U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

21–622 2016

114th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – Senate Document 114–16 

VETO—S. 2040 

(PM 56) 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

RETURNING

WITHOUT MY APPROVAL S. 2040, THE JUSTICE AGAINST 

SPONSORS OF TERRORISM ACT 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with SDOCE:\Seals\Congress.#13

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with SDOC
(1) 

To the Senate of the United States: 

I am returning herewith without my approval S. 2040, the ‘‘Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act’’ (JASTA), which would, 

among other things, remove sovereign immunity in U.S. courts 

from foreign governments that are not designated state sponsors of 

terrorism. 

I have deep sympathy for the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), who have suffered 

grievously. I also have a deep appreciation of these families’ desire 

to pursue justice and am strongly committed to assisting them in 

their efforts. 

Consistent with this commitment, over the past 8 years, I have 

directed my Administration to pursue relentlessly al-Qa’ida, the 

terrorist group that planned the 9/11 attacks. The heroic efforts of 

our military and counterterrorism professionals have decimated alQa’ida’s leadership and killed Osama bin Laden. My Administration also strongly supported, and I signed into law, legislation 

which ensured that those who bravely responded on that terrible 

day and other survivors of the attacks will be able to receive treatment for any injuries resulting from the attacks. And my Administration also directed the Intelligence Community to perform a declassification review of ‘‘Part Four of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the 

Terrorist Attacks of September 11,’’ so that the families of 9/11 victims and broader public can better understand the information investigators gathered following that dark day of our history. 

Notwithstanding these significant efforts, I recognize that there 

is nothing that could ever erase the grief the 9/11 families have endured. My Administration therefore remains resolute in its commitment to assist these families in their pursuit of justice and do 

whatever we can to prevent another attack in the United States. 

Enacting JASTA into law, however, would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks. As drafted, JASTA would allow private litigation against foreign governments in U.S. courts based on allegations that such foreign governments’ actions abroad made them responsible for terrorism-related injuries on U.S. soil. This legislation 

would permit litigation against countries that have neither been 

designated by the executive branch as state sponsors of terrorism 

nor taken direct actions in the United States to carry out an attack 

here. The JASTA would be detrimental to U.S. national interests 

more broadly, which is why I am returning it without my approval. 

First, JASTA threatens to reduce the effectiveness of our response to indications that a foreign government has taken steps 

outside our borders to provide support for terrorism, by taking such 

matters out of the hands of national security and foreign policy 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with SDOC
2 

professionals and placing them in the hands of private litigants 

and courts. 

Any indication that a foreign government played a role in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is a matter of deep concern and merits 

a forceful, unified Federal Government response that considers the 

wide range of important and effective tools available. One of these 

tools is designating the foreign government in question as a state 

sponsor of terrorism, which carries with it a litany of repercussions, 

including the foreign government being stripped of its sovereign 

immunity before U.S. courts in certain terrorism-related cases and 

subjected to a range of sanctions. Given these serious consequences, state sponsor of terrorism designations are made only 

after national security, foreign policy, and intelligence professionals 

carefully review all available information to determine whether a 

country meets the criteria that the Congress established. 

In contrast, JASTA departs from longstanding standards and 

practice under our Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and threatens to strip all foreign governments of immunity from judicial process in the United States based solely upon allegations by private 

litigants that a foreign government’s overseas conduct had some 

role or connection to a group or person that carried out a terrorist 

attack inside the United States. This would invite consequential 

decisions to be made based upon incomplete information and risk 

having different courts reaching different conclusions about the culpability of individual foreign governments and their role in terrorist activities directed against the United States—which is neither an effective nor a coordinated way for us to respond to indications that a foreign government might have been behind a terrorist 

attack. 

Second, JASTA would upset longstanding international principles regarding sovereign immunity, putting in place rules that, if 

applied globally, could have serious implications for U.S. national 

interests. The United States has a larger international presence, by 

far, than any other country, and sovereign immunity principles 

protect our Nation and its Armed Forces, officials, and assistance 

professionals, from foreign court proceedings. These principles also 

protect U.S. Government assets from attempted seizure by private 

litigants abroad. Removing sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from 

foreign governments that are not designated as state sponsors of 

terrorism, based solely on allegations that such foreign governments’ actions abroad had a connection to terrorism-related injuries on U.S. soil, threatens to undermine these longstanding principles that protect the United States, our forces, and our personnel. 

Indeed, reciprocity plays a substantial role in foreign relations, 

and numerous other countries already have laws that allow for the 

adjustment of a foreign state’s immunities based on the treatment 

their governments receive in the courts of the other state. Enactment of JASTA could encourage foreign governments to act reciprocally and allow their domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction over 

the United States or U.S. officials—including our men and women 

in uniform—for allegedly causing injuries overseas via U.S. support 

to third parties. This could lead to suits against the United States 

or U.S. officials for actions taken by members of an armed group 

that received U.S. assistance, misuse of U.S. military equipment by 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with SDOC
3 

foreign forces, or abuses committed by police units that received 

U.S. training, even if the allegations at issue ultimately would be 

without merit. And if any of these litigants were to win judgments—based on foreign domestic laws as applied by foreign 

courts—they would begin to look to the assets of the U.S. Government held abroad to satisfy those judgments, with potentially serious financial consequences for the United States. 

Third, JASTA threatens to create complications in our relationships with even our closest partners. If JASTA were enacted, 

courts could potentially consider even minimal allegations accusing 

U.S. allies or partners of complicity in a particular terrorist attack 

in the United States to be sufficient to open the door to litigation 

and wide-ranging discovery against a foreign country—for example, 

the country where an individual who later committed a terrorist 

act traveled from or became radicalized. A number of our allies and 

partners have already contacted us with serious concerns about the 

bill. By exposing these allies and partners to this sort of litigation 

in U.S. courts, JASTA threatens to limit their cooperation on key 

national security issues, including counterterrorism initiatives, at a 

crucial time when we are trying to build coalitions, not create divisions. 

The 9/11 attacks were the worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil, and 

they were met with an unprecedented U.S. Government response. 

The United States has taken robust and wide-ranging actions to 

provide justice for the victims of the 9/11 attacks and keep Americans safe, from providing financial compensation for victims and 

their families to conducting worldwide counterterrorism programs 

to bringing criminal charges against culpable individuals. I have 

continued and expanded upon these efforts, both to help victims of 

terrorism gain justice for the loss and suffering of their loved ones 

and to protect the United States from future attacks. The JASTA, 

however, does not contribute to these goals, does not enhance the 

safety of Americans from terrorist attacks, and undermines core 

U.S. interests. 

For these reasons, I must veto the bill. 

BARACK OBAMA. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 23, 2016. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with SDOC