Tensions Rise Between the United States and the International Criminal Court

On Friday, October 9, the United States Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, announced widespread sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), designed to cripple its ability to operate.

The announcement came just hours after Navi Pillay, a former ICC judge, won the Nobel Peace Prize, an accolade President Trump has tried to claim on several occasions. Pillay chaired the United Nations (UN) Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory from 2023 to 2025, which found the State of Israel to be responsible for four genocidal acts in Gaza since October 7, 2023.¹

17 days before Rubio’s press release, President Trump called on ICC member states to “officially resign from this rogue institution”² at the 81st UN General Assembly in New York.

The United States’ antagonism towards the ICC, however, extends far beyond Trump’s time in office. The ICC was officially established by the Rome Statute on July 1, 2002. It became the first and only international court with the ability to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.

While the United States initially signed the Rome Statute in 2000, it was never ratified by the U.S. Senate, meaning the country is not subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction. However, the court’s mandate allows for investigations into U.S. personnel under certain conditions. Specifically, the court can intervene when the UN Security Council, whose decisions are binding on all UN member states, refers a potential case to the ICC Prosecutor.

The ICC’s jurisdiction has created long-lasting tensions with the United States. Under the George W. Bush administration, the U.S. Congress passed the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, which prohibits U.S. cooperation with the ICC.

Similarly, in 2020, Trump signed Executive Order 13928, restricting the ICC’s ability to “investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute”³ any citizen of the United States or its non-member allies. Trump’s order labelled the ICC’s attempts to intervene in the United States as:

“[A]n unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”³

Trump also placed visa restrictions on high-ranking ICC officials and their families, describing the ICC’s threat as a “national emergency”³.The order was widely interpreted as an attempt to restrict the court’s ability to investigate potential crimes committed by the U.S. military in Afghanistan, as well as by Israeli officials in Palestine, as Israel is also not a member of the ICC.

President Biden revoked Executive Order 13928. Yet, on February 6, 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14203, reviving the initial order’s policies. To date, it has enabled sanctions on 17 ICC officials, including former Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, who issued an ICC arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on November 21, 2024.

The sanctions imposed on October 9 are expected to have a much more significant impact on the ICC’s ability to operate than Trump’s previous executive orders. All ICC property in U.S. territory or in the control of U.S. persons is now blocked unless specifically authorized by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

Additionally, the Department of the Treasury has issued 180-day general licences (GLs) to allow certain transactions with the ICC, especially relating to cloud and software services. If member states do not “demonstrate meaningful progress”⁴ to address U.S. concerns over ICC jurisdiction by the end of the 180 days, the GLs will be adjusted to cripple the ICC’s operations.

The ICC responded swiftly to the sanctions, with President Tomoko Akane releasing a video statement defending the ICC’s political impartiality. She called Trump’s sanctions an attack against the international legal order, the sovereign states who created the court, and victims of mass atrocities.⁵ Akane also addressed the court’s continued commitment to its mandate:

“The ICC does not yield to external threats that will only benefit those who commit the most serious crimes of concern to the international community… This is not just about defending a single institution, but about safeguarding the international order founded on the rule of law.”⁵

The ICC is already moving away from U.S. technology and currency, preparing for the implementation of the sanctions at the end of the 180-day grace period.

Despite Rubio’s threats, ICC member states, including Canada, are continuing to defend the court and its jurisdiction. Only time will tell whether the U.S. sanctions will severely impact the court’s operations.