The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use
Changes from January 30, 2024 to September 1, 2025
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 Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use
Updated September 1, 2025 (R45618) Jump to Main Text of ReportContents
- Introduction
- Origins
- The First World War and the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA)
- The Expansion of TWEA
- The Efforts of Congress to Limit Executive Emergency Authorities
- The Enactment of the National Emergencies Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
- IEEPA's Statute, its Use, and Judicial Interpretation
- IEEPA's Statute
- Requirements for an IEEPA Declaration
- Consultation and Reporting
- Amendments to IEEPA
- The Informational Materials Amendments to IEEPA
- USA PATRIOT Act Amendments to IEEPA
- IEEPA Trends
- Presidential Emergency Use
- Congressional Nonemergency Use and Retroactive Approval
- Current Uses of IEEPA
- Use of Assets Frozen under IEEPA
- Presidential Use of Foreign Assets Frozen under IEEPA
- Congressionally Mandated Use of Frozen Foreign Assets and Proceeds of Sanctions
- International Law Implications of Seizing and Repurposing Frozen Assets
- Judicial Interpretation of IEEPA
- Dames & Moore v. Regan
- Separation of Powers—Non-Delegation Doctrine
- Separation of Powers—Legislative Veto
- Fifth Amendment Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause
- First Amendment Challenges
- First Amendment—Informational Materials and Communications Exception under IEEPA
- Use of IEEPA to Continue Enforcing the Export Administration Act (EAA)
- Use of IEEPA to Regulate Cryptocurrency
- Issues and Options for Congress
- The Use of IEEPA to Impose Tariffs
- Delegation of Authority under IEEPA
- Definition of "National Emergency" and "Unusual and Extraordinary Threat"
- Scope of the Authority
- Amending the NEA to Require Joint Resolutions of Approval
- The NEA, IEEPA, and "Never Ending Emergencies"
- The Status Quo
- Implications of Terminating National Emergencies Invoking IEEPA
- The Export Control Reform Act of 2018
Figures
Tables
Appendixes
Summary
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the President broadpower 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
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
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, deter the hoarding of gold, and limit foreign direct investment in U.S. companieslimit foreign direct investment in U.S. companies
United StatesUnited States
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. the NEA required the President to assess annually and extend, if appropriate, an emergency.
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. however, found the use of concurrent resolutions to terminate an executive action unconstitutional. Concerned about the termination provisions in the NEA, Congress amended the 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.
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 restrictions, the frequency of use, and the duration of emergencies have expanded over time. Initially, Presidents
used IEEPA to target foreign states or their governments. Over the years, foreign states or their governments. Over the years,
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.
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.
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 CongressIEEPA appropriately balances the need for swift action in a time of crisis with Congress
Congress may also want to consider IEEPACongress may also want to consider IEEPA
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 liberaldemocracies throughout the twentieth democracies throughout the twentieth
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.been a consistent concern of legislators and scholars in the United States and around the world.
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.civil liability.
either to ratify the Presidenteither to ratify the President
liability.liability.
the President to declare a state of emergency and make use of extraordinary delegated powers.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.democracies.
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 assumed could operate with greater
modern constitutional orders has been a subject of debate.modern constitutional orders has been a subject of debate.7
century delegation of emergency authority.century delegation of emergency authority.
the National Emergencies Act (NEA),the National Emergencies Act (NEA),
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 IEEPAlegislative actions subsequent to IEEPA
expansive and unchecked executive authority in the economic realm.expansive and unchecked executive authority in the economic realm.
IEEPA is a useful tool for Presidents to IEEPA is a useful tool for Presidents to quickly implement implement
by law or as encouraged by congressional activity.by law or as encouraged by congressional activity.
its umbrella statute, the NEA. Presidential actions in the late 2010s and its umbrella statute, the NEA. Presidential actions in the late 2010s and
2020s, have drawn renewed attention to presidential emergency powers under the NEAhave drawn renewed attention to presidential emergency powers under the NEA, of which IEEPA 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.The First World War (1914-1919) saw an unprecedented degree of economic mobilization.
executive departments of European governments began to regulate their economies with or executive departments of European governments began to regulate their economies with or
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.powers to meet the global crisis.
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.war.
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.economy.15
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.States and its enemies.
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....
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.enemies (or their allies) of the United States.
censor foreign communications and place extensive restrictions on enemy insurance or censor foreign communications and place extensive restrictions on enemy insurance or
reinsurance companies.reinsurance companies.
emergency economic power in the twentieth century. Section 5(b), as originally enacted, statesemergency economic power in the twentieth century. Section 5(b), as originally enacted, states
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 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
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
in times of war.in times of war.
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.property in its custody.
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.their executives to a degree that had previously been done only in times of war.
24 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.
speeches, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asserted that the Depression was to be speeches, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asserted that the Depression was to be
economic mobilization of the First World War had blurred the lines between the executiveeconomic mobilization of the First World War had blurred the lines between the executive
's military and economic powers. As the Depression was likened to military and economic powers. As the Depression was likened to
be be
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.economic authority in peacetime.28
for for
would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.
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.located in the United States and its territories for four days.
claimed to have authority to declare the holiday under Section 5(b) of TWEA.claimed to have authority to declare the holiday under Section 5(b) of TWEA.
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 Presidentdomestic, the President
Banking Relief Act three days after his proclamation.Banking Relief Act three days after his proclamation.
to readto read
investigate, regulate, or prohibit....investigate, regulate, or prohibit....
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 By 1934, Roosevelt had used these extensive new powers to regulate
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.any banking institution outside of the United States.
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
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.which any foreign country or foreign national had an interest.
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.and other emergency powers outside the context of a declared war.
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.economic transactions in the postwar period.
economic sanctions on North Korea and China.economic sanctions on North Korea and China.
emergency as authority for imposing sanctions on Vietnam, Cuba, and Cambodia.emergency as authority for imposing sanctions on Vietnam, Cuba, and Cambodia.
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.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.established under the Export Administration Act when the act expired.43
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.export of gold.
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.devaluation of the pound sterling by the United Kingdom.
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.entering the United States.
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
report surveying the Presidentreport surveying the President
technically technically
distinct declarations of national emergency in effect.distinct declarations of national emergency in effect.
had had
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.affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing ways.
"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.government.
was was
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.emergency.
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 Committeethe House International Relations Committee
TWEA as conferring TWEA as conferring
have used without any restraint by Congress.have used without any restraint by Congress.
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:
currency, and securities;currency, and securities;
or propertyor property
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.international economic arena, without congressional review.
on the following:on the following:
the declaration of a national emergency.the declaration of a national emergency.
and no way for Congress to terminate it.and no way for Congress to terminate it.
under which such authority could be used.under which such authority could be used.
in which the national emergency was declared.in which the national emergency was declared.
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 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 President.converted the section into a general grant of legislative authority to the President.
"56 The Enactment of the National Emergencies Act and the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act
CongressCongress
the National Emergencies Act the National Emergencies Act
existing existing declared emergencies in 1978, except those making use of Section 5(b) of TWEA, and placed new 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, includingrestrictions on the manner of declaring and the duration of new states of emergency, including
whether that emergency shall be terminated.whether that emergency shall be terminated.
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.of sanctions in U.S. foreign policy, unwinding it was a difficult undertaking.
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.assets, foreign funds, and exports of strategic goods.
existing uses of TWEA reflected congressional interest in existing uses of TWEA reflected congressional interest in
remedying past abuses.remedying past abuses.
including the first complete legislative history of TWEA, a tome that ran nearly 700 pages.including the first complete legislative history of TWEA, a tome that ran nearly 700 pages.
the resulting legislation, Congress did three things. First, Congress amended TWEA so that the resulting legislation, Congress did three things. First, Congress amended TWEA so that
TWEA was, as originally intended, only applicable was, as originally intended, only applicable
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.Section 5(b) of TWEA.
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].procedural limitations, including those of the [NEA].
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 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
IEEPA, as currently amended, empowers the president to
(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit:
(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,
nullify,nullify,
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.
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 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
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.accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.
Presidents may invoke IEEPA under the procedures set forth in the NEA, subject to the requirements described above. 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 Federal Register.71 The President must also specify the provisions of law that he or she intends to use to address the emergency.72 The NEA authorizes the President to exercise additional statutory emergency authorities to address a previously declared national emergency, as long as the intent to exercise them is published,73
Requirements for an IEEPA DeclarationIn addition to the requirements of the NEA, IEEPA provides several further restrictions. As noted above, IEEPA imposes different requirements if the President seeks to exercise powers with respect to a national emergency that has not expressly been declared by invoking IEEPA. The President may exercise IEEPA authorities only to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of IEEPA. and "not ... for any other purpose."74 Accordingly, IEEPA authorities are available only with respect to a national emergency declared for the purpose of using IEEPA authorities, and that emergency must be declared "with respect to" addressing an unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad. Consequently, the statutory text does not seem to support a President's invocation of IEEPA authorities (by executive order or otherwise) by referring to a preexisting national emergency that had not been declared under IEEPA.75
Presidents have developed a practice of issuing executive orders to either expand or modify the scope of previously declared national emergencies to account for changed circumstances regarding a particular threat.76 In keeping with the limitations IEEPA imposes restricting the use of its authorities to national emergencies declared for that purpose, and requiring a new declaration to address a "new threat,"77 past Presidents appear to have avoided adding IEEPA authorities as an expansion of non-IEEPA emergencies78 or expanding declared IEEPA emergencies to cover distinct new threats.79President Donald Trump appears to have departed from this trend by issuing three executive orders on February 1, 2025,80 that stated they expanded an earlier national emergency proclaimed with respect to the southern border he declared on January 20, 2025 (January Proclamation) to invoke IEEPA.81 The January Proclamation, which invoked his authority under the NEA, did not invoke IEEPA authorities or describe the threat (i.e., an "invasion") as unusual and extraordinary.82 In each of the February Executive Orders, President Trump noted he had "previously declared a national emergency with respect to the grave threat to the United States posed by the influx of illegal aliens and illicit drugs into the United States in Proclamation 10886."83 He then announced: "Pursuant to the NEA, I hereby expand the scope of the national emergency declared in that proclamation to cover," among other things, the respective "failure" of Canada, Mexico, and China to take actions to address criminal activities, such as illicit drugs and human trafficking into the United States, including by using IEEPA to impose tariffs.84 The February Executive Orders appear to be contrary to past presidential practice of exercising IEEPA's powers only with respect to a national emergency declared for that purpose, and that new threats (if understood to mean involving distinct geographical areas) require separate declarations of new national emergencies.85
The February Executive Orders also declared, respectively, that the "failure" of Canada, Mexico, and China to act constitutes "an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in substantial part outside the United States, to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."86 Based on those findings, the President announced that he "declare[d] and reiterate[d] a national emergency under the NEA and IEEPA to deal with that threat,"87 leaving some ambiguity with regard to the intent to declare new national emergencies or expand the existing emergency.
The House of Representatives and Senate have treated the February Executive Orders as declaring new national emergencies. On March 6, 2025, the Ranking Member of House Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Gregory M. Meeks, introduced two joint resolutions to terminate national emergencies:88 the national emergency declared on February 1, 2025, with respect to Canada;89 and the national emergency declared on February 1, 2025, with respect to Mexico.90 Neither joint resolution claims to terminate the emergency declared on January 20, 2025.91 Additionally, on March 11, 2025, the House of Representatives agreed to a resolution providing, "Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. §1622) with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025."92 Accordingly, sufficient calendar days will not elapse prior to the end of the session to force the automatic discharge of any relevant resolution of termination from the committee of jurisdiction.93 On March 11, 2025, Senator Tim Kaine introduced "a joint resolution to terminate the national emergency declared to impose duties on articles imported from Canada" by the February 1, 2025 Executive Order.94 The Senate approved that resolution on April 2, 2025, and it is pending before the House.95
Consultation and Reporting Another IEEPA requirement that differs from the NEA is that the IEEPA provides that the President shall consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before exercising any of the authorities granted under IEEPA.96 Once the President Once the Presidentdeclares 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
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;
authorities to deal with those circumstances;authorities to deal with those circumstances;
actions are to be taken with respect to those countries.actions are to be taken with respect to those countries.
every succeeding six-month interval that the authorities are exercised.every succeeding six-month interval that the authorities are exercised.
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.notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect after such anniversary.
99 Amendments to IEEPA
Congress has amended IEEPA eight times Congress has amended IEEPA eight times (Table 1). Five of the eight amendments . Five of the eight amendments
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
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
IEEPA Enacted
(P.L. 95-223; 91 Stat. 1625)P.L. 95-223; 91 Stat. 1625)called legislative vetoes unconstitutional, Congress called legislative vetoes unconstitutional, Congress
* While not technically an amendment to IEEPA, IEEPA is tied to the NEA* While not technically an amendment to IEEPA, IEEPA is tied to the NEA
relating to the declaration and termination of national emergencies.relating to the declaration and termination of national emergencies.
elaboration below).elaboration below).
(Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988; P.L. 100-418(Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988; P.L. 100-418; 102 Stat. 1107, 1371)
October 6, 1992
(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)
(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)
(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
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)
(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)
(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)
of IEEPA to increase civil and criminal penalties and added of IEEPA to increase civil and criminal penalties and added to the prohibitions conspiracy to violate 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 penalties are capped at the greater of $250,000 or twice the amount of the transaction found to have $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
transfer of anything of valuetransfer of anything of value
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.information in a variety of formats.
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,artworks, and news wire feeds,
security or foreign policy reasons related to weapons proliferation or international terrorism.security or foreign policy reasons related to weapons proliferation or international terrorism.
USA PATRIOT Act Amendments to IEEPA
as originally enacted.as originally enacted.
amended IEEPA as part of the USA PATRIOT amended IEEPA as part of the USA PATRIOT
frozen assets, but only under certain circumstances:frozen assets, but only under certain circumstances:
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
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 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.all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.
the flow of terrorist finances, Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congressthe flow of terrorist finances, Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress
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. 13224105] and his statements [of September 24, 2001], our proposal gives law enforcement the ability to seize the terroristsSeptember 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.transactions, money-laundering involving the proceeds of terrorist acts.
follows:follows:
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 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.
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
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.
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.that provision currently is implemented.
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.procedures.
2003.2003.
be vested be vested
in the reconstruction of Iraq.in the reconstruction of 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 provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)111 and Section 201 of the Terrorism Risk and Section 201 of the Terrorism Risk
Insurance Insurance
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 Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) to be
for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraqfor the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq
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.people.
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.Provisional Authority (CPA) for reconstruction projects and ministry operations.
with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
subsection (c), which providessubsection (c), which provides
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.camera. This subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review.
codify existing practices.codify existing practices.
120 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,authority,
since the statutesince the statute
rare and brief, and are not to be equated with normal, ongoing problems.rare and brief, and are not to be equated with normal, ongoing problems.
invoking IEEPA, however, have increased in frequency and length since its enactment.invoking IEEPA, however, have increased in frequency and length since its enactment.
national emergency under the NEA.national emergency under the NEA.
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, response to issues like weapons proliferation, global terrorism,
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.individuals.
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.several statutes.
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
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 without
Presidential Emergency
emergency under the NEA.emergency under the NEA.129 Rather than referencing the same set of emergencies, as had been the Rather than referencing the same set of emergencies, as had been the
case with TWEA, IEEPA case with TWEA, IEEPA
independent useindependent use
NEA has proliferated over the past four decades. Presidents declared NEA has proliferated over the past four decades. Presidents declared
emergencies under the auspices of TWEA in the four decades prior to IEEPAemergencies under the auspices of TWEA in the four decades prior to IEEPA
contrast, as of September 1, 2025 Presidents have declared 88 national emergencies under the NEA, 77 of which invoked IEEPA.132 As of September 1, 2025, there were 51 ongoing national emergencies; all but five involve IEEPA.
Figure 1. Declarations and Executive Orders Citing IEEPA
Source: CRS. 2020s current as of CRS. 2020s current as of
September 1, 2025. 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.
declared 1.5 new national emergencies citing IEEPA.declared 1.5 new national emergencies citing IEEPA.
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 declared the first national emergency under the provisions of the
invoked IEEPA.invoked IEEPA.
than 40 years. As of than 40 years. As of
basis for resolving matters of ownership of the Shahbasis for resolving matters of ownership of the Shah
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
Figure 2. Balance of Emergencies Citing IEEPA by Presidential Term
Source: CRS. Current as of September 1, 2025.
Figure 3. Average Length of Emergencies Citing IEEPA Source: CRS. Current as of September 1, 2025.
Notes: A single emergency was declared in the 1970s (Iran) and that has lasted 40 years. 2010s do not have sufficient data to create an average length that would be meaningful for the purposes of analysis.
In most cases, the declared emergencies citing In most cases, the declared emergencies citingIEEPA have been geographically specific. For IEEPA have been geographically specific. For
both declared a national emergency with both declared a national emergency with
respect to the respect to the
all property and interests in property of the all property and interests in property of the
Government of Iran.Government of Iran.
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.United States.
coverage to block imports to the United States coverage to block imports to the United States
from Iran.from Iran.
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.territory and government of Iran.
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.ports.
Figure 4. Cumulative Number of Ongoing National Emergencies by Year
Source: CRS. Current as of CRS. Current as of
September 1, 2025. 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.
many many
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.the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons.
declared a national emergency in response to the threat posed by declared a national emergency in response to the threat posed by
to commit, or support terrorism.to commit, or support terrorism.
the threats of the threats of
enabled activities.enabled activities.
communications technologies and servicescommunications technologies and services
orders have included provisions that are global in scope. These geographically nonspecific orders have included provisions that are global in scope. These geographically nonspecific
Figure 5. National Emergency Act Declarations
Source: Federal Register; CRS.
|
Examples of Actions Taken in Non-Geographic Emergencies Citing IEEPA
|
160 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,violations as a rationale for a declaration of national emergency came in 1985,
references have come in the past references have come in the past
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
defined regions.defined regions.
narcotics traffickers, or associates of the International Criminal Court.narcotics traffickers, or associates of the International Criminal Court.
persons. For example, in Executive Order 12978, President Bill Clinton targeted specific persons. For example, in Executive Order 12978, President Bill Clinton targeted specific
" such foreign persons.such foreign persons.
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
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 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:
designated in or pursuant to this order; anddesignated in or pursuant to this order; and
for or on behalf of, persons designated in or pursuant to this order.for or on behalf of, persons designated in or pursuant to this order.
who threaten international stabilization efforts in the Western Balkans.who threaten international stabilization efforts in the Western Balkans.
similar to that of Executive Order 12978, it removed the qualifier similar to that of Executive Order 12978, it removed the qualifier
the United States, including U.S. citizens, could be targets of the order.the United States, including U.S. citizens, could be targets of the order.
excerpt of the order:excerpt of the order:
1702(b)(1),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
(i) the persons listed in the Annex to this order; and
(ii)that were delimited by geography or nationality. Since the 1990s, that were delimited by geography or nationality. Since the 1990s,
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
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.
the President to exercise the President to exercise
to block and prohibit [certain transactions].to block and prohibit [certain transactions].
imposed by the President under the act would be, likewise, determined by reference to IEEPA.imposed by the President under the act would be, likewise, determined by reference to 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 providedits former government. That statute provided
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 associated with the Duvalier regime. This subsection shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of section 202 of that Act. [50 USC 1701]requirements of section 202 of that Act. [50 USC 1701]
national emergency (and none was declared).national emergency (and none was declared).
specificity.specificity.
with respect to—with respect to—
...
(b) SANCTIONS DESCRIBED.—(b) SANCTIONS DESCRIBED.—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 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, orcauses 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 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.subsection (a) of that section.
IEEPA in the context of a national emergency. In the Countering IranIEEPA in the context of a national emergency. In the Countering Iran
Act of 2017, for example, Congress declared, Act of 2017, for example, Congress declared,
Treasury and the Secretary of State should continue to implement Executive Order No. 13382.Treasury and the Secretary of State should continue to implement Executive Order No. 13382.
On September 9, 1985, President Reagan, finding On September 9, 1985, President Reagan, finding
South Africa.South Africa.
transactions with South Africa was quickly making its way through Congress.transactions with South Africa was quickly making its way through Congress.
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 Congress because unspecified provisions
trying to help.trying to help.
since)since)
legislation then winding its way through Congress were legislation then winding its way through Congress were
"183 Current Uses of IEEPA
In general, IEEPA has served as an integral part of the In general, IEEPA has served as an integral part of the
184 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.
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
imports, exports, foreign exchange transactions, transfers of credit, transfers of securities, foreign exchange transactions, transfers of credit, transfers of securities, or payments, and may take payments, and may take
other 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 propertytransactions related to frozen assets and blocked property
undermining election processes or institutionsundermining election processes or institutions
Administration Act of 1979,Administration Act of 1979,
programs of specific countries (i.e., Iran, North Korea);programs of specific countries (i.e., Iran, North Korea);
election processes or the private sectorelection processes or the private sector
installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications
domestic in effect. Some scholars arguedomestic in effect. Some scholars argue
economy means economy means
primarily domestic in effect.199 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.leverage economic sanctions provide to influence the behavior of foreign actors.200 The President 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
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.
Iranian assets in the United States, in response to the hostage crisis in 1979.Iranian assets in the United States, in response to the hostage crisis in 1979.
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.entities.
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 ShahTribunal. The United States also froze the assets of the former Shah
the Shahthe Shah
States continued to recognize a previous government that had been removed by coup dStates continued to recognize a previous government that had been removed by coup d
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 Delvallefrom his post as head of the Panamanian Defense Forces, which resulted in Delvalle
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.legitimate head of government and instituted economic sanctions against the Noriega regime.
204 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.those funds.
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.or that come within the possession or control of persons located within the United States.
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 U.S. government owed to Panama and all payments owed
Panama Canal CommissionPanama Canal Commission
New York.New York.
Delvalle government.Delvalle government.
H.W. Bush lifted economic sanctions against the H.W. Bush lifted economic sanctions against the
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.successor government.
increasing repression of Nicolás Maduro (2013-present) in Venezuela. President Barack Obama initially froze Venezuelan government assets in 2015 under IEEPA and the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014.211 In January 2019, the Trump Administration
Guaidó as VenezuelaGuaidó as Venezuela
government assets that were assets that were
States financial institutions.States financial institutions.
