Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 09/01/2025 Vol.511, Q Day 2866

I am experiencing profound relief that God has blessed us over and over again, and that he has returned President Trump to office and as a result, we're watching the dismantling of our enemies. Across the world, many people groan under tyranny, as their Autopen Administrations are unrelenting, bending and breaking them. Prayers up for all who fight against oppresion; may they see victory and experience freedom again.

REQUEST TO GROK: Use the King James bible as the standard for the following information, and provide ways in which Ronald Reagan's speech at the following link provides similar themes: https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganatimeforchoosing.htm . I am focusing today on the fact that we as individuals and as a nation, make decisions we think are small and good, when in fact they lead to corruption and evil.
Biblical Theme: Seemingly Good Decisions Leading to Corruption and Evil
The King James Bible frequently warns against paths or decisions that appear righteous, beneficial, or minor at the outset but ultimately lead to moral decay, corruption, destruction, or spiritual death. This aligns with your focus on how individuals and nations make choices they perceive as small and good, only for them to erode freedoms, foster dependency, and culminate in evil outcomes. Key scriptures emphasize a "slippery slope" where initial compromises snowball into greater harm:
Proverbs 14:12: "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." This proverb captures the essence of decisions that feel justified or benevolent but lead to ruin, often through gradual self-deception.
Proverbs 16:25: A repetition for emphasis: "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." It underscores how nations or individuals can rationalize incremental steps toward corruption.
Matthew 7:13-14: "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Jesus describes the broad, appealing path (often starting with small, "practical" choices) as leading to destruction, contrasting it with the disciplined, narrow path of true righteousness.
James 1:14-15: "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." This illustrates a progression from minor temptations or "good intentions" (like seeking security or equity) to full-blown sin and death.
2 Peter 2:18-19: "For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." Here, false promises of freedom or welfare lead to enslavement and corruption, often through deceptive, incremental policies or ideologies.
Isaiah 5:20: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" This condemns the inversion of values, where corrupt systems are reframed as benevolent, leading societies astray.
Historical examples in the Bible, such as Israel's gradual slide into idolatry (e.g., Judges 2:11-13, where small alliances with foreign nations led to abandoning God and national corruption) or King Saul's initial obedience turning to disobedience and tyranny (1 Samuel 15), mirror how nations compromise core principles bit by bit.
These verses portray evil not as sudden but as a cumulative result of seemingly harmless or well-intentioned steps, often driven by fear, greed, or misplaced compassion, resulting in bondage, moral decay, and divine judgment.
Parallels in Ronald Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" Speech
Reagan's 1964 speech echoes these biblical warnings by critiquing government programs and policies that start as small, humanitarian efforts but erode individual freedoms, foster dependency, and pave the way for totalitarianism and corruption. He frames the choice as between self-government (the "narrow way" of freedom) and centralized control (the "broad way" to serfdom), using examples of incremental decisions that seem good but lead to evil outcomes. Below, I highlight key parallels, quoting directly from the speech and linking them to biblical themes:
Trading Freedom for Security as a Path That "Seemeth Right" but Leads to Death (Proverbs 14:12; Matthew 7:13-14):
Reagan argues that well-meaning policies prioritizing security over liberty embark on a "downward course" to totalitarianism: "those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course." He describes this as choosing "down to the ant heap of totalitarianism" instead of "up" to individual freedom.
