06-24-2025

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Western Balkans

NoticeView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: This executive action continues a national emergency for one year, empowering the President to impose economic sanctions on individuals and groups who threaten peace and stability in the Western Balkans. These sanctions can freeze assets and bar entry into the United States.

Money: There is no direct appropriation of funds. Costs are administrative, related to the Treasury Department's enforcement of sanctions. Studies on broader sanctions programs suggest potential costs to the U.S. economy in forgone exports, with one analysis from the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimating that sanctions cost the U.S. $15 billion to $19 billion annually in lost exports across various programs in 1995.

Your Impact: The direct effect on the average American is minimal. However, it prohibits U.S. citizens and companies from conducting business or financial transactions with the specific individuals and entities sanctioned under this order.

Status: The national emergency, first declared in 2001, has been continued for another year beyond its expiration date of June 26, 2025, by a notice signed by the President on June 20, 2025.

What's Actually in the Notice

This notice extends the legal framework that allows the U.S. President to take specific actions against those deemed a threat to American foreign policy interests in the Western Balkans. The continuation of the national emergency, originally established by Executive Order 13219, is based on powers granted to the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This authority allows the President to identify and financially isolate individuals and entities engaged in activities that undermine regional stability.

Core Provisions:

  • The order continues the President's authority to block or freeze all property and interests in property of designated persons that are within the United States or held by U.S. persons.
  • It prohibits any U.S. person (defined as any U.S. citizen, permanent resident alien, or entity organized under U.S. laws) from making or receiving any contribution of funds, goods, or services to or for the benefit of sanctioned individuals or entities.
  • The criteria for sanctions have been expanded over the years to include not just extremist violence and obstruction of peace agreements, but also significant corruption and actions that undermine democratic processes.
  • Individuals sanctioned under this authority are also subject to a ban on entry into the United States.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The White House states that the actions of certain persons in the Western Balkans continue to pose an "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."

  1. To counter extremist violence and obstruction of post-war agreements, such as the Dayton Accords in Bosnia and UN Resolution 1244 in Kosovo.
  2. To combat widespread corruption within governments and institutions in the region that hinders progress toward democratic governance.
  3. To prevent the undermining of post-war institutions and challenges to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations in the Western Balkans.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Foreign Policy, International Finance, and Trade.
Timeline: The national emergency is continued for 1 year beyond June 26, 2025.
Scope: The geographic area covers the territory of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Albania (the Western Balkans). The sanctions target specific individuals and entities, not entire countries.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

Post-Conflict Stabilization (2001-2003):

Following the wars in the former Yugoslavia, the U.S. sought to stabilize the fragile peace. On June 26, 2001, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13219, declaring a national emergency. This initially targeted those obstructing the Dayton Peace Accords in Bosnia and UN resolutions concerning Kosovo, as well as those engaged in extremist violence in what is now North Macedonia. In 2003, Executive Order 13304 amended the order to include obstruction of the Ohrid Framework Agreement in Macedonia.

The Expansion to Anti-Corruption (2021-Present):

After years of being renewed, the focus of the sanctions regime was significantly expanded. On June 8, 2021, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14033. This order modernized the sanctions to more directly target individuals involved in widespread corruption, which the administration identified as a primary destabilizing force that undermines democratic institutions and opens the door for malign foreign influence. Subsequent orders, like E.O. 14140 in January 2025, further solidified this focus, addressing continued attempts to undermine post-war agreements and evade sanctions.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Persistent Instability: The continuation reflects a U.S. assessment that underlying tensions, ethnic divisions, and political fragility persist in the Western Balkans.
  • Combatting Corruption: There is a strong emphasis on corruption as a national security threat. The administration views kleptocracy as a tool used by regional actors and U.S. adversaries to weaken democratic governance from within.
  • Geopolitical Competition: The policy is also a response to the influence of external actors, particularly Russia, which is often accused of leveraging regional instability to undermine transatlantic integration and NATO's presence.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This action primarily affects specific foreign individuals and organizations; for most Americans, the impact is indirect, related to foreign policy and national security.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • The intended benefit is a more stable and peaceful Europe, reducing the risk of larger conflicts that could draw in the U.S. and its allies.
  • By targeting corruption, the policy aims to foster more reliable and democratic trading partners in the long term.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (Immediate):

  • U.S. businesses and individuals must ensure compliance, meaning they cannot transact with anyone on the sanctions list, potentially disrupting existing business relationships.
  • There are administrative costs to the U.S. government for monitoring and enforcing the sanctions.

