As the year came to a close, the Kharon Brief asked a range of industry leaders to assess 2025’s biggest storylines and what’s coming in 2026 in sanctions, risk and compliance.
Rachel Alpert is a partner at Jenner & Block and former chief counsel at the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
Looking back: The United States’ significant expansion in its use of terrorism-related designation authorities is a defining storyline of 2025. This dates to the start of the administration, with the January 20 executive order that launched the process to designate numerous cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs).
Since that executive order, we have seen a proliferation of FTO and SDGT designations, including against Ansarallah in Yemen, gangs in Haiti, certain Antifa-related entities in Europe and Cartel de los Soles in Venezuela (encompassing President Nicolás Maduro and associates), plus another executive order, last month, directing the secretary of state to consider designating certain Muslim Brotherhood chapters.
September’s NSPM-7, which focuses on “Domestic Terrorism,” underscores the focus on novel uses of terrorism authorities and the whole-of-government approach to the issue set.
Looking ahead: At a macro level, I think government leaders should work to clarify and refine the overarching goal and appropriate uses of the sanctions toolkit.
We have seen sanctions used in response to a range of issues, and it is not always clear what the objective is of the sanctions action, what change in behavior would be sufficient to remove the sanctions, or why sanctions are being used, as opposed to a different tool of foreign policy and national security. To avoid the overuse or abuse of sanctions, it is important for policymakers to address each of these factors as sanctions are developed and applied.
In the meantime, industry must be prepared to deal with the growing complexity and evolution in the use of sanctions and related tools, which are increasingly extraterritorial and less precise in their application and effect. This means that compliance systems must be continuously reviewed and evaluated to ensure they match the risks posed by changing uses and applications of sanctions, export controls, and other tools in the United States and worldwide.
Rachel Alpert is a partner at Jenner & Block and former chief counsel at the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
Looking back: The United States’ significant expansion in its use of terrorism-related designation authorities is a defining storyline of 2025. This dates to the start of the administration, with the January 20 executive order that launched the process to designate numerous cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs).
Since that executive order, we have seen a proliferation of FTO and SDGT designations, including against Ansarallah in Yemen, gangs in Haiti, certain Antifa-related entities in Europe and Cartel de los Soles in Venezuela (encompassing President Nicolás Maduro and associates), plus another executive order, last month, directing the secretary of state to consider designating certain Muslim Brotherhood chapters.
September’s NSPM-7, which focuses on “Domestic Terrorism,” underscores the focus on novel uses of terrorism authorities and the whole-of-government approach to the issue set.
Looking ahead: At a macro level, I think government leaders should work to clarify and refine the overarching goal and appropriate uses of the sanctions toolkit.
We have seen sanctions used in response to a range of issues, and it is not always clear what the objective is of the sanctions action, what change in behavior would be sufficient to remove the sanctions, or why sanctions are being used, as opposed to a different tool of foreign policy and national security. To avoid the overuse or abuse of sanctions, it is important for policymakers to address each of these factors as sanctions are developed and applied.
In the meantime, industry must be prepared to deal with the growing complexity and evolution in the use of sanctions and related tools, which are increasingly extraterritorial and less precise in their application and effect. This means that compliance systems must be continuously reviewed and evaluated to ensure they match the risks posed by changing uses and applications of sanctions, export controls, and other tools in the United States and worldwide.
