 1995 (December 5, 1995); 60
administration of export administration of export
(1996) (1996)
~~controls.~~; E.O. 13206 FR 62981; 50 U.S.C. 4603 controls. (1996); E.O. 13117 (1999) note)
13020 13020
EAA EAA
Further amends the Further amends the
Amended by E.O. 13026 Amended by E.O. 13026
(October 12, 1996 (October 12, 1996); 61 FR
administration of export administration of export
(1996) (1996)
~~controls.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
70

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
~~13026~~
~~EAA~~
~~Further amends the~~
~~Revoked by E.O. 13206~~
~~(November 15, 1996)~~
~~administration of export~~
~~(2001)~~
~~controls. Adds rules for~~
54079; 50 U.S.C. 4603 controls. note) 13026 EAA Further amends the Exempted from (November 15, 1996; 61 administration of export authorities of E.O. 13206 FR 58767; 50 U.S.C. 4603 controls. Adds rules for (2001) note) encryption products. encryption products.
13047 13047
Burma (military Burma (military
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 13742 Revoked by E.O. 13742
(May 22, 1997; 62 FR (May 22, 1997; 62 FR
government; to government; to
emergency; blocks new emergency; blocks new
(2016) (2016)
28301) 28301)
implement Sec. 570 of P.L. investment implement Sec. 570 of P.L. investment
104-208) 104-208)
13059 13059
Iran (weapons Iran (weapons
Blocks imports, exports Blocks imports, exports
~~Amended by E.O. 13716~~Expands applicability of
(August 19, 1997; 62 FR (August 19, 1997; 62 FR
proliferation, terrorism, proliferation, terrorism,
~~(2016)~~
~~44531)~~
~~regional stability)~~E.O. 12957 (1995), E.O. 44531) regional stability) 12959 (1995) Congressional Research Service 71 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status
13067 13067
Sudan (conflict) Sudan (conflict)
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(November 3, 1997; 62 (November 3, 1997; 62
emergency; blocks Sudan emergency; blocks Sudan
revoked in part by E.O. revoked in part by E.O.
FR 59989) FR 59989)
Government assets; Government assets;
13761 (2017) 13761 (2017)
prohibits exports, prohibits exports,
imports, other imports, other
transactions transactions
13069 (December 12, 13069 (December 12,
UNITA (Angola) (war) UNITA (Angola) (war)
Prohibits certain Prohibits certain
Revoked by E.O. 13298 Revoked by E.O. 13298
1997; 62 FR 65989) 1997; 62 FR 65989)
transaction transaction
(2003) (2003)
13088 13088
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 13304 Revoked by E.O. 13304
(June 9, 1998; 63 FR (June 9, 1998; 63 FR
Montenegro) (war) Montenegro) (war)
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
(2003) (2003); previously
32109) 32109)
Yugoslav Government Yugoslav Government
~~assets; prohibits~~
~~transactions~~ amended by E.O. 13121 assets; prohibits (1999) and E.O. 13192 transactions (2001)
13094 13094
Proliferation of weapons Proliferation of weapons
Prohibits some Prohibits some
~~Amended by~~Amends E.O. E.O. ~~13128~~12938
(July 28, 1998; 63 FR (July 28, 1998; 63 FR
of mass destruction of mass destruction
transactions, assistance, transactions, assistance,
( (~~1999)~~
1994) 40803) 40803)
imports imports
13098 13098
UNITA (Angola) (war; to UNITA (Angola) (war; to
Blocks UNITA assets in Blocks UNITA assets in
Revoked by E.O. 13298 Revoked by E.O. 13298
(August 18, 1998; 63 FR (August 18, 1998; 63 FR
meet requirements of meet requirements of
U.S.; prohibits imports U.S.; prohibits imports
(2003) (2003)
44771) 44771)
UNSC resolution) UNSC resolution)
from and exports to from and exports to
UNITA-control ed or UNITA-control ed or
influences industries influences industries
13099 13099
Terrorists who disrupt Terrorists who disrupt
Adds Usama bin Laden Adds Usama bin Laden
Amends E.O. 12947 Amends E.O. 12947
(August 20, 1998; 63 FR (August 20, 1998; 63 FR
the Middle East peace the Middle East peace
and others to the and others to the
(1995); see above (1995); see above
45167) 45167)
process process
terrorist list terrorist list
13121 13121
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Blocks Yugoslav Blocks Yugoslav
Revoked by E.O. 13304 Revoked by E.O. 13304
(April 30, 1999; 64 FR (April 30, 1999; 64 FR
Montenegro) (war) Montenegro) (war)
Government assets; Government assets;
(2003) (2003)
24021) 24021)
prohibits transactions prohibits transactions
13128 13128
Proliferation of weapons Proliferation of weapons
Implements the Chemical Implements the Chemical
Related to E.O. 12938 Related to E.O. 12938
(June 25, 1999 (June 25, 1999); 64 FR
of mass destruction of mass destruction
Weapons Convention and (1994) Weapons Convention and (1994).
; see above 34704) the Chemical Weapons the Chemical Weapons
Convention Convention
Implementation Act. Implementation Act.
13129 13129
Taliban (terrorism) Taliban (terrorism)
Declares national Declares national
National emergency National emergency
(July 4, 1999; 64 FR (July 4, 1999; 64 FR
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
terminated by E.O. 13268 terminated by E.O. 13268
36759) 36759)
property property
(2002); see, however, (2002); see, however,
E.O. 13224 (2001)E.O. 13224 (2001)
~~Congressional Research Service~~
71

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
E.O. 13159 E.O. 13159
Russia for misuse of highly Declares national Russia for misuse of highly Declares national
Superseded by E.O. Superseded by E.O.
(June 21, 2000; 65 FR (June 21, 2000; 65 FR
enriched uranium enriched uranium
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
13617 (2012) 13617 (2012)
39279) 39279)
extractions extractions
property property
13192 13192
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Substantially expands Substantially expands
Revoked by E.O. 13304 Revoked by E.O. 13304
(January 17, 2001; 66 FR (January 17, 2001; 66 FR
Montenegro) (war) Montenegro) (war)
sanctions in E.O. 13088 sanctions in E.O. 13088
(2003) (2003)
7379) 7379)
(1998) to apply to (1998) to apply to
humanitarian crisis in humanitarian crisis in
Kosovo Kosovo
13194 13194
Sierra Leone (diamond Sierra Leone (diamond
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 13324 Revoked by E.O. 13324
(January 18, 2001; 66 FR (January 18, 2001; 66 FR
trade) trade)
emergency; prohibits emergency; prohibits
(2004) (2004); previously 7389) diamond imports amended by E.O. 13312 (2003) Congressional Research Service 72 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status
~~7389)~~
~~diamond imports~~
Administration of President George W. Bush (2001-2009)
13213 13213
Sierra Leone (diamond Sierra Leone (diamond
Expands prohibitions on Expands prohibitions on
Revoked by E.O. 13324 Revoked by E.O. 13324
(May 22, 2001; 66 FR (May 22, 2001; 66 FR
trade) trade)
diamond trade diamond trade
2004) 2004); previously 28829) amended by E.O. 13312 (2003)
~~28829)~~
13219 13219
Western Balkans Western Balkans
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(June 26, 2001; 66 FR (June 26, 2001; 66 FR
(destabilization postwar) (destabilization postwar)
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
amended by E.O. 13304 amended by E.O. 13304
34775) 34775)
property property
(2003); (2003); ~~expanded by~~see also E.O. E.O.
14033 (2021) 14033 (2021)
13222 13222
Expiration of EAA Expiration of EAA
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal;
(August 17, 2001; 66 FR (August 17, 2001; 66 FR
emergency with the emergency with the amended by E.O. 13637
44025) 44025)
expiration of the Export expiration of the Export
(2013) Administration Act of Administration Act of
1979 (EAA). Continues 1979 (EAA). Continues
Export Administration Export Administration
Regulations (EAR) and Regulations (EAR) and
three remaining statutory three remaining statutory
provisions in the EAA provisions in the EAA
relating to weapons relating to weapons
proliferationproliferation.
13224 13224
Terrorism Terrorism
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(September 23, 2001; 66 (September 23, 2001; 66
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
amended by E.O. amended by E.O. ~~13886~~13268
FR 49079 FR 49079
property; prohibits property; prohibits
( (~~2019)~~
~~transactions~~2002), E.O. 13284 transactions (2003), E.O. 13372 (2005), and E.O. 13886 (2019)
13268 13268
Taliban and Terrorism Taliban and Terrorism
Terminates E.O. 13129 Terminates E.O. 13129
Expanded by E.O. Expanded by E.O. ~~13371~~13372
(July 2, 2002; 67 FR (July 2, 2002; 67 FR
(1999); (1999); ~~amends E.O.~~
~~(2005)~~
~~44751)~~
~~13224~~adds “Taliban” (2005); amended E.O. 44751) and others to restricted 13224 (2001) list (2001) (2001)
13288 13288
Zimbabwe (undermining Zimbabwe (undermining
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(March 6, 2003; 68 FR (March 6, 2003; 68 FR
democratic processes) democratic processes)
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
superseded in part by superseded in part by
11457) 11457)
property property
E.O. 13391 (2005) E.O. 13391 (2005)
13290 13290
Iraq (war) Iraq (war)
Authorizes the Authorizes the
~~Modified~~Amended by E.O. 13350 by E.O. 13350
March 20, 2003; 68 FR March 20, 2003; 68 FR
confiscation and vesting of (2004) confiscation and vesting of (2004)
14307 14307); 50 U.S.C. 1702
property property
note) 13298 13298
UNITA (Angola) UNITA (Angola)
Terminates earlier Terminates earlier
Revokes earlier orders Revokes earlier orders
(May 6, 2003; 68 FR (May 6, 2003; 68 FR
emergency emergency
~~24857)~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
72

