How U.S. Economic Sanctions Work: Tools, Targets, and Trade-offs

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Economic sanctions have become America’s go-to foreign policy tool. Between diplomatic protests and military action lies this middle path—economic pressure designed to change behavior without firing a shot.

Their increase in use stems partly from post-9/11 security challenges. Traditional state-to-state diplomacy proved inadequate against terrorist networks like Al-Qaeda, which operate without conventional infrastructure. Financial sanctions offered a way to target and disrupt funding networks that transcend borders.

Sanctions range in scale from freezing individual bank accounts to cutting entire nations off from the global economy. Understanding how they work—their types, legal foundations, implementing agencies, and real-world effects—highlights their power and their limitations.

Types of Sanctions: From Scalpel to Sledgehammer

The United States deploys sanctions across a spectrum of precision and severity, each tailored to specific foreign policy goals.

Comprehensive vs. Targeted Sanctions

Comprehensive Sanctions

Comprehensive sanctions function as near-total economic embargos against entire countries. These programs prohibit almost all trade, financial transactions, and investment between U.S. persons and the sanctioned nation.

Countries currently facing comprehensive sanctions include Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria, along with Russian-occupied regions of Ukraine. These broad restrictions are reserved for what the government considers the most serious threats to national security.

Targeted (“Smart”) Sanctions

Over recent decades, U.S. policy has shifted toward targeted or “smart” sanctions. Rather than isolating entire countries, these measures focus on specific individuals, entities, or economic sectors.

Targets can include government officials, military leaders, oligarchs, companies, political parties, or entire industries like energy or defense. The rationale is applying precise pressure on decision-makers while minimizing humanitarian impact on civilian populations.

However, “smart sanctions” face a significant practical problem called “over-compliance.” Financial institutions and corporations, fearing massive penalties for accidentally violating complex regulations, often choose to avoid all business with sanctioned countries—even legally permitted activities like humanitarian trade. This can make targeted sanctions function like comprehensive ones, undermining their precise design.

Primary vs. Secondary Sanctions

Primary Sanctions

Primary sanctions apply to “U.S. persons”—a broad legal category including U.S. citizens and permanent residents anywhere in the world, all people and entities physically located in the United States, and all U.S.-incorporated entities and their foreign branches.

These sanctions prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in specified transactions with sanctioned targets.

Secondary Sanctions

Secondary sanctions represent one of America’s most powerful and controversial foreign policy tools. They extend U.S. law to non-U.S. individuals and companies with no direct American connection.

These measures penalize foreign actors—a European bank, Chinese technology firm, or Turkish shipping company—for engaging in significant transactions with primary U.S. sanctions targets. The goal is forcing third parties into a choice: do business with the sanctioned entity, or maintain access to the U.S. market and financial system.

This approach weaponizes the dollar’s role as the world’s primary reserve currency. Since most international transactions clear through U.S. financial institutions, the threat of being cut off from this system creates powerful deterrent effects globally.

Specific Sanction Instruments

Within these categories, the U.S. government uses various specific tools:

Financial Sanctions: These freeze all property and interests in property of targeted persons or entities within U.S. jurisdiction. Blocked assets cannot be transferred, paid, exported, or otherwise dealt with. This includes prohibiting transfers of credit, restricting U.S. financial market access, and limiting dollar transaction abilities.

Trade Sanctions: These target goods and services flow through embargos on specific items (weapons, military-use technology) or broader export/import prohibitions.

Investment Bans: These prohibit U.S. persons from making new investments in targeted countries or specific economic sectors.

Travel Sanctions: Often called visa bans, these prevent designated individuals and sometimes family members from entering the United States.

The Lists That Matter

The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control maintains public lists identifying specific sanctions targets:

Who Runs America’s Sanctions Machine

U.S. sanctions aren’t managed by a single agency. Instead, multiple departments and agencies coordinate across an interconnected system, each with distinct but overlapping authorities.

