Get the app

Why is the US sanctioning the International Criminal Court?

Washington has moved from sanctioning individual ICC officials to sanctioning the court itself. The step puts a Hague-based tribunal, which the US never joined, at risk of losing access to the American financial system. At the same time, a US judge has found that part of the sanctions regime likely breaks the First Amendment.

Published 22 Oct 2026 Updated 22 Oct 2026 By Implica 9 sources 9 min read

THE SHORT ANSWER

Because the Trump administration says it will not let the court prosecute Americans. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the sanctions on Oct 9 and said the US would seek to "end the ICC" unless it stopped its "threats". The United States is not a member of the court and has long disputed its authority over Americans and allies such as Israel. The sanctions freeze the court's assets under US jurisdiction and restrict transactions through the US financial system, though Treasury licenses delay much of the effect for 180 days.

What happened

On Friday, Oct 9, 2026, the United States designated the International Criminal Court (ICC), the permanent tribunal in The Hague that tries individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. The measures target the court as an institution. They freeze its assets and property interests under US jurisdiction. They also restrict transactions involving those assets by American individuals and companies, or through the US financial system. A series of licenses from the US Treasury Department allows certain transactions and routine operations to continue for 180 days, so most of the practical impact is delayed.

Rubio said the administration would seek to end the court unless it stopped its threats, and also signaled that Washington was leaving room for negotiation. The ICC rejected the sanctions the same day. It called them "an assault on the rule of law" and asked its 125 member states to make sure it has the means to keep working. In its words, "The Court cannot stand alone." Countries around the world condemned the move, and one report says eight US allies warned of serious consequences while Europe weighed measures to shield the court. The reports so far do not say what those measures would be.

On Tuesday, Oct 13, a separate development came from a New York courtroom. Judge Jesse M. Furman of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction to two American advocacy groups, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) and Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide. The groups had gathered information for the ICC's investigations into the Gaza war. The judge found that the February 2025 executive order authorizing sanctions likely violates their First Amendment rights. He declined to strike down the whole order or to bar its enforcement against everyone.

Why it matters

The ICC depends on the countries that created it, and it now faces a US move that could cut it off from dollar-based finance once the 180-day licenses run out. The dispute also tests how far one government can go in penalizing an international court, and how far US courts will let it penalize Americans who cooperate with that court. The two tracks are running side by side: the executive branch is tightening pressure while a federal judge has limited part of it.

  • For the court, Frozen assets and limits on US financial channels could disrupt payments and operations once the Treasury licenses expire. The ICC says it cannot stand alone and is looking to its member states for the means to keep running.
  • For member states, The court's 125 members are being asked to make sure it can function. The ICC is funded by their contributions, so they are the obvious route for any support.
  • For American advocacy groups, Two groups are protected by the injunction while the case proceeds. Other US groups that help the ICC are not covered, because the judge refused a universal injunction.
  • For the Trump administration, It has stated its aim as keeping Americans out of the court's reach. A court ruling that part of its order likely violates the First Amendment complicates that effort.

The background: a court the US never joined and has long opposed

Building a permanent court

The idea of an international tribunal to judge political leaders accused of international crimes was first proposed at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, after the First World War. In June 1989, A. N. R. Robinson, who later became Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, revived the idea of a permanent court by proposing a tribunal to address the illegal drug trade.

The result was the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the ICC. It was adopted at a conference in Rome on 17 July 1998 by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. China, Israel and the United States have publicly confirmed that they were among the seven against. The treaty entered into force on 1 July 2002, and the court opened that day in The Hague. It can prosecute individuals, not states, and only when national courts are unwilling or unable to do so.

Washington steps away

The Clinton administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000. On 6 May 2002, the US formally withdrew its signature and said it did not intend to ratify. Critics in the US had voiced concern that American soldiers would face unwanted scrutiny from the court.

Later that year Congress passed the American Service-Members' Protection Act, signed by President George W. Bush on 2 August 2002. It bars US government agencies from assisting the ICC and authorizes the president to use "all means necessary and appropriate" to secure the release of US or allied personnel detained by the court. The Bush administration also pressed other states to sign bilateral agreements under which they would not hand Americans to the court. In July 2002 the US threatened to use its Security Council veto to block renewal of UN peacekeeping missions unless Americans were exempted from the court's reach.

Engagement, then sanctions

The Obama administration took a different line. On 16 November 2009 a US official announced that Americans would return to engagement at the ICC, and the US attended the court's annual member meeting as an observer for the first time.

In September 2018, during President Donald Trump's first term, he told the United Nations that the ICC had "no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority" as far as America was concerned. His administration imposed sanctions on the court's then prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, and on Phakiso Mochochoko, a senior ICC official. On 2 April 2021, President Joe Biden lifted them. His Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, kept the US objection to the court asserting jurisdiction over personnel of countries that are not members, such as the US and Israel. He added that engagement would address those concerns better than sanctions.