Parallel: Just as the broad way in Matthew appears easier and more appealing (promising peace and prosperity), Reagan warns that accepting "greater government activity in the affairs of the people" seems compassionate but leads to loss of self-governance. He cites voices claiming "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century," inverting good (freedom) and evil (centralized control), akin to Isaiah 5:20. This starts small—e.g., accepting "not undemocratic socialism"—but ends in corruption, much like sin's progression in James 1:14-15.
Welfare and Government Programs as Alluring Promises Leading to Bondage (2 Peter 2:18-19; James 1:14-15):
Reagan highlights how welfare initiatives, intended to help the poor, create overhead and dependency: "Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression... if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year... Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead."
He gives the example of a woman seeking divorce for an "80 dollar raise" in aid, showing how systems incentivize moral decay: "She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing."
Parallel: These "small" programs promise liberty and aid (like the false teachers in 2 Peter) but lead to "servants of corruption" and bondage. The escalation from one program to "one more program" mirrors James' temptation-to-sin-to-death sequence, where initial "humanitarian goals" balloon into a "war on poverty" that duplicates efforts without solving issues, fostering corruption (e.g., "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker," referencing a scandal).
Farm and Economic Controls as Incremental Harassment Leading to Tyranny (Proverbs 16:25; Isaiah 5:20):
Reagan details farm regulations starting as aid but leading to imprisonment, seizures, and decline: "they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed... The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation... we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs."
He notes inefficiencies like spending "43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow," and how farmers' rejections are ignored, causing prices to distort.
Parallel: This path "seemeth right" (helping farmers) but ends in "ways of death" (economic ruin, loss of property rights), per Proverbs. It inverts values by calling control "aid," similar to Isaiah, and echoes Israel's idolatry—small alliances (government partnerships) leading to national corruption and loss of sovereignty.
Appeasement and Foreign Policy as Accommodation Leading to War and Enslavement (Matthew 7:13-14; 2 Peter 2:18-19):
Reagan critiques "accommodation" with enemies as a false peace: "if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways... their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender."
He warns of gradual retreat: "If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum."
Parallel: The broad way of appeasement seems "sweet" (peace at any price) but leads to destruction, like Matthew's warning. It promises liberty but delivers bondage, as in 2 Peter, mirroring how nations like Israel compromised with surrounding powers, starting small but ending in exile and evil (e.g., 2 Kings 17).
Bureaucratic Growth and Erosion of Rights as Perversion of Natural Order (James 1:14-15; Proverbs 14:12):
Reagan notes government's eternal expansion: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size... a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." He cites invasions of property without warrants and fines without trials, using the example of James Wier's farm seizure as a "warning to others."
Parallel: These "small" regulations entice through promises of order but conceive corruption and death, per James. They seem right for public interest but lead to fragility: "freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp."
In summary, Reagan's speech portrays America's crossroads as a biblical "time for choosing" between the narrow path of freedom and the broad path of well-intentioned but corrupting government overreach. He urges vigilance against these incremental evils, echoing the Bible's call to discern paths that "seemeth right" but end in ruin, emphasizing personal and national responsibility to avoid the destiny of darkness.