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control: The Engine Room

At the heart of the U.S. sanctions regime sits the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). This agency administers and enforces most U.S. economic and trade sanctions programs.

OFAC’s history stretches back to World War II needs to block Nazi assets and Chinese assets during the Korean War. Its mission remains fundamentally tied to national security.

Key OFAC Functions:

Designation and List Management: OFAC identifies and officially designates individuals, companies, vessels, and governments subject to sanctions. It maintains and constantly updates critical sanctions lists, most notably the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List.

Program Administration: OFAC manages over 35 active sanctions programs that vary widely in scope and target. These programs change frequently in response to evolving foreign policy and national security goals.

Licensing: OFAC can issue licenses to mitigate unintended consequences and allow permissible activities. General licenses provide broad authorizations for certain transaction categories like humanitarian aid without requiring individual applications. Specific licenses are issued case-by-case for particular transactions that would otherwise be prohibited.

Enforcement: OFAC investigates potential violations and can impose substantial civil monetary penalties reaching $307,922 per violation under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. For willful violations, OFAC can refer cases for criminal prosecution, with penalties including fines up to $1 million and imprisonment up to 20 years.

State Department: The Policy Architect

While OFAC operates the sanctions machine, the State Department architects the foreign policy objectives sanctions are designed to achieve.

The State Department’s Office of Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation plays central roles in policy development, building international support for multilateral sanctions, and providing foreign policy guidance to OFAC and Commerce on implementation that aligns with broader diplomatic goals.

The State Department also has independent legal authority to impose certain sanctions, particularly those related to arms control and weapons of mass destruction non-proliferation.

Commerce Department: The Trade Gatekeeper

The Department of Commerce, through its Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), controls the third critical lever of economic pressure: trade.

While OFAC focuses primarily on financial transactions and blocked property, BIS leads administration and enforcement of U.S. export controls. It regulates export, re-export, and in-country transfer of commercial and “dual-use” items—goods, software, and technology with both civilian and potential military applications.

BIS maintains its own restrictive lists, most notably the Entity List, which identifies foreign persons and organizations subject to specific license requirements for receiving certain U.S. items.

Presidential and Congressional Authority

Ultimate sanctions authority is shared between executive and legislative branches, reflecting ongoing constitutional tension over foreign policy control.

Presidential Power: Most sanctions programs are initiated through presidential Executive Orders, often using authority from declarations of national emergency under statutes like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This gives presidents significant speed and flexibility to respond to crises without waiting for legislative action.

Congressional Power: Congress passes laws granting presidents authority to impose sanctions and can pass legislation either mandating presidential sanctions for certain activities or codifying existing sanctions into law, making them difficult to lift without congressional approval.

Laws like the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act demonstrate Congress’s power to shape sanctions policy by imposing tough restrictions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea while constraining presidential flexibility.

Legal Foundations: Where Sanctions Power Comes From

U.S. government authority to impose sweeping economic sanctions isn’t arbitrary—it’s grounded in specific federal laws passed by Congress.

International Emergency Economic Powers Act: The Modern Foundation

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), enacted in 1977, provides the single most important legal authority for U.S. sanctions today.

IEEPA grants presidents broad powers to control economic transactions after declaring national emergencies to deal with “unusual and extraordinary threats to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States” originating substantially outside the country.

The law’s history reveals a central paradox. IEEPA was passed specifically to limit presidential emergency authorities after investigations revealed the United States had been in continuous 40-year national emergency under the older Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.

IEEPA, along with the National Emergencies Act, was designed to end permanent emergency status and establish clear procedures and congressional oversight through reporting requirements and annual reviews.

However, the law intended as a leash became an engine for expanding presidential authority. By codifying and regularizing the emergency declaration process, Congress inadvertently created a flexible, repeatable mechanism presidents have used with increasing frequency.

Once national emergencies are declared, IEEPA “unlocks” vast presidential powers, including authority to investigate, regulate, or prohibit foreign exchange transactions and block, regulate, or nullify transactions involving property where foreign countries or nationals have interests.

