In this edition of Sanctions Watch, covering April 2025:

• World Bank notes that sanctions are hampering economic recovery in Afghanistan;
• Trump considers travel and remittance ban on Cuba;
• The US and Iran begin direct talks over nuclear program, sanctions;
• The US and allies work to intensify North Korea sanctions;
• Senators push to use tariffs as sanctions against Russia;
• US names conditions for lifting Syria sanctions;
• “Secondary tariffs” begin to take their toll on Venezuela;
• Trump tariffs are best understood as a form of sanctions, some argue, and more.

Afghanistan (background)

The World Bank’s most recent Afghanistan Development Update report noted that sanctions and international isolation are hampering Afghanistan’s economic recovery. According to the report:

Sanctions and financial restrictions have made it difficult for Afghan banks to conduct international transactions, affecting trade and remittances. … Financial isolation restricts foreign investment and access to global markets, while reliance on a cash-based informal economy creates inefficiencies. … Without stable governance and diplomatic engagement, Afghanistan’s economy is unlikely to recover robustly, as foreign investors remain reluctant to engage, and international financial institutions restrict access to critical funding.

In an Arab News article discussing Pakistan’s mass deportation of Afghan refugees to Afghanistan, journalist Modaser Islami wrote:

Washington withdrew its troops from Afghanistan after the collapse of its Western-backed regime and imposed sanctions on the country’s new rulers. It also froze all projects after spending billions on two decades of military and development operations.

The moves led to Afghanistan’s economic collapse and the disruption of basic services such as healthcare, education, and food distribution. Millions of people were left without essential support due to the collapse of institutions and infrastructure.

As the economy continues to reel and new aid cuts are implemented, the return of refugees will place an additional strain on a system that may not be able to bear it.

Read more:

• Afghanistan Development Update – April 2025, World Bank
• Ministry of Economy Calls on US to Release Afghanistan’s Frozen Funds, Ariana News

Cuba (background)

The Miami Herald published an article this month exploring the Trump administration’s plans to further harden the sanctions regime targeting Cuba based on the belief, among certain hardliners, that the Cuban government is at its weakest point in decades and is therefore ripe for regime change. Options currently under consideration by the Trump administration include “revoking export licenses held by U.S. companies supplying the island’s private sector, and shutting down U.S.-based online supermarkets that allow Cuban Americans to pay for food, and even medicines, that are then delivered directly to Cubans on the island.”

Republican Congressman Carlos Giménez has gone further, calling to halt all travel and remittances to the island, and to impose financial sanctions and tariffs on countries that receive Cuban medical missions. In a country already facing “chronic shortages of food, medicines and essential goods, and a crippled infrastructure,” such measures could prove disastrous. As the Herald notes, polls have consistently found that Cuban Americans oppose prohibitions on travel and remittances. Per the Herald: “‘I don’t think that will bring down that dictatorship,’ an X user whose profile says ‘Maga! Trump 2025’ replied to a Giménez post warning Cuban Americans not to travel or send remittances to Cuba. ‘They always benefit, and the Cuban people continue to die of hunger, and our families need that little bit of money we can send them just to eat.’”

The passing of Pope Francis this month means the loss of a leading champion of diplomacy and economic relief for the Cuban people. The Center for Engagement and Advocacy in the Americas notes that the late pontiff facilitated back-channel meetings that helped pave the way for the Obama era thaw in diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba; and that he played an important role in the release of 553 Cuban prisoners, announced in January this year alongside President Biden’s decision to lift Cuba’s State Sponsor of Terrorism designation. As the then-Archbishop of Miami noted at the time of the 2014 rapprochement, “The church in Cuba has always opposed the embargo, arguing that it was a blunt instrument that hurt the innocent more than the guilty.”

Late last month, the Trump administration announced the nomination of Rosa María Payá to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Payá is a longtime advocate of regime change in Cuba including through the use of broad economic sanctions, despite their documented negative impact on human rights.

Read more:

• Things Are About to Get a Lot Worse in Cuba: Trump’s Crackdown Plans Explained, Miami Herald
• Miami Man Wins $30M Verdict Against Expedia over Confiscated Property in Cuba, Miami Herald
• Pope Francis Worked Miracles for US-Cuba, But Not the Biggest One, Responsible Statecraft

Iran (background)

Early this month, the Trump administration announced that it would hold talks with Iran toward a new nuclear agreement. Three rounds of talks (a mix of indirect negotiations mediated by Omani diplomats, and direct meetings between the lead negotiators) were then held in short order, with the final — held on April 26 — reportedly moving beyond an initial rapprochement and toward more substantive questions. NPR reports that one key sticking point is likely to be the scope: while Iran wants to limit the discussion to its nuclear program and US sanctions, the Trump administration is interested in a broader deal addressing regional security issues, the country’s missile program, and more. Both parties have so far claimed that the talks have been productive, but remain reticent to express much optimism. Iran, in particular, has reason to be concerned about the credibility of any US commitments given Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the former nuclear deal and his reimposition of far-reaching sanctions in 2018.