Executive Order 13818 Queries and Responses
User Prompt 1:
please summarize the President's executive order at the following link: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-corruption/ Then analyze the scenario I give you to any action the President's Executive Order could have on that scenario. In my scenario, billioaire tech giants, New networks, Social media giants, Pharmaceuticals companies, Hollywood studios & producers, members of Congress and some executives like cabinet members and the President are controlled via blackmail by foreign enemies. Those controlled by our enemies enact the strategies of our enemies with proclamations, mandates, propaganda, censorship etc. Those persons are involved in human trafficking, pedophilia networks, and other human rights violations. How might the President's EO operate to stop these abuses. For my scenario, would a Social Media platform be acquired by the government in a 'seizure of assets'? Would it be legal for the government to then sell that asset to the public to prevent government ownership of civil assets? How long before the government would have to sell said assets? Where would the funds from that sale go?
Response to Prompt 1
Summary of the Executive Order
The Executive Order (EO) 13818, issued by President Donald J. Trump on December 20, 2017, invokes authorities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (NEA), the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, and other statutes to declare a national emergency. It addresses the global threat posed by serious human rights abuses and corruption originating substantially outside the United States, which are deemed to undermine democratic institutions, the rule of law, economic markets, and U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economy.
Key Provisions:
Blocking of Assets (Section 1): All property and interests in property located in the U.S., entering the U.S., or under U.S. person control belonging to targeted persons are frozen and cannot be transferred, paid out, exported, withdrawn, or dealt in. This applies to:
13 individuals listed in the Annex (e.g., figures from Pakistan, Dominican Republic, Israel/DRC, Burma, Gambia, etc., involved in corruption or abuses).
Foreign persons responsible for, complicit in, or engaged in serious human rights abuses (e.g., torture, extrajudicial killings).
Foreign government officials (current/former) or their agents involved in corruption (e.g., misappropriation of state assets, bribery, expropriation for personal gain, or facilitating transfers of corruption proceeds).
Leaders/officials of entities (including governments) engaged in such activities during their tenure.
Persons who materially assist, sponsor, or provide support (financial, material, technological, goods/services) to the above activities or blocked persons/entities; those owned/controlled by or acting on behalf of blocked parties; or those attempting such actions.
Exceptions can be made via licenses or regulations; pre-existing contracts/licenses are overridden.
Immigration Restrictions (Section 2): Suspends entry of immigrants/nonimmigrants meeting targeting criteria, treating them akin to those under UN sanctions.
Prohibitions on Donations/Contributions (Sections 3-4): Bans donations to/from blocked persons; extends to any funds, goods, or services provided to or received from them.
Anti-Evasion Measures (Section 5): Prohibits evasion, avoidance, or conspiracies to violate the order.
Definitions (Section 6): "Person" includes individuals/entities; "U.S. person" covers citizens, residents, U.S.-organized entities, and those in the U.S.
Implementation and Oversight (Sections 7-11): No prior notice required for effectiveness; Treasury Secretary (with State/AG consultation) designates targets, issues rules, and reports to Congress; State Secretary handles entry bans; unblocking possible if threats subside.
Effective Date (Section 12): 12:01 a.m. EST, December 21, 2017.
Limitations (Section 13): Creates no enforceable rights against the U.S. government.
The EO empowers the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to administer sanctions, building on the Global Magnitsky framework for targeted accountability. No amendments are noted on the archived page, though in practice, it has been used extensively for designations (e.g., over 300 by 2023).
Analysis of the Scenario Under the Executive Order
Your scenario describes a domestic infiltration crisis where U.S. elites—billionaire tech leaders, media executives, social media owners, pharmaceutical heads, Hollywood figures, congressional members, cabinet officials, and even the President—are coerced via blackmail by foreign adversaries. These individuals, in turn, advance enemy agendas through U.S. policy tools (proclamations, mandates) and private actions (propaganda, censorship), while personally entangled in severe human rights violations like human trafficking and pedophilia networks. This setup implies a hybrid threat: foreign-directed corruption and abuses eroding U.S. sovereignty from within.
