NOT MAGA- New Emergency Import Restrictions Mandate Repatriation of Cultural Goods Seized from Americans to the Failing State of Lebanon

 US Customs has just announced very broad “emergency” import restrictions on “Lebanese” cultural goods: 

 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/14/2025-08615/emergency-import-restrictions-on-categories-of-archaeological-and-ethnological-material-of-lebanon

These new rules were based on a decision rendered at the end of the Biden Administration which is being implemented by the Trump Administration.  

The coverage is as follows:

 Archaeological material in the Designated List ranges in date from the Paleolithic period (approximately 700,000 years ago) through 1774 C.E. Ethnological material in the Designated List includes: architectural elements; religious, ritual, and funerary objects; traditional garments and headdresses; weapons and armor; and manuscripts and handwritten documents, all dating from 1600 through 1918 C.E.; as well as early printed books dating from 1600 through 1850 C.E.

The designated list set forth is representative only. Any dates and dimensions are approximate.

The restrictions on coins are also extremely broad, including coins that circulated both regionally and internationally. 

12. Coins and Other Currency —Coinage has a great variety and long history in Lebanon that spans the Achaemenid Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, medieval, and early Ottoman periods. This category consists of coins in metals such as gold, silver, billon (an alloy), copper, bronze, brass, and lead that are minted in or found in Lebanon, as well as other forms of currency, such as metal bullion or ingots and cut and weighed silver pieces ( hacksilber).

a. Iron Age Persian Period— The earliest coinage of Lebanon dates to the Achaemenid Persian Empire and consists of silver shekels, fractional denominations thereof, and bronze coins minted in Sidon, Tyre, and Byblos. Some typical designs include the king standing or running with a bow, slaying a lion, or processing in a chariot; galley ships; chariots; walled cities; hippocamps; owls with an Egyptian crook and flail; dolphins; sphinxes; griffins; vultures; rams; shells; lotus flowers; Egyptian scepters; warriors; and lions and bulls in combat. May bear Phoenician inscriptions or monograms. Includes Persian imperial and Archaic Greek coins that also circulated in Lebanon during this period. Approximate date: 510 to 332 B.C.E.

b. Hellenistic and Roman Periods —Includes coins in gold, silver, and bronze on Phoenician, Greek, and Roman weight standards. In this period, coins were minted in Sidon, Tyre, Byblos, Beirut ( Berytus/Laodicea), Tripoli ( Tripolis), Batroun ( Botrys), Arqa ( Caesarea ad Libanum), Bhannine ( Orthosia), Anjar ( Chalcis ad Libanum), and Baalbek ( Heliopolis) in the name of Macedonian, Ptolemaic, Seleucid, and Roman rulers, or in the name of the cities themselves. The obverse shows designs such as the bust of the ruler, the god Heracles-Melqart, the city-goddess Tyche wearing a “mural” crown (in the form of a walled city), or other figures. The reverse shows designs such as various Hellenic, Roman, or local deities and heroes; temples and symbols of the divine; or symbols like an eagle, palm tree, galley, ship's prow or stern, club of Heracles, cornucopia, or legionary insignia. Inscriptions and monograms may be in Greek, Latin, or Phoenician. Includes Hellenistic and Roman period coins of other regional mints, such as Antioch, that circulated in Lebanon. Approximate date: 332 B.C.E. to 498 C.E.

c. Byzantine Period —Coins in gold, silver, bronze, copper, and electrum from regional mints such as Constantinople, Nikomedia, Alexandria, Carthage, Antioch, Cyzicus, and Thessalonica that circulated in Lebanon. Byzantine coins typically bore Greek inscriptions. Some typical designs include a bust or standing figure of the emperor facing forward on the obverse and Christian symbols and/or the letters M, K, or I on the reverse. Includes coins issued by the Vandal mints of North Africa that circulated in Lebanon in the 6th century C.E. Approximate date: 498 to 635 C.E.

d. Islamic Caliphates —Coins minted during the Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid, Ayyubid, Mamluk, and early Ottoman period including at Baalbek, Byblos, Tripoli, and Tyre. Coins were minted in gold, silver, bronze, copper, and lead. The earliest Islamic coins in Lebanon are imitations of Byzantine coin types (“Arab-Byzantine coins”). In the Umayyad period and later, coins typically bore Arabic inscriptions on both sides, and occasionally symbols, animals, or flowers. Includes coins of Islamic dynasties from other regional mints, such as Damascus, Cairo, and Istanbul, that circulated in Lebanon. Approximate date: 635 to 1774 C.E.