Prior to the commencement of talks, Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi authored a Washington Post op-ed, writing: “We face a significant wall of mistrust and harbor serious doubts about the sincerity of intentions, made worse by U.S. insistence on resuming the ‘maximum pressure’ policy prior to any diplomatic interaction.” Nevertheless, Araghchi emphasized that “if there is true will, there is always a way forward. As recent history has shown, diplomatic engagement worked in the past and can still work.” The next round of talks is scheduled for May 3, suggesting a desire on both sides to maintain the current momentum.

But the negotiations have not stopped the Trump administration from implementing its “maximum pressure” policy. On April 9, Trump imposed sanctions on five entities and one individual allegedly involved in Iran’s nuclear program, and one week later announced sanctions against a Chinese refinery accused of purchasing over $1 billion in Iranian oil, as well as against several entities and ships allegedly involved in the sales. In reporting on the recent negotiations, NPR notes that Iran’s “economy has been crippled by decades of sanctions.”

Read more:

• U.S. Says “Further Progress Was Made” in Third Round of Nuclear Talks with Iran, Axios
• Iran’s Foreign Minister: The Ball is in America’s Court, The Washington Post
• With Iran Talks, Trump Could Achieve a Triple Win, Responsible Statecraft

North Korea (background)

On April 3, Representatives Gerald Connolly (D-VA) and Joe Wilson (R-SC) introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to impose sanctions on North Korea in response to its material support of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, South Korea has imposed sanctions on entities based in Hong Kong and Russia for allegedly trading North Korean goods in violation of UN sanctions. Japan has extended its trade sanctions against North Korea until 2027. Nevertheless, sanctions and isolation have proven ineffective at containing the country’s nuclear program, with both experts and ordinary US citizens — according to a recent poll — increasingly favoring engagement instead.

Read more:

• Seoul Sanctions Vessel, Individuals for Illegal Trade of North Korean Goods, NK News
• Attitudes Toward U.S. Relationships with North Korea and China, The Harris Poll

Russia (background)

Members of Congress began pushing for even tougher sanctions on Russia this month. On April 1, a group of 50 Republican and Democratic senators introduced a bill to sanction Russia and third-party countries that purchase its oil with 500 percent tariffs if Moscow refuses to negotiate the war in Ukraine “in good faith.” This move marks one of the most significant efforts to advance a new approach explicitly using tariffs as a form of sanctions, which experts have cautioned against, calling it a “lose-lose” proposal. They argue that tariffs are overly blunt instruments, liable to harm allies and other third-party countries in a moment of global economic precarity without achieving their stated aims.

On April 9, another bipartisan pair of senators introduced a separate bill to establish a fund aimed at strengthening the enforcement of Russia sanctions, with a particular focus on its “shadow fleet” of oil tankers. Over in the US House of Representatives, five Democratic legislators proposed a bill that would impose additional sanctions on Russia if it fails to end the war, specifically targeting its shadow fleet and its trade of dual-use goods. President Trump, for his part, has extended Biden-era sanctions on Russia for another year.

It remains unclear whether the Trump administration intends to lift some sanctions on Russia as part of talks on ending the war in Ukraine. POLITICO has reported that there is a debate within the Trump administration over whether to lift energy-related sanctions (the White House dismissed these reports as “false” and referred to POLITICO as a “fifth-rate publication”). According to the outlet’s sources, Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff favors lifting these sanctions while others in the administration, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, are strongly opposed to any sanctions easing. Burgum reportedly supports US liquid natural gas interests which have significantly increased their market share in Europe thanks to the Russia sanctions.

Additionally, on April 26, President Trump threatened to impose further sanctions if a peace deal is not reached soon. Meanwhile, Russia has signaled a strong interest in sanctions relief related to air travel, requesting that it be allowed to make purchases from Boeing using its frozen assets and that the country’s flagship airline be permitted to fly to the US. The European Union is reportedly opposed to the latter request, citing concerns over “major safety and security issues” posed by Russian aircraft flying over EU airspace en route to the US — issues brought on by sanctions that have limited Russia’s access to spare parts and maintenance services.

The EU is in the process of drafting a 17th package of sanctions against Russia, though few details have been released. Switzerland has further aligned itself with the EU’s 16th sanctions package by targeting 158 individuals and entities, including Russian media outlets. Meanwhile, the UK has introduced 150 new measures, including restrictions on video game controllers, which can be used to operate drones.

