Nearly five decades after its creation, the Jackson-Vanik Amendment remains a relic of a geopolitical era that no longer exists. Originally enacted during the Cold War to pressure communist governments over restrictions on emigration, the amendment still applies today to Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, as well as Belarus, Cuba, and North Korea.
While Jackson-Vanik played an important role in advancing human rights during the Cold War, its continued application to Azerbaijan and the countries of Central Asia no longer reflects the realities of U.S. foreign policy or America’s strategic interests.
Now is the time to finally repeal Jackson-Vanik’s application to Azerbaijan and the countries of Central Asia. The United States is entering a new phase of engagement with Central Asia—one focused not only on security cooperation, but also on trade, investment, critical minerals, and regional connectivity. The Trump administration has elevated the importance of the region through renewed engagement with the C5+1 framework, including a 2025 summit with the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan focused on expanding economic and strategic cooperation. At the same time, the Department of State underscored the region’s growing importance for regional diplomacy when they issued a report to Congress on outlining its strategy for expanding the Abraham Accords that heavily focused on Central Asia and Azerbaijan.
The continued application of Jackson-Vanik to Azerbaijan and Central Asia is particularly difficult to justify given that Congress repealed the amendment’s application to Russia and Moldova in 2012 through the Magnitsky Act. Fourteen years ago, lawmakers recognized that Cold War-era trade restrictions had outlived their usefulness and replaced them with more targeted tools to address human rights concerns. Yet Jackson-Vanik technically remains on the books for several Central Asian countries that have long maintained normal trade relations with the United States through annual waivers. Meaning that Washington has permanently removed Jackson-Vanik from Russia, a country now viewed as a principal strategic adversary, while continuing to apply it to countries with which the United States is actively seeking deeper economic and diplomatic partnerships.
Kazakhstan provides a timely example. As one of Central Asia’s most important economies and a partner on issues ranging from trade and investment to critical minerals and regional connectivity, Kazakhstan has become an increasingly important U.S. partner. Moreover, Kazakhstan’s decision to join the Abraham Accords, making it the first Central Asian country to do so, signals its interest in expanding cooperation with the United States and its partners.
The case for repeal, however, extends beyond Kazakhstan. Azerbaijan and Central Asian countries are actively pursuing greater economic diversification and expanded engagement with the United States at a time when Russia and China are pursuing influence in the region. In response, Washington should be removing outdated barriers—not preserving policies designed for a different era.
And momentum to repeal the amendment is already growing.
In late 2025, both the House of Representatives and Senate introduced identical bills to lift Jackson-Vanik restrictions for Central Asian countries. While the legislation has yet to pass, support for repeal extends beyond Congress. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Senator Steve Daines asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio about removing Jackson-Vanik restrictions on Central Asian partners. Rubio responded: “It’s a detriment. We’d like to see it removed.”
The repeal of Jackson-Vanik for U.S. allies in Eurasia would also support a broader U.S. strategy to expand diplomatic and economic partnerships across Central Asia and beyond. The administration’s strategy for expanding the Abraham Accords has recognized the importance of engaging countries such as those in Central Asia and Azerbaijan, where deeper ties with the United States can advance shared interests in trade, connectivity, and regional stability. Removing outdated trade restrictions would demonstrate that closer alignment with the United States brings tangible benefits and could help create additional momentum for countries considering greater engagement with the Accords.
Repealing Jackson-Vanik would not only modernize an outdated trade policy—it would send a clear message that the United States is prepared to match strategic partnerships with meaningful economic engagement. And at a time when Beijing and Moscow are competing for influence across Central Asia and the broader Eurasian region, Washington should be expanding opportunities for cooperation, not preserving Cold War-era restrictions.