Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election

Overview

Objective and Coverage

Executive Order 13848, issued by President Donald Trump on September 12, 2018, lays out a framework for imposing sanctions against foreign individuals and entities that interfere in United States elections. This directive acknowledges threats from foreign actors using technology and digital platforms to influence electoral outcomes. Despite reports indicating no foreign power has altered vote results, the order addresses rising vulnerabilities to digital interference highlighted by the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. By declaring a national emergency, the EO emphasizes protecting democratic institutions against foreign election interference.

Scope of Sanctions

The EO mandates relevant U.S. agencies to assess and report foreign interference in federal elections. Notably, it requires the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to deliver an assessment within 45 days post-election, identifying foreign actors and methodologies involved. Following this, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security must evaluate the impact on election infrastructure. The order authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with other high-level officials, to impose sanctions, such as asset freezes and restrictions on financial transactions and entry into the United States for implicated foreign persons or entities.

Implementation Mechanisms

With an emphasis on interagency cooperation, the EO instructs key government departments, including State, Treasury, and Homeland Security, to establish a framework for executing its provisions effectively. This framework ensures intelligence accuracy, protection of sensitive information, and separation of intelligence operations from policy judgments. The order outlines specific sanction types for significant foreign business entities, such as those in financial services, technology, and defense sectors, thereby enhancing its deterrent effect by targeting influential economic players in violating foreign nations.

Legal and Policy Implications

Constitutional and Statutory Support

Central to the EO's legal underpinnings are the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act (NEA), which empower the President to regulate commerce upon declaring a national emergency. Furthermore, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act grants the President authority to restrict entry of foreigners deemed a security threat. Thus, the order stands on firm statutory ground, reflecting existing legal frameworks that permit executive action against foreign threats.

Interagency Dynamics and Coordination

The EO necessitates significant interagency collaboration to execute its mandates, which involves a complex balancing act between intelligence collection, information confidentiality, and policy execution. By integrating multiple departments, such as State, Treasury, and Homeland Security, the EO signals a holistic approach to securing electoral integrity. This interagency dynamic reinforces policy against foreign interference by leveraging the resources and expertise of each department.

Process of Sanction Implementation

This EO showcases the administration's broad discretionary power under IEEPA, highlighting the potential economic and diplomatic ramifications of sanction enforcement. The sanctions could range from blocking property interests to limiting financial services, calibrated according to the severity and scope of foreign interference. Additionally, the order acts as a deterrent by imposing punitive consequences for attempts to undermine U.S. electoral processes, potentially affecting foreign policy by altering diplomatic engagements.

Who Benefits

Electoral System Integrity

This executive order benefits groups and entities focused on maintaining the integrity of U.S. elections. By implementing mechanisms to detect and counteract foreign interference, the EO strengthens public confidence in electoral outcomes and the broader democratic process. Election officials and nonpartisan watchdog organizations committed to safeguarding democratic institutions find substantial support in this directive.

National Security Community

The national security apparatus gains from enhanced interagency cooperation and intelligence sharing as mandated by the EO. The integration of insights and strategies across departments enables a more coordinated response to foreign threats, bolstering the United States' ability to preemptively address national security vulnerabilities. Intelligence agencies benefit from codified processes that streamline assessments and reports regarding electoral interferences.

Executive Authority

The EO amplifies executive power in foreign policy and national security arenas, reinforcing the President's prerogative to act decisively against perceived international threats. As a tool in the President's arsenal, this order exemplifies the executive branch's ability to swiftly implement measures addressing emergent security challenges without immediate congressional oversight.

Who Suffers

Foreign Entities and Individuals

Foreign individuals and entities engaging in or supporting election interference face significant repercussions under this order. Sanctions can encompass financial restrictions and asset blocking, severely limiting these violators' international economic activities. The potential for market and reputational damage is considerable for foreign businesses involved in such activities, particularly within sectors identified for potential sanctioning.

Diplomatic Relations

Countries identified as backing election interference may experience strained diplomatic relations with the United States. The EO's implementation can lead to heightened tensions, contradicting foreign policy objectives that favor constructive engagement and multilateral cooperation. Diplomatic personnel from implicated countries face travel restrictions, further complicating diplomatic engagements and negotiations.

Global Economic Entities

The focus on high-profile foreign business sectors means compliance costs could rise, affecting industry profitability. Sanctions against major companies in technology, energy, and financial services sectors introduce risks of global economic disruptions. Businesses may need to invest in compliance mechanisms and contingency planning to navigate potential restrictions, thus impacting operational efficiencies and profitability.

Historical Context

Evolution of Presidential Authority

EO 13848 signifies a continuation of the trend toward expanding presidential authority in national security matters, particularly under the guise of addressing emergent threats. Reflecting broader executive power assertions seen post-9/11, this order fits within the framework of preemptive action against foreign interference, highlighting the President's prerogative in declaring national emergencies and deploying sanctions unilaterally.

Response to Technological Advancements

As technological advancements present new challenges in cybersecurity and information dissemination, the EO represents a policy response aligning with contemporary security necessities. It underscores the threat posed by digital realms, solidifying state responses to novel forms of media manipulation and misinformation campaigns that can covertly and effectively influence electoral processes.

Political Climate and Priorities

Issuance of this EO aligns with the Trump administration's emphasis on national security and foreign policy as pivotal policy arenas. Against a backdrop of heightened political tensions regarding election integrity, the order uses security-based narratives to address domestic concerns over electoral vulnerabilities, thus positioning itself within a political landscape characterized by electoral scrutiny and digital security.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

Legal Challenges

Legal disputes may emerge regarding the broad discretionary execution of powers under IEEPA and NEA, as exercised through this order. Critics might argue overreach in the President's sanctions imposition, questioning the proportionality and necessity of financial restrictions and travel bans, especially without concrete, widely acknowledged threats. Such concerns may fuel legal debates challenging the EO’s constitutionality.

Congressional Oversight and Pushback

Although the EO bypasses immediate congressional approval, legislative scrutiny could arise as Congress seeks to affirm its role in foreign policy decisions traditionally shared with the executive branch. Calls for oversight and accountability may lead to legislative proposals aiming to restrict executive discretion, potentially igniting bipartisanship dynamics surrounding election security strategies.

International Relations and Retaliatory Actions

Countries targeted by sanctions might engage in retaliatory measures, undermining diplomatic efforts and international cooperation, particularly where economic dependencies exist. Such retaliatory actions could escalate tensions, complicating policy alignment with allies who might perceive unilateral sanctions as undermining global diplomatic consensus and shared strategic interests.