Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Friday that the Trump administration is imposing sweeping financial sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), a body the president has sought to dismantle throughout his second term.
To date, the administration has sanctioned 17 individuals with ties to the ICC, including judges and prosecutors. The latest move marks the first time the U.S. has gone after the institution itself.
“Our message is clear: The United States and the American people are not subject to the jurisdiction of this fake ICC,” Rubio said in a pre-recorded video message released Friday morning. “Both parties agree on this, but only President Trump has the resolve to take the action needed to end this threat once and for all.”
This comes hours after this year’s Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, a former ICC judge.
In a statement Friday, the Netherlands-based court strongly condemned the U.S. sanctions as “an assault on the rule of law and on the very foundations of the international legal order.”
“This measure targets an independent judicial institution, created by treaty and entrusted by 125 States Parties with investigating and prosecuting genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression,” the ICC added.
“It is an attempt to obstruct the course of justice and to prevent the Court from doing what it was created to do.”
ICC President Tomoko Akane, who was personally sanctioned by the Trump administration in August, said the court will continue to operate despite the new penalties.
In announcing the sanctions, Rubio argued the ICC believes it has the authority to prosecute American service members operating overseas and even U.S. Border Patrol agents. There is no evidence the court has sought to investigate or prosecute Border Patrol agents, though Rubio previously raised that possibility in July.
WORLD COURT PROSECUTOR WHO WENT AFTER NETANYAHU FOR WAR CRIMES SUSPENDED OVER SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
The administration’s concerns about U.S. personnel are not entirely hypothetical. In 2017, an ICC prosecutor sought authorization to investigate alleged war crimes committed by U.S. military and intelligence personnel in Afghanistan.
ICC judges initially rejected the request, but that decision was overturned on appeal in 2020, allowing the investigation to proceed. The court’s prosecutor later de-prioritized alleged crimes involving U.S. personnel to focus on alleged crimes committed by the Taliban and ISIS-K.
Under the new sanctions, any ICC assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction will be frozen, while Americans, U.S. businesses and banks are generally barred from conducting transactions with the court.
The sanctions will not go into effect immediately. The Treasury Department has given the ICC a 180-day general license to maintain its operations, giving the court time to address U.S. concerns.
ICC TURNS ‘BLIND EYE’ TO TOP WORLD THREATS WHILE TARGETING AMERICANS, TRUMP ADMIN SAYS
“Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC. And we expect our allies, many of whom are part of the ICC and that rely on American service members for their defense, to rein in this rogue court,” Rubio said.
“If they do not, the United States will continue its campaign to dismantle the ICC piece by piece until Americans are threatened no longer.”
One of the other major grievances the administration has with the ICC is its decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in 2024.
The ICC argued both officials were responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinians in Gaza during Israel’s military response to the Hamas-led Oct. 7 terrorist attacks in 2023. Both men have denied wrongdoing.
In a February 2025 executive order authorizing sanctions against ICC officials, President Donald Trump called the arrest warrants “baseless” and said the court overstepped its authority since Israel was not an ICC member.
The ICC maintains that it can exercise jurisdiction over nationals of non-member states when they are accused of qualifying crimes committed on the territory of a state that has accepted the court’s jurisdiction.
[#item_full_content]