Long-term:

  • Some analysts argue that extensive use of sanctions can lead to lost economic opportunities for American companies. A 2014 study on Iran sanctions estimated that the U.S. lost between $134.7 and $175 billion in potential export revenue between 1995 and 2012.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Designated individuals and entities in the Western Balkans whose assets are frozen and who are barred from the U.S. financial system. U.S. companies with business interests in the region.
Secondary Groups: Political and business communities within the Western Balkan nations, where the sanctions can shift power dynamics.
Regional Impact: The entire Western Balkans region is the focus, with sanctions applied to individuals and entities across Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Albania, and Montenegro.

Bottom Line: For the average citizen, this executive action is a distant foreign policy tool, but for those with business or personal ties to the Western Balkans, it imposes important legal restrictions.

Where the Parties Stand

U.S. policy toward the Western Balkans, including the use of sanctions, has historically enjoyed broad bipartisan support, with the emergency being initiated by a Republican administration and continued by presidents from both parties. However, their approaches and priorities can differ.

Republican Position: "Peace Through Strength and Economic Ties"

Core Stance: Generally supports using sanctions to protect U.S. security interests and punish obstruction of peace agreements, while sometimes emphasizing economic development as a parallel track.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Support for measures that counter adversaries and ensure stability in a strategic European region.
  • ⚠️ Some Republicans have criticized the application of sanctions, arguing for a different diplomatic approach or expressing concern that sanctions could push countries like Serbia closer to Russia or China.
  • ✗ Opposition may arise if sanctions are seen as harming U.S. economic interests or if they are perceived as part of a broader, less focused foreign policy.

Legislative Strategy: Typically supports the continuation of the emergency but may use congressional oversight to question the effectiveness and targets of specific sanctions.

Democratic Position: "Democracy, Anti-Corruption, and Human Rights"

Core Stance: Generally supports sanctions as a tool to promote democratic institutions, fight corruption, and protect human rights.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Strong support for targeting corrupt officials and those who undermine democratic processes, viewing it as crucial for long-term stability.
  • ⚠️ Some within the party may express concern that sanctions are not being applied forcefully enough against nationalist leaders who threaten regional peace.
  • ✗ Less likely to oppose the measure, but criticism can arise if the policy is seen as alienating local populations or failing to achieve its stated goals.

Legislative Strategy: Tends to advocate for robust implementation of the sanctions regime, often pushing the executive branch to be more aggressive in designating corrupt actors.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional

Basis of Authority:

The President's action is based on powers granted by federal law, primarily the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. This act authorizes the President to regulate commerce and freeze assets in response to an unusual and extraordinary threat to the U.S. that originates abroad, after declaring a national emergency.

Relevant Portion of the Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 2 & 3): The President's authority in foreign policy and national security is derived from their role as Commander in Chief and the duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," which includes statutes like IEEPA passed by Congress.

Constitutional Implications:

Executive Power: IEEPA serves as a statutory delegation of power from Congress to the President, allowing for swift action in foreign policy crises without requiring new legislation for each instance.
Precedent: The Supreme Court has generally upheld the President's authority under IEEPA, recognizing the need for executive discretion in matters of national security and foreign affairs.
Federalism: This action deals exclusively with foreign policy and international commerce, areas constitutionally assigned to the federal government, and does not overstep into powers reserved for the states.

Potential Legal Challenges:

The most likely legal challenges would come from sanctioned individuals or entities. Such lawsuits typically argue that their designation was arbitrary, lacked sufficient evidence, or violated their due process rights. However, courts have historically given significant deference to the executive branch's determinations in these matters.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS POLICY

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support the continued use of targeted sanctions under the national emergency for the Western Balkans to promote stability and fight corruption. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support these efforts."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or the House Foreign Affairs Committee to express your support.
  • Join an Organization: Groups like the Atlantic Council or the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) often publish research supporting engagement and stability in the Balkans.

TO OPPOSE THIS POLICY

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I am concerned about the perpetual state of emergency regarding the Western Balkans. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to review the effectiveness and economic impact of these long-standing sanctions."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper arguing that after more than two decades, this emergency power should be reconsidered or that sanctions are not the right tool for the region.
  • Join an Organization: Some civil liberties or anti-war organizations may question the broad and long-term use of emergency powers and sanctions as a foreign policy tool.