State Department Evacuations: What the U.S. Legally Owes Citizens Abroad

Last updated 1 month ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The question Americans trapped in a foreign country rarely think to ask until it’s too late: What does the U.S. government owe you when violence erupts? The answer—far more limited than instinct suggests—has become urgent as violence escalates in Iran and the State Department offers no organized way out.

The State Department has no blanket legal obligation to evacuate you from a foreign country during a crisis. Not when protests turn deadly. Not when your dual citizenship becomes a liability. Not even when the president’s own rhetoric might be escalating the danger you’re facing.

That gap between expectation and legal reality is playing out right now in Iran. The State Department is telling Americans to leave immediately while providing zero government-organized evacuation assistance. Commercial flights are the suggested route. But several major carriers including Lufthansa, Turkish Airlines, Emirates, and Qatar Airways have suspended service through mid-January due to regional tensions and the threat of American military action. The contradiction is stark: leave now, but figure out how on your own.

Presidential Rhetoric and Economic Policy Collide With Evacuation Guidance

Protests in Iran have escalated into a challenge to the theocratic system itself, with more than 18,100 people detained. Iran’s judiciary chief appeared in a video statement declaring that trials and executions must proceed quickly, warning that delays would “diminish the impact” of such measures.

Trump announced a 25 percent tariff on any nation doing business with Iran, effective immediately. The tariff threatens to disrupt the travel corridors the State Department suggests Americans use to leave. Companies with employees in Iran’s energy sector, NGOs, and academic institutions have activated crisis management contingencies—mandatory evacuations, remote work arrangements. Evacuation insurance providers report a spike in inquiries for charter extraction flights via Doha and Istanbul, suggesting that those with resources are opting for expensive private extraction rather than waiting for government assistance that isn’t coming.

What the Law Says

A federal law says the Secretary of State is responsible for protecting American citizens in other countries. But the law says the State Department can help, not that it must. It’s permission to act, not a mandate to rescue.

There is no statutory provision that explicitly requires government-organized evacuation of citizens from foreign countries during crises. This absence reflects congressional judgment that evacuation decisions should remain discretionary, grounded in practical realities: evacuations are expensive and logistically complex, they create diplomatic incidents with host countries, they can endanger both evacuees and rescue personnel, and they can inadvertently create unintended consequences that encourage risky behavior—Americans staying in dangerous situations longer than prudent, assuming the government will come to their aid.

An international agreement the U.S. signed establishes that consular officers have the right to protect their nationals in other countries, but this right is framed in terms of representation and diplomatic intervention, not military rescue. The Convention allows consular officers to communicate with nationals, visit them if detained, prepare documents, represent them before courts. What it doesn’t establish: an affirmative obligation to evacuate them.

Courts have held that the State Department has no duty to protect Americans from criminal or violent acts of third parties in other countries, and that decisions about evacuation—including the decision not to evacuate—fall within a law that says you can’t sue the government for decisions it chooses to make. You cannot recover monetary damages if you’re harmed as a result of such decisions.

Afghanistan and Sudan: Limited Precedents

The August 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal remains the most extensive recent example of government-organized departure. This operation left approximately 243,000 Afghans in refugee and special visa program pipelines, many of whom remain in Afghanistan facing Taliban retribution. Congress held extensive hearings examining whether the State Department fulfilled its obligations, but Congress did not conclude that the department had violated any clear legal obligation by failing to locate and evacuate every single person who wished to leave. The evacuations that did occur were conducted under presidential authority rather than under any statutory mandate.

The Sudan evacuations of April 2023 operated differently—smaller numbers, more limited scope. The State Department organized charter flights and provided assistance for citizens to depart, but characterized the operation as facilitating voluntary departure rather than mandatory evacuation. Those who registered with the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) received notifications and assistance. Those who didn’t register received nothing.

STEP Registration: What It Does and Doesn’t Guarantee

The Smart Traveler Enrollment Program allows travelers or residents in other countries to register their location with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate. STEP allows the embassy to contact you if there’s a crisis, enables you to receive security information, and creates a record the embassy can reference if an evacuation is organized.

But STEP enrollment does not create a legal guarantee of evacuation. STEP provides communication channels—allowing the embassy to reach you with security alerts and allowing you to request consular assistance. Even when evacuation assistance is provided, government policy typically requires citizens to exhaust commercial departure options first and to sign promissory notes agreeing to reimburse the U.S. government for the full cost of any government-facilitated transportation. Evacuation assistance is discretionary and depends on numerous factors including the security situation, embassy staff capacity, transportation availability, and broader diplomatic considerations.

During the January 2026 Iran crisis, those enrolled in STEP received notifications to leave Iran. These were advisories, not promises of evacuation assistance. Registration through STEP enhances services the government may provide—it doesn’t guarantee the government will evacuate you in every circumstance.

The Dual National Trap

Those of Iranian descent or with dual Iranian-American citizenship face particularly acute complications. The State Department’s advisory that dual nationals must use their Iranian passports to exit Iran creates a paradoxical vulnerability. Iran doesn’t recognize dual citizenship and treats Iranian passport holders as solely Iranian citizens. Using an Iranian passport to exit means presenting yourself to Iranian authorities—potentially triggering detention or prosecution the moment you attempt to leave.

A dual national who participated in or supported the protests, even symbolically, could face detention the instant they try to use an Iranian passport to exit. International law generally recognizes that a person with dual citizenship may be treated by either nation as solely its national when within that nation’s territory. This means the United States cannot necessarily require Iran to recognize the citizenship of a dual national currently in Iran, and therefore cannot necessarily demand consular access or protection.