e. Crusader Period —Coins in gold, silver, billon (an alloy), bronze, and copper minted at Tyre, Sidon, Beirut, and Tripoli in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem and County of Tripoli. Designs often featured a cross, other Christian symbol, or building in a central medallion surrounded by a Latin inscription. Other Crusader coin designs imitated contemporary Islamic coinage with Arabic or pseudo-Arabic inscriptions. Approximate date: 1095 to 1291 C.E.

The "designated list" includes Shekels of Tyre (found in great numbers in Israel, and widely collected both as coins used to pay the Temple tax  as well as the "30 pieces of silver" associated with the Passion of Christ).  It also includes Byzantine and Islamic coins that were made elsewhere and that circulated well outside the Middle East.  The coverage of Roman Imperial coins is a bit unclear, but the reference to Latin inscriptions and Roman weight standards does raise concerns. 

The International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN) provided ample evidence that such  overbroad restrictions were contrary to the Cultural Property Implementation Act's (CPIA's) mandate, but that evidence appears to have been ignored. See https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0021

At the Cultural Property Advisory Committee meeting, IAPN and others also pointed out that repatriating artifacts to a “failing state” like Lebanon is no recipe for their  “protection.”  Furthermore, they also warned that repatriating objects to Lebanon could benefit the Hezbollah terror group which effectively ran the Lebanese Government.  See https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2024/09/summary-of-cpac-meeting-to-discuss.html  

The timing of the decision given in the Federal Register as Nov. 4, 2024 should give further pause.  On that date, the Israeli Air Force was in action over Lebanon bombing the Bekaa Valley.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/11/04/lebanon-israel-airstrikes-bekaa-valley-hezbollah/  This was all part of brutal tit for tat bombing, shelling and rocket fire exchanges. See also https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hezbollah-rocket-hits-near-tel-aviv-after-beirut-airstrike-2024-11-24/   

Under the circumstances, one must ask: Is this really an environment to even contemplate repatriating cultural artifacts to?

Indeed, that prospect seemed so concerning that CPO even thought it necessary to conjure up the spirits of Senators Moynihan and Dole, the CPIA's sponsors, to express their own doubts:  https://culturalpropertynews.org/careful-collector-30-sending-art-and-antiquities-to-failed-states-no-recipe-for-preservation/

To be sure, due to Israel's actions killing much of Hezbollah's top-level leadership, Hezbollah’s influence has since diminished, but that influence still exists and Lebanon remains a failing state that may yet again slide back into war at any time.  

Leaving aside the policy question of the wisdom of repatriating objects to a failing state, the major problem for US collectors is three-fold.  

First, the Lebanese designated list is again grossly overbroad, incorporating items that are also found regionally or for coins, internationally.  

Second, Customs (with the blessing of Judge Wilkinson of the 4^th Circuit US Court of Appeals)  believes all Customs need show is that an item is of a type on these increasingly overlapping designated lists before it can be detained, seized, and repatriated.  

Third, Customs (again with the blessing of the 4^th Circuit) can apply these regulations as embargos on all “designated” items imported into the US after the effective date of the regulations rather than having to show that they were illicitly exported from Lebanon after that effective date.   

While CPO does not read the CPIA that way, according to Judge Wilkinson and the 4th Circuit US Court of Appeals, all this is a “foreign policy matter” not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act or any meaningful judicial review.   

And adding insult to injury, all this ultimately raises the question whether collectors now have fewer due process rights at least as far as Judge Wilkinson is concerned than illegal aliens who are also alleged to be MS-13 gang members.   https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2025/04/should-american-collectors-get-at-least.html  

Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Uzbekistan

US Customs has announced broad new import restrictions on archaeological and ethnological objects for Uzbekistan’s authoritarian government that apply to cultural goods dating as recently as 1917.

More here:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/05/2025-07849/imposition-of-import-restrictions-on-archaeological-and-ethnological-material-of-uzbekistan. 