EO 13818 was explicitly designed for foreign-sourced human rights abuses and corruption threatening U.S. interests, but its language is broad enough to encompass scenarios where foreign actors direct or enable domestic harms. Below, I analyze how it could hypothetically operate to counter these abuses, followed by specifics on asset seizure/sale for a social media platform. Note: This is a legal/policy analysis based on the EO's text and related statutes (e.g., IEEPA); actual application would require formal designations by Treasury/OFAC, subject to judicial review, and could face constitutional challenges (e.g., due process under the Fifth Amendment for U.S. persons).
How the EO Could Operate to Stop These Abuses
The EO's mechanisms focus on financial isolation and access denial to disrupt networks of abuse. In your scenario, it could be leveraged as follows, assuming evidence links activities to foreign direction (e.g., intelligence tying blackmail to a foreign government like China or Russia):
Designation of Targets (Section 1(ii)-(iii)):
Controlled Individuals as "Agents" of Foreign Corruption/Abuse: U.S. persons (e.g., the President, Congress members) aren't directly targetable as "foreign persons," but if evidence shows they act "for or on behalf of" a foreign official/person engaged in corruption (e.g., a foreign intelligence operative orchestrating blackmail), they could qualify under Section 1(ii)(B). The abuses (trafficking, pedophilia) fit "serious human rights abuse," and enacting enemy strategies (censorship as suppression of dissent) could be framed as complicity in foreign-directed corruption undermining U.S. institutions.
Entities as Sanctioned Vehicles: Companies (tech giants, social media platforms, pharma firms, studios) could be designated if owned/controlled by (Section 1(iii)(B)) or providing "material support" (financial/technological) to (Section 1(iii)(A)) foreign-directed abuses. For example, a platform enabling propaganda/censorship at foreign behest materially assists foreign human rights suppression; pharma companies could be linked if trafficking involves drug facilitation.
Network Disruption: Secondary sanctions on supporters (e.g., banks financing these entities) or enablers (e.g., foreign cutouts) would cascade, freezing personal assets (yachts, stocks) of controlled elites, halting salaries/dividends, and blocking corporate transactions.
Financial and Operational Freeze (Sections 1, 4-5):
Immediate asset blocks would cripple operations: A social media giant couldn't pay employees, process ad revenue, or acquire servers without OFAC licenses. Propaganda/mandates would stall as controlled officials lose funding mobility.
Bans on contributions/services would isolate networks—e.g., no donations from pharma to political campaigns, no Hollywood financing for influence ops.
Evasion prohibitions deter workarounds (e.g., shell companies), with civil/criminal penalties (fines up to $1M, imprisonment up to 20 years under IEEPA).
Immigration/Access Barriers (Section 2):
If foreign blackmailers are non-U.S. persons, their U.S. entry is suspended, limiting on-the-ground coordination.
Broader Impacts and Limitations:
Stopping Abuses: By starving resources, the EO could force resignations, dismantle networks (e.g., trafficking rings lose logistics funding), and deter foreign adversaries via precedent. It protects the U.S. financial system (preamble) by blocking laundered proceeds.
Challenges: U.S. persons have stronger due process rights (e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1952, limits executive overreach); designations could be challenged in court. The EO emphasizes foreign sources, so purely domestic elements might require separate tools (e.g., criminal indictments under 18 U.S.C. § 2332b for foreign-influenced terrorism). Political will is key—designating a sitting President/Congress would be unprecedented.
In practice, this EO has targeted foreign kleptocrats (e.g., Russian oligarchs in 2021 amendments), but hypothetically extends to foreign-hybrid threats like your scenario.
Specifics on Social Media Platform Acquisition/Seizure and Sale
Assuming a platform (e.g., a hypothetical Twitter/Facebook analog) is designated as an entity owned/controlled by foreign-directed abusers or providing material support to trafficking/propaganda:
Would the Government Acquire/Seize the Platform as an Asset?
Yes, potentially. Under Section 1(a), OFAC blocks all U.S.-based property/interests of the designated entity, effectively seizing control (via Treasury directives to custodians like banks/clearing houses). This isn't outright "nationalization" but administrative seizure under IEEPA, placing assets in a frozen status where the government (via OFAC) directs custodians to hold/vest them. If the platform is a U.S. corporation, its stock, IP, servers, and operations fall under U.S. jurisdiction/control. Precedents include OFAC vesting (transferring title to the government) of blocked assets from sanctioned entities (e.g., Iranian banks). The government wouldn't "run" the platform daily but could appoint conservators or shut it down pending resolution, similar to bank seizures by the FDIC.
Would It Be Legal for the Government to Sell the Asset to the Public (to Avoid Government Ownership)?