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),Venezuela (Pdvsa),
Maduro.Maduro.
government216 until its dissolution in December 2022, and until its dissolution in December 2022, and
The Biden and Trump Administrations recognize Edmundo González Urrutia, winner of the July 2024 presidential elections, as the "rightful" President of Venezuela.218 Nevertheless, Nicolás Maduro has remained in office and was inaugurated for a third term as president in January 2025.219 González Urrutía, in exile since September 2024, does not have direct access to Venezuela assets in the United States.220 The National Assembly leaders elected in 2015 technically has access to the assets frozen in the United States, but any transactions involving those assets require a license from OFAC.221 The opposition-controlled 2015 National Assembly has sought to prevent the sale of one of Venezuela's most valuable assets, CITGO, the U.S. refining arm of PdVSA, for the payment of debts owed and appropriations carried out by the Maduro government; no sale can occur unless OFAC grants a license for it to go forward.222
There is also precedent for using frozen foreign assets for purposes authorized by the U.N. There 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. Bush ordered the transfer 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 U.S. banks to a holding 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 account in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to fulfill
of the United Nations Participation Act (UNPA),of the United Nations Participation Act (UNPA),
action.action.
and to finance the United Nations Compensation Commission,and to finance the United Nations Compensation Commission,
adjudicate claims against Iraq arising from the invasion.adjudicate claims against Iraq arising from the invasion.
accumulated interest until the United States vested them in 2003 pursuant to IEEPA.accumulated interest until the United States vested them in 2003 pursuant to IEEPA.
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.Republic of Yugoslavia to the central banks of the successor states in 2003.
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.Interim Authority.
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.assets.
filed a statement of filed a statement of
of the assets available for transfer under the OFAC of the assets available for transfer under the OFAC
Afghanistan to Afghanistan to
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.States.
judgments. In the statement of interest, the judgments. In the statement of interest, the Biden Administration did not take a position with respect to Administration did not take a position with respect to
the plaintiffsthe plaintiffs
against the judgment plaintiffs.against the judgment plaintiffs.
' motion for post-judgment attachment of the DaB assets, holding that, motion for post-judgment attachment of the DaB assets, holding that,
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 Talibanthe Afghan people—must pay for the Taliban
that recognizing the DaB as an that recognizing the DaB as an
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.governments is entrusted solely to the President.
Appeals for the Second CircuitAppeals for the Second Circuit
Congress appears to have intended that frozen assets may be used to settle a foreign country's debts and claims of U.S. nationals after the national emergency has terminated.240 As described below, Congress has directed frozen assets be used, even during an ongoing national emergency, to pay certain court judgments against foreign states, and has recently enacted a framework for using Russian sovereign assets for reparations to Ukraine.
Compensation for U.S. Victims of Terrorism
The executive branch has historically resisted congressional efforts to vest foreign assets to pay resisted congressional efforts to vest foreign assets to payU.S. claimants without first obtaining a settlement agreement with the country in question.U.S. claimants without first obtaining a settlement agreement with the country in question.
241 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 designated as
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.under an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) since 1996.
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999,Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999,
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), Assistance Act (authorizing the trade embargo against Cuba),
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
Clinton promptly exercised in signing the statute into law.Clinton promptly exercised in signing the statute into law.
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
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.
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.civilian airplanes by the Cuban air force.
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.marriage to a Cuban spy.
enacted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA).enacted the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA).
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:
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.damages for which such terrorist party has been adjudged liable.
250
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 amended the FSIA in 2008251 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 notwithstanding the fact that the property in question is regulated by the United States government pursuant to TWEA or IEEPA.252 Congress has also crafted legislation on occasion that makes specific assets available to satisfy specific judgments.253
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 creditors.254 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 of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund (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 between the United States and BNP Paribas for sanctions violations.255 The Fund is replenished 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 or acting on behalf of a state sponsor of terrorism.256 Three-quarters of all civil penalties and forfeitures relating to the same offenses are also deposited into the Fund.257 Unless renewed, the Fund sunsets in 2039.258 One bill in the 119th Congress, the American Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act (S. 706 and H.R. 1530), would direct approximately $1.912 billion corresponding to revenue from the Binance Holdings Limited plea agreement259 into the Fund.260 The bill would also amend the funding scheme to increase the portion of proceeds from qualifying civil forfeitures to be deposited into the Fund to 100 percent.261
Russian Central Bank Assets and Oligarch Assets
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.262 On April 24, 2024, President Biden signed into law the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity (REPO) for Ukrainians Act.263 The REPO for Ukrainians Act describes Russia as an aggressor state264 and provides authority for the U.S. government to confiscate previously frozen Russian sovereign assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction.265
The REPO for Ukrainians Act also establishes a framework for the transfer of such assets to Ukraine for reconstruction assistance and compensation for damages caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.266 The act further states that it is the sense of Congress that "any effort by the United States to confiscate and repurpose Russian sovereign assets should be undertaken alongside international allies and partners as part of a coordinated, multilateral effort."267 In effect, the act offers the President (and encourages international allies that support Ukraine to embrace) an alternative source of funds to help Ukraine. As of the date of this report, the U.S. government has not seized, transferred, or confiscated any Russian sovereign assets.268The REPO for Ukrainians Act authorizes the President to seize, confiscate, transfer, liquidate or vest "any Russian aggressor state sovereign assets" subject to U.S. jurisdiction for the purpose of transferring such funds to a Ukraine Support Fund.269 The act describes three permissible uses of the Ukraine Support Fund by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID): (1) making contributions to an international body, fund, or mechanism established to administer compensation or provide assistance to Ukraine; (2) supporting Ukraine's "reconstruction, rebuilding, and recovery"; and (3) providing the people of Ukraine with "economic and humanitarian assistance."270 Funds in the Ukraine Support Fund may not be transferred or spent until the President certifies and transmits in writing to appropriate congressional committees a plan "to ensure transparency and accountability" for the use of such funds.271 Authority to use the Ukraine Support Fund expires in five years or 120 days after the President certifies that certain conditions related to the cessation of hostilities and the provision of damages compensation to Ukraine are met, whichever is earlier.272
Separately, Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations 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."273 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.274 The provision applies to forfeitures that occurred prior to May 1, 2025.275 International Law Implications of Seizing and Repurposing Frozen AssetsSome observers have debated whether confiscating Russian assets and transferring them to Ukraine as reparations for the invasion would violate international law.276 Proponents of the measure characterize it as a valid countermeasure supported by precedent,277 while others cautioned that confiscation of assets under these circumstances may pose risks to the financial system,278 may not fulfill criteria for a valid countermeasure under international law,279 and is not supported by relevant precedent.280 Historically, reparations have occurred pursuant to an international agreement such as a peace treaty,281 the award of an international court,282 or a UN Security Council resolution.283
In the REPO for Ukrainians Act, a sense of Congress provision expresses that the confiscation and repurposing of Russian sovereign assets, including the assets of agencies and instrumentalities of the Russian Federation,284 is consistent with international law.285 The act also includes a sense of Congress that, because Russia breached the prohibition on aggression under international law, the United States is legally entitled to take countermeasures to induce Russia to comply with its international obligations to cease its military invasion of Ukraine.286
Although not cited in the act, an argument in support of the sense of Congress may be found in the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA).287 These articles, which are nonbinding, articulate principles that "seek to formulate ... the basic rules of international law concerning the responsibility of States for their internationally wrongful acts."288 Although the articles are not legally binding and do not themselves provide legal authority for taking any action, they are authoritative within the international legal community and may be cited by courts as evidence of international legal principles.289
The articles further describe countermeasures as otherwise internationally wrongful acts (not amounting to the use of armed force or violations of certain other international law norms) taken by an injured state in order to cause the responsible state to cease its wrongful conduct.290 The injured state is entitled to demand cessation of the breach of an international legal obligation, assurances of non-repetition, and reparations.291 Countermeasures are limited to the temporary non-performance of an obligation toward the responsible state and must be reversible insofar as possible.292 ARSIWA contemplate that third states (e.g., the United States) who are not themselves injured may take countermeasures to enforce a breached obligation that is owed to the international community as a whole, in order to "ensure cessation of the breach and reparation in the interest of the injured State."293 A comment accompanying the articles explains that the status of such an entitlement remains uncertain under international law.294 In addition, a state other than an injured state is entitled to demand cessation of the breach of international law, as well as demand performance of the obligation of reparation in the interest of the injured state.295
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 waythrough 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
opinion in opinion in Dames & Moore v. Regan..
Algiers Accords, which Algiers Accords, which
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).Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal (IUSCT).
that permitted the exercise of that permitted the exercise of
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.
performed.performed.
implementing the Algiers Accords resulted in the nullification of this prejudgment attachment and 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.the dismissal of the case against Iran, directing that it be filed at the IUSCT.
the Secretary of the Treasury exceeded their statutory and constitutional powers to the extent they the Secretary of the Treasury exceeded their statutory and constitutional powers to the extent they
adversely affected Dames & Mooreadversely affected Dames & Moore
prejudgment attachments, and the plaintiffprejudgment attachments, and the plaintiff
banks.banks.
for most of the measures taken—nullification of the prejudgment attachment and transfer of the 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:
of Congressof Congress
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 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, specifically to delegate authority does not,
national security,national security,
the contrary, the enactment of legislation closely related to the question of the Presidentthe 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
responsibility.responsibility.
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.
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.
Justice FrankfurterJustice Frankfurter
that that
and never before questioned … may be treated as a gloss on and never before questioned … may be treated as a gloss on
President by §1 of Art. II.President by §1 of Art. II.
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.
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.
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 constitutional so long as Congress provides through a legislative act an
" governing the exercise of the delegated authority.governing the exercise of the delegated authority.
delegations of authority to define criminal offenses, the court held, IEEPA provides sufficient delegations of authority to define criminal offenses, the court held, IEEPA provides sufficient
guidance.guidance.
authorities granted to the President ... may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and 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.extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.
the authorities delegated are defined and limited.the authorities delegated are defined and limited.
the President has greater discretion,the President has greater discretion,
delegation doctrine.delegation doctrine.
In ongoing litigation regarding tariffs imposed under IEEPA, the Court of International Trade has described the nondelegation doctrine as a "useful tool[] for the court to interpret [IEEPA] so as to avoid constitutional problems."315 The court did not strike down any part of IEEPA but ruled that the statute did not authorize certain "worldwide" tariffs, reasoning that IEEPA cannot allow the President "to impose whatever tariff rates he deems desirable" without "creat[ing] an unconstitutional delegation of power."316 The court's order is currently stayed (paused) pending appeal.317
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.318 In a case where plaintiffs sought In a case where plaintiffs soughtinjunctive relief from the imposition of sanctions by arguing that the Presidentinjunctive relief from the imposition of sanctions by arguing that the President
extend to imposing sanctions involving medical supplies and humanitarian aid for Iran, the 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 district court dismissed the claim in part because the statutory restrictions on such sanctions do
not create a private right of action.not create a private right of action.
319 Separation of Powers—Legislative Veto
is an unconstitutional legislative veto. That provision statesis an unconstitutional legislative veto. That provision states
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 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.
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,,
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.
provision was severable from the rest of the statute.provision was severable from the rest of the statute.
324 Fifth Amendment Takings Clause
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
takings, in which the government does not physically take property but instead imposes 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.restrictions on the right of enjoyment that decreases the value of the property or right therein.
regulations issued under IEEPA was not an uncompensated taking, suggesting that the reason for 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.this position was the contingent nature of the licenses that had authorized the attachments.
Court also suggested that the broader purpose of the statute supported the view that there was no Court also suggested that the broader purpose of the statute supported the view that there was no
uncompensated taking:uncompensated taking:
blocking orders is blocking orders is
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
Accordingly, it is difficult to accept petitionerAccordingly, it is difficult to accept petitioner
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
supports such a result.supports such a result.
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.
sanctions regulations, sanctions regulations, the court found that that factor alone was not enough to sustain plaintiffthat factor alone was not enough to sustain plaintiff
compensable taking.compensable taking.
finding:finding:
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
law?law?
of sanctions pursuant to IEEPA will be entitled to compensation from the government for their of sanctions pursuant to IEEPA will be entitled to compensation from the government for their
losses.losses.
of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) pursuant to IEEPA have likewise found little success 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.challenging the loss of the use of their assets as uncompensated takings.
recognized that a temporary blocking of assets does not constitute a taking because it is a 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.temporary action that does not vest title in the United States.
even if the blocking of assets necessitates the closing altogether of a business enterprise.even if the blocking of assets necessitates the closing altogether of a business enterprise.
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.
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.
336 Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause
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.
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.
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.
third district court stated that OFACthird district court stated that OFAC
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
protect against the transfer of assets subject to the blocking order.protect against the transfer of assets subject to the blocking order.
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether OFACAppeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether OFAC
any disclosure of its content in its decision to freeze the assets of a charitable organization, and its 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 failure to provide adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond, violated the
the Supreme Court in its landmark case the Supreme Court in its landmark case Mathews v. Eldridge
344 Under the Under the Eldridge test, to determine if an individual has received constitutional due process, test, to determine if an individual has received constitutional due process,
courts must weighcourts must weigh
well as the value of additional safeguards, andwell as the value of additional safeguards, and
(3) the Government's interest in maintaining its procedures, including the burdens of additional procedural requirements.additional procedural requirements.
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' 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 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 OFACrelief, those remedies take considerable time, as evidenced by OFAC
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.
understated.understated.
Circuit explained that the Constitution requires that the government Circuit explained that the Constitution requires that the government
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 partydesigned to protect against erroneous deprivation of the private party
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
Ninth Circuit noted that all federal courts that have considered the argument that OFAC may not 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.use undisclosed classified information in making its determinations have rejected it.
the court found that OFACthe court found that OFAC
at issue was a violation of the organizationat issue was a violation of the organization
harmless because it would not likely have affected the outcome of the case.harmless because it would not likely have affected the outcome of the case.
denied adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.denied adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.
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 OFACleaving it unable to respond adequately to OFAC
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 organizationterrorist (SDGT), the court agreed that OFAC had deprived the organization
process rights.process rights.
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.
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 maintains the requisite
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 constitutional standard because he
right to procedural review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).right to procedural review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
361 First Amendment Challenges
promulgated under IEEPA have violated the subjectspromulgated under IEEPA have violated the subjects
free speech, or religion. Challenges on these grounds have typically failed.free speech, or religion. Challenges on these grounds have typically failed.
that there is no First Amendment right to support terrorists.that there is no First Amendment right to support terrorists.
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
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.
temporarily blocked during the pendency of an investigation, a district court explained that temporarily blocked during the pendency of an investigation, a district court explained that
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.
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 CourtSupreme Court
regulation is sufficiently justified ifregulation is sufficiently justified if
(3) the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and
(4) theessential to the furtherance of that interest.essential to the furtherance of that interest.
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 governmentpreventing terrorist attacks. Third, the government
coordinated advocacy with another organization that was so designated, one appellate court found 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 that an OFAC regulation barring such coordinated advocacy based on its content was subject to
strict scrutiny.strict scrutiny.
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
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
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 OFACclaim that OFAC
and in existence at the date of the transactionsand in existence at the date of the transactions
informational materials, was ultra vires.informational materials, was ultra vires.
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.
violations against a defendant who spoke at a conference in the Democratic Peopleviolations against a defendant who spoke at a conference in the Democratic People
North Korea (DPRK) involving cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies.North Korea (DPRK) involving cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies.
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.
source code was held not entitled to protection insofar as it was used to conduct cryptocurrency source code was held not entitled to protection insofar as it was used to conduct cryptocurrency
transactions.transactions.
communications platforms altogether. On May 15, 2019, President Donald J. Trump, finding communications platforms altogether. On May 15, 2019, President Donald J. Trump, finding
the unrestricted acquisition or use in the United States of information and communications 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, technology or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by,
controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of foreign adversariescontrolled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of foreign adversaries
unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the 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 United States, declared a national emergency under the authority of the NEA and invoked
authorities granted by IEEPA.authorities granted by IEEPA.
under that same national emergency to address under that same national emergency to address
applications developed and owned by companies in [China].applications developed and owned by companies in [China].
the video sharing platform the video sharing platform
381 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., TikTokLtd., TikTok
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 that the orders and memorandums violated their First Amendment right to free speech and violated 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.
brought a separate suit to enjoin the restrictions.brought a separate suit to enjoin the restrictions.
challenged the Commerce Departmentchallenged the Commerce Department
under E.O. 13942.under E.O. 13942.
prohibitions, most of which were scheduled to apply on November 12, 2020, would be to prohibitions, most of which were scheduled to apply on November 12, 2020, would be to
U.S.-based TikTok users.U.S.-based TikTok users.
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the APA.Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the APA.
the plaintiffsthe plaintiffs
claim that the Commerce TikTok Identification was an claim that the Commerce TikTok Identification was an ultra vires exercise of agency authority exercise of agency authority
under the APA because it violates IEEPAunder the APA because it violates IEEPA
exception for exception for
"389 The court employed a textual interpretation of IEEPAThe court employed a textual interpretation of IEEPA
short-format videos exchanged via TikTok clearly fell into IEEPAshort-format videos exchanged via TikTok clearly fell into IEEPA
of informational materials protected from regulation or prohibition because they are of informational materials protected from regulation or prohibition because they are
to the to the
§1702(b)(3).§1702(b)(3).
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.
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
incidental burden cannot violated IEEPA.incidental burden cannot violated IEEPA.
Berman Amendments, rejected the governmentBerman Amendments, rejected the government
itself involve transactions of informational material to be in violation of IEEPAitself involve transactions of informational material to be in violation of IEEPA
material exception.material exception.
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 tangential as to survive review, it declared that this case
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.
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 materials because it
artworks, ... and news wire feeds.artworks, ... and news wire feeds.
rejected the governmentrejected the government
transactions based on the finding that the transactions based on the finding that the
was was
platform and have their personal data on TikTok.platform and have their personal data on TikTok.
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 exception under the Espionage Act for
adversaries.adversaries.
anything of value.anything of value.
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
nevertheless have an economic value to the platform as a whole.nevertheless have an economic value to the platform as a whole.
argument, stating argument, stating
personal-communications limitation out of the statute.personal-communications limitation out of the statute.
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 usercarriers—get some value from a user
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,Services Supply Chain,
Identification).Identification).
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,funds,
payment app WeChatpayment app WeChat
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.
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
established a strong showing that the WeChat ban unlawfully foreclosed established a strong showing that the WeChat ban unlawfully foreclosed
public expressionpublic expression
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, do not have any other viable means of communicating electronically,
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.
receive heightened First Amendment strict scrutiny if decided on the merits.receive heightened First Amendment strict scrutiny if decided on the merits.
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 the
the speech, and (3) leaves open adequate channels for communication.the speech, and (3) leaves open adequate channels for communication.
the governmentthe government
from U.S. users is significant, but that the from U.S. users is significant, but that the
narrowly tailored way given the narrowly tailored way given the
from government devicesfrom government devices
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 governmentserve the government
substitute channels for communication.substitute channels for communication.
harm to the plaintiffs by eliminating their platform for communication.harm to the plaintiffs by eliminating their platform for communication.
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),
court found that the balance of equities tipped in plaintiffscourt found that the balance of equities tipped in plaintiffs
protecting the plaintiffsprotecting the plaintiffs
that an injunction would that an injunction would
address threats to national securityaddress threats to national security
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 governmentmore speech than necessary to serve the government
interests.interests.
appealed each decision.appealed each decision.
it reviewed U.S.-China policy and the effective social media platform bans.it reviewed U.S.-China policy and the effective social media platform bans.
subsequently issued an executive order rescinding the relevant executive orders and the subsequently issued an executive order rescinding the relevant executive orders and the
Commerce DepartmentCommerce Department
original underlying executive order related to the information and communications technology original underlying executive order related to the information and communications technology
and services supply chain,and services supply chain,
Use of IEEPA to Continue Enforcing the Export Administration Act (EAA)
services was regulated pursuant to the authority of the Export Administration Actservices was regulated pursuant to the authority of the Export Administration Act
,429 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 EAAto use IEEPA as a vehicle for continuing the enforcement of the EAA
in 1983, finding that in 1983, finding that
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.
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.
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 pursuant to the authorities allocated under IEEPA—that
2001 executive order.2001 executive order.
provisions of the EAA in effect under IEEPA have led to challenges. The determining factor 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 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 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 for an attempt to violate the regulations even though the EAA had expired and did not expressly
criminalize such attempts.criminalize such attempts.
had exceeded his delegated authority under the EEA by had exceeded his delegated authority under the EEA by
the regulations.the regulations.
rendered inoperative by the lapse of the EAA and rendered inoperative by the lapse of the EAA and
under the general powers that IEEPA vests in the President.under the general powers that IEEPA vests in the President.
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 statutesby the scope of the statutes
conspiracy provision existed in either statute.conspiracy provision existed in either 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),
by statute, even though the EAA had expired.by statute, even though the EAA had expired.
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
does evince Congressdoes evince Congress
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 export regulations had long provided for confidentiality and that the Presidentexport regulations had long provided for confidentiality and that the President
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.
decision by the Department of Commerce to apply sanctions for a companydecision by the Department of Commerce to apply sanctions for a company
EAA regulations.EAA regulations.