These import restrictions derive from a Cultural Property Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the Biden Administration along with a spate of others with authoritarian governments as “soft power measures.” 

Since President Trump’s regulatory freeze was lifted, renewals of prior restrictions on behalf of El Salvador and Ecuador have been announced, but this is the first new set of restrictions issued under the Trump II Administration.  

Such import controls on cultural goods are particularly controversial because they are enforced as embargoes on cultural goods coming from legitimate markets abroad, most significantly those in Europe. 

Even worse, US Customs gives collectors no meaningful due process before their private property is detained, seized and forfeited.  The Cultural Property Implementation Act only gives the government the right to repatriate coins and other artifacts "first discovered within" and hence "subject to the export control" of a particular country that also is "exported.. from the State Party after the designation of such material...."  19 USC Sections 2601, 2606.  But as far as the government is concerned, all it  instead need show is that an item is of a type on one of the ever increasing numbers of designated lists before it can be repatriated.   

These problems are compounded, because designated lists, like that for Uzbekistan, have over time become grossly overbroad, covering coins and other items found in multiple countries. The designated list for coins here is as follows. 

5. Coins—Ancient coins commonly found in Uzbekistan include gold, silver, copper, and copper alloy coins in a variety of denominations. Includes gold and silver ingots, which may be plain and/or inscribed. Some of the most well-known types are described below:

a. Achaemenid period coins, including Darics, Sigloi, Late Achaemenid Anatolian currencies. Approximate date: 550-330 B.C.E.

b. Greco-Bactrian coins, include gold staters, silver tetradrachms, silver and bronze drachms, and a small number of punch-marked coins. The bust of the king, the king on horseback, or an animal were on the obverse, and images of Greek deities or various symbols were on the reverse with the king's name written in Greek. Local rulers also minted imitations of these types. Approximate date: 250-125 B.C.E.

c. Kushan Dynasty coins include silver tetradrachms, copper coins, bronze didrachms, and gold dinars. Imagery includes portrait busts (Augustus type) or standing figures of the king with his emblem (tamgha). Classical Greek and Zoroastrian deities and images of the Buddha are depicted on the reverse. Approximate date: 19-230 C.E.

d. Kushano-Sasanian or Kushanshah coins include gold dinars, silver tetradrachms, and copper alloy denominations. Some Kushano-Sasanian coins followed the Kushan style of imagery, while others resemble Sasanian coins with the bust of the king wearing a large crown and Zoroastrian fire altars and deities. Inscriptions are written in Bactrian, Brahmi, or Pahlavi scripts. Approximate date: 225-365 C.E.

e. Hunnic (Hephthalite and Kidarite) coins include silver drachms, silver dinars, and small copper and bronze coins. Hephthalite coins resemble Sasanian coins with a portrait bust of the king on the obverse and a Zoroastrian fire altar on the reverse. Approximate date: late 4th to mid-8th centuries C.E.

f. Sogdian coins include bronze and silver dirhams and drachms. Some Sogdian coins are cast with a central hole, similar to coins from the Tang Dynasty in China. Sogdian coins may include imagery of Zoroastrian fire altars, rulers, portrait busts in profile, horse and rider, camels, and lions. Coins may have inscriptions in Sogdian scripts. Approximate dates: 4th to 9th centuries C.E.

g. Samanid, Karakhanid, Khorezmshah dynasty coins include bronze, copper, silver, and gold dinars and jitals and silver dirhams. Coins of these dynasties usually display Arabic inscriptions on both faces. Some Karakhanid coins have punch marks, like coins from the Tang Dynasty. Some Khorezmshah coins may have imagery of an elephant or horse with rider. Approximate date: 800-1250 C.E.

h. Chaghatai and Timurid coins include silver and copper tangas and dinars. Both coin types are decorated with Arabic inscriptions. Approximate date: 1227-1507 C.E.

i. Khanates of Bukhara, Khiva, and Kokand coins include copper, silver, and gold tangas; gold dinars; silver tetradrachms; gold ashfris and tillos or tillas. Coin types are decorated with inscriptions. Coins may be associated with the Janid, Shaybanid, or other dynasties. Approximate date: 1500-1773 C.E.

As indicated in the International Association of Professional Numismatist's comments to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC), most such coins "commonly found"  in Uzbekistan also circulated in considerable numbers elsewhere, meaning that one cannot simply assume as Customs does here that such coins were "first discovered within, and [are] subject to export control by" Uzbekistan. 19 USC Section 2601. 

