Notice September 10, 2025 Doc #2025-17552

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism

Defense Foreign Policy Economy Public Safety

💡

In Simple Terms

The President has decided to keep the national emergency about terrorism going for another year. This means the rules to fight terrorism will stay in place.

Summary

On September 8, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a notice to continue the national emergency concerning terrorism, originally declared by Executive Order 13224 on September 23, 2001. This action extends the emergency for another year, recognizing the ongoing threat posed by individuals who commit, threaten, or support terrorism. The continuation aims to maintain measures that address the unusual and extraordinary threat to U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economy. This notice will be published in the Federal Register and sent to Congress.

Official Record

Federal Register Published

Signed by the President

September 08, 2025

Published in Federal Register

View on Federal Register View Printed Version (PDF)

September 10, 2025

Document #2025-17552

Analysis & Impact

💡 How This May Affect You

The continuation of the national emergency with respect to terrorism primarily involves maintaining existing measures to combat terrorism, such as sanctions and financial restrictions. Here’s how this might affect different groups of Americans:

Working Families and Individuals

For most working families and individuals, the continuation of this national emergency is unlikely to have a direct impact on their daily lives. However, the broader implications of maintaining national security can influence their sense of safety and security. If the measures successfully prevent terrorist activities, families may feel more secure in public spaces and during travel.

Small Business Owners

Small business owners might experience indirect effects, especially those involved in international trade or finance. Enhanced scrutiny and regulations on international transactions could mean additional compliance requirements. For example, businesses might need to ensure they are not inadvertently dealing with sanctioned entities, which could involve more paperwork or due diligence procedures.

Students and Recent Graduates

Students and recent graduates, particularly those studying international relations, political science, or security studies, might find increased opportunities in fields related to national security, such as cybersecurity or intelligence analysis. Additionally, those planning to study abroad or engage in international internships might experience more stringent travel advisories or security checks, depending on the geopolitical climate.

Retirees and Seniors

Retirees and seniors are unlikely to see direct changes in their daily lives due to this policy. However, they might experience indirect effects, such as changes in travel advisories or increased security measures at airports and public events, which could affect travel plans or participation in large gatherings.

Different Geographic Regions

Urban Areas: Residents in urban areas, especially those with high-profile landmarks or events, might notice heightened security measures. This could include more visible police presence or security checks, which could impact daily commutes or participation in public events.
Suburban Areas: Suburban regions might see less direct impact but could still experience increased security measures in nearby urban centers, affecting those who commute for work or leisure.
Rural Areas: Rural areas are less likely to be directly affected by these measures. However, residents might notice changes if they travel to more populated areas or if local businesses engage in international trade.

Overall, while the continuation of the national emergency is aimed at maintaining national security, its direct impact on everyday life for most Americans is limited. The primary effects are felt in terms of enhanced security measures and regulatory compliance for businesses engaged in international activities.

🏢 Key Stakeholders

Primary Beneficiaries:

National Security Agencies (e.g., Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA): These agencies benefit as the continuation of the national emergency provides them with extended powers and resources to combat terrorism, enhancing their ability to protect national security.
Defense Contractors and Security Firms: Companies in the defense and security sectors stand to gain from sustained government contracts and funding aimed at counter-terrorism efforts, bolstering their business operations and financial performance.

Those Who May Face Challenges:

Individuals and Organizations on Sanctions Lists: Persons or entities designated under Executive Order 13224 face continued financial and operational restrictions, limiting their access to U.S. financial systems and affecting their global operations.
Civil Liberties Advocacy Groups: Organizations focused on civil rights may view the extension as a potential infringement on personal freedoms and privacy, prompting them to challenge the scope and application of these emergency powers.

Industries, Sectors, or Professions Most Impacted:

Financial Institutions: Banks and financial service providers are required to comply with enhanced regulatory measures to prevent financing of terrorism, impacting their operations and compliance costs.
International Trade and Travel Industries: Companies involved in international trade and travel may face increased scrutiny and regulatory hurdles as part of efforts to prevent the movement of terrorists and funds.

Government Agencies or Departments Involved in Implementation:

U.S. Department of the Treasury: Responsible for enforcing financial sanctions and monitoring compliance with anti-terrorism financing regulations, playing a key role in implementing the national emergency measures.
Department of Justice: Engages in legal proceedings and enforcement actions against individuals and entities that violate sanctions or engage in terrorist activities, ensuring adherence to national security laws.

Interest Groups, Advocacy Organizations, or Lobbies with Strong Positions:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): Likely to express concerns over the implications for individual rights and freedoms, advocating for a balance between security measures and civil liberties.
Defense Industry Associations: Supportive of the continuation, these groups lobby for sustained or increased defense spending and policies that enhance national security and defense capabilities.