Consequently, the appeal of the agency decision was determined to belong in the district court according to the default rule under the APA.445
Use of IEEPA to Regulate CryptocurrencyThe utility of cryptocurrency for terrorist fundraising and sanctions evasions makes it a prime concern with respect to sanctions enforcement.446 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held in Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury447 that "smart contracts"—applications that self-execute when participants meet some predetermined set of criteria448—are not "property" subject to regulation under IEEPA because they are incapable of being owned,449 even considering the expansive definition of property in the relevant regulations.450 OFAC had designated the automatic crypto-mixer Tornado Cash pursuant to E.O. 13964,451 placing it onto the Specially Designated Nationals List and prohibiting transactions in all property and interests in property belonging to Tornado Cash.452 OFAC designated Tornado Cash due to the mixing protocol's assisting malicious cyber actors, such as a North Korea-linked hacking group, to launder the proceeds of cybercrimes.453
Six users of Tornado Cash brought a lawsuit against OFAC, arguing the designation exceeded its statutory authority by imposing sanctions on self-executing software that does not constitute an interest in property held by a foreign person.454 The district judge issued a summary judgment in favor of OFAC, finding that Tornado Cash is an entity with a property interest in the smart contracts, which it found to be contracts under the regulation.455 The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the immutable nature of the contracts require "[a]n agreement between two or more parties," while immutable smart contracts have only one party.456 Tornado Cash, the court observed, does not have control over or own the smart contracts.457 Likewise, the court found, the smart contracts are "less like a 'service' and more like a tool that is used in performing a service."458
The Fifth Circuit suggested Congress consider updating IEEPA to target modern technologies like crypto-mixing software, but stated that until that happens, Tornado Cash's immutable smart contracts will not be deemed the "property" of a foreign national or entity, leaving them exempt from blocking under IEEPA.459
Issues and Options for Congress Congress may address a number of issues with respect to IEEPA; four are addressed here. The are addressed here. Thefirst pertains to first pertains to the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs. The second pertains to how Congress has delegated its authority under IEEPA and its umbrella statute, how Congress has delegated its authority under IEEPA and its umbrella statute,
the NEA. The the NEA. The
The Use of IEEPA to Impose Tariffs
Prior to 2025, no President had used IEEPA to impose tariffs.460 Beginning in February 2025, President Trump cited IEEPA as his authority to impose tariffs on a variety of trading partners to deal with six distinct national emergencies.461 These emergency measures included tariffs on Canada,462 Mexico,463 and China464 to deal with fentanyl trafficking, potential tariffs on countries importing Venezuelan oil,465 tariffs on the imports from most other countries to deal with the "persistent annual United States goods trade deficits,"466 and tariffs on Brazil to deal with "violat[ions of] the free expression rights of United States persons."467
Several Members of Congress have expressed concern with using IEEPA to impose tariffs. Between February 1, 2025, and September 1, 2025, Members of Congress introduced six joint resolutions to terminate national emergencies that had been declared to impose tariffs (Table A-2) and have introduced bills that would restrict the President's authority to impose tariffs using IEEPA.468Several parties have also filed lawsuits challenging these tariffs.469 In May 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade found that several of the tariff actions were not authorized under IEEPA, while the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose any tariffs.470 The government has appealed these decisions, respectively, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.471 In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. Court of International Trade's opinion, holding that the tariffs imposed on Mexico, Canada, and China with respect to trafficking and on many other trading partners with respect to the U.S. trade balance "exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA's text."472 The Trump Administration appealed the decision and the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari with respect to both cases.473
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 ofemergency 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 IEEPAtransactions involving some foreign interest was intended to limit IEEPA
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.
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.
IEEPA, the emergency with Iran declared in November 1979, IEEPA, the emergency with Iran declared in November 1979,
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
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 to terminate a national emergency without
criticisms, Congress has never terminated an emergency declaration invoking IEEPA.criticisms, Congress has never terminated an emergency declaration invoking IEEPA.
absence of any explicit statement of disapproval, coupled with explicit statements of approval in absence of 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. some 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.Arguably, then, IEEPA could be seen as an effective tool for carrying out the will of Congress.
Definition of
invocation in a declaration on its necessity for dealing with an invocation in a declaration on its necessity for dealing with an
… to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.… to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
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
IEEPA be IEEPA be
that such powers should be available only in true emergencies.that such powers should be available only in true emergencies.
conflict with those statutory conditions.conflict with those statutory conditions.
threat,threat,
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
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
interest of any foreign country or a national thereofinterest of any foreign country or a national thereof
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.
exemption of purely domestic transactions from the Presidentexemption of purely domestic transactions from the President
limitation without substance.limitation without substance.
those times when Congress did not reauthorize the EAA, Presidents have declared emergencies to those times when Congress did not reauthorize the EAA, Presidents have declared emergencies to
maintain the dual-use export control system.maintain the dual-use export control system.
2001.2001.
of payments crisis after he ended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold. Although of payments crisis after he ended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold. Although
Appeals upheld President NixonAppeals upheld President Nixon
IEEPA.IEEPA.
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
that may have gone beyond what Congress originally intended.that may have gone beyond what Congress originally intended.
Amending the NEA to Require Joint Resolutions of Approval
Congress could terminate a state of emergency declared pursuant to the NEA with a concurrent Congress could terminate a state of emergency declared pursuant to the NEA with a concurrent
resolution. When the resolution. When the
Congress with a steeper climb—presumably requiring passage of a veto-proof joint resolution—Congress with a steeper climb—presumably requiring passage of a veto-proof joint resolution—
to terminate a national emergency declared under the NEA.to terminate a national emergency declared under the NEA.
declared under the NEA has been terminated without declared under the NEA has been terminated without
place new limits on the exercise of emergency authorities. The most common strategy has been 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 require a joint resolution of approval. In the
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.
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.
494 The NEA, IEEPA, and
producing producing
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 Russiaterrorist attacks, and restrictions on Russian-affiliated vessels put in place after Russia
invasion of Ukraine in 2022.invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
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.
maintain blocks on transactions and freezes on assets made during a national emergencymaintain blocks on transactions and freezes on assets made during a national emergency
to prevent assets frozen under IEEPA from becoming accessible. The Status Quo
Maier summed up the main criticisms of TWEA: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, 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 President.converted the section into a general grant of legislative authority to the President.
before it, Congress has often approved explicitly of the Presidentbefore it, Congress has often approved explicitly of the President
circumstances, Congress has directed the President to impose a variety of sanctions under IEEPA 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 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 explicit approval, until 2023, no Member of Congress had ever introduced a resolution to
terminate a national emergency citing IEEPA.terminate a national emergency citing IEEPA.
meet every six months to consider a vote on a joint resolution on terminating an emergency.meet every six months to consider a vote on a joint resolution on terminating an emergency.
499 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. approval of the statute and its use.
emergencies declared under the NEA explicitly exclude IEEPA.emergencies declared under the NEA explicitly exclude IEEPA.
500 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,
Trump vetoed that resolution and the House did not override the veto.Trump vetoed that resolution and the House did not override the veto.
attempts, Congress voted to terminate the national emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus attempts, Congress voted to terminate the national emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus
DiseaseDisease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. (COVID-19) outbreak.
national emergency.national emergency.
terminate, for the first time, national emergencies invoking IEEPA; all five failed to pass the terminate, for the first time, national emergencies invoking IEEPA; all five failed to pass the
House.House.
IEEPA sits at the center of the modern U.S. sanction regime. Were Congress to terminate a 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 national emergency invoking IEEPA, sanctions put into place under the authority of that
emergency, including the blocking of assets, would emergency, including the blocking of assets, would
terminated, permitting the President to continue to block property if terminated, permitting the President to continue to block property if
prohibition with respect to that property is necessary on account of claims involving such country prohibition with respect to that property is necessary on account of claims involving such country
or its nationals,or its nationals,
508 The legislative history suggests that Congress may have considered the continued blocking of 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 assets that could be used for presidential settlements of claims by American citizens against
foreign countries.foreign countries.
continue to block property pending claims among successor states.continue to block property pending claims among successor states.
maintained following termination is unclear. maintained following termination is unclear.
thereof has any interestthereof has any interest
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.
provision to provision to
country or its nationalscountry or its nationals
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).
expired Export Administration Act of 1979,expired Export Administration Act of 1979,
reference to IEEPA since 2001.reference to IEEPA since 2001.
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;
517 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
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Title of E.O. or Procl. Declaring National
Date of Declaration
Date of Termination
Originating E.O./Procl.
Revoking E.O./Procl.
1
Blocking Iranian Government Property
11/14/1979
Ongoing
12170
2
Sanctions Against Iran
04/17/1980
04/17/1981
12211
Expired
3
Continuation of Export Control Regulations
10/14/1983
12/20/1983
12444
12451
4
03/30/1984
07/12/1985
12470
12525
5
Transactions Involving NicaraguaTransactions Involving Nicaragua
05/1/1985
03/13/1990
12513
12707
6
Transactions Involving South AfricaTransactions Involving South Africa
09/9/1985
07/10/1991
12532
12769
7
Involving LibyaInvolving Libya
01/7/1986
09/20/2004
12543
13357
8
Respect to PanamaRespect to Panama
04/8/1988
04/5/1990
12635
12710
9
Prohibiting Transactions with IraqProhibiting Transactions with Iraq
08/2/1990
07/29/2004
12722
13350
10
09/30/1990
09/30/1993
12730
12867
11
Proliferation
11/11/1994
12735
12938
12
10/4/1991
10/14/1994
12775
12932
13
and Montenegroand Montenegro
12808
13304
14
3, 1931, Within a Limited Geographic Area 3, 1931, Within a Limited Geographic Area
Caused by Hurricane Caused by Hurricane
10/14/1992
03/06/1993
6491
6534
15
UNITA
09/26/1993
05/06/2003
12865
24857
16
Proliferation ActivitiesProliferation Activities
09/29/1994
12868
12930
17
Regulations
06/30/1994
08/19/1994
12923
12924
18
Continuation of Export Control Regulations
08/19/1994
04/04/2001
12924
13206
19
Proliferation ActivitiesProliferation Activities
09/29/1994
11/14/1994
12930
12938
20
11/14/1994
Ongoing
12938
21
Peace ProcessPeace Process
01/23/1995
09/09/2019
12947
12947
22
Petroleum ResourcesPetroleum Resources
03/15/1995
Ongoing
12957
23
10/21/1995
Ongoing
12978
24
Movement of Vessels with Respect to CubaMovement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba
03/01/1996
Ongoing
6867
25
07/01/1996
07/01/1997
6907
Expired
26
05/20/1997
10/7/2016
13047
13742
27
and Prohibiting Transactions With Sudanand Prohibiting Transactions With Sudan
Ongoing
13067
28
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia
and Montenegro), the Republic of Serbia, and Montenegro), the Republic of Serbia,
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
06/09/1998
5/28/2003
13088
13304
29
Transactions With the TalibanTransactions With the Taliban
07/04/1999
7/2/2002
13129
13268
30
the Russian Federation Relating to the the Russian Federation Relating to the
Extracted From Nuclear WeaponsExtracted From Nuclear Weapons
06/21/2000
6/21/2012
13159
Expired
31
Diamonds From Sierra LeoneDiamonds From Sierra Leone
01/18/2001
1/15/2004
13194
13324
32
in the Western Balkansin the Western Balkans
06/26/2001
Ongoing
13219
33
Regulations
08/17/2001
Ongoing
13222
34
Reason of Certain Terrorist AttacksReason of Certain Terrorist Attacks
09/14/2001
Ongoing
7463
35
Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Transactions With Persons Who Commit,
09/23/2001
Ongoing
13224
36
Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe
03/06/2003
03/04/2024
13288
14118
37
Has an InterestHas an Interest
Ongoing
13303
38
05/11/2004
06/03/2025
13338
14312
39
Goods From LiberiaGoods From Liberia
13348
13710
40
Title 40, United States Code, Within a Title 40, United States Code, Within a
the National Emergency Caused by the National Emergency Caused by
Hurricane Hurricane
09/08/2005
11/03/2005
7924
7959
41
02/07/2006
09/14/2016
13396
13739
42
Institutions in BelarusInstitutions in Belarus
06/16/2006
Ongoing
13405
43
Democratic Republic of the CongoDemocratic Republic of the Congo
10/27/2006
Ongoing
13413
44
Democratic Processes and InstitutionsDemocratic Processes and Institutions
08/1/2007
Ongoing
13441
45
Korean NationalsKorean Nationals
06/26/2008
Ongoing
13466
46
10/22/2010
8443
Expired
47
Contributing to the Conflict in SomaliaContributing to the Conflict in Somalia
04/12/2010
Ongoing
13536
48
Transactions Related to LibyaTransactions Related to Libya
02/25/2011
Ongoing
13566
49
Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations
07/24/2011
Ongoing
13581
50
the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yementhe Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen
Ongoing
13611
51
the Russian Federation Relating to the the Russian Federation Relating to the
Extracted From Nuclear WeaponsExtracted From Nuclear Weapons
06/25/2012
5/26/2015
13617
13695
52
Contributing to the Situation in UkraineContributing to the Situation in Ukraine
03/06/2014
Ongoing
13660
53
Respect to South SudanRespect to South Sudan
04/03/2014
Ongoing
13664
54
African RepublicAfrican Republic
Ongoing
13667
55
Situation in VenezuelaSituation in Venezuela
03/08/2015
Ongoing
13692
56
Enabled ActivitiesEnabled Activities
04/01/2015
Ongoing
13694
57
Contributing to the Situation in BurundiContributing to the Situation in Burundi
11/18/2021
13712
14059
58
12/20/2017
Ongoing
13818
59
Ongoing
13848
60
Contributing to the Situation in NicaraguaContributing to the Situation in Nicaragua
11/27/2018
Ongoing
13851
61
United StatesUnited States
02/15/2019
01/20/2021
9844
10142
62
Supply ChainSupply Chain
05/15/2019
Ongoing
13873
63
Situation in MaliSituation in Mali
Ongoing
13882
64
Situation in SyriaSituation in Syria
10/17/2019
Ongoing
13894
65
(COVID-19) Outbreak(COVID-19) Outbreak
03/13/2020
04/10/2023
9994
66
05/01/2021
13920
Expired
67
13928
14022
68
Hong Kong Normalization
07/14/2020
Ongoing
13936
69
Critical Minerals
09/30/2020
09/30/2021
13953
Expired
70
11/12/2020
Ongoing
13959
71
Situation in BurmaSituation in Burma
02/10/2021
Ongoing
14014
72
Russian FederationRussian Federation
04/15/2021
Ongoing
14024
73
Human Rights Crisis in EthiopiaHuman Rights Crisis in Ethiopia
09/17/2021
Ongoing
14046
74
Involved in the Global Involved in the Global
12/15/2021
Ongoing
14059
75
People of AfghanistanPeople of Afghanistan
Ongoing
14064
76
Invocation of Emergency Authority Relating Invocation of Emergency Authority Relating
Movement of Russian-Affiliated Vessels to Movement of Russian-Affiliated Vessels to
United States PortsUnited States Ports
04/21/2022
Ongoing
10371
77
Time and Duty-Free Importation of Solar Time and Duty-Free Importation of Solar
Cells and Modules From Southeast Cells and Modules From Southeast
06/06/2022
06/05/2023
10414
Expired
78
Nationals HomeNationals Home
Ongoing
14078
79
Products in Countries of ConcernProducts in Countries of Concern
08/09/2023
Ongoing
14105
80
Imposing Certain Sanctions on Persons Undermining Peace, Security, and Stability in the West Bank
02/01/2024
Ongoing
14115
81
Declaring a National Energy Emergency
01/20/2025
Ongoing
14156
82
Designating Cartels and Other Organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists
01/20/2025
Ongoing
14157
83
Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border of the United States
01/20/2025
Ongoing
10886
84
Imposing Duties to Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border
02/01/2025
Ongoing
14193
85
Imposing Duties To Address The Situation At Our Southern Border
02/01/2025
Ongoing
14194
86
Imposing Duties To Address The Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain In The People's Republic Of China
02/01/2025
Ongoing
14195
87
Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court
02/06/2025
Ongoing
14203
88
Regulating Imports With a Reciprocal Tariff To Rectify Trade Practices That Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits
04/02/2025
Ongoing
14257
89
Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Brazil
07/30/2025
Ongoing
14323
Source: CRS, as of CRS, as of
September 1, 2025. 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
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,
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,of Ukraine,
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,Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine,
11, 2022, 11, 2022,
Federation Aggression,Federation Aggression,
suspension of the actsuspension of the act
the act. However, the revoking proclamation did cite the NEA. the act. However, the revoking proclamation did cite the NEA.
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.
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, Emergency, committee print,
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. 3884Governmental Relations, National Emergencies Act, hearing on H.R. 3884, 94th
on the practice of warehousing merchandise in Customs bonded warehouses for periods in excess of the 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 extensions 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 President Truman 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. §1318), an emergency statute. Issued under the authority of section 318 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (10 U.S.C. §1318), an emergency statute.
Due to the extensive reliance on these Customs regulations in the past, a statutory replacement for the 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 existing authority conferred on this Department by Proclamation 2948
the letter was written in 1974 in response to the letter was written in 1974 in response to
was the was the
International Trade Administration, International Trade Administration,
Duties in Accord With Presidential Proclamation 10414,Duties in Accord With Presidential Proclamation 10414,
Table A-2. Resolutions to Terminate National Emergencies
1976 – September 1, 2025
Resolution
Cong.
Targeted Declaration of National Emergency
Disposition of Resolution
IEEPA or Other
109
2005, 2005,
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
Introduced
Other
116
2019, 2019,
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Southern Border Southern Border
of the United of the United
Failed to pass over veto
Other
S.J.Res. 10
116
2019, 2019,
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Southern Border Southern Border
of the United of the United
Introduced
Other
S.J.Res. 54
116
2019, 2019,
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Southern Border Southern Border
of the United of the United
Failed to pass over veto
Other
116
2019, 2019,
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Southern Border Southern Border
of the United of the United
Introduced
Other
116
2019, 2019,
National National
Emergency Emergency
Southern Border Southern Border
of the United of the United
States.States.
Introduced
Other
117
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Novel Coronavirus Novel Coronavirus
Disease (COVID-Disease (COVID-
Introduced
Other
117
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Novel Coronavirus Novel Coronavirus
Disease (COVID-Disease (COVID-
19) Outbreak.19) Outbreak.
Introduced
Other
117
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Novel Coronavirus Novel Coronavirus
Disease (COVID-Disease (COVID-
Passed Senate
Other
117
National National
Emergency Emergency
Concerning the Concerning the
Novel Coronavirus Novel Coronavirus
Disease (COVID-Disease (COVID-
19) Outbreak.19) Outbreak.
Passed Senate
Other
118
National National
Emergency Emergency
Novel Coronavirus Novel Coronavirus
Disease (COVID-Disease (COVID-
19) Outbreak.19) Outbreak.
Became Law
Other
118
27, 2006, 27, 2006,
Property of Property of
Certain Persons Certain Persons
Contributing to Contributing to
the Conflict in the the Conflict in the
Democratic Democratic
Republic of the Republic of the
Failed House
IEEPA
118
25, 2011, 25, 2011,
Property and Property and
Prohibiting Certain Prohibiting Certain
Transactions Transactions
Failed House
IEEPA
118
2003, 2003,
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.
Failed House
IEEPA
118
2012, 2012,
Property of Property of
Persons Persons
Threatening the Threatening the
Peace, Security, or Peace, Security, or
Stability of Stability of
Failed House
IEEPA
118
Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004, "Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria."
Failed House
IEEPA
119
Executive Order 14156 of January 20, 2025, "Declaring a National Energy Emergency."
Failed Senate
Other
119
Executive Order 14193 of February 1, 2025, "Imposing Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border."
Introduced
IEEPA
119
Executive Order 14194 of February 1, 2025, "Imposing Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border."
Introduced
IEEPA
119
Executive Order 14193 of February 1, 2025, "Imposing Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border."
Passed Senate
IEEPA
119
Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025, "Regulating Imports With a Reciprocal Tariff To Rectify Trade Practices That Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits."
Introduced
IEEPA
119
Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025, "Regulating Imports With a Reciprocal Tariff To Rectify Trade Practices That Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits."
Failed Senate
IEEPA
119
Executive Order 14156 of January 20, 2025, "Declaring a National Energy Emergency."
Introduced
Other
119
Executive Order 14323 of July 30, 3035 "Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Brazil."
Introduced
IEEPA
Source: CRS.
Notes: Greyed lines indicate emergencies declared pursuant to the NEA that did not invoke IEEPA.
In chronological order, from first use (1979) to September 1, 2025
Executive Order
Country or Issue of Concern
Sanction/Remedy
Current Status
Administration of President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
12170
(November 14. 1979; 44 Federal Register 65729)
Iran (hostage taking)
Declares national emergency; blocks Iran government property
13599 (2012)13599 (2012)
12205
(April. 7, 1980; 45 Federal Register 24099)
transactions
12211
(April 17, 1980; 45 Federal Register 26685)
Prohibits transactions
12276
(January 19, 1981; 46 Federal Register 7913)
Iran (hostage taking—resolution)
Establishes escrow accounts
Ratified by E.O. 12294 (1981)
12277
(January 19, 1981; 46 Federal Register 7915)
Iran (hostage taking—resolution)
Transfers Iran government funds
Ratified by E.O. 12294 (1981)
12278
(January 19, 1981; 46 Federal Register 7917)
Transfers Iran government assets overseas
Ratified by E.O. 12294 (1981)
12279
(January 19, 1981; 46 Federal Register 7917)
Iran (hostage taking—resolution)
Transfers Iran government assets held in U.S. banks
Ratified by E.O. 12294 (1981)
12280
(January 19, 1981; 46 Federal Register 7921)
Iran (hostage taking—resolution)
Transfers Iran government financial assets held by non-banks
Ratified by E.O. 12294 (1981)
12281
(January 19, 1981; 46 Federal Register 7923)
Iran (hostage taking—resolution)
Transfers other Iran government assets
Ratified by E.O. 12294 (1981)
12282
(January 19, 1981; 46 Federal Register 7925)
Revokes prohibitions against transactions involving Iran
Ratified by E.O. 12294 (1981)
12283
(January 19, 1981; 46 Federal Register 7927)
Iran (hostage taking—resolution)
Non-prosecution of claims of Iran hostages
Ratified by E.O. 12294 (1981)
12284
(January 19, 1981; 46 Federal Register 7929)
Iran (hostage taking—resolution)
Restricts transfer of property of the Shah
Ratified by E.O. 12294 (1981)
12285
(January 19, 1981; 46 Federal Register 7931)
Iran (hostage taking—resolution
Revoked by E.O. 12379 (1982)
Administration of President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
12294
(February 24, 1981; 46 Federal Register 14111)
Iran (hostage taking—resolution)
Suspends claims and litigation against Iran
Amended by E.O. 12379 (1982)
12444
(October 14, 1983; 48 Federal Register 48215)
Expiration of Export Administration Act of 1979 (EAA)
Continues Export Administration Regulations (EAR)
Revoked by E.O. 12451 (1983) (EAA reauthorized)
12470
(March 30, 1984; 49 Federal Register 13099)
Expiration of EAA
Continues EAR
Revoked by E.O. 12525 (1985) (EAA reauthorized)
12513
(May 1, 1985; 50 Federal Register 18629)
Nicaragua (civil war)
traffic, use of U.S. portstraffic, use of U.S. ports
Revoked by E.O. 12707
(1990)
12532
(September 9, 1985; 50 Federal Register 36861)
South Africa (apartheid, to meet requirements of U.N. Security Council (UNSC) Resolution)
nuclear-related exports, nuclear-related exports,
military-related imports; military-related imports;
Revoked by E.O. 12769 (1991)
12535
(October 1, 1985; 50 Federal Register 40325)
South Africa (apartheid, to meet requirements of UNSC Resolution)
Prohibits import of krugerrands
Revoked by E.O. 12769 (1991)
12543
(January 1, 1986; 51 Federal Register 875)
Libya (terrorism, regional unrest)
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 Libyatravel to Libya
Revoked by E.O. 13357 (2004)
12544
(January 8, 1986; 51 Federal Register 1235)
Libya (terrorism, regional unrest)
Blocks Libyan Government assets in United States
Revoked by E.O. 13357 (2004)
12635
(April 8, 1988; 53 Federal Register 12134)
Panama (finding government of Noriega and Palma a threat)
Declares national emergency; blocks Panama assets in United States
Revoked by E.O. 12710 (1990)
Administration of President George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
12722
(August 2, 1990; 55 Federal Register 31803)
Iraq (invasion of Kuwait; to meet requirements of UNSC Resolution)
export and import; export and import;
restricts transactions restricts transactions
Revoked by E.O. 13350 (2004)
12723
(August 2, 1990; 55 Federal Register 31805)
Kuwait (after Iraq's invasion; to meet requirements of UNSC Resolution)
Declares national emergency; blocks Kuwait Government assets in U.S.
