What Does the Blacklist Hide? Details of the Explosive File Between Sana’a and Trump

NYN | Roberts and Analyses 

Washington seeks to strangle the financial sources of the Sana’a government by targeting its financial networks.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of State announced a financial reward of up to $15 million for information that disrupts the financial mechanisms of the Houthi group (Ansar Allah), a move described by political and legal circles as “ill-considered,” which could exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and contradict international peace efforts. Human rights sources emphasize that the Houthi authorities in Sana’a exercise their powers as a de facto government in accordance with international norms.

Despite the U.S. State Department justifying the decision as “national security protection,” international law experts have condemned the mechanism, stating that classifying the Houthis as a “terrorist organization” in 2025 (under Trump’s administration) lacks international legal grounds, especially since they are not listed on the United Nations’ terrorism lists. Additionally, financial rewards are considered an ineffective tool in tracking funding.

International lawyer James Goldstone confirmed that the decision obstructs the negotiation process with a key party in the Yemeni conflict and undermines the principle of neutrality on which UN mediation efforts are based. He also pointed out that unilateral sanctions are usually used to serve narrow political agendas.

The legal classification of the Houthis (Ansar Allah) as a de facto authority makes these sanctions closer to punishing the population living under their administration, which could be interpreted as a violation of international laws prohibiting collective punishment.

On the other hand, previous UN documents indicate that the Houthi-controlled authorities in Sana’a have been managing state institutions since 2016, including tax collection, issuing administrative decisions, and implementing public service projects, which, under international law, makes them a de facto government, even without political recognition.

In this regard, economic expert Zaid Ali says: “Imposing sanctions on the banking system in Sana’a, without distinguishing between service and military institutions, will hinder the delivery of humanitarian aid to 21 million Yemenis.”

He added that Sana’a manages existing financial systems, including the Central Bank in the North, and functions according to established rules and procedures, making any attempt to disrupt its operations a double blow to citizens and to financial stability in Yemen.

The U.S. decision comes despite the failure of the internationally recognized Yemeni government (based in Riyadh) to manage the liberated areas, prompting analysts to call for a reassessment of the concept of “legitimacy,” away from blind bias.

International researchers have commented on the latest developments in the Yemeni file, noting that blind Western support for one side in the conflict feeds the war, and that the focus should be on supporting comprehensive political solutions through Yemeni-Yemeni dialogue.

In a previous report, UNICEF warned that disrupting the financial infrastructure in Sana’a (where 70% of the population lives) would obstruct salaries for the health and education sectors and push one million children into famine, at a time when Yemen is already suffering from the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

The U.S. decision reveals a stark contradiction between the official political discourse on “protecting civilians” and practices that complicate crises, highlighting the need for a fundamental shift in international policy towards Yemen, through supporting legal solutions (such as UN-supervised dialogues) instead of sounding financial alarms that lack a strategic vision.