Passed
392 Yea14 Nay25 Not voting2/3 required
HR-1998-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Sponsored by Jonathan Jackson (D-IL)
What it does
This bill would require the President to impose sanctions on any foreign person determined to have knowingly engaged in piracy, as defined by existing U.S. criminal law (18 U.S.C. Chapter 81). Sanctions would include blocking the person's assets and property within U.S. jurisdiction and revoking or denying U.S. visas and entry. The President may waive sanctions by certifying to Congress at least 15 days in advance that the waiver is necessary for national security, and exceptions exist for humanitarian transactions, intelligence and law enforcement activities, and U.S. obligations under the UN Headquarters Agreement.
Who benefits
Commercial shipping companies and their insurers, whose vessels and cargo are at risk from piracy. Merchant mariners and seafarers who face physical danger from pirate attacks. Consumers and businesses that depend on global supply chains passing through the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, and Indian Ocean. U.S. allies and trading partners whose shipping is also threatened. Port workers and logistics industries that benefit from stable maritime trade routes. Countries like Somalia whose coastal economies are harmed by the presence of pirate networks.
Who is hurt
Foreign nationals determined to be pirates, who would lose access to U.S. financial systems and be barred from entering the United States. Entities or individuals who do business with sanctioned persons and could face secondary exposure. Humanitarian organizations operating in piracy-affected regions, who may face administrative burdens in demonstrating they qualify for the humanitarian exception. Legal scholars and civil liberties advocates who may object to the use of classified evidence in judicial review with limited transparency. Countries whose nationals are sanctioned may experience diplomatic friction with the United States.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that piracy is a direct threat to global commerce and human safety — the bill's findings note that over 1,000 crew members were held hostage and 35 seafarers killed in a single year off Somalia, and that attacks have surged again since late 2023. They contend that mandatory sanctions, rather than discretionary ones, send a clear and credible deterrent signal to would-be pirates and their financial backers, and that using existing IEEPA authority to freeze assets and deny visas is a proven, targeted tool that avoids military escalation while imposing real costs on bad actors.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's mandatory sanction trigger — based solely on a presidential determination — provides insufficient procedural safeguards, since the classified evidence provision limits meaningful judicial review and could result in sanctions imposed on individuals without adequate opportunity to contest the evidence against them. They also contend that economic sanctions have a mixed track record against non-state criminal actors like pirates, who often lack significant U.S.-linked assets, and that the bill may create diplomatic friction with coastal nations whose cooperation is actually essential to suppressing piracy at its source.
Constitutional context
The bill relies on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Congress enacted under its Foreign Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and which delegates broad economic sanction powers to the President. The bill also implicates the President's executive authority over immigration and entry under Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which affirmed broad presidential discretion on entry restrictions subject only to rational basis review.
Checks and balances
The executive branch gains mandatory sanction authority over foreign persons, but Congress retains a check through the 15-day advance notification requirement before any presidential waiver takes effect; courts may review determinations, though the classified evidence provision limits the scope of that review.
Historical precedent
The U.S. has previously used IEEPA-based sanctions against non-state actors, including the designation of Somali piracy networks under Executive Order 13536 (2010), which blocked property of persons engaged in piracy off the Somali coast.
Passed