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~and related 24857) authorities
13303 13303
Iraq (war) Iraq (war)
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(May 22, 2003; 68 FR (May 22, 2003; 68 FR
emergency; Protects emergency; Protects
amends E.O. 13290 amends E.O. 13290
31931) 31931)
certain property certain property~~, revokes~~
~~(2003); expanded on by~~
~~earlier orders.~~
~~E.O. 13315 (2003),~~ (2003); amended by E.O. 13364 (2004); expanded on by E.O. 13315 (2003), E.O. 13350 ~~E.O.~~
~~13350 (2004), E.O. 13364~~
(2004), E.O. 13438 (2004), E.O. 13438
(2007), and E.O. 13668 (2007), and E.O. 13668
(2014)(2014).
Congressional Research Service 73 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status 13304 13304
Yugoslavia (regional war) Yugoslavia (regional war)
Terminates earlier Terminates earlier
Revokes and modifies Revokes and modifies
(May 28, 2003; 68 FR (May 28, 2003; 68 FR
emergency emergency
earlier orders earlier orders
32315) 32315)
13310 13310
Burma (military Burma (military
Blocks property Blocks property
Revoked by E.O. 13742 Revoked by E.O. 13742
(July 28, 2003; 68 FR (July 28, 2003; 68 FR
government) government)
(2016) (2016)
44853) 44853)
13312 13312
Sierra Leone and Liberia Sierra Leone and Liberia
Implements the Clean Implements the Clean
Revoked by E.O. 13324 Revoked by E.O. 13324
(July 3, 2003; 68 FR (July 3, 2003; 68 FR
(conflict) (conflict)
Diamond Trade Act Diamond Trade Act
(2004) (2004)
45151)) 45151))
13315 13315
Iraq (former regime) Iraq (former regime)
Blocks property Blocks property
Superseded by E.O. Superseded by E.O.
(August 28, 2003; 68 FR (August 28, 2003; 68 FR
13350 (2004) 13350 (2004)
52315) 52315)
13324 13324
Sierra Leone and Liberia Sierra Leone and Liberia
Terminates earlier Terminates earlier
Revokes Revokes ~~EO 13194 (2001)~~E.O. 13194
(January 15, 2004; 69 FR (January 15, 2004; 69 FR
(conflict) (conflict)
emergency emergency
~~and EO 13213 (2001)~~
~~2823~~(2001) and E.O. 13213 2823) (2001) )
13338 13338
Syria (civil conflict) Syria (civil conflict)
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal. Requires annual renewal.
(May 11, 2004; 69 FR (May 11, 2004; 69 FR
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
Modified by E.O. 13460 Modified by E.O. 13460
26751) 26751)
property of those who property of those who
(2008). See also E.O. (2008). See also E.O.
export certain goods to export certain goods to
13399 (2006), E.O. 13572 13399 (2006), E.O. 13572
Syria Syria
(2011), E.O. 13573 (2011), E.O. 13573
(2011), E.O. 13582 (2011), E.O. 13582
(2011), E.O. 13606 (2011), E.O. 13606
(2012), and E.O. 13608 (2012), and E.O. 13608
(2012) (2012)
13348 13348
Liberia (corruption, to Liberia (corruption, to
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 13710 Revoked by E.O. 13710
(July 22, 2004; 69 FR (July 22, 2004; 69 FR
meet requirements of meet requirements of
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
(2015) (2015)
44885) 44885)
UNSC resolution) UNSC resolution)
property; prohibits property; prohibits
imports imports
13350 13350
Iraq (postwar) Iraq (postwar)
Ends emergency from Ends emergency from
~~Amended by E.O. 13364~~Revokes several earlier
(July 29, 2004; 69 FR (July 29, 2004; 69 FR
1990 Kuwait invasion 1990 Kuwait invasion
~~(2004)~~E.O.
46055) 46055)
13357 13357
Libya (terrorism) Libya (terrorism)
Terminates earlier Terminates earlier
Revokes earlier orders Revokes earlier orders
(September 20, 2004; 69 (September 20, 2004; 69
emergency emergency
FR 56665) FR 56665)
13364 13364
Iraq (postwar) Iraq (postwar)
Amends transaction Amends transaction
~~Amended by~~Amends E.O. E.O. ~~13668~~13303
(November 29, 2004; 69 (November 29, 2004; 69
controls and regulations controls and regulations
( (~~2014~~2003) )
FR 70177) FR 70177)
on the Development fund on the Development fund
for Iraq for Iraq
~~Congressional Research Service~~
73

