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 are 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.  https://culturalpropertynews.org/an-epic-battle-u-s-v-3-knife-shaped-coins/

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  

Summary of CPAC Meeting to Discuss Proposed Agreements or Emergency Import Restrictions for Lebanon and Mongolia and Renewal of Agreement with El Salvador

On September 24, 2024, the US Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) met in a virtual public session to accept public comments regarding proposed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) or emergency import restrictions with Lebanon and Mongolia and a renewal of a current agreement with El Salvador.  An update on the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs’ (ECA’s) website made shortly before the hearing provided further information about the scope of the requests:

Lebanon

Protection is sought for archaeological material from the Paleolithic period (approximately 700,000 years ago) to 1774 CE, including, but not limited to, objects in stone (such as tools, statues, figurines, sarcophagi, stelae, architectural elements, seals, amulets, objects of daily use, jewelry, and ceremonial and cultic objects), ceramic (such as vessels, figurines, objects of daily use, and ceremonial and cultic objects), metal (such as vessels, statues, figurines, jewelry, tools, objects of daily use, weapons and armor, and coins), plaster (such as wall paintings and frescoes), glass (such as vessels, seals, jewelry, and objects of daily use), bone and ivory (such as carvings, seals and amulets, jewelry, and objects of daily use), wood (such as panel paintings, icons, and objects of daily use), textiles, manuscripts (on parchment, paper, and leather), and rare specimens of fossilized fauna and flora.

Protection is additionally sought for ethnological material dating from the 17th century until today, including all cultural works, artifacts, and artworks (such as textiles, traditional garments, headdresses, accessories and jewelry, liturgical objects, manuscripts, books, archives, weapons and armor, and objects of daily use) crafted, made, or produced by Lebanese artists, craftsmen, writers, symbolic personalities, or made on the Lebanese territory and considered unique and representative of the diversity of the Lebanese identity and its recognition worldwide (such as works of Gibran Khalil Gibran and famous Lebanese painters).

Mongolia

Mongolia seeks protection of its cultural artifacts including archaeological material, including stone tools and statues; terracotta architectural materials and containers; religious and ceremonial objects; ornaments decorated with gold, silver, bronze, and precious stones; metal objects including coins, equipment, tools, and weapons;  manuscripts and objects used to create or bind manuscripts; wooden objects; carpets; clothing and shoes; and objects made from animal hide, animal skin, and wool.  The protection would also include hand-made ethnological materials including religious figures of deities and other religious objects; shoes and clothes; decorative items; handwritten manuscripts and other literary objects; fine art items; sewn, knit, and embroidered items; items used in traditional ceremonies or festivals; traditional ger housing materials; agricultural equipment; and musical instruments.

 El Salvador

Extending the El Salvador MOU would continue import restrictions on categories of archaeological material ranging in date from approximately 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1550 and certain ethnological material, including categories of ecclesiastical material from the Colonial period to the first half of the twentieth century (A.D. 1525 to 1950).

Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting, September 24-26 2024, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Media Center (amended August 27, 2024) available at  https://eca.state.gov/cultural-property-advisory-committee-meeting-Sept-24-26-2-24 (last visited September 24, 2024). 

The CPAC members did not introduce themselves before the public session, but CPAC currently includes the following individuals: (1) Alexandra Jones (Chair, Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields, CEO Archaeology in the Community, Washington, DC); (2) Alex Barker (Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields) Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Arkansas); (3) Mirriam Stark, Represents/Expertise Archaeology, Anthropology, related fields, Professor of Anthropology, University of Hawaii); (4) Nii Otokunor Quarcoopome (Represents/Expertise Museums, Curator and Department head, Detroit Museum of Art); ( (5) Andrew Conners (Represents/Expertise Museums, Director, Albuquerque Museum, New Mexico); (6) Michael Findlay (Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property, Director, Acquavella Galleries, New York); (7) Amy Cappellazzo, Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property, Principal, Art Intelligence Global; (8) Cynthia Herbert (Represents/Expertise: International Sale of Cultural Property President, Appretium Appraisal Services LLC, Connecticut); (9) Thomas R. Lamont (Represents Public, President of Lamont Consulting Services, LLC, Illinois);  (10) Susan Schoenfeld Harrington  (Represents Public, Past Deputy Finance Chair, Democratic National Committee, Past Board member, China Art Foundation); and, (11) William Teitelman (Represents General Public, Legislative Counsel to the PA Trial Lawyers Association, Attorney (Retired)).

