U.S. Sanctions the International Criminal Court, Drawing Allied Rebukes

The United States on Friday imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court itself, a sharp escalation in its campaign against the Hague-based tribunal that immediately drew rejection from the court and public opposition from several close U.S. allies.

The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control added the ICC to its Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, or SDN list, on Oct. 9. The designation means any property or interests in property of the court that are subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally barred from dealing with it unless authorized. Treasury at the same time issued General Licenses 13 through 16 to allow limited categories of transactions, including some involving banking, telecommunications and software, pensions, and certain detainee-related matters, underscoring the risk of disruption to the court’s ordinary operations.

The move goes beyond earlier U.S. sanctions that targeted individual ICC officials. It places the institution itself under one of Washington’s most powerful sanctions tools, a step that can ripple far beyond the United States as non-U.S. banks and companies often pull back from designated entities to avoid sanctions exposure.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the action the same day, framing it as a defense of U.S. citizens against the court’s reach. “President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans,” Rubio said in a State Department statement.

The sanctions rest on Executive Order 14203, signed by President Donald Trump on Feb. 6, 2025, authorizing penalties tied to ICC activity. U.S. officials have repeatedly objected to the court’s assertion of jurisdiction in matters involving U.S. nationals and Israeli officials.

That dispute has centered in part on the ICC’s investigation into alleged crimes in the State of Palestine. In November 2024, the court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, a move that intensified the clash with Washington.

The ICC swiftly rejected Friday’s sanctions. In a court press release, ICC President Tomoko Akane said, “The Court will continue to fully discharge its mandate, with independence and impartiality, acting only on the basis of the law and the evidence, for the sake of the countless victims of grave crimes.”

Several U.S. allies also broke publicly with Washington within hours. Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom said in a joint statement that they “regret and strongly disagree” with the U.S. announcement and reaffirmed their support for the court.

The ICC is a permanent international court created by the Rome Statute, which entered into force in 2002, to prosecute individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression. It has about 125 member states. The United States is not a member.

Friday’s action follows an earlier step taken under the same sanctions program. On Aug. 18, OFAC designated Akane and Abdoulaye Seye, an ICC senior trial lawyer. Sanctioning the court itself is a broader and more consequential measure because the institution depends on routine cross-border services — including banks, software providers, telecommunications networks and travel-related transactions — to function day to day.

The sanctions regime is also being challenged in U.S. court. In August, the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch and the Open Society Institute filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York contesting the program.

For the ICC, the immediate stakes are practical as much as political. An SDN designation can freeze assets within U.S. reach, cut off transactions involving U.S. persons and prompt private firms outside the United States to sever ties. Treasury’s simultaneous carve-outs for limited services highlighted that the sanctions could affect the court’s basic operations, not just its senior officials.