Revoked by E.O. 12725 (1990)
12724
(August 9, 1990; 55 Federal Register 33089)
Iraq (invasion of Kuwait; to meet requirements of UNSC Resolution)
restricts transactions restricts transactions
Revoked by E.O. 13350 (2004)
12725
(August 9, 1990; 55 Federal Register 33091)
Kuwait (after Iraq's invasion, to meet requirements of UNSC Resolution)
restricts transactions restricts transactions
Revoked by E.O. 12771 (1991)
12730
(September 30, 1990; 55 Federal Register 40373)
Expiration of EAA
Continues EAR
Revoked by E.O. 12867 (1993)
12735
(November 16, 1990; 55 Federal Register 48587)
Chemical and biological weapons proliferation
Declares national emergency; prohibits transactions
Revoked and replaced by E.O. 12938 (1994)
12775
(October 4, 1991; 56 Federal Register 50641)
Haiti (military coup)
Revoked by E.O. 12932 (1994)
12779
(October 28, 1991; 56 Federal Register 55975)
Haiti (military coup)
Blocks Haiti Government assets in U.S.; prohibits export and import, transactions
Revoked by E.O. 12932 (1994)
12801
(April 15, 1992; 57 Federal Register 14319)
Libya (to meet requirements of UNSC Resolution)
Bars overflight, takeoff and landing planes traveling to/from Libya
Revoked by E.O. 13357 (2004)
12808
(May 30, 1992; 57 Federal Register 23299)
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
Declares national emergency; blocks Yugoslav Government property
Revoked by E.O. 13304 (2003)
12810
(June 5, 1992; 57 Federal Register 24347)
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
Blocks Yugoslav Government property; prohibits imports, exports, and dealings; prohibits transactions related to transportation; prohibits landing, departure, and overfly air rights; prohibits performance of certain contracts, prohibits commitments or transfers of funds or other financial or economic resources; prohibits transactions related to sports participation; prohibits transactions related to scientific and technical cooperation and cultural exchanges
Revoked by E.O. 13304 (2003)
12817
October 21, 1992; 57 Federal Register 48433)
Iraq (postwar; to meet requirements of UNSC Resolution)
Blocks assets
Revoked by E.O. 13350 (2004)
12831
(January 15, 1993; 58 Federal Register 5253)
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
Prohibits transactions related to the transshipment of commodities and certain vessels
Revoked by E.O. 13304 (2003)
Administration of President William Clinton (1993-2001)
12846
(April 25, 1993; 58 Federal Register 25771)
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
Blocks property; detains pending investigation vessels, freight vehicles, rolling stock, aircraft, and cargo; prohibits non-naval U.S. vessels from entering the territorial waters of Yugoslavia; prohibits dealings related to the import, export, or transshipment through U.N. protected areas in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina
Revoked by E.O. 13304 (2003)
12853
(June 30, 1993; 58 Federal Register 35843)
Haiti (military coup)
related materielrelated materiel
Revoked by E.O. 12932 (1994)
12865
(September 26, 1993; 58 Federal Register 51005)
UNITA (Angola) (to meet requirements of UNSC Resolution)
Declares national emergency; prohibits sales to UNITA and UNITA-controlled regions
Revoked by E.O. 13298 (2003)
12868
(September 30, 1993; 58 Federal Register 51749)
Weapons proliferation
transactions with those transactions with those
found not in compliance found not in compliance
with controlswith controls
Revoked and replaced by E.O. 12930 (1994)
12872
(October 18, 1993; 58 Federal Register 54029)
Haiti (military coup)
Blocks assets of those impeding democratization process
Revoked by E.O. 12932 (1994)
12914
(May 7, 1994; 59 Federal Register 24339)
Haiti (military coup)
Blocks assets of military and participants in 1991 overthrow; prohibits air traffic
Revoked by E.O. 12932 (1994)
12917
(May 21, 1994; 59 Federal Register 26925)
Haiti (military coup)
Prohibits imports
12920
(June 10, 1994; 59 Federal Register 30501)
Haiti (military coup)
Prohibits certain financial transactions, exports
Revoked by E.O. 12932 (1994)
12922
(June 21, 1994; 59 Federal Register 32645)
Haiti (military coup)
Blocks assets of certain individuals
Revoked by E.O. 12932 (1994)
12923
(June 30, 1994; 59 Federal Register 34551)
Expiration of EAA
Continues EAR
12924
(August 19, 1994; 59 Federal Register 34551)
Expiration of EAA
Continues EAR
(1995)(1995)
12930
(September 29, 1994; 59 Federal Register 50475)
Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
transactions with those transactions with those
found not in compliance found not in compliance
with controlswith controls
Revoked and replaced by E.O. 12938 (1994)
12934
(October 25, 1994; 59 Federal Register 54117)
Bosnian Serb-controlled areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina (to meet requirements of UNSC resolution)
Blocks assets; prohibits exports, maritime access to certain ports
Revoked by E.O. 13304 (2003)
12938
(November 19, 1994; 59 Federal Register 59099)
Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
Declares national emergency; controls exports; prohibits transactions with those found not in compliance with controls
12947
(January 23, 1995; 60 Federal Register 5079)
Terrorists who disrupt Middle East peace process
Declares national emergency; blocks assets; prohibits transactions
Revoked by E.O. 13886 (2019)
12957
(March 15, 1995; 60 Federal Register 14615)
Iran (weapons proliferation)
Declares national emergency; prohibits investment in oil development
Requires annual renewal; other parts revoked and restated in E.O. 12959 (1995)
12959
(May 6, 1995; 60 Federal Register 24757)
Iran (weapons proliferation)
Prohibits investment in oil development
Revoked in part by E.O. 13059 (1997)
12978
(October 21, 1995; 60 Federal Register 54579)
Significant narcotics traffickers (initially Colombia)
Declares national emergency; blocks assets; prohibits transactions
Requires annual renewal; technical amendments in E.O. 13286 (2003)
12981
(December 5, 1995; 60 Federal Register 62981; 50 U.S.C. 4603 note)
EAA
Amends the administration of export controls.
Amended by E.O. 13020 (1996); E.O. 13206 (1996); E.O. 13117 (1999)
13020
(October 12, 1996; 61 Federal RegisterEAA
Further amends the administration of export controls.
Amended by E.O. 13026 (1996)
13026
(November 15, 1996; 61 Federal Register 58767; 50 U.S.C. 4603 note)
EAA
Further amends the administration of export controls. Adds rules for encryption products.
Exempted from authorities of E.O. 13206 (2001)
13047
(May 22, 1997; 62 Federal Register 28301)
Declares national emergency; blocks new investment
Revoked by E.O. 13742 (2016)
13059
(August 19, 1997; 62 Federal Register 44531)
Iran (weapons proliferation, terrorism, regional stability)
Blocks imports, exports
13067
(November 3, 1997; 62 Federal Register 59989)
Sudan (conflict)
Declares national emergency; blocks Sudan Government assets; prohibits exports, imports, other transactions
Requires annual renewal; revoked in part by E.O. 13761 (2017)
13069 (December 12, 1997; 62 Federal Register 65989)
UNITA (Angola) (war)
Prohibits certain transaction
Revoked by E.O. 13298 (2003)
13088
(June 9, 1998; 63 Federal Register 32109)
Declares national emergency; blocks property of the Yugoslav, Serbia, and Montenegrin Government assets; prohibits transactions, including trade financing
Revoked by E.O. 13304 (2003)
13094
(July 28, 1998; 63 Federal Register 40803)
Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
Prohibits some transactions, assistance, imports
Amends E.O. 12938 (1994)
13098
(August 18, 1998; 63 Federal Register 44771)
UNITA (Angola) (war; to meet requirements of UNSC resolution)
UNITA-UNITA-
influences industriesinfluences industries
Revoked by E.O. 13298 (2003)
13099
(August 20, 1998; 63 Federal Register 45167)
Terrorists who disrupt the Middle East peace process
Adds Usama bin Laden and others to the terrorist list
Amends E.O. 12947 (1995); see above
13121
(April 30, 1999; 64 Federal Register 24021)
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and Kosovo
Blocks Yugoslav Government assets; prohibits exports, imports, transactions or dealings in goods, software, technology, or services
Revoked by E.O. 13304 (2003)
13128
(June 25, 1999; 64 Federal Register 34704)
Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
Convention Convention
Related to E.O. 12938 (1994); see above
13129
(July 4, 1999; 64 Federal Register 36759)
Taliban (terrorism)
Declares national emergency; blocks property
E.O. 13224 (2001)E.O. 13224 (2001)
E.O. 13159
(June 21, 2000; 65(June 21, 2000; 65Russia for misuse of highly enriched uranium extractions
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Superseded by E.O. 13617 (2012)
13192
(January 17, 2001; 66 Federal Register 7379)
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
Blocks property
Revoked by E.O. 13304 (2003)
13194
(January 18, 2001; 66 Federal Register 7389)
Sierra Leone (diamond trade)
Declares national emergency; prohibits diamond imports
Administration of President George W. Bush (2001-2009)
13213
(May 22, 2001; 66 Federal Register 28829)
Sierra Leone (diamond trade)
Expands prohibitions on diamond trade
(2003)(2003)
13219
(June 26, 2001; 66 Federal Register 34775)
Western Balkans
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Requires annual renewal; amended by E.O. 13304 (2003); see also E.O. 13304 (2003), E.O. 14033 (2021), and E.O. 14140 (2025)
13222
(August 17, 2001; 66 Federal Register 44025)
Expiration of EAA
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
Requires annual renewal; amended by E.O. 13637 (2013)
13224
(September 23, 2001; 66 Federal Register 49079)
Terrorism
Declares national emergency; blocks property; prohibits transactions
(2005), and E.O. 13886 (2005), and E.O. 13886
(2019)(2019)
13268
(July 2, 2002; 67 Federal Register 44751)
Taliban and Terrorism
Terminates E.O. 13129 (1999); adds "Taliban" and others to restricted list (2001)
Expanded by E.O. 13372 (2005); amended E.O. 13224 (2001)
13288
(March 6, 2003; 68 Federal Register 11457)
Zimbabwe
Declares national emergency; blocks property; prohibits transactions
Revoked by E.O. 14118 (2024)
13290
March 20, 2003; 68 Federal RegisterIraq (war)
Authorizes the confiscation and vesting of property
Amended by E.O. 13350 (2004)
13298
(May 6, 2003; 68 Federal Register 24857)
UNITA (Angola)
Terminates earlier emergency and related authorities
Revokes earlier orders
13303
(May 22, 2003; 68 Federal Register 31931)
Iraq (war)
Declares national emergency; Protects certain property
13364 (2004); expanded 13364 (2004); expanded
on by E.O. 13315 (2003), on by E.O. 13315 (2003),
E.O. 13350 (2004), E.O. E.O. 13350 (2004), E.O.
13438 (2007), and E.O. 13438 (2007), and E.O.
13668 (2014)13668 (2014)
13304
(May 28, 2003; 68 Federal Register 32315)
Yugoslavia and Western Balkans
Terminates earlier emergencies; blocks property
Terminates national emergencies declared in and revokes E.O. 12808 (1992) and E.O. 13088 (1998); revokes E.O. 12810 (1992), E.O. 12831 (1993), E.O. 12846 (1993), E.O. 12934 (1994), E.O. 13121 (1999), and E.O. 13192 (2001); expands national emergency declared in E.O. 13219 (2001); replaces and supersedes Annex to E.O. 13219 (2001); amends E.O. 13219 (2001); see also E.O. 14033 (2021) and E.O. 14140 (2025)
13310
(July 28, 2003; 68 Federal Register 44853)
Burma (military government)
Blocks property
Revoked by E.O. 13742 (2016)
13312
(July 3, 2003; 68 Federal Register 45151))
Sierra Leone and Liberia (conflict)
Implements the Clean Diamond Trade Act
Revoked by E.O. 13324 (2004)
13315
(August 28, 2003; 68 Federal Register 52315)
Iraq (former regime)
Blocks property
13324
(January 15, 2004; 69 Federal Register 2823)
Sierra Leone and Liberia (conflict)
emergency
13338
(May 11, 2004; 69 Federal Register 26751)
Syria (civil conflict)
Declares national emergency; blocks property of those who export certain goods to Syria
Revoked by E.O. 14312 (2025)
13348
(July 22, 2004; 69 Federal Register 44885)
Liberia (corruption, to meet requirements of UNSC resolution)
Declares national emergency; blocks property; prohibits imports
Revoked by E.O. 13710 (2015)
13350
(July 29, 2004; 69 Federal Register 46055)
Iraq (postwar)
Ends emergency from 1990 Kuwait invasion
Revokes several earlier E.O.
13357
(September 20, 2004; 69 Federal Register 56665)
Libya (terrorism)
Terminates earlier emergency
Revokes earlier orders
13364
(November 29, 2004; 69 Federal Register 70177)
Iraq (postwar)
Amends transaction controls and regulations on the Development fund for Iraq
Amends E.O. 13303 (2003)
13372
(February 16, 2005; 70 Federal Register 8499)
Terrorism
Clarifies use of sanctions
Amends E.O. 12947 (1995), E.O. 13224 (2001)
13382
(June 28, 2005; 70 Federal Register 38567)
Weapons proliferation
Expands earlier orders; blocks property
Amends E.O. 12938 (1994) and 13094 (1998)
13391
(November 22, 2005; 70 Federal Register 71201)
Zimbabwe
Blocks property
Revoked by E.O. 14118 (2024)
13396
(February. 7, 2006; 71 Federal Register 7389)
Cote d'Ivoire (conflict)
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Revoked by E.O. 13739 (2016)
13399
(April 25, 2006; 71 Federal Register 25059)
Syria (civil war)
Blocks additional property
Revoked by E.O. 14312 (2025)
13400
(April 26, 2006; 71 Federal Register 25483)
Sudan (Darfur)
Blocks additional property
Expands E.O. 13067 (1997)
13405
(June 16, 2006; 71 Federal Register 35485)
Belarus (undermining democracy)
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Requires annual renewal
13412
(October 13, 2006; 71 Federal Register 61369)
Sudan (Darfur, regional stability)
Expands E.O. 13067 (1997); blocks property and transactions
Revoked by E.O. 13761 (2017)
13413
(October 27, 2006; 71 Federal Register 64105)
Democratic Republic of the Congo (regional stability)
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Requires annual renewal; amended by E.O. 13671 (2014)
13438
(July 17, 2007; 72 Federal Register 39719)
Those who threaten stabilization efforts in Iraq
Blocks additional property
Expands E.O. 13303 (2003)
13441
(August 1, 2007; 72 Federal Register 43499)
Those who threaten the sovereignty of Lebanon (primarily Syria)
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Requires annual renewal
13448
October 18, 2007; 72 Federal Register 60223)
Burma (military government)
Declares national emergency; blocks property and transactions
Revoked by E.O. 13742 (2016)
13460
(February 13, 2008; 73 Federal Register 8991)
Syria (civil conflict)
Blocks property of those who support certain activities in Syria
Revoked by E.O. 14312 (2025)
13464
April 30, 2008; 72 Federal Register 24491)
Burma (military government)
Blocks property and transactions
Revoked by E.O. 13742 (2016)
13466
(June 26, 2008; 73 Federal Register 36787)
North Korea (weapons proliferation, to meet requirements of UNSC resolution)
Declares national emergency; blocks property and transactions
Requires annual renewal; see also E.O. 13551 (2010), E.O. 13570 (2011), E.O. 13687 (2015), E.O. 13722 (2016), and E.O. 13810 (2017)
13469
(July 25, 2008; 73 Federal Register 43841)
Zimbabwe
Blocks property
Revoked by E.O. 14118 (2024)
Administration of President Barack Obama (2009-2017)
13536
(April 12, 2010; 75 Federal Register 19869)
Somalia (conflict, high seas piracy)
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Requires annual renewal; amended by E.O. 13620 (2012)
13551
(August 30, 2010; 75 Federal Register 53837)
North Korea (weapons proliferation, to meet requirements of UNSC resolution)
Blocks property
Expands E.O. 13466 (2008)
13553
(Sept, 28, 2010; 75 Federal Register 60567)
Iran (human rights)
Blocks property including that of Iranian officials
Expands E.O. 12957 (1995)
13566
(February 25, 2011; 76 Federal Register 11315)
Libya (stability)
Declares national emergency; blocks property and transactions
Requires annual renewal; expanded by E.O. 13726 (2016)
13570
(April 18, 2011; 76 Federal Register 22291)
North Korea (weapons proliferation, to meet requirements of UNSC resolution)
Blocks transactions
Expands E.O. 13466 (2008), 13551 (2010); expanded by E.O. 13687 (2015)
13572
(April 29, 2011; 76 Federal Register 24787)
Syria (human rights)
Blocks property of human rights violators
Revoked by E.O. 14312 (2025)
13573
(May 18, 2011; 76 Federal Register 29143)
Syria (war)
Blocks property of senior government officials
Revoked by E.O. 14312 (2025)
13574
(May 23, 2011; 76 Federal Register 30505)
Iran (weapons proliferation)
Implements new sanctions in Iran Sanctions Act of 1996
Revoked by E.O. 13716 (2016)
13581
(July 24, 2011; 76 Federal Register 44757)
Transnational Criminal Organizations
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Requires annual renewal; amended by E.O. 13863 (2019)
13582
(August 17, 2011; 76 Federal Register 52209)
Syria (war)
Blocks property of Government of Syria and transactions, new investment, importation of petroleum and related products
Revoked by E.O. 14312 (2025)
13590
(November 20, 2011; 76 Federal Register 72609)
Iran (weapons proliferation)
Prohibits transactions related to Iran's energy and petrochemical sectors
Revoked by E.O. 13716 (2016)
13599
(February 5, 2012; 77 Federal Register 6659)
Iran (weapons proliferation)
Blocks property of government and financial institutions
Expands E.O. 12957 (1995)
13606
(April 22, 2012; 77 Federal Register 24571)
Iran and Syria (human rights)
Blocks property and denies visas
Expands E.O. 12957 (1995) and E.O. 13894 (2019); previously, it had drawn on the national emergency declared in E.O. 13338 (2004), but that order was revoked by E.O. 14312 (2025)
13608
(May 1, 2012; 77 Federal Register 26409)
Iran and Syria (sanctions evasion)
Blocks transactions and denies visas
Expands E.O. 12938 (1994), 12957 (1995), and 13224 (2001); previously, it had also drawn on the national emergency declared in E.O. 13338 (2004), but that order was revoked by E.O. 14312 (2025)
13611
(May 16, 2012; 77 Federal Register 29533)
Yemen (stability)
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Requires annual renewal
13617
(June 25, 2012; 77 Federal Register 38459)
Russia (misuse of highly enriched uranium extractions
Blocks property
Revoked by E.O. 13695 (2015)
13619
(July 11, 2012; 77 Federal Register 41243)
Blocks property
13620
July 20, 2012; 77 Federal Register 43483)
Somalia (conflict)
Expands targets to include misappropriations, corruption, impeding humanitarian aid
Amends E.O. 13536 (2010)
13622
(July 30, 2012; 77 Federal Register 45897)
Iran (weapons proliferation)
Additional sanctions
Revoked by E.O. 13716 (2016)
13628
(October 9, 2012; 77 Federal Register 62139)
Iran (weapons proliferation, human rights, sanctions evasion)
Implements Iran Threat Reduction Act
Revoked by E.O. 13846 (2018); previously amended by E.O. 13716 (2016)
13637
(March 8, 2013; 78 Federal Register 16131)
EAA
Delegates export authorities, coordinates responsibilities; amends E.O. 13222
Amends E.O. 13222 (2001)
13645
(June 3, 2013; 78 Federal Register 33945)
Iran (weapons proliferation, human rights)
Implements Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012
Revoked by E.O. 13716 (2016)
13651
(August 6, 2013; 78 Federal Register 48793)
Burma
Prohibits import of jadeite and rubies
Revoked by E.O. 13742 (2016)
13660
(March 6, 2014; 79 Federal Register 13493)
Ukraine (stability)
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Requires annual renewal; expanded on by E.O. 13661 (2014); E.O. 13662 (2014); with additional actions in E.O. 13685 (2014); E.O. 13849 (2018); and E.O. 14065 (2022)
13661
(March 16, 2014; 79 Federal Register 15535)
Russia (destabilization of Ukraine)
Blocks property
Expands E.O. 13660 (2014)
13662
(March 20, 2014; 79 Federal Register 16169)
Russia (destabilization of Ukraine)
Blocks property
Expands E.O. 13660 (2014)
13664
(April 3, 2014; 79 Federal Register 19283)
South Sudan (conflict)
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Requires annual renewal
13667
(May 12, 2014; 79 Federal Register 28387)
Central African Republic (conflict)
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Requires annual renewal
13668
(May 27, 2014; 79 Federal Register 31019)
Iraq (postwar)
Ends immunities granted to the Development Fund for Iraq
Expands E.O. 13303 (2003)
13671
(July 8, 2014; 79 Federal Register 39949)
Democratic Republic of the Congo (regional stability)
Additional sanctions
Expands E.O. 13413 (2006)
13685
(December 19, 2014; 79 Federal Register 77357)
Ukraine (destabilizing activities in Crimea)
Blocks property and transactions
Expands E.O. 13660 (2014)
13687
(January 2, 2015; 80 Federal Register 819)
North Korea (weapons proliferation, to meet requirements of UNSC resolution)
Additional sanctions including on DPRK government officials and members of the Workers' Party of Korea
Expands E.O. 13466 (2008), 13551 (2010), 13570 (2011)
13692
(March 8, 2015; 80 Federal Register 12747)
Venezuela
Declares national emergency; blocks property; suspends U.S. entry
Requires annual renewal; see also E.O. 13808 (2017), E.O. 13827 (2018), E.O. 13835 (2018), E.O. 13850 (2018), E.O. 13857 (2019), E.O. 13884 (2019), and E.O. 14245 (2025)
13694
(April 1, 2015; 80 Federal Register 18077)
Malicious cyber-enabled activities
Declares national emergency; blocks property; suspends U.S. entry
Requires annual renewal; see also E.O. 13757 (2016), E.O. 13984 (2021), E.O. 14144 (2025), and E.O. 14306 (2025)
13695
(May 26, 2015; 80 Federal Register 30331)
Russia's misuse of highly enriched uranium extractions
Terminates emergency
Revokes E.O. 13617 (2012)
13710
(November 12, 2015; 80 Federal Register 71679)
Liberia (corrupt government)
Terminates emergency
Revokes E.O. 13348 (2004)
13712
(November 22, 2015; 80 Federal Register 73633)
Burundi (stability)
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Terminated by E.O. 14054 (2021)
13716
(January 16, 2016; 81 Federal Register 3693; 22 U.S.C. 8801 note)
Iran (nuclear weapons)
Implements U.S. obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
Revoked by E.O. 13846 (2018). Had revoked and modified earlier orders
13722
(March 15, 2016; 81 Federal Register 14943)
North Korea (weapons proliferation, to meet requirements of UNSC resolution)
Blocks property of North Korea government and central party; prohibits transactions
Expands E.O. 13466 (2008)
13726
(April 19, 2016; 81 Federal Register 23559)
Libya (stability)
Additional sanctions
Expands E.O. 13566 (2011)
13739
(Sept, 14, 2016; 81 Federal Register 63673)
Cote d'Ivoire (conflict)
Terminates emergency
Revokes E.O. 13396 (2006)
13742
(October 7, 2016; 81 Federal Register 70593)
Burma
Terminates emergency
Revokes E.O. 13047 (1997), 13310 (2003), 13448 (2007), 13464 (2008), 13619 (2012), 13651 (2013)
13757
(December 28, 2016; 82 Federal Register 1)
Malicious cyber-enabled activities
Blocks property
Expands national emergency declared in E.O. 13694 (2015); see also E.O. 13984 (2021), E.O. 14144 (2025), and E.O. 14306 (2025)
13761
(January 13, 2017; 82 Federal Register 5331)
Sudan (war, human rights)
Recognizes "positive actions" by the Government of Sudan by removing some sanctions
Revokes in part E.O. 13067 (1997), in whole E.O. 13412 (2006); amended by E.O. 13804 (2017)
Administration of President Donald J. Trump (2017-2021)
13804
(July 11, 2017; 82 Federal Register 32611)
Sudan (war, human rights)
Extends deadlines in E.O. 13761 (2017)
Modifies E.O. 13761 (2017)
13808
(August 24, 2017; 82 Federal Register 41155)
Venezuela
Prohibits transactions, financing, and other dealings related to certain Venezuelan debt, bonds, dividend payments or distributions, as well as the purchase of certain Venezuelan securities
Expands on national emergency declared in E.O. 13692 (2015); see also E.O. 13827 (2018), E.O. 13835 (2018), E.O. 13850 (2018), E.O. 13857 (2019), E.O. 13884 (2019), and E.O. 14245 (2025)
13810
(Sept, 20, 2017; 82 Federal Register 44705)
North Korea (weapons proliferation, human rights)
Additional sanctions
Expands actions based on national emergency declared in E.O. 13466 (2008)
13818
(December 20, 2017; 82 Federal Register 60839)
Global Magnitsky (human rights, corruption)
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Requires annual renewal
13827
(March 19, 2018; 83 Federal Register 12469)
Venezuela
Prohibits transactions, financing, and other dealings in digital currency, coin, or token issued by or on behalf of the Government of Venezuela
Expands on national emergency declared in E.O. 13692 (2015); see also E.O. 13808 (2017), E.O. 13835 (2018), E.O. 13850 (2018), E.O. 13857 (2019), E.O. 13884 (2019), and E.O. 14245 (2025)
13835
(May 21, 2018; 83 Federal Register 24001)
Venezuela
Prohibits transactions, financing, and other dealings related to Venezuelan debt, as well as the sale, transfer, assignment, or pledging as collateral of equity in which the Venezuelan Government holds at least a 50% stake
Expands national emergency declared in E.O. 13692 (2015); see also E.O. 13808 (2017), E.O. 13827 (2018), E.O. 13850 (2018), E.O. 13857 (2019), E.O. 13884 (2019), and E.O. 14245 (2025)
13846
(August 6, 2018; 83 Federal Register 38939)
Iran
Reimposes sanctions lifted for U.S. meeting its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action of July 14, 2015 (JCPOA)
Revokes E.O. 13716 (2016); expands actions based on national emergency declared in E.O. 12957 (1995)
13848
(September 12, 2018; 83 Federal Register 46843)
Foreign interference in U.S. elections
Declares national emergency; establishes framework to assess possible interference by foreign persons or governments in any U.S. election; blocks property and interests in property of those designated for being complicit in interfering in an election
Requires annual renewal; complements actions taken under E.O. 13694 (2015), as amended
13849
(September 21, 2018; 83 Federal Register 48195; 22 U.S.C. 9521 note)
Implements Russia-related sanctions adopted in the Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017 (Title II, P.L. 115-44; 22 U.S.C. §§9501 et seq.)
