The administration under President Donald Trump has imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), adding the institution to the U.S. list of entities whose assets are frozen. This move, announced on October 9 by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, escalates Washington's campaign against the Hague-based court, which it accuses of undermining U.S. sovereignty.
In an official statement from the Department of State, Rubio declared that the administration would prohibit transactions with the ICC to limit its resources and functionality. He further warned that, should no agreements be reached regarding U.S. objections, the government would continue efforts to dismantle the institution.
Previously, Washington had only sanctioned individual judges and prosecutors. Now, the ICC as a whole is targeted. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), part of the Treasury Department, confirmed the ICC's inclusion in the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) list as of October 9.
The Scope of Prohibited Operations
With this designation, the ICC's assets and property interests located in the United States or under the control of U.S. persons are blocked. It restricts transactions subject to U.S. jurisdiction involving the court, except for exceptions and licenses authorized by the Treasury. Blocking assets does not equate to seizing them.
However, these restrictions do not immediately halt all payments and services. OFAC's General License 13 allows certain transactions necessary to maintain or conclude operations, contracts, and agreements with the ICC until April 7, 2027. These include member states' contributions, salaries, medical insurance, rents, basic services, and certain supplier payments.
OFAC also issued three other general licenses related to telecommunications and business software, pension payments, and specific operations concerning individuals detained by the Court. The details are in the official sanctions program against the ICC.
Rubio's Continued Campaign
In his statement, Rubio emphasized that the United States has never joined the ICC and opposes its authority to prosecute U.S. military personnel, border agents, or leaders without Washington's consent. He noted that the government had allowed space for a diplomatic solution but found the responses from the court and member states inadequate.
“Either the ICC ceases its threats, or we will end the ICC,” the Secretary of State asserted. He also warned that if allies do not intervene, the U.S. will persist in dismantling the court "brick by brick."
Washington invoked Section 1(a)(ii)(A) of Executive Order 14203, signed by Trump in February 2025. This decision is part of a strategy announced months ago: in July, CiberCuba reported on the U.S. campaign to dismantle the ICC, which included diplomatic pressure, sanctions, and visa restrictions.
International Reaction to Sanctions
The ICC opposed the measures in an October 9 statement, arguing they constitute an attack on the rule of law and an attempt to obstruct justice. The court maintained its commitment to its functions, though it stressed the need for support from its member states.
Meanwhile, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom expressed their disapproval of the sanctions in a joint statement released by the British government. The eight countries reiterated their support for the court's independence and warned of the impact the restrictions could have on its staff and investigations.
Established by the Rome Statute and operational since 2002, the ICC investigates and prosecutes serious international crimes like genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes within its jurisdiction. Although the United States has not ratified its founding treaty, the court argues that under certain conditions, it can investigate acts committed in the territory of a member state even if the suspect is from another country. This interpretation difference is a central point of contention between Washington and the Court, as explained by the organism's own prosecution office.
Understanding U.S. Sanctions on the ICC
What are the implications of the U.S. sanctions on the ICC?
The U.S. sanctions block the ICC's assets and restrict transactions involving the court under U.S. jurisdiction. This includes freezing assets located in the U.S. or under the control of U.S. persons, with specific exceptions allowed by the Treasury.
How does the U.S. justify its actions against the ICC?
The U.S. argues that the ICC threatens its sovereignty by attempting to prosecute American military and officials without U.S. consent. The administration insists on maintaining control over such legal matters.
What are the international responses to the U.S. sanctions on the ICC?
Several countries, including Canada and European nations, have opposed the sanctions, emphasizing their support for the ICC's independence and warning of the potential negative impacts on its operations.