The 2025 order and the Gaza warrants

The ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Both men reject the accusations, and the US government also opposed the court's decision. On 6 February 2025, Trump signed an executive order imposing sanctions linked to the ICC. It said the court had asserted jurisdiction over US and allied personnel "without a legitimate basis" and had issued "baseless arrest warrants". It also said neither the US nor Israel is a party to the Rome Statute. The order warned of "tangible and significant consequences" for people involved in investigations that Washington said threatened its national security or that of its allies.

Challenges followed in US courts. Two law professors sued over the order, and the court held that it violated their First Amendment rights.

Escalation in 2026

In August 2026 the court rejected Israel's jurisdictional challenges, ruling that its authority rests on Palestinian territory and not on Israeli consent. On 18 August, Rubio sanctioned the ICC's president and a senior prosecutor, accusing them of pursuing officials from countries that never accepted the court's jurisdiction. On 20 September, reports said the US was preparing sweeping sanctions that would cut the court off from dollar transactions after a six-month grace period. The designation came on 9 October, and the New York injunction followed four days later.

GOOD TO KNOW

The 2002 law that bars US help for the ICC is nicknamed the Hague Invasion Act. Its authority to use "all means necessary and appropriate" to free detained US or allied personnel could, in theory, permit military action at the court's seat in The Hague.

Why can the ICC reach Americans if the US is not a member?

The ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a state that has joined the treaty or accepted the court's jurisdiction. It also covers crimes committed by nationals of such states, and crimes referred by the UN Security Council. Under that rule, the nationality of the accused does not decide the matter by itself. The place of the alleged crime can.

The August 2026 reports describe the court's ruling on Israel in these terms: its authority rests on Palestinian territory, not on Israeli consent. The US and Israel argue that the court has no jurisdiction over countries that never joined. The court also acts only when national authorities are unwilling or unable to prosecute.

What does sanctioning a court actually do?

Here the designation freezes the ICC's assets and property interests under US jurisdiction. It also bars American individuals and companies from dealing with those assets, and restricts transactions through the US financial system. In practice that can make payments, banking and contracts harder, because many global transactions pass through US channels.

The Treasury licenses soften the immediate effect. For 180 days, certain transactions and routine operations may continue. The court is funded by contributions from its member states, which gives it a base of support outside the US.

Timeline: 1919 to today

BUILDING THE COURT

  1. A tribunal to judge leaders accused of international crimes is first proposed at the Paris Peace Conference.

  2. A. N. R. Robinson revives the idea of a permanent court by proposing a tribunal on the illegal drug trade.

  3. The Rome Statute is adopted in Rome by 120 votes to 7, with 21 abstentions. The US votes against.

  4. The Clinton administration signs the Rome Statute.

THE US PULLS AWAY

  1. The US withdraws its signature and says it does not intend to ratify.

  2. The Rome Statute enters into force and the ICC begins operating in The Hague.

  3. President Bush signs the American Service-Members' Protection Act, barring US government help for the court.

  4. A US official announces a return to engagement with the ICC under the Obama administration.

SANCTIONS RETURN

  1. Trump tells the UN that the ICC has "no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority".

  2. Biden lifts the Trump-era sanctions on Fatou Bensouda and Phakiso Mochochoko.

  3. The ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Deif.

  4. Trump signs an executive order imposing sanctions linked to the ICC, citing its warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.

THE COURT ITSELF IS TARGETED

  1. The ICC rejects Israel's jurisdiction challenges, ruling that its authority rests on Palestinian territory.

  2. Rubio sanctions the ICC president and a senior prosecutor, accusing them of pursuing officials from countries that never accepted the court's jurisdiction.

  3. Reports say the US is preparing sweeping sanctions that would cut the court off from dollar transactions after a six-month grace period.

  4. The US sanctions the ICC as an institution, with 180-day Treasury licenses. The court asks its 125 member states to keep it running.

  5. Judge Furman blocks enforcement of the 2025 order against two advocacy groups, finding it likely violates the First Amendment.

What to watch next

  • The 180-day window. The Treasury licenses let certain transactions and routine operations continue for six months, after which the restrictions fully apply.
  • Talks with Washington. Rubio signaled room for negotiations, but the reports do not say what terms the US would accept.
  • Member state support. The ICC has asked its 125 members to ensure it has the means to operate, and one report says Europe is weighing measures to shield the court.
  • More court challenges. The injunction covers only two groups, and DAWN has said it will resume its advocacy, so other cases or fresh administration measures could follow.

Sources

How this article was made: Implica's editorial system wrote it from the news reports above, with the background drawn from Wikipedia: International Criminal Court, Rome Statute, United States and the International Criminal Court, American Service-Members' Protection Act.

The short version of stories
like this, every day.

Each story takes a minute to read. Ask a question or tap a name whenever you want to go deeper. Free to download.

DOWNLOAD ON THEApp Store GET IT ONGoogle Play