The meeting was conducted entirely on Zoom.  None of the members identified themselves to the speakers so it was difficult to ascertain who asked the few questions that were posed.

The Chair, Alexandra Jones, welcomed the speakers.  She thanked the speakers for attending, indicated that all comments had been read, and that speakers would be given five minutes each to present their oral comments. 

Dr. Ömür Harmanşah spoke as the Vice President for Cultural Heritage, Archaeological Institute of America (“AIA”).  Given time constraints, he focused his comments on Lebanon and Mongolia.  He stated that the AIA was founded in 1906 and that today it has some 200,000 members which includes professionals and members of the interested public.  Dr. Harmanşah indicated that Lebanon’s cultural heritage has been endangered since the 1975-1991 Civil War when looting was at its peak.  In Mongolia, a 2019 report indicated that most tombs had been looted.  Lebanon and Mongolia both have legislation meant to address looting that satisfies the “self-help” requirement.  In 2003, the Lebanese government partnered with the World Bank and bilateral agencies to implement what is known as the Cultural Heritage and Urban Reconstruction Project (CHUD) “to help conserve and restore the country’s cultural heritage in five of its historic cities: Baalbek, Byblos, Saida, Tripoli, and Tyre."

The AIA’s written comments about Lebanon can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0054

The AIA’s written comments about Mongolia can be found here: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0055

The AIA’s written comments about El Salvador can be found here: 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0056

Kate FitzGibbon spoke as the executive director of the Committee for Cultural Policy.  She indicated that since she served on CPAC reasonable restrictions on trade have been replaced by blanket restrictions and perpetual MOUs.  The Lebanese government is beholden to Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy, putting objects potentially at risk.  Most looting in Lebanon occurred during the civil war of the 1990s under the direction of various militias.  There are only five paid Lebanese archaeologists who are expected to protect the entire country, which is impossible.  There is no “self-help” whatsoever.  In El Salvador, a blockade on art has done nothing to protect cultural heritage from destruction due to development.   Mongolian material is not going to the US, but China.  Much of what may appear on a designated list for Mongolia would be either Chinese made Buddhist religious artifacts, some of which were taken to Mongolia by Tibetans fleeing Chinese oppression.  It would be a shame if a MOU were used to take such material away from Tibetan exiles.

The Committee for Cultural Policy’s and the Global Heritage Alliance’s written comments on all the requests can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0048

Elias Gerasoulis spoke as executive director of the Global Heritage Alliance.  He indicated that the MOU with Lebanon cannot be divorced from the political situation in the country.  El Salvador cannot meet the “self-help” requirement because it has prioritized construction projects over protecting cultural heritage.  It is important that the State Department hold countries seeking MOUs to certain standards.

Peter Tompa spoke as executive director for the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN).  He made the following three points.  First, CPAC should reject any cultural property agreement or emergency import restrictions for Lebanon.  US  Customs should not be made the “culture cop” for a government dominated by Hezbollah, a terrorist group and proxy for Iran’s dictatorial regime.  Repatriating objects to a war zone where they could be destroyed also makes no sense.  Second, the State Department has misleadingly claimed that MOUs only stop trafficked property from entering the US and promote legal cultural exchange.  In fact, MOUs are instead used to claw back coins and other designated archaeological and ethnological material from legitimate markets abroad, particularly in Europe.  Third, there is no factual basis for the assumption that coins minted or found in El Salvador, Lebanon or Mongolia necessarily come from those countries.  IAPN presented scholarly evidence that coins minted or found in these countries are also found elsewhere regionally or internationally in much greater numbers.  The Shekel of Tyre is a specific example.  This coin was used to pay the Temple Tax and is found in great numbers in Israel. 