Yes, this aligns with legal norms to prevent indefinite government ownership of private assets, respecting the Takings Clause (Fifth Amendment) and avoiding antitrust issues. IEEPA allows the President/Treasury to "vest" (take title) and dispose of blocked property (50 U.S.C. § 1704), often via public auction/sale after due process (e.g., notice/hearing). Selling to the public (e.g., via stock exchange or private bidders) privatizes it quickly, as seen in sales of forfeited cartel assets under 21 U.S.C. § 881 (civil forfeiture). Courts uphold this if linked to national security (e.g., Dames & Moore v. Regan, 1981, affirmed IEEPA sales of Iranian assets). It avoids "government ownership of civil assets" by framing it as temporary remediation.
How Long Before the Government Would Have to Sell Said Assets?
No strict statutory timeline under the EO/IEEPA—discretion lies with Treasury, balanced by administrative efficiency and litigation. Practically:
Immediate block (no prior notice, Section 7).
Vesting/sale could occur within 30-180 days post-designation, depending on challenges (e.g., 60-day appeal window under OFAC rules, 31 C.F.R. Part 501).
If litigated, delays up to 1-2 years (e.g., via D.C. Circuit appeals). Expedited sales occur in urgent cases (e.g., 2022 Russian yacht seizures sold within months). Congress could impose deadlines via oversight (NEA Section 401 requires annual renewal).
Where Would the Funds from the Sale Go?
Proceeds go to the U.S. Treasury's General Fund (31 U.S.C. § 9701; IEEPA precedents), available for appropriation by Congress—potentially offsetting sanctions enforcement costs, victim compensation (via funds like the DOJ's Asset Forfeiture Fund), or general federal spending (e.g., national security). Not directly to owners (blocked), but claimants could petition for release if delisted (Section 10). In human rights cases, portions may fund international aid (e.g., Magnitsky-related programs).
User Prompt 2:
If a foreign official targeted by this EO and therefore blocked from entry is actually visiting the United States when the EO is enacted against their assets, are they subject to other laws which might detain them?
Response to Prompt 2
The Executive Order (EO) 13818 primarily imposes asset blocks and entry suspensions but does not itself authorize detention. However, a foreign official designated under the EO (e.g., added to the OFAC Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list) who is already in the United States at the time of designation could indeed be subject to other U.S. laws that might lead to detention, depending on the circumstances. Below, I'll outline the relevant mechanisms based on U.S. immigration, sanctions enforcement, and criminal statutes. Note that actual outcomes depend on case-specific factors, such as the individual's visa type, the basis for designation, available evidence, and agency discretion—designations do not automatically trigger these actions.
1. Immigration Consequences and Potential Detention
Visa Revocation and Loss of Status:
Designations under EO 13818 can trigger visa ineligibility grounds under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), such as INA § 212(a)(3)(C) (adverse foreign policy consequences) or INA § 212(f) (presidential suspension of entry for those whose presence is detrimental to U.S. interests).^[45]
Revocation while in the U.S. is not automatic and cannot be done by consular officers abroad; it must be handled by the State Department's Visa Office (CA/VO/SAC).^[52] The Department would review derogatory information (e.g., the OFAC designation) and could revoke if it establishes ineligibility.^[41]
If revoked, the individual's lawful status may end, making them subject to removal (deportation) under INA § 237(a)(1)(B) (present in violation of law) or other deportability grounds.^[52] However, SDN designation alone does not automatically revoke a visa or status—additional grounds for inadmissibility must be established.^[2]^[30]^[40] They might still depart voluntarily without formal removal, but extending or changing status would be difficult.^[2]
Removal Proceedings and Detention:
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), could initiate removal proceedings if the designation renders the person inadmissible or deportable.^[52] For example, involvement in human rights abuses or corruption could overlap with INA § 212(a)(2)(G) (gross human rights violations) or other criminal/moral turpitude grounds.
During proceedings, detention is possible under INA § 236 if DHS determines the individual is a flight risk, a danger to the community, or subject to mandatory detention (e.g., for certain crimes).^[52] This is not automatic for sanctions alone but could occur if the underlying abuses involve detainable offenses. Bond or parole might be available, subject to an immigration judge's decision.
If the person is on a diplomatic or official visa (e.g., A or G visa), revocation requires coordination with the State Department, and diplomatic immunity might limit detention unless waived.^[52]
Travel and Re-Entry Restrictions:
While in the U.S., the entry suspension under EO 13818 § 2 doesn't force immediate departure, but asset blocks could indirectly compel it (e.g., inability to pay for lodging or services, as U.S. persons are prohibited from transactions).^[1]^[46] Upon departure, re-entry would be barred without a waiver (rare, for exceptional circumstances like U.S. national interests or UN obligations).^[40]^[41]
