link to page 1 
August 31, 2015
U.S. Hostage Policy: Recent Developments
On June 24, 2015, President Barack Obama issued
Islamic Maghreb, Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Executive Order (EO) 13698, Hostage Recovery Activities,
Colombia, and Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan.
and Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 30, U.S. Nationals
Taken Hostage Abroad and Personnel Recovery Efforts.
Figure 1. Hostage Taken Incidents, Worldwide
The President also announced the release of an interagency
Report on U.S. Hostage Policy, which reviewed U.S.
responses to overseas hostage-takings and identified two
dozen key findings and recommendations. Some security
observers see these documents as reflecting a shift in the
nation’s hostage policy.
Background
EO 13698, PPD 30, and the Hostage Policy Report were the
culmination of a review ordered by President Obama,
following the video-captured beheadings of U.S. journalists
James Foley and Steven Sotloff by the Islamic State in late
August and early September 2014. Subsequent high-profile
incidents further revealed challenges in current hostage
policy, including the deaths of U.S. humanitarian aid
Source: University of Maryland, National Consortium for the Study
workers Peter Kassig and Kayla Mueller, who were killed
of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, Global Terrorism
while detained by the Islamic State; U.S. photojournalist
Database, last updated June 2015.
Luke Somers, who was killed during a mission to rescue
him from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP); and
Policy Changes
U.S. development contractor Warren Weinstein, who was
With the issuance of EO 13698, President Obama directed
unintentionally killed in a drone strike in Pakistan. See
the establishment of a Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell
Figure 1 for longer-term trends related to hostage taken
(HRFC), an interagency entity to coordinate operational-
incidents, worldwide.
level hostage recovery efforts; a Hostage Response Group
(HRG) to support National Security Council strategy
The U.S. hostage policy review team concluded that
development and policy implementation; and a Special
shifting dynamics associated with recent overseas hostage-
Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs within the State
takings necessitated a reconsideration. “Simply put, our
Department to lead diplomatic engagement on hostage
approach has not kept up with this changed environment,”
policy and recovery efforts. EO 13698 also establishes a
the June Hostage Policy Report stated. In addition, former
Family Engagement Coordinator within the HRFC to
U.S. hostages and families of recent hostages had criticized
facilitate all interactions with hostages’ families.
aspects of the U.S. government’s response and outreach.
Media reports revealed that the Director of
PPD 30 and its classified annex reorganize the U.S.
Counterterrorism at the National Security Council had
government to respond to overseas hostage-takings in a
warned families that they risked criminal prosecution if
more coordinated manner through the HRG, HRFC, and
they paid ransoms to terrorists. The June Hostage Policy
through a new Intelligence Community Issue Manager for
Report confirmed that official communications with
Hostage Affairs in Office of the Director of National
families of hostages and other external stakeholders were
Intelligence. It emphasizes improved family engagement
“often ad hoc” and “suffered from a lack of coordinated,
through “proactive” information sharing. Concurrent with
consistent, and accurate information sharing.”
PPD 30’s release, the Justice Department confirmed that it
has never prosecuted a hostage’s family or friends for
Although there is no public list of U.S. citizens currently
paying ransoms. PPD 30 also commits to improved support
held hostage overseas, Homeland Security Advisor Lisa
to the families of hostages and to returned hostages.
Monaco stated in June that more than 30 kidnapped
Americans are still detained abroad. The State
The Directive also asserts the U.S. government’s ability to
Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism 2014 listed 12
“leverage all instruments of national power,” including
private U.S. citizens kidnapped overseas in 2013 by
unilateral action to protect U.S. nationals and U.S. interests
terrorists. The report also described 11 foreign terrorist
under “extraordinary circumstances.” Deterrence efforts
organizations that are partially funded by kidnapping
include “aggressive” interdiction, investigation, and
ransoms: Abu Sayyaf Group, Boko Haram, Haqqani
prosecution of hostage-takers, as well as sanctions
Network, Islamic State, Al-Mulathamun Battalion, National
designations. To improve hostage prevention and recovery
Liberation Army, Al-Nusrah Front, AQAP, Al Qaeda in the
efforts, PPD 30 emphasizes enhanced cooperation with
foreign governments, international organizations, and the
https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S. Hostage Policy: Recent Developments
private sector—including “training, equipment, advice, and
U.S. journalist Peter Theo Curtis, who had been held by Al
intelligence support to foreign governments.”
Nusra Front—and some suggest that the spirit of the no-
concessions policy could have been violated. A July New
The new guidance on hostage policy applies to suspected
Yorker article described the personal involvement of the
and confirmed hostage-takings of U.S. nationals, lawful
head of Qatar’s intelligence services in securing his release.
permanent residents with significant U.S. ties, and other
overseas hostage-takings involving U.S. national interests.