For additional information about the Uzbek request and the CPAC meeting that reviewed it, see https://culturalpropertynews.org/us-state-dept-uzbekistan-art-embargo-50000-bc-to-1917/ and https://culturalpropertynews.org/cpac-report-coin-collectors-face-more-collateral-damage/

Unfortunately, the one court challenge on such restrictions went nowhere, with the Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals telling coin collectors they were entitled to less due process than he later thought should be afforded to an illegal alien deported as an alleged MS 13 gang member.  

Given the continuation of ever broader overlapping embargos imposed on behalf of authoritarian governments and the apparent unwillingness of the courts to protect the private property rights of collectors,  legislative reform is sorely needed.

Please Help Save Collecting Roman Imperial Coins (and Other Collecting as Well)!

The State Department has rescheduled a previously postponed Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) Meeting  to Review a Proposed Renewal of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Italy.  CPAC will also review other renewals with Chile and Morocco as well as a new, proposed MOU with Vietnam. See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/23/2025-06901/cultural-property-advisory-committee  The Federal Register notice also adds another country, Costa Rica. 

Surprisingly, the rescheduled meeting appears to be going forward before a CPAC composed entirely of Biden holdovers.  See https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2025/01/upcoming-cpac-meeting-of-biden.html   When the meeting was originally postponed, the expectation was that the Trump Administration would replace all Biden appointees with Trump appointees just like the Biden Administration did before approving a controversial renewal of a MOU with China. 

In any event, CPAC will now reopen the record and accept additional public comments on or before on or before May 13, 2025.  To provide written comments,  use https://www.regulations.gov, enter the docket DOS-2025-0003 and follow the prompts.  Alternatively, try to use this direct link:  https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2025-0003-0001

The Cultural Heritage Center website provides additional information.  It indicates that comments uploaded for the previously postponed CPAC meeting have been retained and will be made available for CPAC members to review.  The Cultural Heritage Center’s website can be found here:  https://eca.state.gov/highlight/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-may-20-23-2025   Those earlier comments can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2024-0048-0001

If you are commenting now, you do not have to be a US Citizen to do so.  In fact, it would be good for the State Department to hear from collectors and members of the trade in Italy and elsewhere about how import restrictions will negatively impact the people to people contacts and appreciation of coins and the cultures that make them as well.

CPAC will also conduct a public hearing to accept oral comments from the public on May 20, 2025 from 2:00-3:00 PM EST.  Id.  Those interested in providing oral comments must contact the State Department Cultural Heritage center at CULPROP@state.gov as indicated in the above notice on or before May 13, 2025 to express an interest in speaking.

The Proposed Extension with Italy and the Possible Expansion of Import Restrictions to Include Late Roman Republican and Roman Imperial Coins

That MOU with Italy first authorized import restrictions on Italian cultural artifacts from the Pre-Classical, Classical and Imperial Roman periods in 2001.  The restrictions were extended 2006 and again in 2011, 2016, and 2021.  The 2011 renewal added new import restrictions on Greek, early Republican and Provincial coins from the early Imperial Period.  Coins types from the later Roman Republic (post 211 BC) and Roman Imperial Coins were excluded from any import restrictions as were any later Italian coins.

No additional import restrictions have been imposed for Italy, but since the last renewal in 2021, new import restrictions have been imposed on Roman Imperial coins on behalf of  Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan and Ukraine despite evidence being presented that comparatively few such coins are found in these countries.  In addition, at a meeting attended by representatives of the numismatic community, CPAC’s executive director indicated that she “did not see a reason” why Roman Imperial coins could not be restricted.  Given this information, the numismatic community must assume (absent clear assurances to the contrary which have not been provided) that the extension of the current MOU with Italy may be used to impose new import restrictions on  Roman Imperial Coins—the heart of ancient coin collecting—as well.   Accordingly, if one feels strongly about their continued ability to collect Roman Imperial and other historical coins and artifacts, they should comment on the regulations.gov website.  Why?  Because silence will only be spun as acquiesce.  