Limits U.S. bank loans, prohibits foreign exchange, blocks property, prohibits Export-Import Bank programs, limits the issuing of specific licenses, requires "no" votes in the international financial institutions where a loan would benefit a person otherwise subject to sanctions, limits access to the U.S. banking system, prohibits procurement contracts with the USG, denies entry into the United States
Expands actions based on national emergencies declared in E.O. 13660 (2014) and related EO, and E.O. 13694 (2015), as amended
13850
(November 1, 2018; 83 Federal Register 55243)
Venezuela
Blocks property; suspends U.S. entry
Expands national emergency declared in E.O. 13692 (2015); see also E.O. 13808 (2017), E.O. 13827 (2018), E.O. 13835 (2018), E.O. 13857 (2019), E.O. 13884 (2019), and E.O. 14245 (2025)
13851
(November 27, 2018; 83 Federal Register 61505)
Nicaragua
Declares national emergency; blocks property of certain persons contributing to the situation in Nicaragua; prohibits import, export, new investment, facilitation of transaction by a foreign person
Requires annual renewal; amended by E.O. 14088 (2022)
13857
(January 25, 2019; 84 Federal Register 509)
Venezuela
Redefines "the government of Venezuela"
Expands national emergency declared in E.O. 13692 (2015); see also E.O. 13808 (2017), E.O. 13827 (2018), E.O. 13835 (2018), E.O. 13850, E.O. 13884 (2019), and E.O. 14245 (2025)
13863
(March 15, 2019; 84 Federal Register 10255)
Transnational Criminal Organizations
Defines "significant transnational criminal organization"
Expands and amends E.O. 13581 (2011)
13871
(May 8, 2019; 84 Federal Register 20761)
Iran
Prohibits transactions related to Iran's iron, steel, aluminum, or copper sectors
Expands actions based on national emergency declared in E.O.12957 (1995)
13873
(May 15, 2019, 84 Federal Register 22689)
Information and communications technology and services supply chain
Declares national emergency; prohibits unduly risky transactions involving information and communications technology or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied, by foreign adversaries
Requires annual renewal; see also E.O. 14034 (2021) and E.O. 14117 (2024)
13876
(June 24, 2019; 84 Federal Register 30573)
Iran
Prohibits transactions related to U.S.-based assets of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Supreme Leader's Office (SLO), and anyone appointed to a state position in Iran
Expands actions based on national emergency declared in E.O. 12957 (1995)
13882
(July 26, 2019; 84 Federal Register 37055)
Mali (terrorism, narcotics trafficking, trafficking in persons, human rights abuses, hostage-taking, and attacks against civilians and international security forces in Mali)
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Requires annual renewal
13883
(August 1, 2019; 84 Federal Register 38113; 22 U.S.C. 5605 note)
Chemical and biological weapons proliferation or use; currently could be used against Syria, North Korea, and Russia, based on determinations made under Sec. 307 of P.L. 102-182 (22 U.S.C. §5605)
Requires the U.S. to oppose international financial institutions' programs to the targeted state; prohibits U.S. banks from providing loans or credits to the targeted government
Expands actions based on E.O. 12938 (1994); implements sanctions requirements of Sec. 307, P.L. 102-182; and amends Exec. Order 12851 (1993) to include CBW-related determinations
13884
(August 5, 2019; 84 Federal Register 38843)
Venezuela
Blocks property of the government of Venezuela in the United States
Expands national emergency declared in E.O. 13692 (2015); see also E.O. 13808 (2017), E.O. 13827 (2018), E.O. 13835 (2018), E.O. 13850 (2018), E.O. 13857 (2019), and E.O. 14245 (2025)
13886
(September 9, 2019; 84 Federal Register 48041)
Terrorism
Consolidates and enhances "sanctions to combat acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism by foreign terrorists"
Revokes E.O. 12947 (1995); amends E.O. 13224 (2001)
13894
(October 14, 2019; 84 Federal Register 55851)
Syria
Declares a national emergency; blocks property and suspends U.S. entry
Requires annual renewal; amended by E.O. 14142 (2025) and E.O. 14312 (2025)
13902
(January 10, 2020; 85 Federal Register 2003)
Iran
Blocks property and prohibits transactions related to Iran's construction, mining, manufacturing, or textiles sectors, or any other sector to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury
Expands actions based on E.O. 12957 (1995)
13920
(May 1, 2020; 85 Federal Register 26595; 50 U.S.C. 1621 note)
U.S. Bulk-Power System
Declares a national emergency relating to bulk-power system equipment
Suspended by E.O. 13990 (2021; 42 U.S.C. 4321 note)
13928
(June 11, 2020; 85 Federal Register 36139)
International Criminal Court
Declares national emergency; blocks property and U.S. entry
Revoked by E.O. 14022 (2021), which was in turn revoked by E.O. 14148 (2025)
13936
(July 14, 2020; 85 Federal Register 43413; 22 U.S.C. 5701 note)
Hong Kong (China's "normalization")
Declares national emergency related to China's crackdown, resulting in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) losing its political and economic autonomy
Requires annual renewal
13942
(August 6, 2020; 85 Federal Register 48637)
Information and communications technology and services supply chain; TikTok and ByteDance
Prohibits transactions with TikTok and ByteDance
Revoked by E.O. 14034 (2021)
13943
(August 6, 2020; 85 Federal Register 48641)
Information and communications technology and services supply chain; WeChat
Prohibits transactions with WeChat
Revoked by E.O. 14034 (2021)
13949
(September 21, 2020; 85 Federal Register 60043)
Iran (regional stability)
Targets Iran's conventional arms trade for its destabilizing impact in the region
Expands actions based on E.O. 12957 (1995)
13953
(September 30, 2020; 85 Federal Register 62539; U.S.C. 1601 note)
Threat to domestic supply chain from reliance on critical minerals from foreign adversaries
Declares national emergency; requires whole-of-government assessment of U.S. critical materials
Requires annual renewal, but has been neither renewed nor revoked since its issuance. Builds on earlier non-emergency actions based primarily on Defense Production Act of 1950 (see also, however, E.O. 14017 (2021), not codified, which requires similar review without revoking the 2020 order.
13959
(November 12, 2020; 85 Federal Register 73185)
China
Declares national emergency; restricts trade, transactions, and investment in securities of "Communist Chinese military companies"
Requires annual renewal; amended by E.O. 13974 (2021); the remaining authorities are superseded in large part by E.O. 14032 (2021)
13971
(January 5, 2021; 86 Federal Register 1249)
Information and communications technology and services supply chain; Chinese connected software applications
Prohibits transactions with several China-origin software applications
Revoked by E.O. 14034 (2021)
13974
(January 13, 2021; 86 Federal Register 4875)
China
Clarifies definitions related to restrictions on transactions with China military entities initiated in E.O. 13959; establishes wind-down period for divestment
Revoked by E.O. 14032 (2021)
13984
(January 19, 2021; 86 Federal Register 6837)
Malicious cyber-enabled activities
Requires the Secretary of Commerce to investigate and identify foreign users of U.S. infrastructure as a service (IaaS), mainly software and storage services
Expands national emergency declared in E.O. 13694 (2015); see also E.O. 13757 (2016), E.O. 14144 (2025), and E.O. 14306 (2025)
Administration of President Joseph R. Biden (2021-2024)
14014
(February 10 2021; 86 Federal Register 9429)
Burma (antidemocratic or other destabilizing activities)
Declares national emergency; blocks property of and transactions
Requires annual renewal
14022
(April 1, 2021; 86 Federal Register 17895)
International Criminal Court
Terminated national emergency declared in E.O. 13928 (2020); ends sanctions
Revoked by E.O. 14148 (2025)
14024
(April 15, 2021; 86 Federal Register 20249)
Russia (harmful activities)
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Requires annual renewal; see also E.O. 14039 (2021), E.O. 14066 (2022), E.O. 14068 (2022), E.O. 14071 (2022), E.O. 14114 (2023), and E.O. 14329 (2025)
14032
(June 3, 2021; 86 Federal Register 30145)
China
Prohibits U.S. persons from trading or investing in securities of those operating in or on behalf of China's defense and related materiel sector or the surveillance technology sector
Amends national emergency authority declared in E.O. 13959 (2020)
14033
(June 8, 2021; 86 Federal Register 31079)
Western Balkans
Blocks property; suspends U.S. entry
Expands national emergency declared in E.O. 13219 (2001); see also E.O. 13304 (2003) and E.O. 14140 (2025)
14034
(June 9, 2021; 86 Federal Register 31423)
Sensitive data—protection from foreign adversaries
Revokes several orders; initiates whole-of-government review of U.S. sensitive data and foreign adversaries
Expands national emergency declared in E.O. 13873 (2019); revokes E.O. 13942 (2020), E.O. 13943 (2020), and E.O. 13971 (2021); see also E.O. 14117 (2024)
14038
(August 9, 2021; 86 Federal Register 43905)
Belarus (activities related to threatening the peace, human rights violations, corruption, election fraud, sanctions evasion)
Blocks property of any leader or official
Expands national emergency declared in E.O. 13405 (2006)
14039
(August 20, 2021; 86 Federal Register 47205)
Russia (harmful activities)
Targets any foreign person identified under Sec. 7503(a)(1)(B) of P.L. 116-92) for financial activities related to Russian gas pipeline to serve western Europe (Nord Stream 2)
Expands actions based on national emergency declared in E.O. 14024 (2021); see also E.O. 14066 (2022), E.O. 14068 (2022), E.O. 14071 (2022), E.O. 14114 (2023), and E.O. 14329 (2025)
14046
(September 17, 2021; 86 Federal Register 52389)
Ethiopia (threats to stability, corruption, disruption of delivery of humanitarian services, violence against civilians)
Declares national emergency; authorizes blocking of property, investments, use of U.S. financial instruments, transactions in foreign exchange
Requires annual renewal
14054
(November 18, 2021; 86 Federal Register 66149)
Burundi (civil strife, human rights, stability)
Terminates emergency
Revokes E.O. 13712 (2015)
14059
(December 15, 2021; 86 Federal Register 71549)
Global illicit drug trade
Declares national emergency; authorizes blocking of property, prohibits use of most U.S. financial instruments, denies entry into the United States to any foreign person engaged in illicit drug production and trade
Requires annual renewal
14064
(February 11, 2022; 87 Federal Register 8391)
Afghanistan
Declares national emergency; blocks Taliban (as government of Afghanistan) access to U.S.-based assets of Afghanistan's central bank
Requires annual renewal
14065
(February 21, 2022; 87 Federal Register 10293)
(2022)
Ukraine/Russia
Blocks investment in and trade with Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine
Expands national emergency in E.O. 13660 (2014)
14066
(March 8, 2022; 87 Federal Register 13625)
Russia (harmful activities)
Prohibits some imports from and energy-sector investments in Russia
Expands actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14024 (2021); see also E.O. 14039 (2021), E.O. 14068 (2022), E.O. 14071 (2022), E.O. 14114 (2023), and E.O. 14329 (2025)
14068
(March 11, 2022; 87 Federal Register 14381)
Russia (harmful activities)
Prohibits additional imports, exports of luxury goods, and investment in Russia; amendments add restrictions on trade in seafood, diamonds, alcohol
Expands actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14024 (2021); see also E.O. 14029 (2021), E.O. 14066 (2022), E.O. 14071 (2022), E.O. 14114(2023), and E.O. 14329 (2025)
14071
(April 6, 2022; 87 Federal Register 20999)
Russia (harmful activities)
Prohibits a U.S. person from engaging in new investment, export, reexport, sales and services, or facilitation of a foreign person's transaction
Expands actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14024 (2021); see also E.O. 14039 (2021), E.O. 14066 (2022), E.O. 14068 (2022), E.O. 14114 (2023), and E.O. 14329 (2025)
14088
(October 24, 2022; 87 Federal Register 64685)
Nicaragua
Prohibits import, export, new investment, and facilitation of a foreign person's transactions
Amends national emergency in E.O. 13851 (2018)
14097
(April 27, 2023; 88 Federal Register 26471; 10 U.S.C. 12302 note)
Global illicit drug trade
Authorizes the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security to order to active duty members of the Ready Reserve to address international drug trafficking
Expands authorities to address national emergency in E.O. 14059 (2021)
14098
(May 4, 2023; 88 Federal Register 29529)
Sudan (threats to the peace, security, or stability of Sudan, including obstructing democratic processes, censorship, corruption, human rights abuses, targeting women, children, U.N. activities)
Authorizes blocking of property of any foreign person
Expands national emergency in E.O. 13067 (1997)
14105
(August 9, 2023; 88 Federal Register 54867)
Sensitive technologies
Declares national emergency; requires identifying "countries of concern" and related "notifiable transactions" associated with "covered national security technologies and products"
Requires annual renewal
14110
(October 30, 2023; 88 Federal Register 75191)
Artificial intelligence development and use
Expanded national emergency declared in E.O. 13694 (2015); directed the Secretary of Commerce to propose regulations related to the use of U.S IaaS products by foreign malicious cyber actors; authorized the Secretary of Commerce to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA
Revoked by E.O. 14148 (2025)
14114
(December 22, 2023; 88 Federal Register 89271)
Russia (harmful activities)
Targets foreign financial institutions operating in Russia's economy
Expands actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14024 (2021); see also E.O. 14039 (2021), E.O. 14066 (2022), E.O. 14068 (2022), E.O. 14071 (2022), E.O. 14114 (2023), and E.O. 14329 (2025)
14115
(February 1, 2024; 89 Federal Register 7605)
West Bank
Declared national emergency; blocked property; suspended U.S. entry
Revoked by E.O. 14148 (2025)
14117
(February 28, 2024; 89 Federal Register 15421)
Sensitive data—preventing access by countries of concern
Authorizes the Attorney General to prohibit or restrict transactions that would enable countries of concern from accessing bulk sensitive personal data or U.S. government-related data
Expands national emergency declared in E.O. 13873 (2019); see also E.O. 14034 (2021)
14118
(March 4, 2024; 89 Federal Register 15945)
Zimbabwe
Terminates national emergency and ends sanctions
Terminates national emergency declared in and revokes E.O. 13288 (2003); revokes E.O. 13391 (2005) and E.O. 13469 (2008)
14140
(January 8, 2025; 90 Federal Register 2589)
Western Balkans
Blocks property
Expands national emergency declared in E.O. 13219 (2001); amends E.O. 14033 (2021); see also E.O. 13304 (2003)
14142
(January 15, 2025; 90 Federal Register 6709)
Syria
Blocks property; suspends U.S. entry
Expands national emergency declared in and amends E.O. 13894 (2019); see also E.O. 14312 (2025)
14144
(January 16, 2025; 90 Federal Register 6755)
Malicious cyber-enabled activities—cybersecurity
Blocks property
Expands national emergency declared in E.O. 13694 (2015); see also E.O. 13757 (2016), E.O. 13984 (2021), and E.O. 14306 (2025)
Administration of President Donald J. Trump (2025-2029)
14148
(January 20, 2025; 90 Federal Register 8237)
Prior executive orders—rescissions
Revokes prior termination of sanctions related to the International Criminal Court, revokes order related to the development and use of artificial intelligence, and revokes order imposing sanctions related to the West Bank
Revokes E.O. 14022 (2021), E.O. 14110 (2023), and E.O. 14115 (2024)
14157
(January 20, 2025; 90 Federal Register 8439)
Cartels and other transnational organizations
Declares national emergency; directs the Secretary of State to make a recommendation regarding the designation of any cartel of transnational organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and/or a Specially Designated Global Terrorist
Requires annual renewal; see also E.O. 13224, as amended
14193
(February 1, 2025; 90 Federal Register 9113)
Drug trafficking and northern border
Declares national emergency; imposes tariffs on Canada
Requires annual renewal; see also E.O. 14197 (2025), E.O. 14226 (2025), E.O. 14231 (2025), E.O. 14289 (2025), E.O. 14324 (2025), and E.O. 14325 (2025)
14194
(February 1, 2025; 90 Federal Register 9117)
Drug trafficking and southern border
Declares national emergency; imposes tariffs on Mexico
Requires annual renewal; see also E.O. 14198 (2025), E.O. 14227 (2025), E.O. 14232 (2025), E.O. 14289 (2025), and E.O. 14324 (2025)
14195
(February 1, 2025; 90 Federal Register 9121)
Synthetic opioids and China
Declares national emergency; imposes tariffs on China
Requires annual renewal; see also E.O. 14200 (2025), E.O. 14228 (2025), E.O. 14256 (2025), E.O. 14259 (2025), E.O. 14266 (2025), E.O. 14298 (2025), E.O. 14324 (2025), and E.O. 14334 (2025)
14197
(February 3, 2025; 90 Federal Register 9183)
Drug trafficking and northern border
Pauses the imposition of tariffs on Canada
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14193 (2025); see also E.O. 14226 (2025), E.O. 14231 (2025), E.O. 14289 (2025), E.O. 14324 (2025), and E.O. 14325 (2025)
14198
(February 3, 2025; 90 Federal Register 9185)
Drug trafficking and southern border
Temporarily pauses planned tariffs on Mexico
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. E.O. 14194 (2025); see also E.O. 14227 (2025), E.O. 14232 (2025), E.O. 14289 (2025), and E.O. 14324 (2025)
14200
(February 5, 2025; 90 Federal Register 9277)
Synthetic opioids and China
Authorizes duty-free de minimis treatment for certain products from China
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14195 (2025); see also E.O. 14228 (2025), E.O. 14256 (2025), E.O. 14259 (2025), E.O. 14266 (2025), E.O. 14298 (2025), E.O. 14324 (2025, and E.O. 14334 (2025)
14203
(February 6, 2025; 90 Federal Register 9369)
International Criminal Court
Declares national emergency; blocks property
Requires annual renewal
14226
(March 2, 2025; 90 Federal Register 11369)
Drug trafficking and northern border
Authorizes duty-free de minimis treatment for certain products from Canada
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14193 (2025); see also E.O. 14197 (2025); E.O. 14321 (2025); E.O. 14289 (2025), E.O. 14324 (2025), and E.O. 14325 (2025)
14227
(March 2, 2025; 90 Federal Register 11371)
Drug trafficking and southern border
Authorizes duty-free de minimis treatment for certain products from Mexico
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. E.O. 14194 (2025); see also E.O. 14198 (2025), E.O. 14232 (2025), E.O. 14289 (2025), and E.O. 14324 (2025)
14228
(March 3, 2025; 90 Federal Register 11463)
Synthetic opioids and China
Increases the rate of tariffs on China
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14195 (2025); see also E.O. 14200 (2025), E.O. 14256 (2025), E.O. 14259 (2025), E.O. 14266 (20250, E.O. 14298 (2025), E.O. 14324 (2025), and E.O. 14334 (2025)
14231
(March 6, 2025; 90 Federal Register 11785)
Drug trafficking and northern border
Modifies tariffs on Canada
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14193 (2025); see also E.O. 14197 (2025), E.O. 14226 (2025), E.O. 14289 (2025), E.O. 14324 (2025), and E.O. 14325 (2025)
14232
(March 6, 2025; 90 Federal Register 11787)
Drug trafficking and southern border
Modifies tariffs on Mexico
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14194 (2025); see also E.O. 14198 (2025), E.O. 14227 (2025), E.O. 14289 (2025), and E.O. 14324 (2025)
14245
(March 24, 2025; 90 Federal Register 13829
Venezuela
Authorizes the imposition of tariffs on goods imported into the United States from any country that imports Venezuelan oil
Expands national emergency declared in E.O. 13692 (2015); see also E.O. 13808 (2017), E.O. 13827 (2018), E.O. 13835 (2018), E.O. 13850 (2018), E.O. 13857 (2019), and E.O. 13884 (2019)
14256
(April 2, 2025; 90 Federal Register 14899)
Synthetic opioids and China
Imposes tariffs on China, including with respect to goods otherwise eligible for de minimis treatment
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14195 (2025); see also E.O. 14200 (2025), E.O. 14228 (2025), E.O. 14259 (2025), E.O. 14266 (2025), E.O. 14298 (2025), E.O. 14324 (2025), and E.O. 14334 (2025)
14257
(April 2, 2025; 90 Federal Register 15041)
U.S. trade deficit—reciprocal tariffs
Declares national emergency; imposes tariffs at various rates specified in the order
Requires annual renewal; see also E.O. 14259 (2025), E.O. 14266 (2025), E.O. 14298 (2025), E.O. 14309 (2025), E.O. 14316 (2025), E.O. 14324 (2025); E.O. 14326 (2025), and E.O. 14334 (2025)
14259
(April 8, 2025; 90 Federal Register 15509)
U.S. trade deficit—amendments with respect to China
Modifies tariffs with respect to China
