07-23-2025

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Mali

NoticeView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: This executive notice extends for one year a national emergency concerning the crisis in Mali. This allows the President to continue using economic sanctions against individuals and groups contributing to the conflict, instability, and human rights abuses in that country.

Money: The notice itself does not appropriate new funds. Its financial impact comes from the economic sanctions authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which freezes the U.S. assets of designated individuals and entities. The sanctions can also disrupt trade and financial flows, impacting the Malian economy and putting pressure on government finances.

Your Impact: For the average American, the direct impact is minimal. However, the action is intended to protect U.S. national security by combating terrorism and instability in the Sahel region. Businesses and individuals with financial or commercial dealings in Mali must ensure they do not transact with sanctioned parties.

Status: The national emergency, first declared on July 26, 2019, has been continued for one year beyond July 26, 2025. This notice was signed on July 21, 2025, and scheduled for publication in the Federal Register.

What's Actually in the Bill

This executive action is a formal continuation of a national emergency declared under Executive Order 13882 in 2019. The continuation is a legal requirement of the National Emergencies Act, which mandates that such emergencies must be renewed annually to remain in effect. By extending the emergency, the President retains the authority to impose a range of economic sanctions to address the ongoing threat to U.S. foreign policy and national security posed by the situation in Mali.

Core Provisions:

  • The national emergency declared in Executive Order 13882 is continued for 1 year beyond its expiration date of July 26, 2025.
  • The order allows for the continued blocking of property and assets within U.S. jurisdiction belonging to persons determined to be undermining peace, security, and democracy in Mali.
  • It also suspends the entry into the United States of individuals designated under the order.
  • The specified reasons for the emergency include coups d'état, the expansion of terrorist activities, the presence of foreign mercenaries, human rights abuses, and attacks on civilians and peacekeepers.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The White House states this continuation is necessary because the situation in Mali continues to pose an "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."

  1. To address the political instability marked by multiple coups and the termination of the 2015 Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation.
  2. To counter the expansion of terrorist activities and the intensification of drug and human trafficking.
  3. To respond to the threat posed by foreign mercenaries and continued attacks on civilians and international forces.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Foreign Policy, National Security, International Finance, Humanitarian Aid.
Timeline: The extension is effective for one year starting July 26, 2025.
Scope: The action targets specific individuals and entities in Mali deemed responsible for the ongoing crisis, as well as any U.S. persons or businesses who might transact with them.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Sahelian Crisis (2012-Present):

The foundation for the current emergency was laid over a decade ago. In 2012, a Tuareg rebellion in northern Mali was co-opted by Islamist extremist groups, leading to a military coup in the capital, Bamako. Despite international intervention, the country has struggled with instability. A peace agreement was signed in 2015 but has been repeatedly violated. The security situation has deteriorated significantly, with jihadist violence spreading to the center of the country.

This protracted instability led to another military coup in August 2020, which overthrew the elected president. Just nine months later, in May 2021, the same military leader, Colonel Assimi Goïta, staged a second coup, consolidating his power. Since then, the junta has delayed a return to democratic elections multiple times, drawing international condemnation and sanctions from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The junta has also pushed out French and UN peacekeeping forces, turning instead to Russian mercenaries from the Wagner Group, whose presence the U.S. has sanctioned.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Legal Requirement: The National Emergencies Act requires the President to review and renew a declared national emergency each year for it to remain in effect.
  • Geopolitical Instability: The Sahel region is a hotbed of political instability, with recent coups in neighboring Burkina Faso and Niger creating a "belt of instability." The U.S. sees the situation as a critical threat, with the potential for extremist groups to create a safe haven.
  • Countering Russian Influence: The Malian junta's partnership with the Kremlin-linked Wagner Group is a major concern for Washington. Continuing the emergency allows the U.S. to sanction officials involved in this partnership and counter Russia's growing influence in the region.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This action directly affects specific individuals and industries engaged with Mali, but for most Americans, the impact is indirect, related to national security.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • National Security: The primary stated benefit is preventing the growth of terrorist organizations that could potentially threaten U.S. interests at home or abroad.
  • Regional Stability: By pressuring destabilizing actors, the policy aims to support long-term peace and stability in a strategically important region of Africa.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-2 years):

  • Humanitarian Impact: Broad economic sanctions, even with exemptions for essentials, can worsen the humanitarian crisis. Mali faces severe food insecurity, with millions dependent on aid, and sanctions can disrupt the flow of goods and financing for basic services.
  • Compliance Costs: U.S. businesses operating in or near the region face continued regulatory burdens to ensure they are not violating sanctions.