Peter Tompa’s oral statement can be found here:  https://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2024/09/cpac-meeting-on-new-agreements-or.html

Peter Tompa’s personal comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0040

IAPN’s comments on Lebanon can be found here:

 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0021

IAPN’s comments on Mongolia can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0023

IAPN’s comments on the extension of the current agreement with El Salvador can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0019

Randy Myers spoke as a board member on behalf of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild.  He also spoke on behalf of the American Numismatic Association.  He touched on four points.  First, the State Department continues to provide inadequate notice to the public for upcoming MOUs.  This makes it difficult to solicit informed public comment.  In this case, notice was first provided 32 days before the CPAC hearing, and it only became clear 21 days in advanced that both Lebanon and Mongolia sought import restrictions on coins.  Even here, no details were provided about what coin types were included in the request, and any factual basis for doing so.  Second,  Myers reiterated Tompa’s point about “Lebanese” coins circulating well beyond Lebanon, such that it is impossible to assume any particular coin was found there.  Myers mentioned that the largest hoard of “Shekels of Tyre” (over 4,000 coins) was found in Israel, not Lebanon.  Finally, Myers indicated that there could be no credible “self-help” measures since Lebanon is a failed state.  He further noted that in addition to Hezbollah’s malign influence, the Cultural Ministry itself is run by Amal, another militia which is also a proxy of Syria and Iran. 

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild’s and the American Numismatic Association’s comments regarding Lebanon can be found here:

 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0022

After Myers spoke, an unidentified Committee members asked Tompa, FitzGibbon or Myers why they thought the US Government would be repatriating antiquities to terrorists.  Tompa explained that Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, was the most powerful force in the country, effectively controlling its government.  He further indicated that the US Government and Manhattan DA’s office had already given over antiquities to the Lebanese government. 

Andrew G. Vaughn spoke as executive director of the American Society of Overseas Research (ASOR).  Vaughn visited Lebanon back in 2017 and 2019.  He was impressed by the efforts of Lebanese authorities to overcome obstacles caused by war, and now more than any other time the US should support Lebanon by entering into a MOU.  He maintained that during times of conflict, concerns about looting increase, which would be addressed by such a MOU.  Recently, 60 Lebanese archaeologists visited the US for training.  Lebanon needs our support to continue to use cultural heritage to bring its diverse population back together.  Vaughn quotes President Biden that the US must “lead not by example of power, but power of our example.”  He also maintains that Mongolia is also doing a wonderful job protecting its own cultural heritage. 

Vaughn did not submit his own written comments, but here are comments submitted on Lebanon on ASOR’s behalf:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0043

Dr. Jeffrey H. Altschul spoke on behalf of  Coalition for Archaeological Synthesis regarding Mongolia.  He indicated that looting is a serious problem that Mongolian authorities are trying to address.  Mongolians also can benefit from interacting with their American colleagues. 

Dr, Altschul’s written comments can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0028

Dr. Julia Clark of Nomad Science spoke about looting in Mongolia.  She indicated that looters had focused on materials buried in permafrost because they tend to be well preserved. They keep items like cloth with gold thread and discard less salable items as well as human remains.  A MOU is necessary to disincentivized this type of looting and empower Mongolian archaeologists.  Dr. Clark is asked if looting occurs elsewhere. She indicates it has. 

Dr. Clark’s written comments can be found here: 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0036

Carlos Flores Manzano is a PhD student at Yale from El Salvador.  He speaks for a renewal of the current MOU.  He indicates that while urban development is a problem, El Salvador is trying to address these issues as best as it can. Recently, the Cultural Ministry and Foreign Ministry have cooperated in seeking repatriations from abroad. 

Mr. Flores Manzano’s written statement can be found here:  https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0041

The docket contains all written statements, the vast majority of which opposed import restrictions on coins.  See https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2024-0028-0001/comment

Notable statements include that of the American Israel Numismatic Association, which can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0025;

CINOA which can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0012;

and the Oriental Numismatic Society which can be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOS-2024-0028-0020.

The speakers finished 15 minutes early.  As there were no additional questions beyond the two posed by CPAC members, the Chair thanked the speakers and ended the session abruptly.

CPAC Meeting on New Agreements or Emergency Restrictions for Lebanon and Mongolia and Renewal for El Salvador

 Here is what I said more or less during today's CPAC hearing: 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on behalf of IAPN and the micro businesses of the numismatic trade and the collectors they service.