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
13372 13372
Terrorism Terrorism
Clarifies use of sanctions Clarifies use of sanctions
Amends E.O. 12947 Amends E.O. 12947
(February 16, 2005; 70 FR (February 16, 2005; 70 FR
(1995), E.O. 13224 (2001) (1995), E.O. 13224 (2001)
8499) 8499)
13382 13382
Weapons proliferation Weapons proliferation
Expands Expands ~~on earlier~~earlier orders;
Amends E.O. 12938 Amends E.O. 12938
(June 28, 2005; 70 FR (June 28, 2005; 70 FR
~~orders;~~ blocks property blocks property
(1994) and 13094 (1998) (1994) and 13094 (1998)
38567) 38567)
13391 13391
Zimbabwe (undermining Zimbabwe (undermining
Blocks property Blocks property
Amends and supersedes Amends and supersedes,
(November 22, 2005; 70 (November 22, 2005; 70
democratic processes) democratic processes)
~~in part,~~part of E.O. 13288 (2003) FR 71201) Congressional Research Service 74 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status ~~E.O. 13288 (2003)~~
~~FR 71201)~~
13396 13396
Cote d’Ivoire (conflict) Cote d’Ivoire (conflict)
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 13739 Revoked by E.O. 13739
(February. 7, 2006; 71 FR (February. 7, 2006; 71 FR
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
(2016) (2016)
7389) 7389)
property property
13399 13399
Syria (civil war) Syria (civil war)
Blocks additional property Expands E.O. 13338 Expands E.O. 13338
~~Amends earlier order~~
(April 25, 2006; 71 FR (April 25, 2006; 71 FR
(2004) (2004)~~; blocks property~~
25059) 25059)
13400 13400
Sudan (Darfur) Sudan (Darfur)
Blocks additional property Expands E.O. 13067 Expands E.O. 13067
~~Amends earlier order~~
(April 26, 2006; 71 FR (April 26, 2006; 71 FR
(1997) (1997)~~; blocks property~~
25483) 25483)
13405 13405
Belarus (undermining Belarus (undermining
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal
(June 16, 2006; 71 FR (June 16, 2006; 71 FR
democracy) democracy)
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
35485) 35485)
property property
13412 13412
Sudan (Darfur, regional Sudan (Darfur, regional
Expands E.O. 13067 Expands E.O. 13067
Revoked by E.O. 13761 Revoked by E.O. 13761
(October 13, 2006; 71 FR (October 13, 2006; 71 FR
stability) stability)
(1997 (1997); blocks property ; blocks property
(2017) (2017)
61369) 61369)
and transactions and transactions
13413 13413
Democratic Republic of Democratic Republic of
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(October 27, 2006; 71 FR (October 27, 2006; 71 FR
the Congo (regional the Congo (regional
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
amended by E.O. 13671 amended by E.O. 13671
64105) 64105)
stability) stability)
property property
(2014) (2014)
13438 13438
Those who threaten Those who threaten
Blocks additional property Expands E.O. 13303 Expands E.O. 13303
~~Expands other orders~~
(July 17, 2007; 72 FR (July 17, 2007; 72 FR
stabilization efforts in Iraq stabilization efforts in Iraq
(2003) (2003)~~; blocks property~~
39719) 39719)
13441 13441
Those who threaten the Those who threaten the
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal
(August 1, 2007; 72 FR (August 1, 2007; 72 FR
sovereignty of Lebanon sovereignty of Lebanon
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
43499) 43499)
(primarily Syria) (primarily Syria)
property property
13448 13448
Burma (military Burma (military
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 13742 Revoked by E.O. 13742
October 18, 2007; 72 FR October 18, 2007; 72 FR
government) government)
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
(2016) (2016)
60223) 60223)
property and transactions property and transactions
13460 13460
Syria (civil conflict) Syria (civil conflict)
Blocks property of those Blocks property of those
Amends E.O. 13338 Amends E.O. 13338
(February 13, 2008; 73 FR (February 13, 2008; 73 FR
who support certain who support certain
(2004) (2004)
8991) 8991)
activities in Syria activities in Syria
13464 13464
Burma (military Burma (military
Blocks property and Blocks property and
Revoked by E.O. 13742 Revoked by E.O. 13742
April 30, 2008; 72 FR April 30, 2008; 72 FR
government) government)
transactions transactions
(2016) (2016)
24491) 24491)
~~Congressional Research Service~~
74

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
13466 13466
North Korea (weapons North Korea (weapons
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(June 26, 2008; 73 FR (June 26, 2008; 73 FR
proliferation, to meet proliferation, to meet
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
see also E.O. 13551 see also E.O. 13551
36787) 36787)
requirements of UNSC requirements of UNSC
property and transactions property and transactions
(2010), E.O. 13570 (2010), E.O. 13570
resolution) resolution)
(2011), E.O. 13687 (2011), E.O. 13687
(2015), E.O. 13722 (2015), E.O. 13722
(2016), and E.O. 13810 (2016), and E.O. 13810
(2017) (2017)
13469 13469
Zimbabwe (undermining Zimbabwe (undermining
Blocks property Blocks property
Expands E.O. 13288 Expands E.O. 13288
(July 25, 2008; 73 FR (July 25, 2008; 73 FR
democracy) democracy)
(2003) and 13391 (2005) (2003) and 13391 (2005)
43841) 43841) Congressional Research Service 75 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status
Administration of President Barack Obama (2009-2017)
13536 13536
Somalia (conflict Somalia (conflict)
, high seas Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(April 12, 2010; 75 FR (April 12, 2010; 75 FR
piracy) emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
amended by E.O. 13620 amended by E.O. 13620
19869) 19869)
property property
(2012) (2012)
13551 13551
North Korea (weapons North Korea (weapons
Blocks property Blocks property
Expands national Expands national
(August 30, 2010; 75 FR (August 30, 2010; 75 FR
proliferation, to meet proliferation, to meet
emergency declared in emergency declared in
53837) 53837)
requirements of UNSC requirements of UNSC
E.O. 13466 (2008) E.O. 13466 (2008)
resolution) resolution)
13553 13553
Iran (human rights) Iran (human rights)
Blocks property including Blocks property including
Expands E.O. 12957 Expands E.O. 12957
(Sept, 28, 2010; 75 FR (Sept, 28, 2010; 75 FR
that of Iranian officials that of Iranian officials
(1995) (1995)
60567) 60567)
13566 13566
Libya (stability) Libya (stability)
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(February 25, 2011; 76 FR (February 25, 2011; 76 FR
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
~~modified~~expanded by E.O. 13726 by E.O. 13726
11315) 11315)
property and transactions property and transactions
(2016) (2016)
13570 13570
North Korea (weapons North Korea (weapons
Blocks transactions Blocks transactions
Expands E.O. 13466 Expands E.O. 13466
(April 18, 2011; 76 FR (April 18, 2011; 76 FR
proliferation, to meet proliferation, to meet
(2008), 13551 (2010); (2008), 13551 (2010);
22291) 22291)
requirements of UNSC requirements of UNSC
~~amended~~expanded by E.O. 13687 by E.O. 13687
resolution) resolution)
(2015) (2015)
13572 13572
Syria (human rights) Syria (human rights)
Blocks property of human Expands E.O. 13338 Blocks property of human Expands E.O. 13338
(April 29, 2011; 76 FR (April 29, 2011; 76 FR
rights violators rights violators
(2004), 13399 (2006), and (2004), 13399 (2006), and
24787) 24787)
13460 (2008) 13460 (2008)
13573 13573
Syria (war) Syria (war)
Blocks property of senior Blocks property of senior
Expands E.O. 13338 Expands E.O. 13338
(May 18, 2011; 76 FR (May 18, 2011; 76 FR
government officials government officials
(2004), 13399 (2006), (2004), 13399 (2006),
29143) 29143)
13460 (2008), and 13572 13460 (2008), and 13572
(2011); amended by E.O. (2011); amended by E.O.
13582 (2011) 13582 (2011)
13574 13574
Iran (weapons Iran (weapons
Implements new sanctions Revoked by E.O. 13716 Implements new sanctions Revoked by E.O. 13716
(May 23, 2011; 76 FR (May 23, 2011; 76 FR
proliferation) proliferation)
in Iran Sanctions Act of in Iran Sanctions Act of
(2016) (2016)
30505) 30505)
1996 1996
13581 13581
Transnational Criminal Transnational Criminal
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(July 24, 2011; 76 FR (July 24, 2011; 76 FR
Organizations Organizations
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
amended by E.O. 13863 amended by E.O. 13863
44757) 44757)
property property
(2019) (2019)
13582 13582
Syria (war) Syria (war)
Blocks property of Blocks property of
Expands E.O. 13338 Expands E.O. 13338
(August 17, 2011; 76 FR (August 17, 2011; 76 FR
Government of Syria and Government of Syria and
(2004), 13399 (2006), (2004), 13399 (2006),
52209) 52209)
transactions transactions, new
13460 (2008), 13572 13460 (2008), 13572
investment, importation (2011), and E.O. 13573 of petroleum and related (2011) products~~(2011), and E.O. 13573~~
~~(2011)~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
75