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14257 (2025); modifies provisions in E.O. 14256 (2025); see also E.O. 14266 (2025), E.O. 14298 (2025), and E.O. 14334 (2025)
14266
(April 9, 2025; 90 Federal Register 15625)
U.S. trade deficit—modifications to reflect trading partner retaliation and alignment
Modifies tariffs with respect to China and other trading partners
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14257 (2025); modifies provisions in E.O. 14256 (2025); see also E.O. 14259 (2025), E.O. 14298 (2025), and E.O. 14334 (2025)
14289
(April 29, 2025; 90 Federal Register 18907)
Tariffs on imported articles—addressing applicability
Clarifies applicability of certain tariffs
Clarifies actions based on national emergencies in E.O. 14193 (2025) and E.O. 14194 (2025); see also E.O. 14197 (2025), E.O. 14198 (2025), E.O. 14226 (2025), E.O. 14227 (2025), E.O. 14231 (2025), E.O. 14232 (2025), E.O. 14257 (2025), and E.O. 14324 (2025)
14298
(May 12, 2025; 90 Federal Register 21831)
U.S. trade deficit—modifications with respect to China
Modifies tariffs with respect to China
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14257 (2025); modifies provisions in E.O. 14256 (2025); see also E.O. 14259 (2025), E.O. 14266 (2025), and E.O. 14334 (2025)
14306
(June 6, 2025; 90 Federal Register 24723)
Malicious cyber-enabled activities—cybersecurity
Directs officials to take additional actions to strengthen U.S. cybersecurity; limits the scope of certain sanctionable targets to foreign persons in E.O. 13694 (2015)
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 13694 (2015); see also E.O. 13757 (2016), E.O. 13984 (2021), and E.O. 14144 (2025)
14309
(June 16, 2025; 90 Federal Register 26419)
U.S. trade deficit—U.S.-U.K. Economic Prosperity Deal
Modifies tariffs with respect to the United Kingdom on automobiles, auto parts, aerospace, and aluminum and steel articles and their derivatives
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14257 (2025) and certain proclamations
14312
(June 30, 2025; 90 Federal Register 92395)
Syria
Ends certain sanctions; blocks property
Terminates national emergency declared in and revokes E.O. 13338 (2004); also revokes E.O. 13399 (2006), E.O. 13460 (2008), E.O. 13572 (2011), E.O. 13573 (2011), and E.O. 13582 (2011); expands national emergency declared in E.O. 13894 (2019); see also E.O. 14142 (2025)
14316 (July 7, 2025; 90 Federal Register 30823)
U.S. trade deficit—modifications to reciprocal tariffs
Continues modified tariffs with respect to certain trading partners—extends expiration of modified duties in E.O. 14266 (2025) until August 1, 2025
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14257 (2025); see also E.O. 14266 (2025)
14323 (July 30, 2025; 90 Federal Register 37739)
Brazil
Declares national emergency; imposes certain tariffs on certain products from Brazil
Requires annual renewal
14324 (July 30, 2025; 90 Federal Register 37775)
Duty-free de minimis treatment—Drug trafficking and northern border; Drug trafficking and southern border; Synthetic opioids and China; U.S. trade deficit
Suspends duty-free de minimis treatment
Modifies actions based on national emergencies in E.O. 14193 (2025), E.O. 14194 (2025), E.O. 14195 (2025), and E.O. 14257 (2025)
14325 (July 31, 2025; 90 Federal Register 37957)
Drug trafficking and northern border—modifications with respect to Canada
Modifies tariffs with respect to Canada
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14193 (2025); see also E.O. 14197 (2025), E.O. 14226 (2025), E.O. 14231 (2025), E.O. 14289 (2025), and E.O. 14324 (2025)
14326 (July 31, 2025; 90 Federal Register 37963)
U.S. trade deficit—modifications to reciprocal tariffs
Modifies tariffs with respect to the European Union and other trading partners
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14257 (2025)
14329 (August 6, 2025; 90 Federal Register 38701)
Russia (harmful activities)
Imposes certain tariffs on India
Expands actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14024 (2021); see also E.O. 14039 (2021), E.O. 14066 (2022), E.O. 14068 (2022), E.O. 14071 (2022), and E.O. 14114 (2023)
14334 (August 11, 2025; 90 Federal Register 39305)
U.S. trade deficit—modifications to reciprocal tariffs with respect to China
Continues modified tariffs with respect to China—extends expiration of modified duties in E.O. 14298 (2025) until November 10, 2025
Modifies actions based on national emergency in E.O. 14257 (2025); see also E.O. 14259 (2025), E.O. 14266 (2025), and E.O. 14298 (2025)
Sources: CRS, based on National Archives: Executive Orders Disposition Tables; The American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara; and Federal Register, various dates.
Notes: Unless otherwise noted in left-hand column, the declarations of national emergency are codified as notes 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.
Amber Hope Wilhelm, CRS Visual Information Specialist, developed the graphics for this report. Ian Fergusson, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, and Dianne Rennack, Specialist in Foreign Policy, were contributors to the original version of this report.
Footnotes
Clinton Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1948); Edward Corwin, Total War and the Constitution (New York: Knopf, 1963). Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005); Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985).
See, for example, John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 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, and sometimes even against it, is that which is called prerogative […]."
Jules Lobel, "Emergency Power and the Decline of Liberalism," Yale Law Journal 98, no. 7 (May 1989), pp. 1392-1398; John Fabian Witt, "A Lost Theory of American Emergency Constitutionalism," Law and History Review 36, no. 3 (August 2018); George M. Dennison, "Martial Law: The Development of a Theory of Emergency Powers, 1776-1861," The American Journal of Legal History 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; Matthew Warshauer, Andrew Jackson and the Politics of Martial Law (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 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." Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford, Federal Edition (New York: Putnam, 1905), p. 11:146, qtd. in Prakash, Imperial from the Beginning, p. 214.
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, 1974), pp. 40-41.
For scholarship on this general trend, see, for example, William E. Scheuerman, Liberal Democracy and the Social Acceleration of Time (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004); John M. Carey and Matthew Soberg Shugart, eds, Executive Decree Authority (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Peter L. Lindseth, "The Paradox of 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, War-Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); and Corwin, Total War and the Constitution; Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship.
Scheuerman, Liberal Democracy and the Social Acceleration of Time, ch. 2; See, for example, Carl Schmitt, "The Plight of European Jurisprudence," tr. G. L. Ulmen, Telos 83 (Spring 1990); Locke, Two Treatises of Government, pp. 340-341: "[…] 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 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 a latitude left to the executive power, to do many things of choice which the laws do not prescribe."
For arguments that emergency government subverts the rule of law, see, for example, Sanford Levinson, "Constitutional Norms in a State of Permanent Emergency," Georgia Law Review 40, no. 3 (Spring 2006); Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010). For arguments that states of emergency can be a standard feature of modern constitutional orders or that they can reflect or anticipate the preferences of the legislature, see, for example, Kim Lane Scheppele, "Small Emergencies," Georgia Law Review 40, no. 3 (Spring 2006), p. 836; Carey and Shugart, Executive Decree Authority, p. 3.
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, P.L. 95-223 (October 28, 1977), 91 Stat. 1626, codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§1701 et seq. (2018) (IEEPA).
National Emergencies Act, P.L. 94-412 (September 14, 1976), 90 Stat. 1255, codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§1601 et seq. (2018) (NEA); CRS Report R46379, Emergency Authorities Under the National Emergencies Act, Stafford Act, and Public Health Service Act, coordinated by Jennifer K. Elsea (2020).
See, for example, Patrick A. 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 Congressional Attempt to Control Presidential Emergency Power," Harvard Law Review 96, no. 5 (March 1983), p. 1120.
See, for example, 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."
See Stephen Broadberry and Mark Harrison, eds., The Economics of World War I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship, pp. 241-243; U.S. Congress, A Brief History of Emergency Powers in the United States, pp. 40-41.
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.
Clark, Emergency Legislation Passed Prior to December, 1917, pp. 1-125; Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship, p. 243; David M. Kennedy, Over Here: The First World War and American Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), ch. 2.
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," Modern American History 1, no. 2 (2018).
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).
TWEA §2.
TWEA §3.
TWEA §4.
TWEA §5b.
TWEA §2.
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.
William E. Scheuerman, "The Economic State of Emergency," Cardozo Law Review 21 (2000), p. 1872.
See, for example, Franklin D. Roosevelt's Inaugural Address of 1933 (Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration, 1988); Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship, p. 256; U.S. Congress, A Brief History of Emergency Powers in the United States, p. 56.
Franklin D. Roosevelt's Inaugural Address of 1933.
New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 306 (1932) (J. Brandeis, dissenting).
Scheuerman, "The Economic State of Emergency," p. 1878.
Franklin D. Roosevelt's Inaugural Address of 1933.
Proclamation 2039 of March 6, 1933, "Bank Holiday, March 6-9, 1933, Inclusive," 48 Stat. 1689.
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.
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 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 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, The First New Deal (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1966), pp. 146-147.
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 38 minutes of debate. The Senate voted to pass the measure the same evening. U.S. Congress, A Brief History of Emergency Powers in the United States, p. 57.
TWEA as amended by EBRA. Italics show the language added by EBRA.
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 authority to negotiate bilateral trade agreements, marking the beginning of a period of increasing U.S. trade liberalization through executive action. Douglas A. Irwin, Clashing Over Commerce (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2017), chap. 9.
P.L. 77-354 (December 18, 1941), 55 Stat. 838.
Ibid.
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).
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, Definition of National Emergency under the National Emergencies Act, by Jennifer K. Elsea (2019); CRS Report 98-505, National Emergency Powers, by Elizabeth M. Webster (2021).
Proclamation 2914 of December 16, 1950, "Proclaiming the Existence of a National Emergency, 15 Federal Register 9029, December 19, 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. 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.
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, 1975), p. 2; 31 C.F.R. 500.101-500.808 (1975).
Executive Order 10348 of April 26, 1952, "Continuing in Force Orders and Regulations Relating to Blocked Property," 17 Federal Register 3769, April 29, 1952.
Executive Order 11677 of August 1, 1972, "Continuing the Regulation of Exports," 37 Federal Register 15483, August 3, 1972; Executive Order 11683 of August 29, 1972, "Revoking Executive Order No. 11677 of August 1, 1972, and Continuing in Effect Executive Order No. 11533 of June 4, 1970, Relating to the Administration of Export Controls," 37 Federal Register 17813, September 1, 1972; Executive Order 11796 of July 30, 1974, "Continuing the Regulation of Exports," 39 Federal Register 27891, August 2, 1974; Executive Order 11798 of August 14, 1974, "Revoking Executive Order No. 11796 of July 30, 1974, and Continuing in Effect Executive Order No. 11533 of June 4, 1970, Relating to the Administration of Export Controls," 39 Federal Register 29567, August 16, 11974; Executive Order 11810 of September 30, 1974, "Continuing the Regulation of Exports," 39 Federal Register 35567, October 2, 1974; Executive Order 11818 of November 5, 1974, "Revoking Executive Order No. 11810 of September 30, 1974, and Continuing in Effect Executive Order No. 11533 of June 4, 1970, Relating to the Administration of Export Control," 39 Federal Register 39429, November 7, 1974; Executive Order 11940 of September 30, 1976, "Continuing the Regulation of Exports," 41 Federal Register 43707, October 4, 1976.
Executive Order 10896 of November 29, 1960, "Amendment of Executive Order No. 6260 of August 28, 1933," 25 Federal Register 12281, December 1, 1960; Executive Order 11037 of July 20, 1962, "Amendment of Section 12 of Executive Order No. 6260 of August 28, 1933, as Amended," 27 Federal Register 6967, July 24, 1962.
Executive Order 11387 of January 1, 1968, "Governing Certain Capital Transfers Abroad," 33 Federal Register 47, January 3, 1968.
Proclamation 4074 of August 15, 1971, "Imposition of Supplemental Duty for Balance of Payments Purposes," 36 Federal Register 15724, August 17, 1971, reprinted in 85 Stat. 926. 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 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. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals agreed, that TWEA was the source of the authority for the proclamation. United States v. Yoshida Int'l, Inc., 526 F.2d 560, 584 (C.C.P.A. 1975). See also CRS Insight IN11129, The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (NEA), and Tariffs: Historical Background and Key Issues, by Christopher A. Casey (2025).
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 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, 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), p. iii.
U.S. Congress, A Brief History of Emergency Powers in the United States, p. v. The four national emergencies were those proclaimed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, President Truman in 1950, and the two proclaimed by President Nixon in 1970 and 1971.
U.S. Congress, A Brief History of Emergency Powers in the United States, p. v.
Qtd. in U.S. Congress, Trading with the Enemy: Legislative and Executive Documents, p. iii.
Ibid.
U.S. Congress, 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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 discretion, broad powers in both the domestic and international economic arena, without congressional review." H. Rept. No. 95-459, 7.
U.S. Congress, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, p. 2.
Ibid.
Ibid., 9.
Ibid.
P.L. 94-412 (September 14, 1976), 90 Stat. 1255, codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§1601 et seq.
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 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 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, for example, Memorandum of September 8, 1978, "Determination Extending the Exercise of Certain Authorities Under the Trading With the Enemy Act," 45 Federal Register 40449, September 12, 1978; Memorandum of September 12, 1979, "Memorandum From the President on Embargo Regulations Under the Trading With the Enemy Act," 44 Federal Register 53153, September 13, 1979; Presidential Determination of September 8, 1980, "Determination Concerning the Exercise of Certain Authorities Under the Trading With the Enemy Act," 45 Federal Register 59549, September 10, 1980.
U.S. Congress, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, pp. 6-7.
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, 1977), p. 3.
U.S. Congress, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, 10.
House Markup, p. 9; U.S. Congress, House, 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 a Time of Declared Emergency, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., November 1976, committee print (Washington, DC: GPO, 1976).
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 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.
Ibid. (Title III); House, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, 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 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.").
Ibid. (Title II); House, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, p. 2.
House, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, p. 11.
50 U.S.C. §1701.
50 U.S.C. §1701(b).
Ibid.
50 U.S.C. §1702.
50 U.S.C. §1621.
50 U.S.C. §1631.
50 U.S.C. §1631 (stating the President may list intended authorities "either in the declaration of a national emergency, or by one or more contemporaneous or subsequent Executive orders published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress").
50 U.S.C. §1701(b).
IEEPA authorities are broad, but not unlimited. See, for example, Micei Int'l v. Dep't of Com., 613 F.3d 1147, 1153 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ("Nothing in the text of IEEPA delegates to the President the authority to grant jurisdiction to any federal court."); TikTok Inc. v. Trump, 507 F. Supp. 3d 92, 112 (D.D.C. 2020) (enjoining enforcement of regulation as exceeding authority conferred by IEEPA because provisions "likely constitute indirect regulations of 'personal communication[s]' or the exchange of 'information or informational materials'" in violation of §1702(b)).
See, for example, Executive Order 13566 of February 25, 2011, "Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya," 76 Federal Register 11315, March 2, 2011 (addressing threat to the national security and U.S. policy after finding that "Colonel Muammar Qadhafi, his government, and close associates have taken extreme measures against the people of Libya, including by using weapons of war, mercenaries, and wanton violence against unarmed civilians"); expanded by Executive Order 13726 of April 19, 2016, "Blocking Property and Suspending Entry Into the United States of Persons Contributing to the Situation in Libya," 81 Federal Register 23559, April 21, 2016 (changing scope of the national emergency after Qadhafi was deposed to cover "ongoing violence in Libya, including attacks by armed groups against Libyan state facilities, foreign missions in Libya, and critical infrastructure, as well as human rights abuses, [and] violations of the [U.N.] arms embargo"); Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004, "Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria," 69 Federal Register 26751, May 13, 2004 (declaring national emergency to deal with threat posed by "the actions of the Government of Syria in supporting terrorism, continuing its occupation of Lebanon, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and undermining United States and international efforts with respect to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq"), modified in scope by Executive Order 13399 of April 25, 2006, "Blocking Property of Additional Persons in Connection With the National Emergency With Respect to Syria," 71 Federal Register 25059, April 28, 2006 (modifying scope of the national emergency to assist in the investigation of the "assassination of former Prime Minister of Lebanon Rafiq Hariri, and the deaths of 22 others, and other bombings or assassination attempts in Lebanon since October 1, 2004, that are related to Hariri's assassination or that implicate the Government of Syria or its officers or agents"), expanded by Executive Order 13572 of April 29, 2011, "Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to Human Rights Abuses in Syria," 76 Federal Register 24787, March 3, 2011 (expanding scope of the national emergency to cover "the Government of Syria's human rights abuses, including those related to the repression of the people of Syria").
50 U.S.C. §1701(b).
President Jimmy Carter declared a new national emergency to address a threat emanating from countries neighboring Iran in the same executive order in which he modified an existing national emergency. Executive Order 12211 of April 17, 1980, "Sanctions Against Iran," 45 Federal Register 26685, April 21, 1980 (issued "in order to take steps additional to those set forth" in Executive Order 12170, but declaring a new national emergency with respect to "added unusual and extraordinary threat … created by subsequent events in Iran and neighboring countries, including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan").
