I don't get it, you said "If a .sh domain is hosting illegal content, the U.S. authorities may be able to pressure the U.S.-based registrar to act — especially if they can link the domain to a U.S. individual or entity." but then you also said that the re

The response regarding domains and registrars can be nuanced, as various factors, including jurisdiction, local laws, and the cooperation of the registrars with international authorities, can affect enforcement. 

Let's analyze the listed country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) based on their country of registration and general attitudes towards U.S. requests for prohibition (keeping in mind that practices may vary, and I can only provide a general assessment).

### Least Likely to Most Likely to Comply with U.S. Requests

**.id (Indonesia)**: Registries in Indonesia have historically been resistant to U.S. pressures; local laws and bureaucracy can complicate external requests.

**.tr (Turkey)**: Turkey has its policies regarding online content and has been known to act independently from U.S. requests, particularly concerning its sovereignty.

**.es (Spain)**: Spain generally respects EU laws and processes but can be somewhat resistant regarding U.S. interferences depending on the situation.

**.fi (Finland)**: Finland has a robust legal framework but may cooperate with EU directives rather than direct U.S. requests, making it less likely to respond to unilateral U.S. requests.

**.nl (Netherlands)**: The Netherlands has a strong stance on freedom of speech but does cooperate with requests. However, they might not act on U.S. requests without corresponding legal basis.

**.be (Belgium)**: Similar to the Netherlands, Belgium has a balanced approach to requests depending on the context and legal standing.

**.ch (Switzerland)**: Known for its neutrality, Switzerland may resist direct U.S. pressure unless there are treaties or legal necessities involved.

**.ca (Canada)**: Canada has a close relationship with the U.S. but values its independence and may block requests if assessed to violate Canadian rules.

**.at (Austria)**: Austria’s positions tend to be aligned with both EU standards and their national sovereignty; however, they may respond to U.S. requests in certain conditions.

**.se (Sweden)**: Sweden has a strong tradition of free expression but complies with international law; however, it primarily prioritizes local jurisdiction.

**.mx (Mexico)**: Mexico has active collaborations with the U.S. in various domains, and it may be influenced by U.S. requests, especially in cases involving law enforcement.

**.me (Montenegro)**: Montenegro has been cooperating increasingly with international standards, including those from the U.S., which can lead to compliance.

**.us (United States)**: Since it is U.S.-based, clear lines exist for law enforcement, making compliance the most straightforward in cases involving illegal content.

**.ai (Anguilla)**: While small and less regulated than larger jurisdictions, Anguilla has cooperated in the past with broader international requests, therefore making compliance likely.

### Summary
The order is based on a combination of potential legal frameworks, historical relations with U.S. authorities, and the general disposition of countries in terms of sovereignty and local legal compliance. It's essential to note that actual scenarios can differ widely depending on specific circumstances, such as the nature of the content and international agreements in place. Always consult legal professionals or domain experts for tailored advice.