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
13590 13590
Iran (weapons Iran (weapons
Prohibits transactions Prohibits transactions
Revoked by E.O. 13716 Revoked by E.O. 13716
(November 20, 2011; 76 (November 20, 2011; 76
proliferation) proliferation)
related to Iran’s energy related to Iran’s energy
(2016) (2016)
FR 72609) FR 72609)
and petrochemical sectors and petrochemical sectors
13599 13599
Iran (weapons Iran (weapons
Blocks property of Blocks property of
Expands E.O. 12957 Expands E.O. 12957
(February 5, 2012; 77 FR (February 5, 2012; 77 FR
proliferation) proliferation)
government and financial government and financial
(1995) (1995)
6659) 6659)
institutions institutions
13606 13606
Iran and Syria (human Iran and Syria (human
Blocks property and Blocks property and
Expands E.O. 12957 Expands E.O. 12957
(April 22, 2012; 77 FR (April 22, 2012; 77 FR
rights) rights)
denies visas denies visas
(1995) and 13338 (2004) (1995) and 13338 (2004)
24571) 24571)
Congressional Research Service 76 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status 13608 13608
Iran and Syria (sanctions Iran and Syria (sanctions
Blocks transactions and Blocks transactions and
Expands E.O. 12938 Expands E.O. 12938
(May 1, 2012; 77 FR (May 1, 2012; 77 FR
evasion) evasion)
denies visas denies visas
(1994), 12957 (1995), (1994), 12957 (1995),
26409) 26409)
13224 (2001), and 13338 13224 (2001), and 13338
(2004) (2004)
13611 13611
Yemen (stability) Yemen (stability)
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal
(May 16, 2012; 77 FR (May 16, 2012; 77 FR
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
29533) 29533)
property property
13617 13617
Russia (misuse of highly Russia (misuse of highly
Blocks property Blocks property
Revoked by E.O. 13695 Revoked by E.O. 13695
(June 25, 2012; 77 FR (June 25, 2012; 77 FR
enriched uranium enriched uranium
(2015) (2015)
38459) 38459)
extractions extractions
13619 13619
Burma (military Burma (military
Blocks property Blocks property
Revoked by E.O. 13742 Revoked by E.O. 13742
(July 11, 2012; 77 FR (July 11, 2012; 77 FR
government) government)
(2016) (2016)
41243) 41243)
13620 13620
Somalia (conflict) Somalia (conflict)
Expands targets to include Amends E.O. 13536 Expands targets to include Amends E.O. 13536
July 20, 2012; 77 FR July 20, 2012; 77 FR
misappropriations, misappropriations,
(2010) (2010)
43483) 43483)
corruption, impeding corruption, impeding
humanitarian aid humanitarian aid
13622 13622
Iran (weapons Iran (weapons
Additional sanctions Additional sanctions
Revoked by E.O. 13716 Revoked by E.O. 13716
(July 30, 2012; 77 FR (July 30, 2012; 77 FR
proliferation) proliferation)
( (~~January 16, 2016; 81 FR~~2016)
45897) 45897)
~~3693)~~
13628 13628
Iran (weapons Iran (weapons
Implements Iran Threat Implements Iran Threat
~~Amended~~Revoked by E.O. by E.O. ~~13716~~13846
(October 9, 2012; 77 FR (October 9, 2012; 77 FR
proliferation, human proliferation, human
Reduction Act Reduction Act
( (~~2016)~~2018); previously
62139) 62139)
rights, sanctions evasion) rights, sanctions evasion)
~~13637~~
~~EAA~~
~~Amends EAR~~
~~Renewed annually~~
~~(March 8, 2013)~~amended by E.O. 13716 (2016) 13637 EAA Delegates export Amends E.O. 13222 (March 8, 2013; 78 FR authorities, coordinates (2001) 16131) responsibilities; amends E.O. 13222
13645 13645
Iran (weapons Iran (weapons
Implements Iran Freedom Implements Iran Freedom
Revoked by E.O. 13716 Revoked by E.O. 13716
(June 3, 2013; 78 FR (June 3, 2013; 78 FR
proliferation, human proliferation, human
and Counter-Proliferation and Counter-Proliferation
( (~~January 16, 2016; 81 FR~~2016)
33945) 33945)
rights) rights)
Act of 2012 Act of 2012
~~3693)~~
13651 13651
Burma Burma
Prohibits import of jadeite Prohibits import of jadeite ~~Expands E.O. 13047~~Revoked by E.O. 13742
(August 6, 2013; 78 FR (August 6, 2013; 78 FR
and rubies and rubies
( (~~1997) and subsequent~~
~~48793)~~
~~orders~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
76

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~2016) 48793)
13660 13660
Ukraine (stability) Ukraine (stability)
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(March 6, 2014; 79 FR (March 6, 2014; 79 FR
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
expanded on by E.O. expanded on by E.O.
13493) 13493)
property property
13661 (2014); E.O. 13662 13661 (2014); E.O. 13662
(2014); with additional (2014); with additional
actions in E.O. 13685 actions in E.O. 13685
(2014); E.O. 13849 (2014); E.O. 13849
(2018); and E.O. 14065 (2018); and E.O. 14065
(2022) (2022)
13661 13661
Russia (destabilization of Russia (destabilization of
Blocks property Blocks property
Expands E.O. 13660 Expands E.O. 13660
(March 16, 2014; 79 FR (March 16, 2014; 79 FR
Ukraine) Ukraine)
(2014) (2014)
15535) 15535)
13662 13662
Russia (destabilization of Russia (destabilization of
Blocks property Blocks property
Expands E.O. 13660 Expands E.O. 13660
(March 20, 2014; 79 FR (March 20, 2014; 79 FR
Ukraine) Ukraine)
(2014) (2014)
16169) 16169) Congressional Research Service 77 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status
13664 13664
South Sudan (conflict) South Sudan (conflict)
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal
(April 3, 2014; 79 FR (April 3, 2014; 79 FR
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
19283) 19283)
property property
13667 13667
Central African Republic Central African Republic
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal
(May 12, 2014; 79 FR (May 12, 2014; 79 FR
(conflict) (conflict)
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
28387) 28387)
property property
13668 13668
Iraq (postwar) Iraq (postwar)
Ends immunities granted Ends immunities granted
Expands E.O. 13303 Expands E.O. 13303
(May 27, 2014 (May 27, 2014); 79 FR
to the Development Fund to the Development Fund
(2003 (2003) 31019) )
for Iraq for Iraq
13671 13671
Democratic Republic of Democratic Republic of
Additional sanctions Additional sanctions
Expands E.O. 13413 Expands E.O. 13413
(July 8, 2014; 79 FR (July 8, 2014; 79 FR
the Congo (regional the Congo (regional
(2006) (2006)
39949) 39949)
stability) stability)
13685 13685
Ukraine (destabilizing Ukraine (destabilizing
Blocks property and Blocks property and
Expands E.O. 13660 Expands E.O. 13660
(December 19, 2014; 79 (December 19, 2014; 79
activities in Crimea) activities in Crimea)
transactions transactions
(2014) (2014)
FR 77357) FR 77357)
13687 13687
North Korea (weapons North Korea (weapons
Additional sanctions Additional sanctions
Expands E.O. 13466 Expands E.O. 13466
(January 2, 2015; 80 FR (January 2, 2015; 80 FR
proliferation, to meet proliferation, to meet
including on DPRK (2008), 13551 (2010), (2008), 13551 (2010),
819) 819)
requirements of UNSC requirements of UNSC
government officials and 13570 (2011) 13570 (2011)
resolution) resolution)
members of the Workers’ Party of Korea 13692 13692
Venezuela (corruption, Venezuela (corruption,
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(March 8, 2015; 80 FR (March 8, 2015; 80 FR
stability) stability)
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
expanded on in E.O. expanded on in E.O.
12747) 12747)
property and deny visas property and deny visas
13808 (2017), E.O. 13827 13808 (2017), E.O. 13827
(2018), E.O. 13835 (2018), E.O. 13835
(2018), E.O. 13850 (2018), E.O. 13850
(2018), E.O. 13857 (2018), E.O. 13857
(2019), and E.O. 13884 (2019), and E.O. 13884
(2019) (2019)
13694 13694
Malicious Cyber-Enabled Malicious Cyber-Enabled
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(April 1, 2015; 80 FR (April 1, 2015; 80 FR
Activities Activities
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
amended by E.O. 13757 amended by E.O. 13757
18077) 18077)
property property
(2016), E.O. 13984 (2021) (2016), E.O. 13984 (2021)
13695 13695
Russia’s misuse of highly Russia’s misuse of highly
Terminates emergency Terminates emergency
Revokes E.O. 13617 Revokes E.O. 13617
(May 26, 2015; 80 FR (May 26, 2015; 80 FR
enriched uranium enriched uranium
(2012) (2012)
30331) 30331)
extractions extractions
~~Congressional Research Service~~
77