Executive Order 14193 of February 1, 2025, "Imposing Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border," 90 Federal Register 9113, February 7, 2025; Executive Order 14194 of February 1, 2025, "Imposing Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border," 90 Federal Register 9117, February 7, 2025; Executive Order 14195 of February 1, 2025, "Imposing Duties To Address the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People's Republic of China," 90 Federal Register 9121, February 7, 2025.
Proclamation 10886 of January 20, 2025, "Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border of the United States," 90 Federal Register 8327, January 29, 2025. The President declared in the Proclamation that "a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States." Ibid.
Ibid. (describing threat to U.S. sovereignty that is geographically specific to the southern border caused by "cartels, criminal gangs, known terrorists, human traffickers, smugglers, unvetted military-age males from foreign adversaries, and illicit narcotics" as a "grave threat to our Nation" and an "imminent threat"). The Proclamation asserted the intent to authorize military mobilization under 10 U.S.C. §12302 and to authorize the diversion of military construction funds for not- previously authorized construction projects to support use of the Armed Forces. For information about the use of this authority, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11278, Diverting Military Construction Funds During a National Emergency: Legal Framework, by Jennifer K. Elsea (2025).
Executive Order 14193 [Canada]; Executive Order 14194 [Mexico]; Executive Order 14195 [China].
Ibid.
50 U.S.C. §1701(b). The plain language of the statute appears to preclude the President from relying on IEEPA to "expand" a previously declared national emergency to address a separate threat and appears to preclude the President invoking IEEPA authorities by referring to a preexisting national emergency that was not declared under IEEPA.
Executive Order 14193 [Canada]; Executive Order 14194 [Mexico]; Executive Order 14195 [China].
Ibid.
H.Res. 211 §4.
50 U.S.C. §1622(c).
Ibid.
50 U.S.C. §1703(a).
50 U.S.C. §1703(b).
50 U.S.C. §1703(c).
50 U.S.C. §1622. For information regarding the expedited procedures for terminating a national emergency, see CRS Report R46567, National Emergencies Act: Expedited Procedures in the House and Senate, by Michael Greene (2025).
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 with the Enemy? OFAC Rules and First Amendment Freedoms," Perspectives on History (May 2004).
Codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §1702(b)(3).
P.L. 95-223. House, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, p. 15 ("This grant of authorities does not 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 would not be granted.").
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.
P.L. 107-56 §106, 115 Stat. 272, 277, codified at 50 U.S.C. §1702(a)(1)(C) (2018).
Executive Order 13224.
Administration's Draft Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001: Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, 107th Cong., 1st sess., serial no. 39 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), p. 7 (testimony of Attorney General Ashcroft).
U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Committee on the Judiciary to Accompany H.R. 2975, 107th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 107-236 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001), p. 62.
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).
Executive Order 13290 of March 20, 2003, "Confiscating and Vesting Certain Iraqi Property," 68 Federal Register 14307, March 24, 2003.
Ibid.
28 U.S.C. §1605A.
P.L. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322 (2002).
See Tom Schoenberg, "Fights Loom for Iraqi Riches," Legal Times (March 31, 2003). Judgment creditors were paid about $140 million from the vested assets to cover the unsatisfied portions of judgments and interest.
E.O. 13315, 68 Federal Register 52,315 (September 3, 2003).
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 ministry operations." Ibid., 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.
P.L. 107-56 §106, 115 Stat. 277 (2001).
P.L. 107-56 §106, codified at 50 U.S.C. §1702(a)(1)(B) (2018).
P.L. 107-56 §106, codified at 50 U.S.C. §1702(a) (2018).
P.L. 107-56 §106, codified at 50 U.S.C. §1702(c) (2018).
House, Report of the Committee on the Judiciary to Accompany H.R. 2975, p. 62.
House, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, pp. 2-9.
Ibid., 11.
For example, Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, "Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities," 80 Federal Register 18077, April 2, 2015; Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, "Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption," 82 Federal Register 60839, December 26, 2017; Executive Order 13848 of September 12, 2018, "Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election," 83 Federal Register 46843, September 114, 2018; Executive Order 13873 of May 15, 2019, "Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain," 84 Federal Register 22689, May 17, 2019; Executive Order 13920 of May 1, 2020, "Securing the United States Bulk-Power System," 85 Federal Register 26595, May 4, 2020; Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025, "Regulating Imports With a Reciprocal Tariff To Rectify Trade Practices That Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits," 90 Federal Register 15041, April 7, 2025.
See "Presidential Emergency Use."
See "Congressional Nonemergency Use and Retroactive Approval."
H.J.Res 69, 109th Cong. Congress did not vote on the joint resolution because the President terminated the emergency before a vote was required to be held. Proclamation 7959 of November 3, 2005, 70 Federal Register 67899 (November 8, 2005).
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 enriched uranium extracted from nuclear weapons in Russia lapsed when the notice extending the emergency was not published in the Federal Register 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 anomalies have been treated as two distinct national emergencies. Such treatment decreases the average duration of emergencies. See, for example, Executive Order 13159 of June 21, 2000, "Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons," 65 Federal Register 39279, June 26, 2000; Executive Order 13617 of June 25, 2012, "Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons," 77 Federal Register 38459, June 27, 2012.
50 U.S.C. §1701(b) ("Any exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with respect to such threat.").
Ibid. ("The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose.").
Declarations of emergency under the NEA that do not invoke IEEPA have all made by presidential proclamation. See, for example, Proclamation 6491 of October 14, 1992, "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," 57 Federal Register 47553, October 16, 1992; Proclamation 6867 of March 1, 1996, "Declaration of a National Emergency and Invocation of Emergency Authority Relating to the Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels," 61 Federal Register 8843, March 5, 1996; Proclamation 6907 of July 1, 1996, "Declaration of a State of Emergency and Release of Feed Grain From the Disaster Reserve," 61 Federal Register 35083, July 5, 1996; Proclamation 7463 of September 14, 2001, "Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks," 66 Federal Register 48199, September 18, 2001; Proclamation 7924 of September 8, 2005, "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," 70 Federal Register 54227, September 13, 2005; Proclamation 8443 of October 23, 2009, "Declaration of a National Emergency With Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic," 74 Federal Register 55439, October 28, 2009; Proclamation 9844 of February 15, 2019, "Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States," 84 Federal Register 4949, February 20, 2019; Proclamation 9994 of March 13, 2020, "Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak," 85 Federal Register 15337, March 18, 2020.
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 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 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.
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.
Executive Order 12170 of November 14, 1979, "Blocking Iranian Government Property," 44 Federal Register 65729, November 15, 1979.
Notice of November 8, 2022, "Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran," 87 Federal Register 68013, November 10, 2022.
Not enough time has passed to understand whether the trend will continue with those national emergencies declared in the 2010s.
Rounded to the nearest whole emergency. Includes the partial term for President Trump as of September 1, 2025.
Executive Order 12170.
Executive Order 12205 of April 7, 1980, "Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Iran," 45 Federal Register 24099, April 9, 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."
Executive Order 12211 of April 17, 1980, "Further Prohibitions on Transactions With Iran," 45 Federal Register 26685, April 21, 1980.
Exceptions were made for family remittances.
Executive Order 12513 of May 1, 1985, "Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving Nicaragua," 50 Federal Register 18629, May 2, 1985.
Executive Order 12532 of September 9, 1985, "Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving South Africa," 50 Federal Register 36861, September 10, 1985.
This number excludes those emergencies declared to extend the Export Administration Act of 1979.
Executive Order 12735 of November 16, 1990, "Chemical and Biological Weapons Proliferation," 55 Federal Register 48587, November 20, 1990.
Executive Order 13224.
Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011, "Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations," 76 Federal Register 44757, July 27, 2011; Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, "Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities," 80 Federal Register 18077, April 2, 2015.
Executive Order 13873 of May 15, 2019, "Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain," 84 Federal Register 22689, May 17, 2019.
Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025, "Regulating Imports With a Reciprocal Tariff To Rectify Trade Practices That Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits, 90 Federal Register 15041," April 7, 2025.
See, for example, Executive Order 13694; Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, "Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption," 82 Federal Register 60839, December 26, 2017; Executive Order 13848 of September 12, 2018, "Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election," 83 Federal Register 46843, September 14, 2018; Executive Order 13873; Executive Order 13920 of May 1, 2020, "Securing the United States Bulk-Power System," 85 Federal Register 26595, May 4, 2020; Executive Order 13928 of June 11, 2020, "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated With the International Criminal Court," 85 Federal Register 36139, June 15, 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. See, for example, Daniel W. Drezner, "Sanctions Sometimes Smart: Targeted Sanctions in Theory and Practice," International Studies Review 13 (2011), p. 13; Thomas Weiss, et al. eds., Political Gain and Civilian Pain: Humanitarian Impact of Economic Sanctions (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997); Matthew Craven, "Humanitarianism and the Search for Smarter Sanctions," European Journal of International Law 13, no. 1 (2002). 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, Economic Sanctions: Law and Public Policy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. xi. However, use of such orders has expanded beyond political and economic elites. See, for example, Executive Order 13928.
Executive Order 12170.
Executive Order 12513.
Ibid.
Executive Order 12532; Executive Order 13396 of February 7, 2006, "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Côte d'Ivoire," 71 Federal Register 7389, February 10, 2006; Executive Order 13067 of November 3, 1997, "Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Sudan," 62 Federal Register 59989, November 5, 1997; Executive Order 13692 of March 8, 2015, "Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela," 80 Federal Register 12747, March 11, 2015.
Executive Order 13067.
Ibid.
Executive Order 13405 of June 16, 2006, "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus," 71 Federal Register 35485, June 20, 2006.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Executive Order 12532.
Executive Order 12170.
See, for example, Executive Order 12513.
See, for example, Executive Order 12865 of September 26, 1993, "Prohibiting Certain Transactions Involving UNITA," 58 Federal Register 51005, September 29, 1993 (prohibiting transactions with the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), the second-largest political party in Angola); Executive Order 13129 of July 4, 1999, "Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With the Taliban," 64 Federal Register 36759, July 7, 1999 (prohibiting transactions with the Taliban); Executive Order 13224 (prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism); Executive Order 12978 (prohibiting transactions with certain narcotics traffickers); Executive Order 13928 (blocking property of certain persons associated with the International Criminal Court); Executive Order 14203 of February 6, 2025, "Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court," 90 Federal Register 9369, February 12, 2025 (same).
Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, "Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions With Significant Narcotics Traffickers," 60 Federal Register 54579, October 24, 1995.
Ibid. Emphasis added.
Executive Order 13219 of June 26, 2001, "Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans," 66 Federal Register 34777, June 26, 2001.
See, for example, Aaran Money Wire Serv., Inc. v. United States, 2003 WL 22143735, at *3 (D. Minn. August 21, 2003).
Executive Order 13219 of June 26, 2001, "Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans," 66 Federal Register 34777, June 29, 2001, emphasis added.
See, for example, Executive Order 13224; Executive Order 13396.
Nicaragua Human Rights and Anticorruption Act of 2018, P.L. 115-335 (December 20, 2018), 132 Stat. 5019.
Ibid.
Special Foreign Assistance Act of 1986, P.L. 99-529 (October 24, 1986), 100 Stat. 3010.
Ibid.
See, for example, 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 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 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 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 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 (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 2018, P.L. 115-272 (October 25, 2018), 132 Stat. 4144.
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 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 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 (CAATSA), 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 emergency. See, for example, Hizballah International Financing Prevention Amendments Act of 2018, P.L. 115-272, §103, 132 Stat. 4144, 4148 ("(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 of section 202 of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1701) shall not apply) to the extent necessary to block and prohibit all transactions [ ... ].").
CAATSA §104, codified at 22 U.S.C. §9403; Executive Order 13382 of June 28, 2005, "Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters," 70 Federal Register 38567, July 1, 2005.
Executive Order 12532.
H.R. 1460 (99th Cong.); See also Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, P.L. 99-440 (October 2, 1986), 100 Stat. 1086.
Economic Sanctions Against South Africa, Remarks and a Question-and-Answer-Session with Reporters on Signing E.O. 12532, September 9, 1985, 21 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1048, 1050.
See, for example, questions by Helen Thomas, United Press International, Ibid., 1050.
Carter, International Economic Sanctions, p. 201.
Ibid.
Ibid., ch. 9.
For example, Executive Order 13757 of December 28, 2016, "Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities," 82 Federal Register 1, January 3, 2017; See also Executive Order 13848 of September 12, 2018, "Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election," 83 Federal Register 46843, September 14, 2018.
For example, Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, "Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions With Significant Narcotics Traffickers," 60 Federal Register 54579, October 24, 1995.
For example, Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, "Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption," 82 Federal Register 60839, December 26, 2017.
For example, Executive Order 13194 of January 18, 2001, "Prohibiting the Importation of Rough Diamonds From Sierra Leone," 66 Federal Register 7389, January 23, 2001.
For example, Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011, "Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations," 76 Federal Register 44757, July 27, 2011.
For example, Executive Order 12947 of January 23, 1995, "Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process," 60 Federal Register 5079, January 25, 1995.
For example, Executive Order 13400 of April 26, 2006, "Blocking Property of Persons in Connection With the Conflict in Sudan's Darfur Region," 71 Federal Register 25483, April 26, 2006.
For example, Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, "Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction," 59 Federal Register 59099, November 16, 1994.
For example, Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, "Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism," 66 Federal Register 49079, September 25, 2001.
For example, Executive Order 12923 of June 30, 1994, "Continuation of Export Control Regulations," 59 Federal Register 34551, July 5, 1994.
For example, Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, "Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities," 80 Federal Register 18077, April 2, 2015.
For example, Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, "Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption," 82 Federal Register 60839, December 26, 2017.
For example, Executive Order 13873 of May 15, 2019, "Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain," 84 Federal Register 22689, May 17, 2019.
For example, Executive Order 14193 of February 1, 2025, "Imposing Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border," 90 Federal Register 9113, February 7, 2025.
"The International Emergency Economic Powers Act," p. 1111; Thronson, "Toward Comprehensive Reform of America's Emergency Law Regime," pp. 757-758.
For example, Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 673 (1981) (explaining that "[blocking] 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 'bargaining chip' to be used by the President when dealing with a hostile country").
Executive Order 12170.
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 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 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 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 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 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-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 20 [hereinafter "Algiers Accords"].
Sean D. Murphy, "Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law," American Journal of International Law 94 (October 2000), p. 704 (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").
GAO Review of Economic Sanctions Imposed Against Panama, GAO/T-NSIAD-89-44, 4-5 (July 26, 1989).
Ibid., 5.
Executive Order 12635 of April 8, 1988, "Prohibition on the Use of Federal Funds for the Acquisition of Certain Real Property in the District of Columbia," 53 Federal Register 12134, April 8, 1988.
GAO Report, supra note 159, at 5.
Ibid., 7.
Executive Order 12710 of April 5, 1990, "Termination of Emergency With Respect to Panama," 55 Federal Register 13099, April 6, 1990.
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").
Executive Order 13692 of March 8, 2015, "Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela," 80 Federal Register 12747, March 11, 2015. For information about current sanctions against Venezuela, see CRS In Focus IF10715, Venezuela: Overview of U.S. Sanctions Policy, by Clare Ribando Seelke (2025).
Trump Supports the Venezuelan People's Efforts.
Executive Order 13857 of January 25, 2019, "Taking Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency With Respect to Venezuela," 84 Federal Register 509, January 30, 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/news/press-releases/sm594.
Marianna Parraga, "Venezuela's oil exports sink to 17-year low, choked by U.S. sanctions," Reuters, June 2, 2020, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-oil-exports/venezuelas-oil-exports-sink-to-17-year-low-choked-by-us-sanctions-idUSKBN2392SG.
U.S. Department of State, "Secretary Rubio's Call with the Rightful President of Venezuela González Urrutia and Venezuelan Democratic Opposition Leader Machado," January 22, 2025.
CRS In Focus IF10230, Venezuela: Political Crisis and U.S. Policy, by Clare Ribando Seelke.
CRS electronic correspondence with State Department, July 7, 2025.
Ibid.
Marianna Parraga, "Is Venezuela About to Lose Citgo, its Most Prized Foreign Asset," Reuters, July 7, 2025.
Executive Order 12817 of October 21, 1992, "Transfer of Certain Iraqi Government Assets Held by Domestic Banks," 57 Federal Register 48433, October 23, 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 Executive Order 12722 of August 2, 1990, "Blocking Iraqi Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Iraq," 55 Federal Register 31803, August 3, 1990.
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, 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 to the jurisdiction of the United States." The provision does not explicitly mention asset confiscation.
Executive Order 12817.
See Ronald J. Bettauer, "Establishment of the United Nations Compensation Commission: The U.S. Government Perspective," The United Nations Compensation Commission (Leiden: Brill, 1994), p. 35.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, ¶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 occupation of Kuwait"; U.N. Security Council Resolution 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. Res. 687); U.N. Security Council Resolution 706 (August 15, 1991) and U.N. Security Council Resolution 712 (September 19, 1991) (establishing an escrow account administered by the U.N. Secretary General to fund the costs of the UNCC and other activities); U.N. Security Council Resolution 778 (October 2, 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).
Foreign Regimes' Assets, GAO-04-1006, 11 (September 2004).
Ibid., 12.
Havlish v. Bin Laden, No. 3-cv-09848 (S.D.N.Y. September 13, 2021).
Executive Order 14064 of February 11, 2022, "Protecting Certain Property of Da Afghanistan Bank for the Benefit of the People of Afghanistan," 87 Federal Register 8391, February 15, 2022.
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).
OFAC License No. DABRESERVES-EO-2022-886895-1, https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21226931/ex-b-ofac-license.pdf.
Ibid., SOI.
CRS In Focus IF12052, Afghanistan Central Bank Reserves, coordinated by Martin A. Weiss (2023).
In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 657 F. Supp. 3d 311, 336 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2023) (consolidated cases).
Ibid., 335.
John Does 1 Through 7 v. The Taliban, No. 23-263 (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2023).
50 U.S.C. §1706(a) (authorizing the President to continue to block assets after the termination of a national emergency if he "determines that the continuation of such prohibition with respect to that property is necessary on account of claims involving such country or its nationals").
Claims of U.S. citizens against foreign countries have historically been paid from liquidated frozen assets or payments from the foreign country pursuant to international settlement agreements. See, generally, 22 U.S.C. §§1621-1645o (Settlement of International Claims) (outlining source of funding for claims programs.) Presidents have in the past objected to congressional efforts to put frozen foreign assets directly under the control of courts and private litigants, and exercised waivers to avoid making frozen assets subject to enforcement to satisfy judgments. See In re Islamic Republic of Iran Terrorism Litig., 659 F. Supp. 2d 31, 125 (D.D.C. 2009) ("In terms of United States foreign policy and national security objectives, one of the perverse outcomes of Congress' legislative victories over the Executive Branch [recounted in Part A of the court's opinion] is that what limited resources might have served as a bargaining chip that the President could have used in dealings with Iran are now subject to depletion as a result of the TRIA."). The court when on to describe "[t]hese frozen assets, once at the disposal of the President in his management of foreign policy crises under the IEEPA and other authorities, [as being] now largely subject to the jurisdiction of the Article III courts to be divided up among what few plaintiffs first lay claim to them in satisfaction of judgments under [the terrorism exception to the FSIA]"). Ibid. For a description of executive branch objections to making frozen assets available to litigants and the exercise of presidential waivers to preclude the eventuality, see CRS Report RL31258, Suits Against Terrorist States by Victims of Terrorism, by Jennifer K. Elsea (2008).
Current states designated as sponsors of terrorism are Iran (1984), Cuba (2021), North Korea (2017) and Syria (1979). See U.S. Department of State, State Sponsors of Terrorism, https://perma.cc/RVE8-W28E.
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). See CRS Report RL31258, Suits Against Terrorist States by Victims of Terrorism, by Jennifer K. Elsea (2008).
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, 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).
Presidential Determination 99-1 (October 21, 1998), reprinted in 34 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 2088 (October 26, 1998).
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, 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 compensatory damages portion of such judgments. Judgments against Iran were paid from appropriated funds.
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 aircraft shot down two Brothers to the Rescue planes in 1996). The payment represented compensatory damages, judicially imposed sanctions, and interest.
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).
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, P.L. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322 (2002), codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. §1610 note.
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
(B) does not include property that—
(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 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 et seq.); or
(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 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 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 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 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 amount of damages the United States owes to Iran at a later phase of the case. Ibid., ¶ 231.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, P.L. 110-181 §1083 (2008) (amending the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act).
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 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." Certain Iranian Assets, ¶ 159.
Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, P.L. 112-158, Title V, §502, 126 Stat. 1258 (2012); National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 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 (2016). For an explanation of the case, see CRS Report R44967, Congress's Power over Court Decisions: Jurisdiction Stripping and the Rule of Klein, by Joanna R. Lampe (2024). In Certain Iranian Assets, 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 have jurisdiction over the claim based on Peterson. Certain Iranian Assets ¶ 54.
See Justice for United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act, div. O, title IV of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, P.L. 114-113, §404 (2015), 129 Stat. 3007, codified as amended at 34 U.S.C. §20144 (2020).
Ibid., 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 (2023).
34 U.S.C. §20144(e) (2021).
34 U.S.C. §20144(e).
34 U.S.C. §20144(e)(6).
United States v. Zhao, No. 2:23–CR–00178 (W.D. Wash. filed Nov. 14, 2023). Binance pleaded guilty to resolve DOJ's investigation into "violations related to the Bank Secrecy Act... failure to register as a money transmitting business, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ... " See DOJ, Binance and CEO Plead Guilty to Federal Charges in $4B Resolution, November 21, 2023, https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/binance-and-ceo-plead-guilty-federal-charges-4b-resolution.
S. 706, §2(a)(2).
Ibid. §3(a)(3).
See CRS Report R45415, U.S. Sanctions on Russia Before 2022, coordinated by Cory Welt (2022); CRS Insight IN11869, Russia's War Against Ukraine: Overview of U.S. Assistance and Sanctions, by Cory Welt (2023); CRS In Focus IF12062, Russia's War on Ukraine: Financial and Trade Sanctions, coordinated by Rebecca M. Nelson (2023).
Division F of P.L. 118-50 (codified at 22 U.S.C. §9521 note).
Ibid. §§2(1)(A), 101(b).