Read more:

• US Sanctions Hit Serbian Oil Firm NIS’ Operations Despite Waivers, Reuters
• What’s Behind Switzerland’s Caution over Unfreezing Russian Assets to Aid Ukraine?, Swissinfo

Syria (background)

Late this month at the UN, the Trump administration made public its list of conditions for lifting sanctions on Syria. These include demands that “Syria’s authorities … fully renounce and suppress terrorism, adopt a policy of non-aggression to neighboring states, exclude foreign terrorist fighters from any official roles, prevent Iran and its proxies from exploiting Syrian territory, destroy weapons of mass destruction, assist in the recovery of U.S. citizens disappeared in Syria, and ensure the security and freedoms of all Syrians.” The Wall Street Journal also reports that the administration has demanded the expulsion of Palestinian resistance fighters, which the Syrian government quickly took steps to implement. Syrian officials soon delivered a letter detailing the steps they have taken to comply with the Trump administration’s demands, including a commitment not to allow Syria to be a source of threats to the US, Israel, or other Western interests. Syria’s foreign minister also noted: “sanctions force Syria to play the role of an aid dependent country rather than being a partner in global economic growth … [and] prevent capital and expertise from entering our country while allowing illicit networks to flourish.”

Natasha Hall of the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote in The New York Times this month: “Trying to build an effective government and a disciplined army in a war-ravaged country without humanitarian aid or sanction relief is like trying to get up with a boot on your neck. … The United States should lift its broad sanctions on Syria’s financial and economic sectors, encourage investment and revisit the foreign terrorist designation on the government.” Also this month, Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins pointed out the hypocrisy of UK leaders condemning Trump tariffs while maintaining economic sanctions. Jenkins points in particular to Syria, where “Sanctions unquestionably hurt Syria’s economy. They played a role in driving six million of its people abroad, including much of its professional class. Every conceivable enemy of Assad fled, and 90% of the population descended into poverty.”

Also this month, the United Kingdom lifted sanctions on a dozen Syrian government agencies, including the defense and intelligence ministries.

Read more:

• US Lists Demands at UN as Syria Seeks Sanctions Relief, Reuters
• Syria Is Trying to Get Up With a Boot on Its Neck, The New York Times
• Trump’s Tariffs Are Ruinous, But Are Western Sanctions Any Better? Just Look at Syria, The Guardian

Venezuela (background)

Trump’s renewed “maximum pressure” policies targeting Venezuela — including the termination of oil licenses and the introduction of “secondary tariffs” on countries purchasing Venezuelan oil — are starting to bite. The country’s already-constrained oil exports, on which the economy heavily depends, fell 11.5 percent in March, while the unofficial exchange rate increased 25 percent since late February. The Financial Times writes: “Venezuela’s economy, heavily reliant on oil, is likely to suffer” as a result of Trump’s policies. Market analysts have expressed considerable concern about the effects of these weaponized secondary tariffs; consulting firm Rapidan Energy has called them “unprecedented and legally questionable,” while Evercore ISI warned clients that they will add to already serious trade uncertainty. John Hurley, the administration’s pick to lead the Treasury Department’s terrorism and financial intelligence arm, has stood by the secondary tariffs policy, warning that “countries importing Venezuelan oil will face consequences.”

These additional sanctions are likely to cause even more human suffering. Former CATO fellow Dr. Leon Hader writes in the conservative outlet The National Interest, “U.S. sanctions against Venezuela since 2018 have had disastrous consequences for the Venezuelan people and have been counterproductive for policymakers in Washington.” Similarly, a letter to the editors of the Financial Times notes, “The US has attempted economic punishment in the past. The result, time and time again, has been a collapsed economy, mass displacement and growing regional instability.”

Late last month, economists Dany Bahar and Ricardo Hausmann published a report arguing, counterintuitively, that sanctions relief on Venezuela actually increased emigration from the country. This month, CEPR published a response by Francisco Rodríguez, David Rosnick, and Giancarlo Bravo finding that the original study not only omitted a crucial variable — economic conditions in the United States — but that its results also reflected a coding error. Bahar and Hausmann have since acknowledged the error and updated their regressions, leading to results that are no longer statistically significant. Despite this fact, they have thus far not altered their conclusions. The report, and an article based on the report, remain on the websites of the Center for Global Development and Americas Quarterly, respectively. As CEPR — and Rodríguez in particular — have shown, economic sanctions have severely impacted the economy of Venezuela, leading to increased migration.