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
13710 13710
Liberia (corrupt Liberia (corrupt
Terminates emergency Terminates emergency
Revokes E.O. 13348 Revokes E.O. 13348
(November 12, 2015; 80 (November 12, 2015; 80
government) government)
(2004) (2004)
FR 71679) FR 71679)
13712 13712
Burundi (stability) Burundi (stability)
Declares national Declares national
Terminated by E.O. Terminated by E.O.
(November 22, 2015; 80 (November 22, 2015; 80
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
14054 (2021) 14054 (2021)
FR 73633) FR 73633)
property property
13716 13716
Iran (nuclear weapons) Iran (nuclear weapons)
Implements U.S. Implements U.S.
~~Revokes and modifies~~Revoked by E.O. 13846
(January 16, 2016; 81 FR (January 16, 2016; 81 FR
obligations under the Joint obligations under the Joint ~~earlier orders~~
~~3693)~~
~~Comprehensive Plan of~~
~~Action~~(2018). Had revoked and 3693; 22 U.S.C. 8801 Comprehensive Plan of modified earlier orders note) Action Congressional Research Service 78 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status
13722 13722
North Korea (weapons North Korea (weapons
Blocks property of North Blocks property of North
Expands E.O. 13466 Expands E.O. 13466
(March 15, 2016; 81 FR (March 15, 2016; 81 FR
proliferation, to meet proliferation, to meet
Korea government and Korea government and
(2008) (2008)
14943) 14943)
requirements of UNSC requirements of UNSC
central party; prohibits central party; prohibits
resolution) resolution)
transactions transactions
13726 13726
Libya (stability) Libya (stability)
Additional sanctions Additional sanctions
Expands E.O. 13566 Expands E.O. 13566
(April 19, 2016; 81 FR (April 19, 2016; 81 FR
(2011) (2011)
23559) 23559)
13739 13739
Cote d’Ivoire (conflict) Cote d’Ivoire (conflict)
Terminates emergency Terminates emergency
Revokes E.O. 13396 Revokes E.O. 13396
(Sept, 14, 2016; 81 FR (Sept, 14, 2016; 81 FR
(2006) (2006)
63673) 63673)
13742 13742
Burma Burma
Terminates emergency Terminates emergency
Revokes E.O. 13047 Revokes E.O. 13047
(October 7, 2016; 81 FR (October 7, 2016; 81 FR
(1997), 13310 (2003), (1997), 13310 (2003),
70593) 70593)
13448 (2007), 13464 13448 (2007), 13464
(2008), 13619 (2012)(2008), 13619 (2012), 13651 (2013)
13757 13757
Malicious Cyber-Enabled Malicious Cyber-Enabled
Additional sanctions Additional sanctions
Modifies E.O. 13694 Modifies E.O. 13694
(December 28, 2016) (December 28, 2016)
Activities Activities
(2015) (2015)
13761 13761
Sudan (war, human rights) Recognizes “positive Sudan (war, human rights) Recognizes “positive
Revokes in part E.O. Revokes in part E.O.
(January 13, 2017; 82 FR (January 13, 2017; 82 FR
actions” by the actions” by the
13067 (1997), in whole 13067 (1997), in whole
5331) 5331)
Government of Sudan by Government of Sudan by
E.O. 13412 (2006) E.O. 13412 (2006);
removing some sanctions removing some sanctions
amended by E.O. 13804 (2017) Administration of President Donald J. Trump (2017-2021)
13804 13804
Sudan (war, human rights) Extends deadlines in E.O. Sudan (war, human rights) Extends deadlines in E.O.
Modifies E.O. 13761 Modifies E.O. 13761
(July 11, 2017; 82 FR (July 11, 2017; 82 FR
13761 13761
(2017) (2017) (2017)
32611) 32611)
13808 13808
Venezuela (human rights, Venezuela (human rights,
Additional sanctions Additional sanctions
Expands actions based on Expands actions based on
(August 24, 2017; 82 FR (August 24, 2017; 82 FR
democracy, corruption) democracy, corruption)
national emergency national emergency
41155) 41155)
declared in E.O. 13692 declared in E.O. 13692
(2015) (2015)
13810 13810
North Korea (weapons North Korea (weapons
Additional sanctions Additional sanctions
Expands actions based on Expands actions based on
(Sept, 20, 2017; 82 FR (Sept, 20, 2017; 82 FR
proliferation, human proliferation, human
national emergency national emergency
44705) 44705)
rights) rights)
declared in E.O. 13466 declared in E.O. 13466
(2008) (2008)
13818 13818
Global Magnitsky (human Global Magnitsky (human
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal
(December 20, 2017; 82 (December 20, 2017; 82
rights, corruption) rights, corruption)
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
FR 60839) FR 60839)
property property
~~Congressional Research Service~~
78

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
13827 13827
Venezuela (sanctions Venezuela (sanctions
Prohibits transactions, Prohibits transactions,
Expands actions based on Expands actions based on
(March 19, 2018; 83 FR (March 19, 2018; 83 FR
evasion) evasion)
financing, trade in digital financing, trade in digital
national emergency national emergency
12469) 12469)
currency issued by or on currency issued by or on
declared in E.O. 13692 declared in E.O. 13692
behalf of the Government behalf of the Government
(2015) (2015); amended by E.O.
of Venezuela of Venezuela
13857 (2019) 13835 13835
Venezuela (economic Venezuela (economic
Prohibits U.S. persons Prohibits U.S. persons
Expands actions based on Expands actions based on
(May 21, 2018; 83 FR (May 21, 2018; 83 FR
mismanagement, public mismanagement, public
from purchasing debt from purchasing debt
national emergency national emergency
24001) 24001)
corruption, undermining corruption, undermining
owed the Government of owed the Government of
declared in E.O. 13692 declared in E.O. 13692
democratic order, democratic order,
Venezuela or trading in Venezuela or trading in
(2015) (2015); amended by E.O.
humanitarian and public humanitarian and public
equity in which the equity in which the
13857 (2019) health crisis) health crisis)
Government holds at Government holds at
least a 50% stake least a 50% stake
Congressional Research Service 79 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status 13846 13846
Iran Iran
Reimposes sanctions lifted Reimposes sanctions lifted ~~Expands actions based on~~Revokes E.O. 13716
(August 6, 2018; 83 FR (August 6, 2018; 83 FR
for U.S. meeting its for U.S. meeting its
~~national emergency~~(2016); expands actions
38939) 38939)
obligations under the Joint obligations under the Joint ~~declared in E.O. 12957~~based on national
Comprehensive Plan of Comprehensive Plan of
~~(1995)~~emergency declared in
Action of July 14, 2015 Action of July 14, 2015
E.O. 12957 (1995) (JCPOA) (JCPOA)
13848 13848
Foreign interference in Foreign interference in
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(September 12, 2018; 83 (September 12, 2018; 83
U.S. elections U.S. elections
emergency emergency ~~relating to~~; establishes
complements actions complements actions
FR 46843) FR 46843)

~~election interference.~~framework to assess
taken under E.O. 13694 taken under E.O. 13694,
~~Establishes framework to~~
~~as amended~~
~~assess possible~~
~~interference by~~ possible interference by (2015), as amended foreign foreign
persons or governments persons or governments
in any U.S. in any U.S. ~~election.~~
~~Blocks~~election; blocks property and property and
interests in property of interests in property of
those designated for being those designated for being
complicit in interfering in complicit in interfering in
an electionan election.
13849 13849
Implements Russia-related Limits U.S. bank loans, Implements Russia-related Limits U.S. bank loans,
Expands actions based on Expands actions based on
(September 21, 2018; 83 (September 21, 2018; 83
sanctions adopted in the sanctions adopted in the
prohibits foreign prohibits foreign
national emergencies national emergencies
FR 48195 FR 48195); 22 U.S.C. 9521
Countering Russian Countering Russian
exchange, blocks exchange, blocks
declared in E.O. 13660 declared in E.O. 13660
note) Influence in Europe and Influence in Europe and
property, prohibits property, prohibits
(2014) and related EO, (2014) and related EO,

Eurasia Act of 2017 (Title Eurasia Act of 2017 (Title
Export-Import Bank Export-Import Bank
and E.O. 13694 (2015), as and E.O. 13694 (2015), as
II, P.L. 115-44; 22 U.S.C. II, P.L. 115-44; 22 U.S.C. §
programs, limits the programs, limits the
amended amended.
9501 et seq.) 9501 et seq.)
issuing of specific licenses, issuing of specific licenses,
requires “no” votes in the requires “no” votes in the
international financial international financial
institutions where a loan institutions where a loan
would benefit a person would benefit a person
otherwise subject to otherwise subject to
sanctions, limits access to sanctions, limits access to
the U.S. banking system, the U.S. banking system,
prohibits procurement prohibits procurement
contracts with the USG, contracts with the USG,
denies entry into the denies entry into the
United StatesUnited States.
~~Congressional Research Service~~
79