So, serious collectors should oppose yet another renewal as unnecessary and detrimental to the appreciation of Italian culture and the people to people contacts collecting brings.  Moreover, they should clearly state under no circumstances should import restrictions be extended to Roman Imperial coins.   Collectors should also weigh in generally on any potentially overbroad list for Vietnam as well as the overbroad lists already place on coins from Italy and Morocco.  For more, see https://accguild.org/news/13409276 There are no current import restrictions for Spanish Colonial or early Republican era coins from Chile or Costa Rica, but we shouldn’t take that for granted either. 

A.  Background for Coin Collectors

There are large numbers of coin collectors and numismatic firms in the US.  Very few collectors do so to “invest.”  Most collect out of love of history, as an expression of their own cultural identity, or out of interest in other cultures.  All firms that specialize in ancient coins in the US are small or micro businesses. Private collectors and dealers support much academic research into coins.  A further clamp down on collecting will inevitably lead to less scholarship.

When what became the Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) was being negotiated, one of the State Department’s top lawyers assured Congress that “it would be hard to imagine a case” where coins would be restricted.   In 2007, however, the State Department imposed import restrictions on Cypriot coins, against CPAC’s recommendations, and then misled the public and Congress about it in official government reports.  What also should be troubling is that the decision maker, Assistant Secretary Dina Powell, did so AFTER she had accepted a job with Goldman Sachs where she was recruited by and worked for the spouse of the founder of the Antiquities Coalition, an archaeological advocacy group that has lobbied extensively for import restrictions.  Since that time, additional import restrictions have been imposed on coins on behalf of 19 additional countries, with more import restrictions being considered. 

The cumulative impact of import restrictions has been very problematical for collectors since outside of some valuable Greek coins, most coins simply lack the document trail necessary for legal import under the “safe harbor” provisions of 19 U.S.C. § 2606.  The CPIA only authorizes the government to impose import restrictions on coins and other artifacts first discovered within and subject to the export control of Italy. (19 U.S.C. § 2601). Furthermore, seizure is only appropriate for items on the designated list exported from the State Party after the effective date of regulations.  (19 U.S.C. § 2606).  Unfortunately, the State Department and Customs view this authority far more broadly.  In particular, designated lists have been prepared based on where coins are made and sometimes found, not where they are actually found and hence are subject to export control.  Furthermore, restrictions are not applied prospectively solely to illegal exports made after the effective date of regulations, but rather are enforced against any import into the U.S. made after the effective date of regulations, i.e., an embargo, not targeted, prospective import restrictions. 

While  enforcement has been spotty,  the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild has uncovered information about situations where coins have been detained, seized and repatriated where the importer cannot produce information to prove his or her coins were outside of a country for which import restrictions were granted before the date of restrictions.  See https://new.coinsweekly.com/news-en/customs-repatriation-to-greece-raises-questions/

  B.  What You Can Do

Admittedly, CPAC seems to be little more than a rubber stamp these days.  Still, to remain silent is to give those with an ax to grind against collectors exactly what they want-- the claim that any restrictions will not be controversial.  Moreover, a past CPAC member who is a coin collector  has confirmed that comments do matter because they give support to those CPAC members supportive of collectors and collecting.

For written comments, use http://www.regulations.gov, enter the docket [DOS-2025-0003] and follow the prompts to submit your comments.  Alternatively, click this link: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2025-0003-0001 and click on the Blue “Comment Now” Button which should pull up a screen that allows you to comment.  (Please note comments may be posted only UNTIL May 13, 2025 at 11:59 PM.)  As noted above, if you commented on these MOUs before, the State Department’s website indicates that it is not necessary to resubmit those comments now. 

Please also note comments submitted in electronic form are not private. They will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Because the comments cannot be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the Department of State cautions against including any information in an electronic submission that one does not want publicly disclosed (including trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2605(i)(1)).

Some have also reported that they have had difficulty posting comments due to technical glitches.  If these persist, please email your comments directly to the State Department Cultural Heritage Center at CULPROP@state.gov. 

