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  

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.    

Pearlstein on Due Dilligence and the Wisdom of Repatriation to Failed States and War Zones

Art lawyer William Pearlstein speaks common sense that is all too often lacking from most media discussions about the subject of how best to address the looting problem in the Middle East.   Due diligence is necessary, but let's be realistic about it.  And, of course, there is the larger policy question -- if cultural heritage preservation truly is the goal -- whether repatriation to failed states in war zones is really the right thing to do.