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
13851 13851
Nicaragua Nicaragua
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(November 27, 2018; 83 (November 27, 2018; 83
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
amended by E.O. 14088 amended by E.O. 14088
FR 61505) FR 61505)
property of certain property of certain
(2022) (2022)
persons contributing to persons contributing to
the situation in Nicaragua; the situation in Nicaragua;
prohibits import, export, prohibits import, export,
new investment, new investment,
facilitation of transaction facilitation of transaction
by a foreign person by a foreign person
13857 13857
Venezuela Venezuela
Taking additional steps to Taking additional steps to
Expands actions based on Expands actions based on
(January 25, 2019; 84 FR (January 25, 2019; 84 FR
address the national address the national
national emergency national emergency
509) 509)
emergency with respect emergency with respect
declared in E.O. 13692 declared in E.O. 13692
to Venezuela; redefines to Venezuela; redefines
(2015); modifies E.O.s (2015); modifies E.O.s
“the government of “the government of
13692, 13808, 13827, 13692, 13808, 13827,
Venezuela” Venezuela”
13850 13850
13863 13863
Transnational Criminal Transnational Criminal
Defines “significant Defines “significant
Expands and amends E.O. Expands and amends E.O.
(March 15, 2019; 84 F.R. (March 15, 2019; 84 F.R.
Organizations Organizations
transnational criminal transnational criminal
13581 (2011) 13581 (2011)
10255) 10255)
organization” organization” Congressional Research Service 80 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status
13871 13871
Iran Iran
Prohibits transactions Prohibits transactions
Expands actions based on Expands actions based on
(May 8, 2019; 84 FR (May 8, 2019; 84 FR
related to Iran’s iron, related to Iran’s iron,
national emergency national emergency
20761) 20761)
steel, aluminum, or steel, aluminum, or
declared in E.O.12957 declared in E.O.12957
copper sectors copper sectors.
(1995) (1995)
13873 13873
~~The~~ Information and Information and
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal;
(May 15, 2019, 84 FR (May 15, 2019, 84 FR
~~Communications~~communications
emergency emergency~~. Prohibits~~
~~See~~; prohibits see also E.O. 14034 also E.O. 14034
22689) 22689)
~~Technology and Services~~technology and services
unduly risky transactions unduly risky transactions
(2021) (2021)
~~Supply Chain~~supply chain
involving information and involving information and
communications communications
technology or services technology or services
designed, developed, designed, developed,
manufactured, or manufactured, or
supplied, by foreign supplied, by foreign
adversariesadversaries.
13876 13876
Iran Iran
Prohibits transactions Prohibits transactions
Expands actions based on Expands actions based on
(June 24, 2019; 84 FR (June 24, 2019; 84 FR
related to U.S.-based related to U.S.-based
national emergency national emergency
30573) 30573)
assets of the Supreme assets of the Supreme
declared in E.O. 12957 declared in E.O. 12957
Leader of the Islamic Leader of the Islamic
(1995) (1995)
Republic of Iran, Supreme Republic of Iran, Supreme
Leader’s Office (SLO), Leader’s Office (SLO),
and anyone appointed to and anyone appointed to
a state position in Irana state position in Iran.
13882 13882
Mali (terrorism, narcotics Mali (terrorism, narcotics
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal
(July 26, 2019; 84 FR (July 26, 2019; 84 FR
trafficking, trafficking in trafficking, trafficking in
emergency emergency.; blocks
37055) 37055)
persons, human rights persons, human rights
property abuses, hostage-taking, abuses, hostage-taking,
and attacks against and attacks against
civilians and international civilians and international
security forces in Mali)security forces in Mali)
~~Congressional Research Service~~
80

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
13883 13883
Chemical and biological Chemical and biological
Requires the U.S. to Requires the U.S. to
Expands actions based on Expands actions based on
(August 1, 2019; 84 FR (August 1, 2019; 84 FR
weapons proliferation or weapons proliferation or
oppose international oppose international
E.O. 12938 (1994); E.O. 12938 (1994);
38113 38113); 22 U.S.C. 5605
use; currently could be use; currently could be
financial institutions’ financial institutions’
implements sanctions implements sanctions
note) used against Syria, North used against Syria, North
programs to the targeted programs to the targeted
requirements of Sec. 307, requirements of Sec. 307,
Korea, and Russia, based Korea, and Russia, based
state; prohibits U.S. banks state; prohibits U.S. banks
P.L. 102-182; and amends P.L. 102-182; and amends
on determinations made on determinations made
from providing loans or from providing loans or
Exec. Order 12851 (1993) Exec. Order 12851 (1993)
under under ~~sec~~Sec. 307 of P.L. . 307 of P.L.
credits to the targeted credits to the targeted
to include CBW-related to include CBW-related
102-182 (22 U.S.C. 5605) government 102-182 (22 U.S.C. 5605) government.
determinations determinations
13884 13884
Venezuela Venezuela
Blocks property of the Blocks property of the
Expands actions based on Expands actions based on
(August 5, 2019; 84 FR (August 5, 2019; 84 FR
government of Venezuela government of Venezuela
E.O. 13692 (2015) E.O. 13692 (2015)
38843) 38843)
in the United States in the United States.
13886 13886
Terrorism Terrorism
Consolidates and Consolidates and
Revokes E.O. 12947 Revokes E.O. 12947
(September 9, 2019; 84 (September 9, 2019; 84
enhances “sanctions to enhances “sanctions to
(1995); amends E.O. (1995); amends E.O.
FR 48041) FR 48041)
combat acts of terrorism combat acts of terrorism
13224 (2001) 13224 (2001)
and threats of terrorism and threats of terrorism
by foreign terrorists”by foreign terrorists”. Congressional Research Service 81 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status
13894 13894
Turkey’s incursion into Turkey’s incursion into
Declares a national Declares a national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal
(October 14, 2019; 84 FR (October 14, 2019; 84 FR
Syria Syria
emergency relating to emergency relating to
55851) 55851)
Turkey’s military invasion Turkey’s military invasion
of northeast Syria; blocks of northeast Syria; blocks
property and suspends property and suspends
entry into the United entry into the United
States of “certain persons States of “certain persons
contributing to the contributing to the
situation in Syria”situation in Syria”.
13902 13902
Iran Iran
Blocks property and Blocks property and
Expands actions based on Expands actions based on
(January 10, 2020; 85 FR (January 10, 2020; 85 FR
prohibits transactions prohibits transactions
E.O. 12957 (1995) E.O. 12957 (1995)
2003) 2003)
related to Iran’s related to Iran’s
construction, mining, construction, mining,
manufacturing, or textiles manufacturing, or textiles
sectors, or any other sectors, or any other
sector to be determined sector to be determined
by the Secretary of the by the Secretary of the
TreasuryTreasury.
13920 13920
~~United States~~U.S. Bulk-Power Bulk-Power
System Declares a national Declares a national
Suspended by E.O. 13990 Suspended by E.O. 13990
(May 1, 2020; 85 FR (May 1, 2020; 85 FR
~~System~~
emergency relating to emergency relating to
(2021 (2021)
~~26595~~
~~bulk-power system~~
~~equipment.~~; 42 U.S.C. 4321 26595; 50 U.S.C. 1621 bulk-power system note) note) equipment
13928 13928
International Criminal International Criminal
Declares national Declares national
Revoked by E.O. 14022 Revoked by E.O. 14022
(June 11, 2020; 85 FR (June 11, 2020; 85 FR
Court (ICC) Court (ICC)
emergency related to the emergency related to the
(2021) (2021)
36139) 36139)
ICC’s intention to ICC’s intention to
“investigate, arrest, “investigate, arrest,
detain, or prosecute any detain, or prosecute any
United States personnel United States personnel
without the consent of without the consent of
the United States”; blocks the United States”; blocks
property and entry into property and entry into
the United States of any the United States of any
person found to be person found to be
engaged in or facilitating engaged in or facilitating
ICC investigationsICC investigations.
~~Congressional Research Service~~
81

