Executive Summary

This assessment, conducted by the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation, (JWFLF) is the first non-governmental review of the efficacy of the 2015 U.S. Hostage Policy Review and the implementation of Presidential Policy Directive 30 (PPD-30) and Executive Order 13698 (EO 13698) concerning hostage recovery activities. This study was conducted from the perspective of former American hostages, family members of current and former U.S. hostages, and others detained unlawfully or wrongfully by a foreign government. This study does not represent the perspective of all former hostages, detainees, and their families, but only presents the perspectives of those who participated in this study.

Based on confidential interviews with 27 participants, this report provides insights into how the U.S. government’s restructuring of its hostage enterprise has impacted American hostage families. Additionally, this report provides an initial examination of the type of support unlawfully or wrongfully detained U.S. nationals and their families received from the government. All interviews were conducted between April 2018 and August 2018. This study is intended to spark and inform discussions that will continue to improve the U.S. government’s provision of support to hostages, detainees, and their families.

1) The reforms implemented in June 2015 have had significant success, but hostage cases demand continued U.S. leadership and prioritization.

• Americans held unjustly abroad deserve continued attention at the highest levels of the U.S. government. Often, it is leadership from the President himself and the Secretary of State that is necessary to bring these Americans home to their families. That leadership must continue.
• One structural innovation of the government’s June 2015 policy—the creation of the interagency Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell (HRFC) as the center of gravity for hostage-related matters—has been welcomed by most families as a single point of entry for discussing hostage-related matters with the government. However, families have noted with concern the gradually decreasing representation of officials from the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency assigned to the HRFC. This impacts interagency coordination and influences how the government handles hostage matters. The U.S. government should restore hostage recovery experts across the HRFC in full-time capacities and also ensure the HRFC’s sustainability through legislation by providing dedicated funding.
• Another structural innovation of the government’s June 2015 policy—the creation of the office of the State Department Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs—has proven essential in assisting families and managing the diplomatic aspects of hostage recovery efforts as well as improving engagement with key personnel, at home and abroad. However, families noted with deep concern the temporary vacancy of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs. Appointing a Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs must become an early priority for incoming administrations.
• Since the government issued its June 2015 policy, families perceive that the U.S. government is placing a higher priority on bringing their loved ones home and is providing more candid assessments of both their relative’s circumstances and potential recovery options. This contrasts sharply with the experience of families of hostages prior to the 2015 policy change, where families perceived little to no priority was placed on the recovery of their loved ones. Increasing prioritization of bringing Americans held as hostages home must be continued.

2) Clarifications in laws and policies must be communicated more effectively to families.

• The U.S. government’s June 2015 reforms clarified key policies on hostage recovery. This includes the government’s willingness to support families as they attempt to negotiate the release of their relatives and the disavowal of consideration of criminally prosecuting families for ransom payments that might technically qualify as material support to terrorism. Nonetheless, given the complexity revolving around negotiations and private payments of ransoms, confusion among hostage families persists. The U.S. government must ensure that the HRFC and others who interact with families of hostages are able to explain more clearly and consistently what the government’s policies are regarding hostage recovery efforts, to include the ability of hostage families to make ransom payments and communicate with hostage-takers without fear of prosecution.

1. U.S. government communication with families should become more regular.

• Since the U.S. government implemented its new policy in 2015, families are receiving more frequent and accurate briefings. Additionally, family engagement efforts have also been largely successful, with families describing the HRFC as “very helpful, consistent, and absolutely essential in coordinating efforts” on behalf of U.S. hostages. The government has been more successful in corresponding with hostage families, including responding to phone calls and emails as well as scheduling meetings more promptly. However, even after the 2015 policy changes, some families still expressed confusion over roles within government agencies and have requested more regularly scheduled meetings and updates. Additionally, families noted with concern that, recently, the information they receive feels incomplete and emphasized the need for fuller, faster information sharing by the U.S. government. Consequently, there must be an increase in communication and coordination efforts from the HRFC, ensuring that relevant information is shared quickly and fulsomely with families.

3) Critical needs of hostages and their families remain unaddressed.

• Returning hostages need continuing mental and physical health support upon their return. The families of hostages also require robust assistance to address ruined credit and other day-to-day financial challenges both during and after hostage incidents. The U.S. government should explore how it can help address these critical but unmet needs of hostages and their families, including whether the government can provide greater support to non-governmental organizations that might be better placed to address these challenges.

4) Americans unlawfully or wrongfully detained by foreign governments and their families deserve more attention and information from the U.S. government.

• The U.S. government’s June 2015 reforms are applied in full to all cases in which an American is held abroad and not acknowledged as held by a government—often hostage-takings by criminals, terrorists, or pirates—but applied only optionally and partially to cases in which an American is held abroad unlawfully or wrongfully and is acknowledged to be held by a foreign government. What has emerged since is a notable disparity in treatment, with families in the first category often receiving more attention and information from the U.S. government. The U.S. government, and more importantly the State Department, must ensure that cases in the second category also benefit from the June 2015 reforms. This includes an increase in information sharing and U.S. government support for families, both foreign and domestic. Any support provided by the HRFC would require additional personnel and resources to offset the added case load. Additionally, mechanisms should be established to identify monetary resources and manage the flow of information to Congress regarding the status of unlawfully or wrongfully detained U.S. nationals.