President Trump has turned the Treasury Department’s sanctions toolbox into a source of political controversy, using designations and delistings in ways former officials and diplomats say often reflect politics or personal loyalties rather than a consistent national-security rationale.
The pattern surfaced publicly after a diplomatic spat with Spain: when Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez criticized U.S. attacks on Iran as a breach of international law, Mr. Trump said he had asked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to “cut off all dealings with Spain” and threatened to stop business with the country. Spain’s foreign minister warned that targeting Spain could ripple across the European Union. While the Treasury technically can sanction foreign individuals and companies, critics say recent moves go beyond traditional, narrowly targeted measures.
Historically, U.S. sanctions are administered through a number of programs — including state-specific regimes and broader tools like the Global Magnitsky program — to counter threats such as weapons proliferation, terrorism, organized crime, corruption and human-rights abuses. Designated parties are placed on the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list, which can freeze assets in U.S. jurisdiction, bar entry to the United States, and cut off access to U.S. financial services. Treasury literature stresses sanctions can, if used properly, disrupt criminal networks, degrade terrorist capabilities and change the behaviors of abusive regimes.
But since the start of Mr. Trump’s second term, former officials and diplomats say the department has increasingly used or lifted sanctions in ways that depart from precedent and the programs’ intended purposes — at times targeting critics of the administration or lifting sanctions on perceived allies.
Notable examples from 2025–2026:
– International Criminal Court: After the ICC issued arrest warrants in 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a former defense minister over the Gaza war, Treasury actions followed. By December 2025, 11 ICC staffers had been sanctioned; apart from two ICC staffers sanctioned in 2020, no previous administration had targeted ICC personnel at this scale. The ICC protested, saying the sanctions threatened judicial independence and the international legal order.
– Francesca Albanese: In July 2025 the Treasury sanctioned U.N. human-rights official Francesca Albanese after she characterized Israeli actions in the Palestinian territories as genocide while investigating abuses. Albanese and others have denounced the designation.
– Alexandre de Moraes and his wife: Also in July 2025 the Treasury designated Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court minister Alexandre de Moraes under the Global Magnitsky program, accusing him of censorship, arbitrary detentions and politicized prosecutions connected to cases involving Jair Bolsonaro. Democrats including Senators Elizabeth Warren, Tim Kaine and Jeanne Shaheen criticized the move as inconsistent with the spirit of Magnitsky and insufficiently supported by evidence. After Brazil’s court convicted Bolsonaro in September, the Treasury also sanctioned De Moraes’ wife; the department lifted both sanctions in December 2025, while ICC-designated individuals remained listed. Treasury spokeswoman Gigi O’Connell declined to comment.
– Gustavo Petro: On Oct. 24, 2025, the Treasury sanctioned Colombian President Gustavo Petro, accusing him of involvement in the “international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.” Petro called the sanction a lie, pointed out Colombia’s drug seizures under his government, and denounced the action as arbitrary and oppressive.
Those designated can petition Treasury for removal from the SDN list; delistings can follow demonstrable behavioral changes or remedies such as audited disclosures, divestments or monitored compliance. Former Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew emphasized that designations were once based on “irreproachable” facts. But several delistings have raised eyebrows because they did not obviously reflect corrective steps.
Examples of contentious delistings include:
– Antal Rogán, head of the Hungarian cabinet, who was sanctioned on Jan. 7, 2025 for alleged political corruption; his sanctions were removed in April 2025. Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman suggested the delisting reflected perceived personal loyalty between Mr. Trump and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán rather than changed behavior. “It’s supposed to operate independent of personal interests, and it’s supposed to reinforce our strategic interests, not advance personal vendettas,” Pressman said.
– Horacio Cartes, former Paraguayan president, was delisted in October 2025 after being accused earlier by Treasury of facilitating bribes tied to Hezbollah-linked events and pervasive corruption. Marc Ostfield, U.S. ambassador to Paraguay from 2022 to 2025, said Cartes had not shown a clear change in the behavior that led to his listing, making the delisting puzzling.
– Milorad Dodik, former Republika Srpska president, was delisted in October 2025 after prior sanctions for undermining Balkan stability, cozying up to Vladimir Putin and profiting from corruption. Critics including Sen. Shaheen called the relief undeserved. In February 2026 Dodik posted photos of a White House meeting with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt after his delisting; NPR sought comment about the meeting but the White House did not respond to email.
Critics characterize the administration’s approach as political: Richard Nephew, a former State Department anti-corruption coordinator, described what he sees as “political retribution rather than a serious use of sanctions tools for behavior modification purposes.” Those targeted, including Albanese and ICC personnel, have filed legal challenges or publicly condemned the measures, arguing the designations threaten due process, judicial independence and international norms. Albanese’s family filed a lawsuit on Feb. 26, 2026 alleging that Trump, Bessent and others blocked her access to property in the U.S. and violated constitutional rights and sanctions rules.
Former ambassadors and Treasury officials warn that capricious or politically motivated designations and delistings risk undermining the credibility and effectiveness of U.S. sanctions policy, and could damage America’s standing when sanctions appear to reward allies and punish critics instead of targeting demonstrable wrongdoing. Lawmakers and diplomats are demanding clarity about how sanctions decisions are made and whether they serve national-security interests or personal agendas.