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
13936 13936
Hong Kong (China’s Hong Kong (China’s
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal
(July 14, 2020; 85 FR (July 14, 2020; 85 FR
“normalization”) “normalization”)
emergency related to emergency related to
43413 43413); 22 U.S.C. 5701
China’s crackdown, China’s crackdown,
note) resulting in the Hong resulting in the Hong
~~Codified at 22 U.S.C.~~
~~Kong Special~~
~~5701 note~~
Kong Special Administrative Region Administrative Region
(HKSAR) losing its (HKSAR) losing its
political and economic political and economic
autonomyautonomy.
13942 13942
Information & Information &
Expands emergency Expands emergency
Revoked by E.O. 14034 Revoked by E.O. 14034
(August 6, 2020; 85 FR (August 6, 2020; 85 FR
Communications Communications
stated in EO 13873 stated in EO 13873
(2021) (2021)
48637) 48637)
Technology; Services Technology; Services
(2019) to restrict (2019) to restrict
Supply Chain Supply Chain
transactions with TikTok transactions with TikTok
and ByteDance—Chinese and ByteDance—Chinese
tech entitiestech entities. Congressional Research Service 82 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status
13943 13943
Information & Information &
Expands emergency Expands emergency
Revoked by E.O. 14034 Revoked by E.O. 14034
(August 6, 2020; 85 FR (August 6, 2020; 85 FR
Communications Communications
stated in E.O. 13873 stated in E.O. 13873
(2021) (2021)
48641) 48641)
Technology; Services Technology; Services
(2019) to restrict (2019) to restrict
Supply Chain Supply Chain
transactions with transactions with
WeChat—Chinese tech WeChat—Chinese tech
entityentity.
13949 13949
Iran (regional stability) Iran (regional stability)
Targets Iran’s Targets Iran’s
Expands actions based on Expands actions based on
(September 21, 2020; 85 (September 21, 2020; 85
conventional arms trade conventional arms trade
E.O. 12957 (1995) E.O. 12957 (1995)
FR 60043) FR 60043)
for its destabilizing impact for its destabilizing impact
in the regionin the region.
13953 13953
Threat to domestic supply Declares national Threat to domestic supply Declares national
Requires annual renewal, Requires annual renewal,
(September 30, 2020; 85 (September 30, 2020; 85
chain from reliance on chain from reliance on
emergency; requires emergency; requires
but but ~~as of publication of~~
~~FR 62539)~~
has been neither FR 62539; U.S.C. 1601 critical minerals from critical minerals from
whole-of-government whole-of-government
~~this report, neither~~renewed nor revoked note)
foreign adversaries foreign adversaries
assessment of U.S. critical assessment of U.S. critical
~~renewed nor revoked.~~
~~Codified at 30 U.S.C.~~since its issuance. Builds
materials materials.
~~Builds~~ on earlier non-on earlier non-
~~1601 note~~
emergency actions based emergency actions based
primarily on Defense primarily on Defense
Production Act of 1950 Production Act of 1950
(see also, however, E.O. (see also, however, E.O.
14017 (2021), 14017 (2021), not codified, which which
requires similar review requires similar review
without revoking the without revoking the
2020 order. 2020 order.
13959 13959
China China
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal; Requires annual renewal;
(November 12, 2020; 85 (November 12, 2020; 85
emergency; restricts emergency; restricts
amended by E.O. 13974 amended by E.O. 13974
FR 73185) FR 73185)
trade, transactions, and trade, transactions, and
(2021); the remaining (2021); the remaining
investment in securities of authorities are investment in securities of authorities are
“Communist Chinese “Communist Chinese
superseded in large part superseded in large part
military companies” military companies”.
by E.O. 14032 (2021) by E.O. 14032 (2021)
13971 13971
China China
Expands national Expands national
Revoked by E.O. 14034 Revoked by E.O. 14034
(January 5, 2021; 86 FR (January 5, 2021; 86 FR
emergency declared in emergency declared in
(2021) (2021)
1249) 1249)
E.O. 13873 (2019) to E.O. 13873 (2019) to
prohibit transactions with prohibit transactions with
several China-origin several China-origin
software applicationssoftware applications.
~~Congressional Research Service~~
82

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
13974 13974
China China
Clarifies definitions Clarifies definitions
Revoked by E.O. 14032 Revoked by E.O. 14032
(January 13, 2021; 86 FR (January 13, 2021; 86 FR
related to restrictions on related to restrictions on
(2021) (2021)
4875) 4875)
transactions with China transactions with China
military entities initiated military entities initiated
in E.O. 13959; establishes in E.O. 13959; establishes
wind-down period for wind-down period for
divestment divestment
13984 13984
Cyber-enabled activities Cyber-enabled activities
Builds on emergency Builds on emergency
Expands on and amends Expands on and amends
(January 19, 2021; 86 FR (January 19, 2021; 86 FR
declared in E.O. 13694 declared in E.O. 13694
authorities stated in E.O. authorities stated in E.O.
6837) 6837)
(2015) to require (2015) to require
13694 (2015) 13694 (2015)
Secretary of Commerce Secretary of Commerce
to investigate and identify to investigate and identify
foreign users of U.S. foreign users of U.S.
infrastructure as a infrastructure as a
services (IaaS), mainly services (IaaS), mainly
software and storage software and storage
services services
Administration of President Joseph R. Biden (2021-) Congressional Research Service 83 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status
14014 14014
Burma (antidemocratic or Burma (antidemocratic or
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal
(February 10 2021; 86 FR (February 10 2021; 86 FR
other destabilizing other destabilizing
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks
9429) 9429)
activities) activities)
property of and property of and
transactionstransactions.
14022 14022
International Criminal International Criminal
Revokes national Revokes national
Revokes E.O. 13928 Revokes E.O. 13928
(April 1, 2021; 86 FR (April 1, 2021; 86 FR
Court Court
emergency; ends travel emergency; ends travel
(2020) (2020)
17895) 17895)
and asset restrictions and asset restrictions
leveled against ICC staffleveled against ICC staff.
14024 14024
Russia (election Russia (election
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal;
(April 15, 2021; 86 FR (April 15, 2021; 86 FR
interference, malicious interference, malicious
emergency; blocks emergency; blocks amended by E.O. 14114
20249) 20249)
cyber attacks, corruption; cyber attacks, corruption;
property property. (2023)
or extraterritorial pursuit or extraterritorial pursuit

of Russia’s adversaries) of Russia’s adversaries)
14032 14032
China China
Prohibits U.S. persons Prohibits U.S. persons
Amends national Amends national
(June 3, 2021; 86 FR (June 3, 2021; 86 FR
from trading or investing from trading or investing
emergency authority emergency authority
30145) 30145)
in securities of those in securities of those
declared in E.O. 13959 declared in E.O. 13959
operating in or on behalf operating in or on behalf
(2020) (2020)
of China’s defense and of China’s defense and
related materiel sector or related materiel sector or
the surveillance the surveillance
technology sector technology sector

14033 14033
Western Balkans (regional Expands national Western Balkans (regional Expands national
Amends national Amends national
(June 8, 2021; 86 FR (June 8, 2021; 86 FR
destabilization, destabilization,
emergency declared in emergency declared in
emergency authority emergency authority
31079) 31079)
antidemocratic activities, antidemocratic activities,
E.O. 13219 (2001); blocks E.O. 13219 (2001); blocks
declared in E.O. 13219 declared in E.O. 13219
human rights violations, human rights violations,
property property
(2001) (2001)
corruption) corruption)
14034 14034
Sensitive data— Sensitive data—
Initiates new whole-of- Initiates new whole-of-
Expands on national Expands on national
(June 9, 2021; 86 FR (June 9, 2021; 86 FR
protection from foreign protection from foreign
government review of government review of
emergency declared in emergency declared in
31423) 31423)
adversaries adversaries
U.S. sensitive dates and U.S. sensitive dates and
E.O. 13873 (2020) E.O. 13873 (2020)
foreign adversaries who foreign adversaries who
interfere with sensitive interfere with sensitive
data and related data and related
technologytechnology.
~~Congressional Research Service~~
83

