“The First Amendment generally forecloses the government from using its sanctions authority to suppress the exchange of ideas—and it certainly prohibits the government from preventing scholars from engaging with one of the foremost experts in their field,” says Xiangnong (George) Wang, staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute. “The Treasury Department’s concession is a significant reprieve to the many American scholars, journalists, and advocates that have been chilled from exercising their rights because they fear liability under U.S. sanctions laws.”

In February 2025, President Trump signed an executive order authorizing sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC), asserting that the court’s investigations of U.S. and Israeli citizens for potential human rights violations posed an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States. In July 2025, acting pursuant to that executive order, Secretary Marco Rubio designated Albanese, who serves as the U.N. “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967.” The designation has the effect of making it illegal for American groups and individuals to provide “funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit” of Albanese.

Given Albanese’s expertise in international law and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular, MESA made plans to invite Albanese to be the featured speaker in an online event scheduled for January 2026. Due to her designation, however, MESA became concerned that it could not proceed with the event without exposing itself and its members to the risk of severe civil and criminal penalties.  In October, the Knight Institute sent the Treasury Department  a letter on MESA’s behalf seeking assurances that MESA would not violate U.S. sanctions law by including Albanese in its event, and expressing concern about the profound chilling effect that the Trump administration’s ICC sanctions restrictions could have on a wide range of academic and political discourse.

Last week’s response from the Treasury Department confirms that MESA and its members may go forward with its event with Albanese without fear of penalty, and that the U.S. government cannot use its economic sanctions authority to suppress the cross-border exchange of information and ideas.

“We’re pleased with this result. It’s imperative that our members be able to engage as academics with an internationally respected and globally renowned advocate for human rights without fear of retribution or punishment,” says Ussama Makdisi, president of MESA. 

“Academic freedom is tested not when speech is easy, but when it is contested,” adds Aslı Bâli, past president of MESA. “Inviting U.N. Special Rapporteur Albanese to address our membership affirms MESA’s role as a forum for intellectual engagement and scholarly inquiry free from government sanctions.”

Read the Treasury Department’s letter here.

Read the Knight Institute’s October letter here.

Lawyers involved include Wang, Jake Karr, Nicola Morrow, Anna Diakun, Alex Abdo, and Jameel Jaffer for the Knight First Amendment Institute.

For more information, contact: Lorraine Kenny, lorraine.kenny@knightcolumbia.org. 

As part of our efforts to combat the Trump administration’s weaponization of its ICC sanctions regime to suppress disfavored speech, the Knight Institute recently helped secure a meaningful victory for Josh Paul, a foreign policy expert and former State Department official. Mr. Paul had been asked to testify as an expert witness in a lawsuit in Canada challenging the Canadian government’s role in exporting military components and technology to Israel during the war in Gaza. But because one of the plaintiffs in the case is the Palestinian human rights organization Al-Haq, which has been sanctioned by the U.S. government, Mr. Paul was aware that offering his expert opinions in the case could expose him to severe criminal and civil penalties. In response to a letter sent by the Knight Institute and cooperating attorney Joseph Pace, the Treasury Department issued what is known as a “license” to Mr. Paul, allowing him to go forward with his participation in the lawsuit, albeit for a limited time and subject to certain conditions. 

Treasury’s license is an important but incomplete victory. Most directly, it enables Mr. Paul to engage in constitutionally protected speech by offering his expert views in the lawsuit. And the license serves as tacit acknowledgement that the U.S. government likely has limited interests in policing such activity. These are notable concessions. The license, however, falls short of what we had requested—public guidance making clear that serving as an independent expert witness at the request of counsel representing a designated entity does not violate U.S. sanctions law, and that no authorization is required before Mr. Paul and others engage in this kind of activity. Treasury’s decision to issue a limited license, instead of guidance disclaiming its authority to regulate this kind of speech, suggests that Treasury believes it has the power to restrict or permit, at its sole discretion, expert testimony in these circumstances. Treasury’s position effectively institutes a prior restraint on speech, implicitly requiring any person who wishes to engage in it to first ask the government for permission.

The license comes in the context of the Trump administration’s sustained campaign to “systematically disable” the ICC and those who assist its efforts to investigate and prosecute U.S. or Israeli citizens for alleged human rights violations. In February 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that imposes sanctions on foreign persons whom the Secretary of State determines “to have directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute” citizens of the United States or certain U.S. allies, including Israel. The executive order expressly prohibits Americans from providing “services by, to, or for the benefit of any [designated] person,” while making no attempt to define or limit the term “services” or explain what it means for a service to be “by, to, or for the benefit of” a designated entity. These broad and vague prohibitions are backed by serious civil and even criminal penalties.

The U.S. government has subsequently relied on the executive order to sanction numerous groups and individuals. It designated several ICC judges and prosecutors, citing their attempts to investigate and prosecute U.S. and Israeli citizens. It designated Francesca Albanese, an international human rights expert who serves as the U.N. “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” because she had “directly engaged” with the ICC, including by recommending that the ICC issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. And it designated Al-Haq and two other prominent Palestinian human rights groups for purportedly aiding the ICC in its efforts to “investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute Israeli nationals.” The sanctions against Al-Haq and others have had significant consequences for the targets of those designations, cutting them off from critical funding, resources, and infrastructure that originate from U.S. sources. But they have also had a profound impact on the many Americans who wish to engage with those who have been sanctioned—through constitutionally protected speech and association—but who are fearful that doing so could expose them to liability for violating U.S. sanctions law. Indeed, over the past year, the Knight Institute has heard from numerous scholars, journalists, and human rights advocates who have been chilled from exercising their First Amendment rights because they fear that speaking to, hearing from, and collaborating with sanctioned entities could result in serious civil and criminal liability.

Treasury’s license is significant because it permits Mr. Paul to proceed with his plans to assist the Canadian courts with adjudicating a major constitutional case without the fear that he will run afoul of U.S. sanctions law, but more durable protections are necessary to address the significant chilling effect caused by the executive order and the ICC sanctions regime. That is why the Knight Institute has sought to cabin the Treasury Department’s authority to apply its sanctions restrictions expansively to restrict protected speech and association. Scholars, journalists, and human rights advocates should be free to continue their vital work without the looming threat of sanctions enforcement hanging over their heads.