Since 1977, presidents have declared 69 national emergencies invoking IEEPA. Many last for decades—the first, declared against Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis, remains in effect today.

Global Magnitsky Act: Targeting Human Rights Abusers

The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, enacted in 2016, represents a more modern, targeted, values-based approach to sanctions.

This bipartisan law authorizes presidential sanctions on any foreign person or entity responsible for significant corruption or “gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”

The law is named after Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax lawyer who uncovered a $230 million corruption scheme involving Russian government officials. After reporting his findings, he was arrested, imprisoned, and died in custody in 2009 after being systematically denied medical care.

His case sparked international outrage and led to the original Sergei Magnitsky Act in 2012 targeting Russian officials involved in his death. The Global Magnitsky Act of 2016 expanded this model from Russia-specific to global.

Under this authority, implemented through Executive Order 13818, the U.S. can impose targeted sanctions including asset freezes and visa bans.

The Global Magnitsky Act’s significance lies in its globalization of accountability. Unlike IEEPA, which responds to threats to U.S. national security, Global Magnitsky allows sanctioning foreign officials for abusing their own citizens’ rights in their own countries.

This represents a profound shift—using U.S. economic leverage as global enforcer of human rights and anti-corruption norms, holding individual perpetrators accountable without punishing entire nations. As of August 2025, over 262 individuals and 330 entities from more than 50 countries have been sanctioned under this authority.

Major Sanctions Programs in Action

Examining specific sanctions regimes reveals how various tools and legal authorities apply in practice. The programs targeting Russia, Iran, and North Korea demonstrate tailored yet interconnected approaches to different threats.

Russia: Comprehensive Economic Warfare

Sanctions against Russia, massively expanded after its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, represent one of history’s most comprehensive and coordinated sanctions campaigns. The primary objective is punishing Moscow for aggression, degrading its war financing and supply abilities, and deterring future aggression.

Financial Sector Isolation: In unprecedented moves, the U.S. and allies froze hundreds of billions in Russian central bank foreign currency reserves held abroad, severely limiting its ability to stabilize the ruble. Major Russian banks were cut from the SWIFT financial messaging system and placed on the SDN List, blocking them from the U.S. financial system.

Energy Revenue Reduction: The U.S. and G7 partners imposed price caps on Russian seaborne crude oil and petroleum products. This novel mechanism reduces Russia’s energy revenues while ensuring oil continues flowing to global markets to prevent price spikes. New U.S. person investment in Russia’s energy sector is prohibited.

Targeted Designations: The U.S. has sanctioned thousands of individuals and entities, including President Vladimir Putin, high-ranking officials, oligarchs and their families, and key state-owned enterprises in defense, technology, and financial sectors.

Export Controls: Commerce has imposed sweeping export controls denying Russia access to advanced technology, particularly semiconductors, microelectronics, and other components essential for military and high-tech industries.

Iran: Decades of Maximum Pressure

U.S. sanctions on Iran are among the most extensive and long-standing, dating to the 1979 hostage crisis. Overarching goals include preventing nuclear weapon development, countering terrorist proxy group financing, curbing ballistic missile programs, and addressing domestic human rights abuses.

Comprehensive Embargo: U.S. persons face near-total bans on trade, investment, and financial dealings with Iran, prohibiting Iranian goods imports and U.S. goods, technology, and services exports to Iran.

Aggressive Secondary Sanctions: The U.S. extensively uses secondary sanctions to isolate Iran from the global economy, targeting non-U.S. companies engaging in significant transactions with Iran’s core economic sectors including energy, shipping, and shipbuilding.

Targeted Institution Sanctions: The U.S. designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and sanctioned numerous entities and individuals connected to it and those involved in missile and nuclear programs.

North Korea: Containment Through Isolation

U.S. sanctions against North Korea aim squarely at impeding weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile development. The primary goal is less coercing fundamental behavior change—widely seen as unlikely—and more containment and degradation by cutting revenue streams and technology access.