1.   CPAC should reject any cultural property MOU or emergency import restrictions with Lebanon. US Customs should not be made the “culture cop” for a government dominated by Hezbollah, a terrorist group and proxy for Iran’s dictatorial regime.  Additionally, no decision should be made to repatriate artifacts to Lebanon when Israel and Hezbollah are gearing up for a full scale war.  Repatriated antiquities are in danger of being destroyed or sold to fund Hezbollah’s jihad against America and Israel.

2.   While the State department has claimed and I quote “Agreements create import restrictions that stop trafficked cultural property from entering the United States while encouraging the legal exchange of cultural property for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes”  that is untrue. They are actually applied far more broadly as embargoes that “claw back” common items like coins that are available for sale and export from legal markets abroad, particularly in Europe.  Once a coin type is “listed,” US Customs can assert its authority to detain, seize, and forfeit similar coins under the assumption they “belong” to the particular country for which import restrictions have been granted. 

3.   There is no factual basis for such an assumption for coins minted or found in El Salvador, Lebanon or Mongolia.  Until recently, these countries were parts of much larger Empires.  One simply cannot assume that such coins are only found there, a key requirement of the CPIA. IAPN has provided scholarly evidence demonstrating that coins struck in Lebanon circulated regionally and even internationally.  Notably, “Shekels of Tyre” that were accepted to pay the Temple tax are often found in Israel. Scholars believe some may have been made to order for King Herod or that they may even have been struck in Israel. CPAC must avoid blessing overbroad designated lists that do not comply with CPIA requirements.  Fact based decision-making must prevail.  Thank you for listening.   

Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting, September 24-26, 2024 to Discuss New MOUs with Lebanon and Mongolia and a Renewal With El Salvador

The State Department’s website has given advanced notice of a Cultural Property Advisory Committee Meeting to discuss new cultural property Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with Lebanon and Mongolia and a renewal with El Salvador.

The proposed MOU with Lebanon should be highly controversial. The UNESCO Convention assumes that nation states are the “best stewards” of cultural heritage and MOUs authorize US Customs to repatriate cultural goods seized under them to their care.  But Lebanon is a failing state.  The power there is not in the weak and corrupt government, but Hezbollah (“the Party of God”), a heavily armed Shiite militia group that acts as the Iranian regime’s proxy force against Israel and the United States.  The United States Government has designated  Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and right now, it has been raining down rockets on Northern Israel,  forcing residents to flee.   Israel, of course, has retaliated, shelling and bombing  parts of Lebanon intensively in an effort to root out Hezbollah terrorists and their allies.

How then can a MOU with Lebanon even be considered?  Repatriating objects to failed states that have become war zones is not a recipe for their “protection” under any circumstance.  Moreover, the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center and its  "partner organization," the Antiquities Coalition, have claimed that "looted antiquities" are a significant terrorist funding source.  RAND Corporation and others dispute such claims, but given that “narrative” shouldn’t the State Department also be concerned that Hezbollah will resell whatever may be returned for funds?

The public session will take place September 24, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. (EDT).

 Public comments will be due no later than September 16, 2024. 

Proposed new MOUs with Lebanon and Mongolia that will likely again cover collectors coins that circulated regionally or internationally making it difficult to import them from legitimate markets in Europe again underscores the need for HR 7865.  More here: https://accguild.org/HR-7865

Addendum (8/19/24):  Regulations.gov is now accepting comments for these MOUs.  Here is a direct link to comment:  https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOS-2024-0028-0001

Alternatively, go to Regulations.gov and then search for DOS-2024-0028.  

What should you say?  Of course, it is much better to speak in your own words, but here is a template for coin collectors:

CPAC should reject any MOU with Lebanon.  Any such MOU would not help "protect" cultural heritage.  Rather, repatriating artifacts would be disastrous for their continued preservation.  Lebanon is a failed state dominated by Hezbollah, a terrorist group and Iranian proxy at war with Israel and the United States.  There is no money to properly preserve artifacts and there is a real danger they will be either destroyed in a conflict or sold to fund Hezbollah's terrorist activities.  

Additionally, there is no reason to apply import restrictions to coins for Lebanon, Mongolia or El Salvador.  For most of their history, these countries were but small parts of much larger Empires, meaning all or most all coins that circulated there also circulated in much greater quantities elsewhere.  One simply cannot assume that coins of a particular type were found there, a prerequisite for them being restricted under the governing statute.