C.  What Should You Say?

What should you say?  Provide a brief, polite explanation about why the renewal with Italy should be allowed to expire or be limited.  Question CPAC why it’s necessary to renew the Italian MOU yet again when looting is under control due to Italy’s aggressive enforcement efforts as well as  economic development.  Indicate how restrictions will negatively impact your business and/or the cultural understanding and people to people contacts collecting provides.   Coin collectors should add that it’s typically impossible to assume a particular coin (especially Roman ones) was “first discovered within” and “subject to the export control” of Italy.  In fact, by far most Roman Imperial coins are found not in Italy, but on the Empire’s frontiers.  You might add that Roman coins are very common (The Coin Hoards of the Roman Empire database lists over 6 million such coins. See https://chre.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/.) and widely and legally available for sale elsewhere, and point out the absurdity of restricting coins freely available in Italy itself.  Finally, you don’t have to be an American citizen to comment—you just need to be concerned enough to spend ten or so minutes to express your views on-line.  Comments from Italian collectors and members of the trade are particularly welcome! 

To the extent you also want comment on the proposed MOU with Vietnam, as well as the proposed renewals with Chile, Costa Rica and Morocco, you can again make the point that for the most part, coins found in those countries circulated well outside their borders as well so it’s difficult to assume that any particular coin is the “cultural property” of a given country.

Personalized comments are best, but feel free to use this submission as a model: 

Dear CPAC:

Enough is enough. The current MOU with Italy, which has been in effect since 2001, should be allowed to lapse. It is no longer necessary because Italy’s own aggressive enforcement efforts as well economic development have greatly diminished any looting.  Moreover, the MOU negatively impacts legitimate collecting, the appreciation of Italian culture and people to people contacts collecting brings.

At a minimum, please free all ancient coins from restriction or at least recognize legal exports from Italy’s fellow European Union members as legal imports into the US. Such coins are openly and legally available for sale within Italy itself. It makes absolutely no sense to continue to restrict American access to what Italians themselves have enjoyed since the Renaissance.

Finally, please do not recommend new restrictions on late Roman Republican and Roman Imperial Coins.  These coins are extremely common, with at least 6 million known to scholars. As the products of a great empire, these coins circulated throughout Europe, the Middle East and beyond. They “belong” not to Italy, but to us all.

As for current and potential restrictions on other coins from Vietnam, Chile, Costa Rica, and Morocco, I also oppose such restrictions.  Again, as a general rule coins circulated outside their modern borders in quantity, and one cannot assume that they are the “cultural property’ of a given country.

Sincerely,

 

Should American Collectors Get at Least the Same "Due Process Rights" as Illegal Aliens Who Are Alleged to be MS-13 Gang Members?

No, at least according to the the Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson, the 4th Circuit Judge, who mainstream media is lauding for his recent take down of the Trump Administration for refusing to give an illegal alien alleged to also be a MS-13 gang member "due process" before "repatriating" him to his own country of El Salvador, where he was thrown in prison.  The Trump Administration had predicated its decision-making on the President's foreign policy powers and the Alien and Sedition Acts, which go back to the John Adams Administration.  

In stark contrast, when Wilkinson wrote the majority opinion in the ACCG case, he held that the President's "foreign policy" powers precluded both judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act of the controversial decision to impose import restrictions on coins as well as any meaningful defense of a resulting forfeiture action.  Indeed, at oral argument, Wilkinson lectured CPO about how the President's power was not subject to anything but the most superficial judicial review, regardless of the ACCG's allegations that State Department officials had ignored governing law, misled Congress and the public in official government reports about the decision, and had engaged in cronyism with archaeological advocacy groups.  

So what gives?  Sadly, Wilkinson's result-oriented decision making is par for the course.  These days the federal judiciary is dominated by former government attorneys like Wilkinson.  Their rulings have been essential to the expansion of government bureaucratic power and the erosion of our rights, including that to our private property.  While such judges are generally all too happy to expand that bureaucratic power further, they balk at Trump's own exercise of his powers, particularly where Team Trump has sought to tear down the status quo and its protections for favored interest groups. Sadly, collectors don't fall in that category.  

So is there any solution?  Yes, Congress must limit bureaucratic and prosecutorial discretion by federalizing all foreign claims to "cultural property," by ensuring that the burden of proof is on the government before that "cultural property" is seized and forfeited, and by making the creation of any import restrictions on "cultural property" subject to the limitations found in the Administrative Procedure Act.  But that will take collector engagement to make it all happen.  

Upcoming CPAC Meeting of Biden Holdovers Should Be Postponed-- Update: MEETING RESCHEDULED BEFORE SAME BIDEN APPOINTEES!