Comprehensive Embargo: U.S. law prohibits new North Korean investment and imposes broad trade bans on goods, services, and technology between the United States and DPRK.

Multilateral Coordination: U.S. sanctions are heavily reinforced by United Nations Security Council resolutions imposing international restrictions including caps on refined petroleum imports.

Government Asset Blocking: The U.S. blocked all property and interests of the North Korean government and ruling Workers’ Party of Korea within U.S. jurisdiction.

Travel Ban: The State Department generally prohibits U.S. citizens from traveling to North Korea, citing serious arrest and long-term detention risks.

The Effectiveness Debate: Do Sanctions Actually Work?

The widespread use of sanctions by the U.S. government masks deep, persistent debate over their effectiveness. The question “Do sanctions work?” has no simple answer, heavily depending on intended goals, application context, and how “success” is defined.

Arguments for Effectiveness

Sanctions proponents argue they can be valuable tools for achieving foreign policy objectives without military force when used correctly.

Coercion and Policy Change: Sanctions can coerce target government behavior changes, especially when policy goals are relatively modest. Influential empirical studies concluded sanctions made “modest contributions to goals that were partly realized” in approximately 34% of cases since World War I.

A classic example occurred in the early 1990s when the U.S. threatened to withhold $10 billion in Israeli loan guarantees unless it halted settlement construction and attended the Madrid Peace Conference. Economic pressure contributed to Israel’s participation, paving the way for later Oslo Peace Accords.

Deterrence and Signaling: Sanctions serve as crucial signaling mechanisms, demonstrating resolve and reinforcing international norms. Even without immediately altering target behavior, they can deter other potential aggressors by showcasing significant economic costs of norm violations.

Sweeping sanctions on Russia for Ukraine invasion were intended not only to punish Moscow but send clear messages to other nations that similar territorial aggression would meet severe economic consequences.

Constraining Capabilities: A key sanctions function is weakening and degrading adversary economic and military capabilities. Even failing to force complete policy reversals, they can succeed by making it more difficult and costly for targets to pursue harmful activities.

While sanctions haven’t forced Russian withdrawal from Ukraine, they’ve inflicted significant economic pain, reduced energy revenues, and complicated advanced technology procurement for military use, thereby constraining war efforts.

Arguments Against Effectiveness

Sanctions critics point to long histories of failed objectives and unintended consequences, arguing they’re often ineffective and counterproductive policy tools.

Low Success Rate: Historical records suggest sanctions fail more often than they succeed. The frequently cited 34% success rate is hardly a ringing endorsement. Moreover, U.S. sanctions effectiveness has declined over time, particularly when imposed unilaterally. Between 1970 and 1990, unilateral U.S. sanctions achieved foreign policy goals in only 13% of cases.

Circumvention and Adaptation: Determined states and non-state actors often find circumvention methods through front companies, illicit financial networks, and indigenous industry development. They can rely on “black knight” countries willing to defy sanctions and serve as economic lifelines. China’s continued North Korean trade and support significantly blunts international sanctions aimed at Pyongyang’s nuclear program.

Political Entrenchment: Sanctions can be difficult to remove once imposed. Domestic political constituencies with vested interests in maintaining hardline stances can emerge, making it politically challenging to lift sanctions even when proven ineffective or when targets meet initial demands. The decades-long U.S. Cuba embargo exemplifies policy persisting past original strategic rationale due to domestic political dynamics.

The effectiveness debate is complicated by “success” subjectivity. Policymakers can define success various ways, from achieving complete target policy reversals (high bars) to simply “sending messages” of disapproval or degrading adversary capabilities over time.

This ambiguity allows sanctions to be framed as successful even when primary stated objectives aren’t met, making truly objective assessment difficult.

Hidden Costs: The Unintended Consequences

Beyond effectiveness debates, U.S. sanctions carry significant, often severe unintended consequences. These hidden costs manifest as humanitarian crises, economic self-harm, and counterproductive political blowback.