Despite international endorsements of no concessions to
hostage takers, some also question whether the deterrent
value of the policy is hampered by a lack of consistent
The Obama Administration defines hostage taking as
application. In July 2014, for example, the New York Times
“the unlawful abduction or holding of a person or
reported that multiple foreign governments have been
persons against their will in order to compel a third
securing hostage releases through ransom payments to Al
person or governmental organization to do or abstain
Qaeda and its affiliates—resulting in windfalls of at least
from doing any act as a condition for the release of
$125 million between 2008 and 2014.
the person detained.”
Issues for Congress
“No Concessions” Policy Debate
Policy Implementation. Pursuant to EO 13698, there are
PPD 30 upholds the U.S. government’s “policy to deny
two required status updates on hostage policy
implementation: within six months, the HRG must report to
hostage-takers the benefits of ransom, prisoner releases,
the Homeland Security Council (HSC) on the status of its
policy changes, or other acts of concession”—and commits
efforts to establish the HRFC and implement hostage-
the United States to encouraging foreign governments to
related policy guidance; and within one year, the Director
adopt and implement corresponding policies. The no-
of the National Counterterrorism Center must report to the
concessions policy, however, does not preclude direct or
HSC on the executive order’s implementation. Neither EO
indirect communications with hostage-takers.
13698 nor PPD 30 contain requirements to report to
Some have questioned both the commitment and scope of
Congress on policy implementation and effectiveness.
the U.S. government’s longstanding no-concessions policy,
Legislative Activity. The 114th Congress has taken several
a view that was first publicly espoused during the Nixon
actions to address the issue of recovering U.S. hostages
Administration. Although PPD 30 clarifies that the
overseas and preventing the use of kidnappings as a
detention of U.S. citizens by foreign governments or by
terrorist group tactic. Several introduced bills seek to
non-state forces in the context of armed conflict is distinct
improve interagency coordination on hostage recovery
from terrorist kidnapping and hostage situations, the timing
of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s May 2014 release, in
efforts, similar to EO 13698 and PPD 30 (see S. 1635, S.
1652, H.R. 1498, H.R. 2201, and H.R. 2877). Other bills
exchange for five Taliban held at Guantanamo Bay, was
authorize the State Department to issue rewards—up to $5
perceived to contribute to confusion over the U.S.
government’s no
million—for information leading to the arrest or conviction
-concessions policy. Historically, debates
of terrorists involved in the kidnapping of U.S. citizens (see
over U.S. commitments to its no concessions policy date
S. 555 and H.R. 751). Several committees have also held
back to the Iran Hostage Crisis during the Carter
hearings related to terrorist groups, hostage-taking,
Administration and the Iran-Contra Affair during the
kidnapping for profit, and U.S. hostage policy. The Obama
Reagan Administration. Such debates often entail whether
Administration has not requested additional funding to
the United States, or an intermediary on its behalf, should
implement EO 13698 and PPD 30.
pursue communications or attempt negotiations with
hostage takers for fear of setting a precedent that
Congressional Interaction. The Hostage Policy Report
adversaries will increasingly kidnap U.S. citizens to exact
identifies Members of Congress as among several possible
policy concessions.
“third-party intermediaries” (TPIs) who may participate in
hostage recovery efforts and recommends that engagement
A former chief of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
with TPIs as well as responses to congressional inquiries be
Crisis Negotiation Unit reportedly claimed that the no-
more closely and consistently coordinated. It further
concession policy had been flexibly interpreted in the past.
recommends that all interactions with Congress on hostage
Prior to the new guidance on hostage policy, some critics
cases be coordinated by an HRFC congressional affairs
had suggested that ransom payments could be offered in
section. Some may question how centralized management
special cases, including the use of such funds to lure and
for congressional interactions may help or hinder the
ultimately catch perpetrators. The details of U.S. hostage
timeliness and accuracy of information shared with relevant
policy before PPD 30, however, were laid out in a classified
Members, committees, and staffers.
presidential directive issued under the George W. Bush
Administration in 2002 (NSPD-12).
Namchi D. Le assisted with the research of this report.
Some continue to question how the no-concessions policy
applies in cases where hostage takers benefit politically and
Liana W. Rosen, Specialist in International Crime and
gain public prestige and recruitment boosts from
Narcotics
communications and negotiations with government
John W. Rollins, Specialist in Terrorism and National
representatives or third-party interventionists. Public details
Security
also remain vague surrounding the August 2014 release of
IF10286
https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S. Hostage Policy: Recent Developments
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10286 · VERSION 2 · NEW