📈 What to Expect

Short-term (3-12 months):

Immediate Implementation Steps: The continuation of the national emergency will involve renewing existing sanctions and measures targeting individuals and entities involved in terrorism. This includes maintaining or adjusting the list of sanctioned individuals and organizations, ensuring compliance with financial institutions, and coordinating with international allies to uphold and enforce these measures.
Early Visible Changes or Effects: Financial institutions and businesses will need to update their compliance protocols to reflect any changes in the sanctioned lists and ensure that they are not inadvertently engaging with blacklisted entities. There might be an uptick in public awareness campaigns about the importance of these measures in combating terrorism.
Potential Initial Reactions or Challenges: There could be mixed reactions from the public and international community. Domestically, there might be support for continued vigilance against terrorism, but also criticism regarding the impact on civil liberties and the potential for overreach. Internationally, allies may express support, while some countries might criticize the U.S. for unilaterally extending measures that could affect global trade and diplomacy.

Long-term (1-4 years):

Broader Systemic Changes: Over time, the continuation of the national emergency could lead to more robust international cooperation in counter-terrorism efforts, as countries align their policies with U.S. measures to prevent their financial systems from being exploited by terrorists. This could also foster advancements in financial technology aimed at detecting and preventing illicit transactions.
Cumulative Effects on Society, Economy, or Policy Landscape: The persistent focus on terrorism could lead to a more secure environment, potentially reducing the frequency and severity of terrorist threats. However, it may also perpetuate a climate of heightened security and surveillance, influencing policies related to privacy and international travel. Economically, sectors like finance and technology might see increased investment in compliance and security infrastructure.
Potential for Modification, Expansion, or Reversal by Future Administrations: Future administrations might reassess the necessity of the national emergency based on the evolving threat landscape. If terrorism threats diminish, there could be calls to scale back or terminate the emergency measures. Conversely, if new threats emerge, the measures might be expanded or modified to address specific challenges, potentially incorporating new technologies or strategies.

Overall, while the continuation of the national emergency aims to safeguard national security, it will require careful balancing of security needs with civil liberties and international diplomatic relations. Observers should watch for developments in the legal and technological frameworks that support these measures, as well as shifts in public and political sentiment that could influence future policy directions.

📚 Historical Context

The continuation of the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism is a significant action that fits within a long-standing tradition of presidential powers being used to address threats to national security. Here’s how this action aligns with historical precedents and what makes it noteworthy:

Historical Precedents

Executive Order 13224 (2001): This order was initially signed by President George W. Bush shortly after the September 11 attacks. It marked a swift and robust response to the unprecedented terrorist attacks, expanding the U.S. government's ability to combat terrorism by freezing assets and blocking financial transactions of individuals and organizations suspected of supporting terrorism.
Subsequent Reinforcements: Over the years, subsequent administrations have reinforced and expanded these measures. For example, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13536 in 2010, targeting acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the Somali coast, which was linked to terrorist financing.
Executive Order 13886 (2019): Signed by President Donald Trump, this order aimed to strengthen and consolidate sanctions against international terrorism, indicating a continuity of the policy approach initiated in 2001.

Building Upon, Modifying, or Reversing Existing Policies

Continuation and Expansion: The action to continue the national emergency is a reaffirmation of the policies set forth by previous administrations. It maintains the legal and financial mechanisms necessary to disrupt terrorist networks and their financial supporters. This continuity underscores the persistent nature of the terrorism threat and the U.S. government's ongoing commitment to combat it.
Policy Evolution: While the core of the policy remains the same, each administration may modify its approach based on the evolving nature of threats. This could involve targeting new entities, updating the list of sanctioned individuals, or adjusting the scope of financial restrictions.

Relevant Historical Patterns

Use of National Emergencies: The use of national emergency declarations has been a common tool in the presidential arsenal to address significant threats. Historically, presidents have declared national emergencies to address a variety of issues, from economic crises to foreign policy challenges. This particular emergency, however, is one of the longest-running, highlighting the enduring nature of the terrorism threat.
Legislative and Executive Balance: The continuation of such emergencies often involves a delicate balance between executive power and legislative oversight, with Congress typically required to be informed and involved in reviewing these declarations.

Unique or Noteworthy Aspects

Longevity of the Emergency: The continuation of this emergency into 2025 makes it one of the longest-standing national emergencies in U.S. history. This longevity reflects the sustained and evolving nature of the terrorism threat globally.
Bipartisan Support: The consistent renewal of this emergency across multiple administrations, regardless of party affiliation, underscores a bipartisan consensus on the importance of maintaining robust measures against terrorism.
Global Context: In a global context, the continuation of this emergency highlights the U.S.'s commitment to international security and its role in leading global anti-terrorism efforts.

In summary, the continuation of the national emergency with respect to terrorism is deeply rooted in historical precedent and represents a sustained and evolving policy approach to a persistent global threat. It underscores the continuity of U.S. counterterrorism policy across different administrations while adapting to new challenges as they arise.