On December 4, 2024, the State Department Cultural Heritage Center provided advance notice of a Cultural Property Advisory (CPAC) meeting to address a new cultural property memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and renewals of current agreements with Chile, Italy and Morocco.

Coin collectors and the trade are concerned that this CPAC hearing is being rushed through to avoid Trump Administration scrutiny of  a likely effort to place new import restrictions on widely collected Roman Imperial coins on behalf of Italy.  Others have expressed concern that  any agreement with Communist Vietnam would impact the ability of refugees to import their own cultural heritage. Based on a review of posted comments, none of these MOUs or renewals would seem to have much public support.

There is no good reason why the CPAC meeting needs to be conducted now.  The current MOUs with Italy and Morocco do not expire until 2026 and the current agreement with Chile does not expire until September 2025.  There is no “emergency” impacting Vietnamese cultural goods requiring prompt action.

All CPAC members are holdover Biden political appointees, some of whom are openly hostile to collecting.  State Department Cultural Heritage Center staff are associated in one way or the other with archaeological advocacy groups that offer unqualified support for MOUs being used to “claw back” virtually all cultural goods so they can be repatriated to their countries of origin.  These archaeological advocacy groups have also received substantial State Department funding to help create and justify these cultural property MOUs.  

As of today, the current February 4, 2025 CPAC hearing is set to go forward even though the last time an important Cultural Property MOU with China was being considered, the State Department postponed that hearing so that any Trump I holdovers could be replaced by Biden appointees (who would be more likely to bless this controversial agreement). 

Moreover, the hearing is taking place despite the existence of President Trump’s “regulatory freeze.”

Under the circumstances, if this meeting is not postponed, it could be viewed as a bureaucratic effort to undermine Trump executive authority in order to push through new import restrictions despite the vast number of comments received on the issue. 

UPDATE 1/31/25- The State Department has agreed to postpone this hearing, presumably in response to concerns raised about the timing of this hearing.  CPO thanks the State Department for this decision.  

UPDATE 2/3/25- The State Department has updated its website to indicate that the meeting has been postponed but will be rescheduled.

UPDATE 4/19/25- Late on the Good Friday Holiday for Christians, the State Department announced in an email that the hearing has been reschedule for May 20-23, 2025.  Additional comments can be filed before May 13, 2025.    Despite concerns expressed by CPO and others, it appears that the meeting will take place solely before Biden appointees and that any decision making will be made by career State Department employees, not Trump appointees. 

UPDATE 4/23/25- CPO just noticed that the Federal Register Notice adds Costa Rica to the mix.  More here.

Low Public Support for Renewal of MOU with Italy, New MOU with Vietnam and Other Renewals for Chile and Morocco

The comment period for next week's CPAC meeting to address a renewal of the MOU with Italy, a new MOU with Vietnam, and other renewals with Chile and Morocco has now closed.  

A total of 214 comments were uploaded.  

Here a breakdown of comments by subject matter:

Coins: 176/214

Chile: 48/214

Italy: 131/214

Morocco: 52/214

Vietnam: 47/214

 Most of the comments (about 80%) came from coin collectors or dealers concerned about new or renewed import restrictions, particularly possible new restrictions on Roman Imperial coins on behalf of Italy.

There were very few comments calling for import restrictions on coins.   All came from either archaeological advocacy groups or archaeologists associated with these groups.  

The American Society of Overseas Research (ASOR), the Archaeological Institute of America, and ATHAR were the only archaeological groups that appear to have engaged on the issues.   The Committee for Cultural Policy, Global Heritage Alliance, and CINOA posted comments questioning the MOUs or proposed import restrictions.  A number of numismatic groups commented, particularly on Roman Imperial coins:  American Numismatic Association; Ancient Coin Collectors Guild; International Association of Professional Numismatists; and the Oriental Numismatic Society.

The renewal of the Italian MOU received the most support from archaeologists, but even here the numbers were limited.  This demonstrates once again that the MOU program which is pitched as a “soft power” effort, really has very small constituency.  It also should be noted that one of these commenters, ASOR, is a major State Department contractor which has received considerable funding to write reports to help justify cultural property MOUs.  

Are Trump DOGE budget cutters watching?