2. Criminal Laws and Potential Detention
If the human rights abuses or corruption involve U.S. federal crimes, the individual could face arrest and detention by law enforcement (e.g., FBI or ICE).
Examples of Applicable Statutes:
18 U.S.C. § 2340 (torture committed outside the U.S. by aliens, punishable by up to 20 years or death).
18 U.S.C. § 1091 (genocide, if elements met).
Money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956) or wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) if corruption proceeds entered the U.S.
Human trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 1591) if linked to abuses.
Designation evidence could support probable cause for a warrant, leading to pretrial detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142 if deemed a flight risk or danger.^[52] Extradition to another country (if requested) could also involve detention pending proceedings.
OFAC violations (e.g., evading asset blocks while in the U.S.) are enforceable under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), with civil penalties up to $250,000+ or criminal penalties (fines up to $1 million and/or 20 years imprisonment) if willful.^[16] This could lead to arrest if ongoing violations occur.
3. Other Practical Considerations
No Prior Notice: EO 13818 § 7 allows designations without notice to ensure effectiveness, so the person might learn of it via public SDN list updates or attempted transactions.^[7]
Delisting or Waivers: They could petition OFAC for removal from the SDN list (providing evidence of non-involvement) or seek a specific license for limited activities, but this doesn't halt ongoing enforcement.^[7]^[33]^[40]
Due Process: Foreign nationals have limited rights, but U.S. courts can review designations for arbitrariness (e.g., via Administrative Procedure Act challenges).^[9]
Precedents: In practice, SDN-designated individuals in the U.S. (e.g., under Russia or Venezuela sanctions) have faced asset freezes and departure pressures, but detention typically requires separate criminal or immigration triggers, not just the designation.
In summary, while EO 13818 doesn't directly detain, it can cascade into detention via immigration revocation/removal (under INA/DHS) or criminal prosecution (under federal statutes), especially if the designation uncovers criminal conduct. Consultation with an immigration or sanctions attorney is advisable for specific cases.
User Prompt 3:
Real-world EO 13818 cases
Response to Prompt 3
Overview of EO 13818 and Its Application
Executive Order 13818, issued in December 2017, implements the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act by authorizing sanctions against foreign persons involved in serious human rights abuses or corruption. These sanctions include asset freezes, U.S. entry bans, and prohibitions on transactions with U.S. persons. As of December 2023, over 650 foreign persons (individuals and entities) have been designated under the program.^[14] In 2024, 70 new designations were made, the lowest annual total since the program's inception.^[28] By March 2025, the total number of sanctioned foreign persons exceeded previous figures, with ongoing additions in 2025.^[23] As of August 2025, at least 262 individuals have been designated specifically for serious human rights abuses.^[13] The program has targeted actors in over 45 countries, often in coordination with allies like the UK, EU, and Canada.^[19] Below are notable real-world cases, grouped by theme, with examples from the program's history through 2025.
Human Rights Abuse Cases
Abuses Against Uyghurs and Minorities in China (2019–2021): Eight high-ranking Chinese Communist Party officials and government entities, including the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (a paramilitary organization), were sanctioned for mass arbitrary detentions, torture, forced labor, and other abuses against Uyghurs and ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. This included coordinated actions with the EU, UK, and Canada in March 2021.^[19]
Murder of Journalist Jamal Khashoggi (2018–2019): Eighteen Saudi officials and the government's "Tiger Squad" were designated for their roles in the extrajudicial killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul. This case highlighted sanctions on officials from allied countries for targeting journalists.^[19]
Arbitrary Detention in Russia (March 2023): Three individuals were sanctioned for the arbitrary detention of opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza, imprisoned for criticizing Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This marked the first use of Global Magnitsky sanctions for a single instance of arbitrary detention, with parallel actions by Canada, the UK, and the EU.^[19]^[10]
Human Trafficking on Fishing Fleets (China, December 2022): Companies, individuals, and vessels from a China-registered distant-water fishing fleet were designated for forced labor and human trafficking. This was the largest action to date and the first targeting a NASDAQ-listed entity.^[19]^[12]