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~
14038 14038
Belarus (activities related Belarus (activities related
Blocks property of any Blocks property of any
Expands on national Expands on national
(August 9, 2021; 86 FR (August 9, 2021; 86 FR
to threatening the peace, to threatening the peace,
leader or official leader or official.
emergency declared in emergency declared in
43905) 43905)
human rights violations, human rights violations,
E.O. 13405 (2006) E.O. 13405 (2006)
corruption, election fraud, corruption, election fraud,
sanctions evasion) sanctions evasion)
14039 14039
Russia (gas pipelines) Russia (gas pipelines)
Targets any foreign Targets any foreign
Expands on national Expands on national
(August 20, 2021; 86 FR (August 20, 2021; 86 FR
person identified under person identified under
emergency declared in emergency declared in
47205) 47205)
~~sec~~Sec. 7503(a)(1)(B) of P.L. . 7503(a)(1)(B) of P.L.
E.O. 14024 (2021) E.O. 14024 (2021)
116-92) for financial 116-92) for financial
activities related to activities related to
Russian gas pipeline to Russian gas pipeline to
serve western Europe serve western Europe
(Nord Stream 2)(Nord Stream 2).
~~EO 14046~~
~~Ethiopia (threats to~~
~~Authorizes blocking of~~ Congressional Research Service 84 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status 14046 Ethiopia (threats to Declares national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal
(September 17, 2021; 86 (September 17, 2021; 86
stability, corruption, stability, corruption,
~~property, investments,~~emergency; authorizes
FR 52389) FR 52389)
disruption of delivery of disruption of delivery of
~~use of U.S. financial~~blocking of property,
humanitarian services, humanitarian services,
~~instruments, transactions~~investments, use of U.S.
violence against civilians) violence against civilians)
financial instruments, transactions in foreign exchangein foreign exchange.
14054 14054
Burundi Burundi
(civil strife, Terminates emergency Terminates emergency
Revokes E.O. 13712 Revokes E.O. 13712
(November 18, 2021; 86 (November 18, 2021; 86
human rights, stability) (2015) (2015)
FR 66149) FR 66149)
14059 14059
Global Global ~~Il icit Drug Trade~~
~~Authorizes blocking of~~il icit drug trade Declares national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal
(December 15, 2021; 86 (December 15, 2021; 86
~~property, prohibits use of~~emergency; authorizes FR 71549) blocking of property, prohibits use of
~~FR 71549)~~
most U.S. most U.S. financial financial
instruments, denies entry instruments, denies entry

into the United States to into the United States to
any foreign person any foreign person
engaged in il icit drug engaged in il icit drug
production and tradeproduction and trade.
14064 14064
Afghanistan Afghanistan
Declares national Declares national
Requires annual renewal Requires annual renewal
(February 11, 2022; 87 FR (February 11, 2022; 87 FR
emergency; blocks Taliban emergency; blocks Taliban
8391) 8391)
(as government of (as government of
Afghanistan) access to Afghanistan) access to

U.S.-based assets of U.S.-based assets of
Afghanistan’s central bankAfghanistan’s central bank.
14065 14065
Ukraine/Russia Ukraine/Russia
Blocks investment in and Blocks investment in and
Expands national Expands national
(February 21, 2022; 87 FR (February 21, 2022; 87 FR
trade with Donetsk and trade with Donetsk and
emergency in E.O. 13660 emergency in E.O. 13660
10293) 10293)
Luhansk regions of Luhansk regions of
(2014) (2014)
Ukraine Ukraine.
(2022) (2022)
14066 14066
Ukraine/Russia Ukraine/Russia
Prohibits some imports Prohibits some imports
Expands national Expands national
(March 8, 2022; 87 FR (March 8, 2022; 87 FR
from and energy-sector from and energy-sector
emergency in E.O. 14024 emergency in E.O. 14024
13625) 13625)
investments in Russia investments in Russia.
(2021) (2021)

14068 14068
Ukraine/Russia Ukraine/Russia
Prohibits additional Prohibits additional
Expands national Expands national
(March 11, 2022; 87 FR (March 11, 2022; 87 FR
imports, exports of luxury emergency in E.O. 14024 imports, exports of luxury emergency in E.O. 14024
14381) 14381)
goods, and investment in goods, and investment in
(2021) (2021)
~~Russia.~~

~~Congressional Research Service~~
84

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

~~Country or Issue of~~
~~Executive Order~~
~~Concern~~
~~Sanction/Remedy~~
~~Current Status~~; amended by E.O. Russia; amendments add 14114 (2023) restrictions on trade in seafood, diamonds, alcohol
14071 14071
Russia Russia
Prohibits a U.S. person Prohibits a U.S. person
Expands national Expands national
(April 6, 2022; 87 F.R. (April 6, 2022; 87 F.R.
from engaging in new from engaging in new
emergency in E.O. 14024 emergency in E.O. 14024
20999) 20999)
investment, export, investment, export,
(2021) (2021)
reexport, sales and reexport, sales and
services, or facilitation of services, or facilitation of
a foreign person’s a foreign person’s
transactiontransaction. Congressional Research Service 85 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Country or Issue of Executive Order Concern Sanction/Remedy Current Status
14088 14088
Nicaragua Nicaragua
Prohibits import, export, Prohibits import, export,
Amends national Amends national
(October 24, 2022; 87 (October 24, 2022; 87
new investment, and new investment, and
emergency in E.O. 13851 emergency in E.O. 13851
F.R. 64685) F.R. 64685)
facilitation of a foreign facilitation of a foreign
(2018) (2018)
person’s transactions person’s transactions. 14097 Global il icit drug trade Authorizes the Secretary Expands authorities to (April 27, 2023; 88 F.R. of Defense and Secretary address national 26471; 10 U.S.C. 12302 of Homeland Security to emergency in E.O. 14059 note) order to active duty (2021) members of the Ready Reserve to address international drug trafficking
14098 14098
Sudan (threats to the Sudan (threats to the
Authorizes blocking of Authorizes blocking of
Expands national Expands national
(May 4, 2023; 88 F.R. (May 4, 2023; 88 F.R.
peace, security, or peace, security, or
property of any foreign property of any foreign
emergency in E.O. 13067 emergency in E.O. 13067
29529) 29529)
stability of Sudan, stability of Sudan,
person person.
(1997) (1997)
including obstructing including obstructing
democratic processes, democratic processes,
censorship, corruption, censorship, corruption,
human rights abuses, human rights abuses,
targeting women, targeting women,
children, U.N. activities children, U.N. activities
14105 Sensitive technologies Declares national Requires annual renewal (August 9, 2023; 88 F.R. emergency; requires 54867) identifying “countries of concern” and related “notifiable transactions” associated with “covered national security technologies and products” 14114 Russia (harmful activities) Targets foreign financial Expands and amends (December 22, 2023; 88 institutions operating in national emergency in F.R. 89271) Russia’s economy E.O. 14024 (2021) Sources: CRS, based on National Archives: Executive Orders Disposition Tables; The American Presidency CRS, based on National Archives: Executive Orders Disposition Tables; The American Presidency
Project, University of California, Santa Barbara; and Project, University of California, Santa Barbara; and Federal Register, various dates. , various dates.
Note: Unless otherwise noted in left-hand column, the declarations of national emergency are codified as notes Unless otherwise noted in left-hand column, the declarations of national emergency are codified as notes
to 50 U.S.C. to 50 U.S.C. §1701. Some Executive Orders are codified as notes to 50 U.S.C. §4603, a provision in the Export Administration Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-72) that was repealed by the Export Control Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-232). Those authorities continue in force to the extent they might apply to the remaining three provision of the 1979 Act, related to weapons proliferation, or remaining designations or other executive actions taken under foreign policy or national security provisions in the 1979 Act. Congressional Research Service 86 The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use ~~1701.~~

Author Information

Christopher A. Casey, Coordinator Christopher A. Casey, Coordinator
Jennifer K. Elsea Jennifer K. Elsea
Analyst in International Trade and Finance Analyst in International Trade and Finance
Legislative Attorney Legislative Attorney

Dianne E. Rennack Dianne E. Rennack

Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation

~~Congressional Research Service~~
85

~~The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use~~

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Amber Hope Wilhelm, CRS Visual Information Specialist, who developed the graphics The authors thank Amber Hope Wilhelm, CRS Visual Information Specialist, who developed the graphics
for this report, andfor this report, and our dear friend Ian Fergusson, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, who was an original Ian Fergusson, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, who was an original
contributor to this report. contributor to this report.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
R45618 R45618 · VERSION 1012 · UPDATED
8687