Humanitarian Impact: Modern Economic Siege Warfare

Overwhelming evidence documents that broad economic sanctions devastatingly impact civilian populations, functioning as “modern siege equivalents.” By design, they inflict economic pain, but this pain rarely confines to ruling elites—it’s most acutely felt by society’s most vulnerable segments including children, elderly, and poor.

Increased Mortality and Disease: Numerous studies link sanctions to public health decline and mortality increases. In Iraq, following comprehensive UN sanctions in the 1990s, infant mortality rates more than doubled, with one study estimating 567,000 children died from sanctions’ nutritional and healthcare impacts.

Sanctions disrupt supply chains for essential medicines, medical equipment, and clean water materials, leading to health system collapse and preventable disease spread.

Widespread Poverty and Malnutrition: By crippling target countries’ economies, sanctions destroy livelihoods and lead to widespread poverty, inequality, and food insecurity. In Venezuela, U.S. sanctions targeting the oil sector contributed to government revenue collapse, leading to 78% decline in food imports between 2012 and 2020, fueling severe humanitarian crisis.

Humanitarian Exemption Failures: While most sanctions programs include legal exemptions for humanitarian goods like food and medicine, these often fail in practice. “Over-compliance” phenomena lead international banks, shipping companies, and suppliers to refuse any sanctioned country business—even for legally permitted humanitarian trade—fearing complex regulation violations and crippling penalties.

Economic Self-Harm: The American Cost

Sanctions costs aren’t borne solely by target countries. Unilateral U.S. sanctions can inflict significant American economic harm.

Lost Exports and Jobs: Sanctions close markets to U.S. companies, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing. Studies estimate sanctions cost the U.S. economy $15-19 billion annually in lost exports, translating to over 200,000 American jobs. When the U.S. acts alone, business opportunities are often simply ceded to competitors from other countries.

Unreliable Supplier Effect: More subtly but damagingly, sanctions erode trust in U.S. businesses. Foreign companies relying on U.S. parts or technology may view American firms as “unreliable suppliers.” To mitigate future sanctions disruption risks, they may proactively design U.S. components out of products, leading to long-term market share losses.

Dollar Dominance Risks: Perhaps the most significant long-term risk is to U.S. dollar status as the world’s dominant reserve currency. Frequent U.S. financial system “weaponization” gives adversaries and allies powerful incentives to find alternative currencies and payment systems for trade and reserves.

While dollar dominance remains currently secure, gradual erosion of its central role could undermine American economic power foundations and make future sanctions less effective.

Political Blowback: Strengthening Adversaries

Ironically, sanctions can sometimes achieve opposite intended political effects, strengthening regimes they’re meant to weaken.

Rally-Round-the-Flag Effect: External pressure can foster powerful nationalism and solidarity. Sanctioned governments can easily portray the United States as foreign aggressors responsible for population suffering, deflecting blame for mismanagement or repression while consolidating domestic support against common enemies.

Empowering Corrupt Elites: Sanctions create scarcity, breeding grounds for corruption and illicit markets. The same corrupt officials and regime insiders sanctions often target frequently control black markets for smuggled goods. This allows them to enrich themselves and allies, consolidate economic and political power, and further entrench authoritarian systems.

The Future of Economic Statecraft

U.S. sanctions use has grown exponentially, but their effectiveness remains hotly debated. As global economic integration deepens and alternative financial systems develop, traditional sanctions may face diminishing returns.

The rise of digital currencies, alternative payment systems like China’s CIPS, and closer economic ties between sanctioned nations could erode U.S. sanctions effectiveness over time. Meanwhile, growing awareness of humanitarian consequences is pressuring policymakers to design more precise, less harmful measures.

The challenge remains finding the right balance: maintaining economic pressure tools that can influence bad actors while minimizing harm to innocent populations and avoiding counterproductive blowback that strengthens the very regimes sanctions seek to weaken.

As America’s primary alternative to military force, sanctions will likely remain central to U.S. foreign policy. But their future effectiveness will depend on adapting to changing global economic realities while learning from past failures and unintended consequences.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.