Long-term:

  • Economic Strain on Mali: Protracted sanctions can hinder economic development, increase poverty, and potentially fuel the grievances that armed groups exploit.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Malian political and military leaders targeted by sanctions, as well as their financial backers. U.S. companies with investments or trade in Mali.
Secondary Groups: The Malian population, which may suffer from the broader economic consequences of sanctions and instability. Humanitarian organizations, whose work is complicated by both the conflict and the sanctions regime.
Regional Impact: The instability in Mali has a direct effect on neighboring countries like Burkina Faso and Niger, which face similar security threats and are now allied with Mali in the Alliance of Sahel States (AES).

Bottom Line: While you are unlikely to feel a direct effect, this executive action continues a U.S. policy of applying economic pressure to address a complex foreign crisis that it believes poses a long-term threat to American security.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Varies; Focus on Counter-Terrorism and Criticisms of Strategy"

Core Stance: There is no single Republican position on this specific executive action, but generally, the party emphasizes strong counter-terrorism measures and is often critical of the effectiveness of the current administration's foreign policy.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Support for actions that counter terrorist threats and the influence of adversaries like Russia (specifically the Wagner Group).
  • ⚠️ Concern that current policies are not robust enough to prevent the spread of extremism in the Sahel and may question the reliance on economic sanctions alone without a more comprehensive security strategy.
  • ✗ Some populist voices may argue for a more isolationist approach, questioning the level of U.S. involvement and resources dedicated to crises in regions not seen as a direct, immediate threat.

Legislative Strategy: Typically involves using committee oversight to question administration officials on the strategy's effectiveness, proposing alternative approaches to counter-terrorism, and potentially scrutinizing foreign aid budgets for the region.

Democratic Position: "Lead with Diplomacy and Sanctions"

Core Stance: The Democratic position is embodied by the Biden administration's action, which prioritizes using economic tools and diplomatic pressure over direct military intervention.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ This approach allows the U.S. to exert influence and respond to human rights abuses and anti-democratic actions without committing American troops.
  • ✓ Sanctions are a key tool for holding the Malian junta accountable for delaying elections and partnering with Russian mercenaries.
  • ⚠️ Some in the party may express concern over the humanitarian impact of broad sanctions and advocate for more robust aid and clearer exemptions to protect civilians.

Legislative Strategy: To support the administration's executive actions, secure funding for humanitarian aid and democracy promotion programs, and build international coalitions to increase pressure on the Malian junta.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional

Basis of Authority:

The President's action is based on powers granted by Congress through federal law. The notice explicitly cites the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act (NEA). IEEPA, in turn, is constitutionally grounded in the President's authority to conduct foreign policy and protect national security, derived from Article II of the Constitution.

[International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § 1701)]: "[The President has the authority to] deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat."

Constitutional Implications:

Separation of Powers: IEEPA represents a significant delegation of power from Congress to the President. Enacted in 1977, it was intended to limit the president's emergency powers under the older Trading with the Enemy Act, but critics argue it still provides sweeping authority with limited congressional oversight.
Precedent: The Supreme Court has generally upheld the President's broad authority under IEEPA to regulate foreign commerce and act in the sphere of national security and foreign policy.
Federalism: This action concerns foreign policy and national security, which are firmly within the powers of the federal government, and does not overstep into powers reserved for the states.

Potential Legal Challenges:

While this specific continuation is unlikely to face a successful legal challenge, IEEPA itself is the subject of ongoing legal and academic debate. Challenges could theoretically argue that the "emergency" has become permanent, violating the spirit of the National Emergencies Act, or that the powers exercised exceed the scope of the threat.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support the administration's use of sanctions under Executive Order 13882 to hold the Malian junta accountable and protect U.S. national security interests."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee to express your support for a firm stance against anti-democratic actors and Russian influence in the Sahel.
  • Join an Organization: Groups like the Atlantic Council or the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) often publish research and host events supporting active U.S. engagement on security issues in the Sahel.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

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 humanitarian impact of sanctions on Mali. I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to press the administration for greater humanitarian exemptions and oversight of these measures."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper highlighting the severe humanitarian crisis in Mali and questioning whether broad economic sanctions are the most effective tool for promoting stability.
  • Join an Organization: Humanitarian groups like Oxfam, the Norwegian Refugee Council, and Catholic Relief Services advocate for policies that prioritize civilian well-being and have raised concerns about the impact of sanctions. The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft often critiques sanctions-heavy foreign policy and advocates for alternative approaches.