Sex Trafficking and Abuse (Philippines, December 2022): Religious leader Apollo Quiboloy was sanctioned for systemic rape, physical abuse, and sex trafficking of young girls. This was the program's first designation centered on sex trafficking; Quiboloy is also on the FBI's most wanted list.^[19]^[12]
Censorship and Human Rights Abuses in Brazil (July–September 2025): Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes was designated on July 30, 2025, for serious human rights abuses, including censorship and arbitrary restrictions on free speech.^[11]^[27] Follow-up sanctions on September 22, 2025, targeted his support network, including family member Viviane Barci de Moraes.^[25]^[27]
Corruption Cases
Corrupt Mining Deals in the Democratic Republic of Congo (December 2017): Israeli billionaire Dan Gertler was sanctioned for corrupt dealings with Congolese officials, including former President Joseph Kabila, resulting in over $1.36 billion in lost state revenue. Subsequent actions in 2018 and 2020 targeted 46 associated companies and individuals, one of the largest networks sanctioned.^[19]
Illegal Logging and Land Seizures in Cambodia (December 2019; updated September 2024): Businessman Try Pheap and 11 entities were designated for illegal logging tied to government collusion. Senior general Kun Kim was sanctioned for using military forces to clear land for personal gain. In September 2024, tycoon Ly Yong Phat, his LYP Group, and O-Smach Resort were added for similar abuses involving forced evictions and human trafficking.^[19]^[1]
Money Laundering and Bribery in Latvia (December 2019): Politician Aivars Lembergs and four controlled entities, including the Ventspils Freeport Authority, were sanctioned for bribery, money laundering, and abuse of office. The Latvian government later removed Lembergs, leading to the U.S. delisting the port authority.^[19]
Corruption in The Gambia (December 2017): Former President Yahya Jammeh was designated for corruption and human rights abuses, including killings and torture. His wife was added in 2020. In 2022, the U.S. forfeited his U.S. mansion bought with illicit funds.^[19]
Corruption in Hungary (January 2025): Hungarian official Antal Rogán was sanctioned on January 7, 2025, for corruption involving misuse of public funds and state capture.^[22]
Mixed Human Rights and Corruption Cases
Abuses in Burma, Pakistan, and Other Countries (December 2019): Designations targeted figures like Min Aung Hlaing (Burma) for serious human rights abuses against Rohingya, and others in Pakistan, Slovakia, Libya, DRC, and South Sudan for combined corruption and abuses such as extrajudicial killings and misappropriation.^[15]
These cases demonstrate the EO's broad application, often timed around key dates like Human Rights Day (December 10) or in response to NGO recommendations.^[19] The program continues to evolve, with 48 designations between July and December 2024 across seven countries, focusing on multilateral coordination.^[26] For the full SDN list, refer to OFAC's website.^[21]
References
[1] Treasury Department, September 2024 announcements
[2] State Department visa revocation guidelines
[7] EO 13818, Section 7
[9] Administrative Procedure Act case law
[10] Treasury Department, March 2023 announcements
[11] Treasury Department, July 2025 announcements
[12] Treasury Department, December 2022 announcements
[13] Treasury Department, August 2025 data
[14] Treasury Department, December 2023 data
[15] Treasury Department, December 2019 announcements
[16] IEEPA penalty provisions
[19] Treasury Department, Global Magnitsky program overview
[21] OFAC SDN list
[22] Treasury Department, January 2025 announcements
[23] Treasury Department, March 2025 data
[25] Treasury Department, September 2025 announcements
[26] Treasury Department, July–December 2024 data
[27] Treasury Department, Brazil sanctions details
[28] Treasury Department, 2024 annual report
[30] INA § 212(a) guidelines
[33] OFAC delisting procedures
[40] State Department waiver policies
[41] INA § 212(f) implementation
[45] INA § 212(a)(3)(C) guidelines
[46] EO 13818, Section 1
[52] INA § 236 and § 237 provisions

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Many come here to read dispatches from the War between Good and Evil, to red-pill and encourage.....and to pray and give thanks to the God who fights for us.

Where We Go 1, We Go All

Russia Collusion (Mueller Investigation, 2015-2019)

Ukraine Whistleblower (2019)

Hunter Biden Laptop (2020-2024)
Mar-a-Lago Classified Documents Raid (2022)

January 6 Committee (2021-2023)

Biblical Theme: Seemingly Good Decisions Leading to Corruption and Evil

Parallels in Ronald Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" Speech

Executive Order 13818 Queries and Responses

Response to Prompt 1

Summary of the Executive Order

Analysis of the Scenario Under the Executive Order

How the EO Could Operate to Stop These Abuses

Specifics on Social Media Platform Acquisition/Seizure and Sale

Response to Prompt 2

1. Immigration Consequences and Potential Detention

2. Criminal Laws and Potential Detention

3. Other Practical Considerations

Response to Prompt 3

Overview of EO 13818 and Its Application

Human Rights Abuse Cases

Corruption Cases

Mixed Human Rights and Corruption Cases

References