If the President determines that "Belarus has engaged in an act of war against Ukraine related to Russia's ongoing February 24, 2022, invasion of Ukraine," the authorities applicable to Russia in the REPO for Ukrainians Act can apply to Belarus as well. See ibid. §2(1) (defining "Russian aggressor state").
Ibid. §104(f).
Ibid. §102(9).
The U.S. Department of the Treasury issued instructions for U.S. financial institutions to report holdings of covered assets. Office of Foreign Assets Control, "Notice of Reporting Instructions Under the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act," 89 Federal Register 60568, July 26, 2024.
REPO for Ukrainians Act §104(b).
Ibid. §104(f).
Ibid. §104(g).
Ibid. §104(l).
P.L. 117-328, §1708, 136. Stat. 5200 (2022).
Ibid. §1708(c)(2) (defining "covered forfeited property" to mean property forfeited under 18 U.S.C. §§ 981–987 or 1963 "by a person subject to sanctions and designated by the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary of State, or which property was involved in an act in violation of sanctions enacted pursuant to Executive Order 14024, and as expanded by Executive Order 14066 of March 8, 2022, and relied on for additional steps taken in Executive Order 14039 of August 20, 2021, and Executive Order 14068 of March 11, 2022").
Ibid. §1708(d).
For example, Elisabeth Braw, "Freeze—Don't Seize—Russian Assets," Foreign Policy, January 13, 2023; Christopher Caldwell, "Everyone Wants to Seize Russia's Money. It's a Terrible Idea," New York Times, April 9, 2024; Timothy Ash, "The Economic Case for Seizing Russia's Frozen Assets to Support Ukraine," Project Syndicate, June 12, 2024.
Laurence H. Tribe, et al., The Legal, Practical, and Moral Case for Transferring Russian Sovereign Assets to Ukraine, Renew Democracy Initiative, September 17, 2023, pp. 154-157, https://rdi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023.09.17-MPP-Report.pdf.
For example, Elisabeth Braw, "Freeze—Don't Seize—Russian Assets," Foreign Policy, January 13, 2023; Christopher Caldwell, "Everyone Wants to Seize Russia's Money. It's a Terrible Idea," New York Times, April 9, 2024; Timothy Ash, "The Economic Case for Seizing Russia's Frozen Assets to Support Ukraine," Project Syndicate, June 12, 2024.
For example, Scott R. Anderson and Chimène Keitner, The Legal Challenges Presented by Seizing Frozen Russian Assets, Lawfare, May 26, 2022, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/legal-challenges-presented-seizing-frozen-russian-assets.
Ibid.
For example, Treaty of Peace with Japan, September 8, 1951, 46 U.N.T.S. 1832; Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, Feb. 10, 1947, 41 U.N.T.S. 643; Treaty of Peace with Hungary, February 10, 1947, 41 U.N.T.S. 644; Treaty of Peace with Romania, February 10, 1947, 42 U.N.T.S. 645; Treaty of Peace with Italy, February 10, 1947, 49 U.N.T.S. 747.
See U.N. Secretary-General, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, art. 36 cmt. 2, U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (December 12, 2001) (ARSIWA) ("It is … well established that an international court or tribunal which has jurisdiction with respect to a claim of State responsibility has, as an aspect of that jurisdiction, the power to award compensation for damage suffered.") (citation omitted).
U.N. Security Council Resolution 778 (October 2, 1992) (creating UN Compensation Commission to allocate reparations due to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait).
REPO for Ukrainians Act §2(6) (defining "Russian sovereign asset" to include Russian Central Bank and other funds, as well as "any other funds or other property that are owned by the Government of the Russian Federation, including by any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of that government"). The authority to confiscate such assets excludes property protected by certain diplomatic treaties. Ibid. §104(j).
Ibid. §102(7).
Ibid. §101(a)(7) ("The Russian Federation bears international legal responsibility for its aggression against Ukraine and, under international law, must cease its internationally wrongful acts. Because of this breach of the prohibition on aggression under international law, the United States is legally entitled to take counter measures that are proportionate and aimed at inducing the Russian Federation to comply with its international obligations.").
ARSIWA at cmt.
Ibid. at comment. 1.
See, e.g., Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 897 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2018); Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, 1997 I.C.J. Rep. 7, ¶¶51-52 (Sept. 25).
ARSIWA arts. 22, 49, 50.
Ibid. art. 48(2).
Ibid. art. 49.
Ibid. art. 54.
Ibid. art. 54, cmt 6. The comment states that "the current state of international law on countermeasures taken in the general or collective interest is uncertain. State practice is sparse and involves a limited number of States. At present, there appears to be no clearly recognized entitlement of States ... to take countermeasures in the collective interest.... [C]hapter II includes a saving clause which reserves the position and leaves the resolution of the matter to the further development of international law."
Ibid. art. 48(2)(a)-(b).
453 U.S. 654 (1981).
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 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").
Executive Order 12294 of February 24, 1981, "Suspension of Litigation Against Iran," 46 Federal Register 14111, February 26, 1981.
Algiers Accords.
Executive Order 12170 of November 14, 1979, "Blocking Iranian Government Property," 44 Federal Register 65729, November 15, 1979; Executive Order 12279 of January 19, 1981, "Direction to Transfer Iranian Government Assets Held by Domestic Banks," 46 Federal Register 7917, January 23, 1981.
Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 644.
Ibid.
Ibid., 666.
Ibid., 666-67.
Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 678-79 (internal citations omitted).
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)).
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 610-11 (1952).
Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 686 (citing Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 610-11 (Frankfurter, J., concurring)).
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).
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); Dhafir, 461 F.3d at 216-17 (same); United States v. Arch Trading Co., 987 F.2d 1087, 1092–94 (4th Cir.1993) (same); see also 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. 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), aff'd, 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 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), aff'd, 315 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2002).
Dhafir, 461 F.3d at 215 (citing Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 372 (1989)).
Ibid., 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 (1991)]"); see also Amirnazmi, 645 F.3d at 576 ("We too conclude that IEEPA "meaningfully constrains" the President's discretion."); Arch Trading Co., 987 F.2d at 1092–94 (holding "constraining factors" in IEEPA sufficient to conclude the President's powers are "explicitly defined and circumscribed").
Dhafir, 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 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") 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 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 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. 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)).
Dhafir, 461 F.3d. at 217 (citing Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 675).
V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, No. 25-00066, Slip Op. 25-66 at 28 (Ct. Int'l Trade May 28, 2025); cf. CRS Report R45153, Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends, by Valerie C. Brannon (2023) (discussing use of constitutional-avoidance canon to interpret statutes).
V.O.S. Selections, Slip Op. 25-66 at 30.
See CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11332, Court Decisions Regarding Tariffs Imposed Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), by Christopher T. Zirpoli (2025).
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).
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).
50 U.S.C. §1706(b) (2018).
United States v. Romero-Fernandez, 983 F.2d 195, 196 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)).
Chadha, 462 U.S. at 954–55.
Romero-Fernandez, 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 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 as a response to Chadha. Notwithstanding this amendment, Section 207 of IEEPA continues to refer to termination by concurrent resolution.
Ibid., 196 (finding that the balance of IEEPA is capable of functioning independently and noting Congress's inclusion of a severability clause).
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).
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).
Ibid., 673–674; see also 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.").
Paradissiotis, 49 Fed. Cl. at 21.
Ibid. (quoting Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. 457, 551 (1870), quoted in Chang, 859 F.2d at 897).
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).
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).
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 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).
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).
KindHearts, 647 F. Supp. 2d at 883.
U.S. Constitution, Amdt. V.
IPT Co., 1994 WL 613371, at *6 (citing United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 114 S. Ct. 492, 498 (1993); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333–34 (1976)).
Glob. Relief Found., 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"), aff'd, 315 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2002).
Holy Land Found., 219 F. Supp. 2d at 77 (D.D.C. 2002).
Ibid.
686 F.3d 965, 979 (9th Cir. 2012).
424 U.S. 319 (1976).
Al Haramain, 686 F.3d at 979.
Ibid. (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334-35).
Ibid., 979–80 (internal citations omitted).
Ibid., 980.
Ibid.
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)).
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.").
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.").
Al Haramain, 686 F.3d at 984 ("OFAC's failure to pursue potential mitigation measures violated AHIF–Oregon's due process rights.").
Ibid., 990.
Ibid., 984.
Ibid., 984-85.
Al Haramain, 686 F.3d at 987 (holding that, at a minimum, OFAC must provide a timely statement of reasons for the investigation).
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.").
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)); see also Fulmen Co. v. Office of Foreign Assets Control, 547 F. Supp. 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 entitle it to constitutional protections as a non-resident alien.").
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, 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)).
Ibid.
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)).
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.").
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 Amendment); Holy Land, 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 Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno, 205 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2000)).
Islamic Am. Relief Agency, 477 F.3d at 736 ("The blocking was not based on, nor does it prohibit, associational activity other than financial support.").
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 intended for charitable purposes).
Glob. Relief Found., 207 F. Supp. 2d at 806 (citing United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77 (1968)), aff'd on other grounds, 315 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2002).
Ibid. (citing O'Brien, 391 U.S. at 376-77).
Ibid.
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").
561 U.S. 1, 38 (2010) (upholding the prohibition on material support of terrorist organizations, 18 U.S.C. §2339B, against First Amendment challenge).
Al Haramain, 686 F.3d at 1001 (holding that under the prevailing fact circumstances, OFAC's content-based prohibitions on speech violate the First Amendment).
United States v. Amirnazmi, 645 F.3d 564, 583 (3d Cir. 2011).
Ibid., 567.
United States v. Griffith, 515 F. Supp. 3d 106, 115 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
Ibid., 117.
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).
Van Loon v. Dep't of Treasury, No. 1:23-CV-312-RP, 2023 WL 5313091, at *12 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2023).
Executive Order 13873 of May 15, 2019, "Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain," 84 Federal Register 22689, May 17, 2019.
Executive Order 13942 of 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 Federal Register 48637, August 11, 2020; Executive Order 13943 of 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 Federal Register 48641, August 11, 2020.
Executive Order 13942.
Executive Order 13943.
Executive Order 13942; Executive Order 13943.
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 4692706 (9th Cir. August 9, 2021).
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).
Marland, 498 F. Supp. 3d at 632.
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").
Marland, 498 F. Supp. 3d at 632 (quoting September 17 Commerce Department memorandum).
Ibid., 634.
Ibid. (citing 5 U.S.C. §702; 50 U.S.C. §1702(b)(1) and (3)).
Ibid., 636.
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.").
Ibid.
Ibid., 638.
Ibid.
Ibid., 639.
TikTok, Inc. v. Trump, 490 F. Supp. 3d 73 (D.D.C. 2020).
Ibid., 80.
Ibid., 82 (quoting 50 U.S.C. §1702(b)(3)).
Ibid., 81.
Ibid., 83.
50 U.S.C. §1702(b)(1).
TikTok, 490 F. Supp. 3d at 83.
Ibid.
Ibid.
U.S. Commerce Department, https://www.commerce.gov/files/identification-prohibited-transactions-implement-executive-order-13943-and-address-threat.
Ibid.
U.S. WeChat Users Alliance v. Trump, 488 F. Supp. 3d 912 (N.D. Cal. 2020).
Ibid., 926 (referring to plaintiffs' description of WeChat as "a public square for the Chinese-American and Chinese-speaking community in the U.S").
Ibid., 927.
Ibid. (discounting government's "argument that other substitute social-media apps permit communication").
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)).
U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, 488 F. Supp. 3d at 927 (citing Ward, 491 U.S. at 791; Pac. Coast Horseshoeing Sch., Inc. v. Kirchmeyer, 961 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020)).
U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, 488 F. Supp. 3d at 927.
Ibid., 928 (citing Ward, 491 U.S. at 791).
Ibid., 929.
Ibid. (citing California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 575 (9th Cir. 2018)).
Ibid. (citing Am. Beverage Ass'n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 916 F.3d 749, 758 (9th Cir. 2019)).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid., 930.
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).
Executive Order 14034 of June 9, 2021, "Protecting Americans' Sensitive Data From Foreign Adversaries," 86 Federal Register 31,423 (June11, 2021).
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).
Executive Order 13873 of May 15, 2019, "Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain," 84 Federal Register 22,689 (May 17, 2019).
P.L. 118-50. After the deadline to divest had passed and the Supreme Court upheld PAFACAA, TikTok Inc. v. Garland, 145 S. Ct. 57 (2025) (per curiam), President Trump suspended enforcement for 75 days. Executive Order 14166, "Application of Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act to Tiktok," 90 Federal Register 8611, January 20, 2025. For more information, see CRS Report R48023, TikTok: Frequently Asked Questions and Issues for Congress, by Michael D. Sutherland, Peter J. Benson, and Clare Y. Cho (2025). In June 2025, President Trump extended the enforcement delay until September 17, 2025. Executive Order 14310, "Further Extending the TikTok Enforcement Delay," 90 Federal Register 26913, June 24, 2025.
P.L. 118-50, div. H, §2.
The Export Control Reform Act of 2018" section below.
P.L. 96-72, §2, 93 Stat. 503 (1979), codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§4601-4623 (2018).
Executive Order 12444 of October 14, 1983, "Continuation of Export Control Regulations," 48 Federal Register 48215, October 18, 1983.
Ibid.
Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, "Continuation of Export Control Regulations," 66 Federal Register 44025, August 22, 2001.
See, for example, Continuation of Emergency Regarding Export Control Regulations, 82 Federal Register 39005 (August 15, 2017).
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.
United States v. Mechanic, 809 F.2d 1111, 1112-13 (5th Cir. 1987).
Ibid., 1113-14 (emphasizing the foreign affairs connection served by the EAA).
United States v. Quinn, 401 F. Supp. 2d 80, 93 (D.D.C. 2005).
Ibid., 95.
5 U.S.C. §552(b)(3) (2018).
Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 317 F.3d 275, 282 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Ibid.
Micei Int'l v. Dep't of Commerce, 613 F.3d 1147, 1150 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
Ibid., 1151.
Ibid., 1153 (internal citations omitted).
Ibid., 1152 (citing 5 U.S.C. §704 (2009)).
For information about illicit uses of cryptocurrency, see CRS Report R47425, Cryptocurrency: Selected Policy Issues, by Paul Tierno (2023); CRS In Focus IF12537, Terrorist Financing: Hamas and Cryptocurrency Fundraising, by Liana W. Rosen, Paul Tierno, and Rena S. Miller (2024).
122 F.4th 549 (5th Cir. 2024).
CRS In Focus IF12405, Introduction to Cryptocurrency, by Paul Tierno (2025).
Ibid., 565.
According to 31 C.F.R. § 510.323
The terms property and property interest include money, checks, drafts, bullion, bank deposits, savings accounts, debts, indebtedness, obligations, notes, guarantees, debentures, stocks, bonds, coupons, any other financial instruments, bankers acceptances, mortgages, pledges, liens or other rights in the nature of security, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, trust receipts, bills of sale, any other evidences of title, ownership, or indebtedness, letters of credit and any documents relating to any rights or obligations thereunder, powers of attorney, goods, wares, merchandise, chattels, stocks on hand, ships, goods on ships, real estate mortgages, deeds of trust, vendors' sales agreements, land contracts, leaseholds, ground rents, real estate and any other interest therein, options, negotiable instruments, trade acceptances, royalties, book accounts, accounts payable, judgments, patents, trademarks or copyrights, insurance policies, safe deposit boxes and their contents, annuities, pooling agreements, services of any nature whatsoever, contracts of any nature whatsoever, and any other property, real, personal, or mixed, tangible or intangible, or interest or interests therein, present, future, or contingent.
Ibid., footnote 53.
Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, "Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities," 80 Federal Register 18077, April 2, 2015.
See U.S. Department of the Treasury, "U.S. Treasury Sanctions Notorious Virtual Currency Mixer Tornado Cash," press release, August 8, 2022, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916.
Van Loon, 122 F.4th at 553.
Ibid. at 553–54.
Van Loon v. Dep't of Treasury, 688 F. Supp. 3d 454, 468 (W.D. Tex. 2023) (rejecting plaintiffs' argument that the smart contracts are immutable and not subject to being owned because OFAC's definition of property encompasses "contracts of any nature whatsoever"), rev'd and remanded sub nom. Van Loon v. Dep't of the Treasury, 122 F.4th 549 (5th Cir. 2024).
Van Loon, 122 F.4th at 568.
Ibid.
Ibid., 570.
Ibid., 554.
Executive Order 14193 of February 1, 2025, "Imposing Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border," 90 Federal Register 9113, February 7, 2025; Executive Order 14194 of February 1, 2025, "Imposing Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border," 90 Federal Register 9117, February 7, 2025; Executive Order 14195 of February 1, 2025, "Imposing Duties To Address the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People's Republic of China," 90 Federal Register 9121, February 7, 2025; Executive Order 14245 of March 24, 2025, "Imposing Tariffs on Countries Importing Venezuelan Oil," 90 Federal Register 13829, March 27, 2025; Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025, "Regulating Imports With a Reciprocal Tariff To Rectify Trade Practices That Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits," 90 Federal Register 15041, April 7, 2025; Executive Order 14323 of July 30, 2025, "Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Brazil," 90 Federal Register 37739, August 5, 2025. See also CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11281, Legal Authority for the President to Impose Tariffs Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), by Christopher T. Zirpoli (2025).
Executive Order 14193.
Executive Order 14194.
Executive Order 14195.
Executive Order 14245.
Executive Order 14257.
Executive Order 14323.
See, for example, S. 151 (119th Cong.); H.R. 407 (119th Cong.).
See CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11332, Court Decisions Regarding Tariffs Imposed Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), by Christopher T. Zirpoli (2025).
V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, No. 25-00066, Slip Op. 25-66 at 48-49 (Ct. Int'l Trade May 28, 2025); Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 25-01248, Memorandum Op. at 27 (D.D.C. May 29, 2025). See also CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11332, Court Decisions Regarding Tariffs Imposed Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), by Christopher T. Zirpoli (2025).
V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Nos. 2025-1812, -1813, Order (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2025) (en banc consideration granted); Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 25-5202, Order (D.C. Cir. July 1, 2025) (scheduling oral argument for Sept. 30, 2025). See also CRS Legal Sidebar LSB11332, Court Decisions Regarding Tariffs Imposed Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), by Christopher T. Zirpoli (2025).
V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Nos. 2025-1812, 2025-1813, 2025 LX 386998, at *47-48 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2025) ("We affirm the CIT's holding that the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA's text. We also affirm the CIT's grant of declaratory relief that the orders are "invalid as contrary to law. We vacate the CIT's grant of a permanent injunction universally enjoining the enforcement of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs and remand for the CIT to reevaluate the propriety of granting injunctive relief and the proper scope of such relief, after considering all four eBay factors and the Supreme Court's holding in CASA." Internal citations omitted)
See, for example, Jason Luong, "Forcing Constraint"; Jules Lobel, "Emergency Power and the Decline of Liberalism."
See, for example, "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.
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.
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10267, Definition of National Emergency under the National Emergencies Act, by Jennifer K. Elsea (2019).
50 U.S.C. §1701.
House Markup, p. 12.
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 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 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 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.
50 U.S.C. §§1803-1805.
"The International Emergency Economic Powers Act," Harvard Law Review, p. 1111 n. 49.
Ibid.; See also Thronson, "Toward Comprehensive Reform of America's Emergency Law Regime," pp. 757-758.
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.
Ibid.
Executive Order 14193 of February 1, 2025, "Imposing Duties To Address the Flow of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border," 90 Federal Register 9113, February 7, 2025; Executive Order 14194 of February 1, 2025, "Imposing Duties To Address the Situation at Our Southern Border," 90 Federal Register 9117, February 7, 2025; Executive Order 14195 of February 1, 2025, "Imposing Duties To Address the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People's Republic of China," 90 Federal Register 9121, February 7, 2025.
See, for example, the testimony of Andreas F. Lowenfeld before the House Subcommittee on International Economic Policy 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., 1st sess. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1977), pp. 8-9.
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 by other means appropriately and reasonably related […] to the particular nature of the emergency declared.").
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, 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 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, 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 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 gradually increase a 5% 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-statements/statement-president-regarding-emergency-measures-address-border-crisis/. See also CRS Insight IN11129, The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (NEA), and Tariffs: Historical Background and Key Issues, by Christopher A. Casey (2025).For example, 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 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., January 23, 2019; Reclaiming Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2019, S. 899 (Kaine), 116th Cong., 1st sess., March 27, 2019.
Thronson, "Toward Comprehensive Reform of America's Emergency Law Regime," p. 759.
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. See also Rachel Jessica Wolff, "Whose Constitutional Authority Is It Anyway? Nondelegation, the National Emergencies Act, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act," Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 21 (2023), p. 628.
For example, 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), 116th Cong., 2nd sess., December 22, 2020.
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., 1st sess., January 23, 2019; Reclaiming Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2019, S. 899 (Kaine), 116th Cong., 1st sess., March 27, 2019.
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, "Emergencies Without End: A Primer on Federal States of Emergency," Lawfare, December 8, 2017.
See "Implications of Terminating National Emergencies Invoking IEEPA"
House, Trading with the Enemy Act Reform Legislation, p. 9.
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 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 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.
50 U.S.C. §1622(b).
For example, 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 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.
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; S.J.Res. 10 (Udall), 116th Cong., 1st sess., February 28, 2019.
Ibid.
Act of April 10, 2023, P.L. 118-3, 137 Stat. 6.
Ibid.
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 (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 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.
50 U.S.C. §1622(a) provides that:
[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-
(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
(C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date.
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 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 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 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 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 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, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." 50 U.S.C. §1702(a)(1)(B).
50 U.S.C. §1706(a)(1).
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").
Executive Order 13304 of May 28, 2003, "Termination of Emergencies With Respect to Yugoslavia and Modification of Executive Order 13219 of June 26, 2001," 68 Federal Register 32315, May 29, 2003.
See, for example, Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 219 F. Supp. 2d 57, 67 (D.D.C. 2002), aff'd, 333 F.3d 156 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
See Glob. Relief Found., Inc. v. O'Neill, 315 F.3d 748, 753 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding that covered "interest" need not be a legal interest "in the way that a trustee is legal owner of the corpus even if someone else enjoys the beneficial interest").
50 U.S.C. §1706(a)(1) (emphasis added).
Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), P.L. 115-232.
Ibid. §1766(a).
Executive Order 13222.
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.
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 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).").