Those with dual Iranian citizenship may face the greatest danger from the Iranian government’s crackdown, yet the U.S. government has the least legal ability to protect them, precisely because they hold Iranian citizenship. Families of Iranian-American dual nationals have reported feeling abandoned, unable to obtain clear guidance from the State Department about what to do if using an Iranian passport would create personal danger.

Economic Policy and Diplomatic Constraints

Trump’s 25 percent tariff on countries doing business with Iran raises a question that hasn’t been directly tested in courts: Can economic policy decisions interfere with the government’s own evacuation guidance? Commercial airlines that fly routes from Iran to Turkey, the UAE, or other transit points operate from countries that do business with Iran. If these countries face 25 percent tariffs for continuing Iranian business, it could disrupt the air corridors the State Department suggests people use to evacuate.

From a purely legal standpoint, the executive branch has broad authority to impose tariffs and set economic policy without regard to how such policies affect private evacuation logistics. The government isn’t required to maintain civilian air routes open for evacuation purposes. Those relying on government guidance to leave through commercial channels may find those channels disrupted by other government actions, yet have no legal basis to seek compensation for resulting harms.

The United States has maintained no embassy in Iran since 1979, when embassy personnel were seized. The Swiss government represents U.S. interests through the Swiss embassy in Tehran. This arrangement limits the ability of U.S. officials to conduct evacuation operations themselves.

The 25 percent tariff Trump announced applies to U.S. allies including Turkey and European Union countries—the nations that host the transit routes and logistics hubs necessary for any evacuation operation. France, Britain, Germany, and other European allies have condemned the Iranian crackdown, but the threat of tariffs for continuing business with Iran creates a complicated diplomatic situation where these countries might be less inclined to facilitate evacuation operations if doing so would result in economic punishment.

Several major allies including France, Britain, Australia, Canada, and India have all issued warnings for their citizens to leave Iran, but there’s no coordinated international evacuation operation. The lack of international coordination, combined with major international airlines suspending Iran routes, means evacuation capacity is significantly constrained compared to what would be possible with broader international cooperation.

Practical Implications for U.S. Citizens in Crisis Zones

The United States government does not have a legal obligation to evacuate you from a foreign nation during any crisis. The government may choose to do so as a policy matter, but you cannot demand evacuation as a matter of right, and you cannot sue for compensation if the government declines to evacuate you or if evacuation assistance is inadequate.

Registering with STEP improves the likelihood that the government can reach you with information and may facilitate evacuation if the government chooses to organize one, but registration doesn’t guarantee evacuation. Register if you travel or live in other countries, but understand that registration enhances services the government may provide, not services the government is legally obligated to provide.

Don’t rely on the assumption that your government will rescue you from political instability or violence. Citizens retain all the rights and protections of citizenship—including the right to consular assistance with documents, representation in legal proceedings, and communication with family—but they don’t have the right to demand military rescue or government-organized evacuation from every dangerous situation.

Dual nationals face particular complications in some countries, including Iran. The United States cannot always protect dual nationals from the laws of the other nation of which they’re citizens. If you hold dual citizenship with a nation where you might be prosecuted, traveling there carries risks the U.S. government cannot fully mitigate through consular assistance.

The absence of a U.S. embassy in a nation means your access to traditional consular services is limited. In Iran’s case, the Swiss embassy handles consular matters, and those seeking consular assistance must work through that channel. This slows response times and complicates assistance in emergencies.

What Could Change

The legal framework governing evacuation obligations reflects a deliberate congressional choice to leave evacuation decisions discretionary rather than mandatory. If Congress wanted to change this, it could pass legislation establishing clear evacuation obligations, defining circumstances under which evacuation must occur, appropriating funding for evacuation capacity, and creating the right to sue the government for citizens harmed by failure to evacuate.

Such legislation faces practical challenges. Mandatory evacuation obligations would require sustained congressional funding for evacuation capacity that might not be used frequently. It would create political pressure to evacuate people from risky situations even when evacuation itself might be dangerous. It would potentially create unintended consequences that encourage risky behavior, with people taking excessive risks in other countries, assuming government rescue would be available. And it would create potential liability for the government if evacuation failed or resulted in injury.

The executive branch could unilaterally establish stronger policies regarding evacuation obligations and pre-positioned evacuation capacity. The Trump administration has moved in the opposite direction, tightening restrictions on visa approvals and making it more difficult for certain foreign nationals to enter the United States, which has the effect of reducing the government’s footprint in many regions and potentially limiting evacuation capacity.

The Bottom Line

The Iran crisis of January 2026 has forced people to confront uncomfortable truths about what their government can and cannot guarantee when they’re in other countries. The State Department advises people to leave while offering no government-organized mechanism for departure. Multinational corporations activate private evacuation insurance while diplomats and human rights advocates debate whether U.S. intervention would help or harm the situation.

The legal framework is both clearer and more limited than most people assume. The government doesn’t have a legal obligation to evacuate citizens from foreign countries, even in situations of severe danger. This limitation reflects historical congressional judgment that evacuation should remain discretionary rather than mandatory, grounded in practical considerations about the costs and risks of evacuation operations and the dangers of creating unintended consequences that encourage risky behavior.

For those currently in Iran or considering the situation from elsewhere: Don’t rely on the government to rescue you if danger escalates. Register with STEP to facilitate communication and possible assistance, but understand that registration doesn’t guarantee evacuation. Take seriously the State Department’s travel advisories and make your own decisions about whether to remain in or travel to countries where the government has warned of danger.

If you have dual citizenship with countries that might prosecute you, understand that the U.S. government may have limited ability to protect you from prosecution. Your safety in other countries depends primarily on your own judgment and preparation, not on assumptions about government rescue.

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