Read more:

• Venezuela Sanctions: A Failure on All Fronts, The National Interest
• Did Sanctions Relief Drive Venezuelan Migration to the US? A Reappraisal of the Bahar and Hausmann Results., CEPR
• Repsol in Talks With Washington Seeking Ways to Keep Working in Venezuela, Reuters

Other

As the world struggles to make sense of the Trump administration’s destabilizing tariffs, David Dayen of The American Prospect argues that they are best understood as a form of sanctions. Rather than the traditional, productive use of tariffs as a part of a comprehensive industrial policy, Trump tariffs are wielded as a stick — to increase US leverage and punish other country governments into making concessions, regardless of the consequences for the US or targeted economies. (This leverage is also wielded internally, as domestic actors cozy up to Trump in the hopes of receiving exemptions.) Simon Jenkins of The Guardian makes a similar case, condemning the UK government as hypocritical for decrying tariffs but supporting sanctions.

In an article for Al Jazeera, UT Austin professor Raj Patel, General Coordinator of the global peasant movement La Via Campesina Elizabeth Mpofu, and the Progressive International’s Varsha Gandikota-Nellutla argue: “Zimbabwe’s economy has been crushed by sanctions imposed after redistributing colonial-era farmland.” US sanctions, the authors argue, were used to force the government to pay “reverse reparations” of “$3.5bn in compensation to approximately 4,000 white settler landowners.” The article also cites UN human rights experts’ claims that the 2001 Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZDERA) had an “‘insidious ripple effect’ on Zimbabwe’s economy and the enjoyment of fundamental rights. The Southern African Development Community estimates that Zimbabwe has lost access to more than $100bn in international support since 2001.”

It has been nearly 60 days since Israel began a total blockade of Gaza, refusing to allow the entry of any humanitarian aid and worsening an already dire humanitarian crisis. A spokesperson for OCHA, the UN’s main humanitarian agency, said, “Right now is probably the worst humanitarian situation we have seen throughout the war in Gaza. … You can see a clear tendency towards total disaster.” Meanwhile, the UN’s human rights chief stated, “The blockade and siege imposed on Gaza amount to collective punishment and may also amount to the use of starvation as a method of war.” Food, fuel, medical aid, and other critical humanitarian supplies are quickly running out as aid organizations say “the humanitarian aid system in Gaza is facing total collapse.” The World Health Organization’s Director-General highlighted that “This blockade is leaving families hungry, malnourished, without clean water, shelter, and adequate healthcare, and increasing the risk of disease and death.” Children are particularly affected. The EU, along with the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and the UK, has urged Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. In addition, the International Court of Justice has opened a hearing on Israel’s responsibility to ensure the provision of aid to Gaza.

Israeli officials insist there is “no shortage” in Gaza and accuse Hamas of withholding supplies. At the same time, they acknowledge the blockade as a “central pressure tactic” in the war, with one official stating that “not even a grain of wheat” will be allowed into Gaza while another suggests bombing aid warehouses — a stance some Republican figures have allegedly supported, though the State Department rejected such claims. Aid organizations reject claims of diversion by Hamas and attribute the crisis to the blockade.

Following a catastrophic earthquake that left over 3,500 dead in Myanmar, six Democratic senators sent a letter to the Trump administration calling for waivers to prevent sanctions from impeding the humanitarian relief effort.

Finally, a new poll conducted by The Harris Poll for the American Friends Service Committee finds that a growing majority of Americans believe sanctions should be lifted if they violate international law, harm humanitarian aid and public health, hurt ordinary citizens, or hinder cooperation on climate change — descriptions that apply to most of the US’s economic sanctions regimes.

Read more:

• Reverse Reparations: Zimbabwe’s Perfect Trap, South Africa’s Looming Danger, Al Jazeera
• US Imposes Sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong Officials for Pursuing Activists Abroad, The New York Times
• Trump ICC Sanctions Order Challenged in US Court by Human Rights Advocates, The Guardian
• Trump Administration Tells Congress It Plans to Label Haitian Gangs as Foreign Terror Organizations, Associated Press
• Trump’s Tariffs Are Ruinous, But Are Western Sanctions Any Better? Just Look at Syria, The Guardian
• They’re Not Tariffs, They’re Sanctions, The American Prospect
• US Imposes Sanctions on Yemen Bank, Citing Support to Houthis, The New Arab
• Residents in Niger Republic Explore Alternatives as Nigeria Cuts Power Supply, Business Insider Africa
• US Sanctions 19 Pakistani Firms Over ‘Unsafeguarded’ Nuclear, Ballistic Missile Program Activities, Arab News

About Sanctions Watch

Economic sanctions have become one of the main tools of US foreign policy despite widespread evidence that they can cause severe harm to civilian populations (which may, in fact, be the point). Though now a defining feature of the global economic order, sanctions and their human costs receive relatively little attention in most US media outlets.

CEPR’s Sanctions Watch news bulletin aims to generate more awareness on the use and impact of sanctions through monthly round-ups of news and analysis on US sanctions policy.

Previous editions of the Sanctions Watch can be found here. CEPR’s US Sanctions Policy FAQ can be found here.

Subscribe to Sanctions Watch here

Read the Sanctions Fact Sheet