By: Saraiyah Zigler | Date: September 22, 2025
Property Rights in America: The Impact of Executive Actions on Constitutional Protections
Property rights are deeply embedded in American society and culture. Simple acts, such as buying coffee for strangers or donating to the local children’s shelter, fall comfortably within our constitutional property rights. While these rights have their limitations, Americans generally have the right to use and transfer property as they desire. President Trump’s Executive Order raises critical questions about the use of property-based mechanisms to enforce Presidential agendas.
Under the broad scope of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the President is granted national emergency powers that override certain constitutional protections, including substantive and procedural due process rights. This piece aims to examine and reveal—through the analysis of domestic property law principles with international legal frameworks—how these executive orders demonstrate a strategic weaponization of legal concepts to further geopolitical aims; an approach with lasting implications for both international relations and the domestic rule of law. As a result of the President’s ongoing conflict with the International Criminal Court (“ICC)”, EO 14203 reveals Trump’s most recent war with the ICC leaves American property rights caught in the crossfire.
The United States vs. The International Criminal Court
The ICC, established by the Rome Statute in 1998 and operational since 2002, serves as the world’s only permanent international tribunal responsible for investigating and prosecuting states for alleged crimes of aggression, war, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The United States initially signed the Rome Statute on December 31, 2000, signaling its support. However, concerns over the Court’s perceived “flaws” led to U.S. withdrawal before the treaty entered into force. The U.S. remains a non-party today.
American Presidents have consistently feared the possibility that “U.S. citizens may be prosecuted and convicted by the [ICC] for conduct ordered or supported by the U.S. government” in Afghanistan. After the ICC initially denied—and later approved—investigations into the U.S. for possible war crimes, the U.S. government vocally opposed the Court’s jurisdiction, revoked visas of ICC personnel, and threatened economic sanctions. Though the investigations into the U.S. continue today, the initial denial called into question the influence and legitimacy of International Criminal Courts. These measures have challenged the ICC’s authority and raised fundamental questions about its capacity to deter future violations when a powerful state can undermine investigations through diplomatic and economic pressure.
President Trump’s Executive Orders
Executive orders serve as tools for the President within the boundaries of constitutional and statutory authority. Intended to assist the President in his duty to “take care the laws [passed by Congress] be faithfully executed,” executive orders are “presumptively lawful” statements or instructions often used by Presidents to enforce laws, as well as to “signal priorities and direct their administrations.” Article II of the U.S. Constitution allows for this discretion so long as executive orders “derive from an already existing statute or a constitutionally enumerated presidential power.” In 2020, President Trump used his enumerated National Emergency Powers and released Executive Order 13928, blocking property belonging to individuals assisting the ICC in investigating the U.S. In a claim filed against President Trump, plaintiffs challenged Executive Order 13928 on constitutional grounds as it restricted their First Amendment rights to free speech. This order was eventually nullified when President Biden lifted the emergency declaration. However, the Court noted that EO 13928 likely violated constitutional protections. Five years later, President Trump issued Executive Order 14203 (“EO 14203”), broadening sanctions to limit ICC investigations of allied states; most notably attempting to shield Israel from scrutiny related to potential war crimes in Gaza.
On its surface, Executive Order 14203 is foreign policy aimed at foreign nationals. However, it unironically and explicitly refers to property held in the U.S. thirteen times, allowing the President to block U.S. foreign owned “property or interest in property” (“property interests”) located within the country. All property interests owned by persons designated in Section One of Executive Order 14203, and which remain within the U.S. or within the possession of a U.S. resident, must be legally blocked according to the Executive Order. Additionally, property interest held by persons who are blocked cannot be “transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt with.” This expansive reach permits the blocking of assets and prohibits transactions involving designated individuals, including ICC officials, resulting in significant economic sanctions. Just six days after Executive Order 14203 was released, ICC Prosecutor Karim Kahn was annexed in the order. On August 20, 2025, four members of the ICC were designated and sanctions were imposed onto them for their actions regarding investigations into the U.S. and Isreal. The list includes Trial Division Judges Kimberly Prost and Nicolas Yann Guillou, as well as Deputy Prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang .
Domestic Constitutional Property Law and International Policy
Executive Order 14203 is primarily justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the President broad authority to “investigate, regulate, or prohibit” economic transactions after declaring a national emergency and is most often used by Presidents to block assets in the name of patriotism and national security. However, National emergencies are “by their nature rare and brief, are not to be equated with normal ongoing problems… [and] should be terminated in a timely manner when the factual state of emergency is over and not continued in effect for use in other circumstances.” Traditionally, national emergencies are reserved for rare and imminent threats to national security, not prolonged geopolitical disputes such as those involving International Criminal Courts.
Employing his national emergency powers—by releasing an executive order stating what national emergency exists and what powers he will use to address the emergency—President Trump characterized ICC investigations into the U.S. and non-consenting U.S. allies as an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” On its surface, Executive Order 14203 aims to eliminate international threats that “undermine the critical national security and foreign policy work of the United States Government and [its] allies.” While Executive Order 14203 aims to protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, it simultaneously imposes severe restrictions on American property rights. The executive order bypasses procedural due process protections by allowing property blocking and sanctions without notice to the affected parties.
President Trump attempts to bypass American constitutional property rights by asserting a need to address “the national emergency” quickly and without interference. However, Executive Order 14203 does not survive strict scrutiny because it infringes on property owners’ fundamental constitutional right to procedural due process. This raises constitutional concerns, as the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Procedural Due Process “asks whether the government has followed the proper procedures when it takes away life, liberty or property.” Though Procedural Due Process does not have a “technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances… [the United States Supreme Court offers that] some form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property interest.” The Court reasoned that the“right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal conviction, is a principle basic to our society.” The Supreme Court also emphasized the necessity of a hearing before deprivation of property, reserving procedural due process as fundamental to American legal principles.
Under Executive Order 14203, property interests can be frozen without prior notification, and sanctions can be imposed on U.S. citizens, lawful residents, and allied nationals who provide any support to targeted individuals who exchange “any contribution or provisions of funds, goods, or services” with persons involved in the aforementioned International Criminal Courts’ investigations. This restriction applies to co-owned property where the blocked party holds a majority interest, compounding the risk of unwarranted deprivation. Consequently, the IEEPA National Emergency Powers remain a powerful economic mechanism used by the President to regulate property in the United States. Americans’ constitutionally protected property rights remain collateral damage as the United States’ toxic rivalry with the International Criminal Courts continues.
Conclusion
Americans rely on their property rights. Property rights encompass tangible assets like money, homes, and vehicles. Intangible rights such as intellectual property also falls within those constitutional protections. Given their foundational importance, there must be limitations on the “national emergency” powers set forth in the IEEPA and these limitations must be clearly defined to prevent constitutional infringements.
Currently, the broad scope of the IEEPA permits serious constitutional property law violations without adequate oversight or due process. Although framed as foreign policy tools, these orders effectively restrict domestic property interests without “prior notice of a listing or determination” in the name of national emergency. Without clear boundaries or limitations on what constitutes a national emergency, American property rights are limited and, in some cases, eliminated. These broad emergency powers raise constitutional concerns about limitations on property ownership, Presidential control, and government intervention—in turn eroding individual liberty and undermining the rule of law, one executive order at a time.