Trump makes it clear that hostages are America's red line - opinion

In international relations, individual lives often become hostage to conflicts between states and armed groups. Here, arbitrary detention is exploited as a pressure tac​tic and bargaining chip at the expense of human values and international law.

Notably, the order is not just an internal administrative measure. It signals a broader shift in American strategy. The United States seeks to make the cost of political detention, or using hostages as a tool, far greater than any potential gain.

This executive order clearly reflects the American administration’s desire to close gaps that existed for years in the legal and political framework for handling hostage cases.

According to the official White House text, the order authorizes the State Department and the Treasury Department to work together to classify states and entities that practice unlawful detention and to take punitive measures against them. This opens the door to economic and financial sanctions and restrictions on bilateral cooperation with these parties.

Confirming the serious intent, President Trump’s executive order holds foreign countries directly responsible for wrongfully imprisoning Americans. The White House stated: “US citizens will not be used as bargaining chips.” The order empowers the US secretary of state to list countries as “sponsors of wrongful detention.”

Trump warned: “Anyone who uses an American as a bargaining chip will pay the price,” and must release them immediately or face consequences. The statement makes clear that Washington is adopting a deterrence policy and that previous leniency will not be repeated.

The decision places state sponsors of terrorism, chiefly Iran, before an added challenge. Iran has long used the policy of detaining foreigners, especially Americans, as a means of negotiation or as part of an asymmetric deterrence strategy.

Washington now clearly recognizes these practices as hostile acts that warrant punishment, not merely as negotiating points to be managed through mediation.

Following the order’s signing, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in an official comment that the time has come to close the “hostage market,” warning that any party trying to exploit innocent lives would find itself isolated and punished.

In practical terms, the order shows Washington’s understanding that diplomacy alone is no longer enough. Painful experiences proved that, without effective deterrent tools, the lives of hostages remain a tool for US adversaries. The executive order acts as a new tool for American negotiators, making the cost of detention much higher than any potential political or economic gain.

The decision will undoubtedly have wide repercussions for countries previously described as “sponsors of terrorism.” The new classification subjects them to another form of legal and moral stigma and focuses attention directly on their exploitation of individual lives for political gains. This stigmatization may lead to further international isolation, tougher economic sanctions, and reduced chances to negotiate with Washington on sensitive issues such as energy, nuclear programs, or arms deals.

Tehran will be the biggest loser. Iran tops the list of countries that have systematically used this method through its regional proxies; and will now be vulnerable to a new wave of pressure that could be more impactful than traditional sanctions.

The message to international public opinion seems to be that any future release will not be the result of separate negotiations, but part of a comprehensive American strategy to combat such violations.

The combination of legal, humanitarian, and media elements shows skill in managing the issue in a way that benefits the image of the United States as a defender of its citizens and of global values concurrently.

The timing also demonstrates that Iran’s militias in Iraq no longer have the freedom to use the hostage card as before. American pressure and the threat of sanctions pushed them to release Tsurkov, not for humanitarian reasons, but out of fear of becoming a target for US sanctions.

Their confusion and quick compliance with the order confirm that these groups are weak tools that fear American power when it is applied directly.

The clearest message from Washington is that the era of hostage-taking is over. Anyone who dares to turn innocent lives into bargaining chips will pay a heavy price, whether it is a rogue regime like Iran or a subordinate militia living on the support of Tehran or any other power.

Any country that continues the practice of arbitrary detention of American nationals will now face much harsher consequences than in the past. These countries will face diplomatic isolation, frozen financial resources, restrictions on foreign trade, and the loss of any chance for normalization or understanding with the US.

Worse, their branding as “sponsors of wrongful detention” will put them in the crosshairs of international pressure. They will find themselves besieged in the court of global public opinion as illegitimate regimes that rely on blackmail and show no respect for international law.

This development begins a new era with no place for hostage politics. It redefines the rules of deterrence in international relations in a way that restores weight to Washington’s standing and strategic influence.