US sanctions ICC president and lawyer in escalating dispute over court jurisdiction

The Trump administration has moved to sanction two officials at the International Criminal Court, marking another turn in an escalating confrontation between Washington and the international body. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Tuesday that the US had frozen assets and barred entry to ICC President Tomoko Akane, a Japanese judge, and Abdoulaye Seye, a Senegalese trial lawyer. The sanctions, issued under presidential executive order, target what Rubio described as individuals who have worked to investigate and prosecute officials from countries that have not consented to ICC jurisdiction.

Rubio's language was unsparing. He called the Court a "sham" and said the administration was acting to "protect Americans" from what it views as an illegitimate institution. The State Department went further, characterizing the ICC as "corrupt and fatally politicized," claiming it has "maliciously abused its authority and exceeded its mandate." The core grievance, according to the administration, is that the Court poses a threat to US military and law enforcement personnel—particularly those carrying out the president's hardline immigration policies or conducting what the State Department calls "drug interdiction" operations in international waters. The US itself is not an ICC member and has never submitted to the Court's authority.

The ICC, established in 2002 and headquartered in The Hague, operates under a statute that allows it to prosecute nationals of non-member states if those individuals commit atrocities on the territory of a member state. This jurisdictional reach is precisely what troubles Washington. The Court asserts it only steps in when member states are unable or unwilling to prosecute crimes themselves—a safeguard built into its founding documents. But the Trump administration views even this conditional authority as an unacceptable intrusion on state sovereignty.

The timing of these sanctions reflects a broader campaign. Last year, after the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant over the war in Gaza, the US sanctioned several ICC officials. Trump has said the campaign is aimed at defending Netanyahu and other allies, not himself. Last month, Rubio signaled the administration would intensify its push, including a diplomatic effort to persuade other nations to withdraw from the Court entirely. Chad and Venezuela have already done so in response to US pressure.

The ICC's response was measured but firm. The Court said it remains "undeterred" and stands behind its staff. In a statement, it rejected the premise of the sanctions, arguing that targeting judges, prosecutors, and staff who carry out the Court's mandate "undermines the rule of law." The institution warned that when judicial actors face threats for applying the law, "the international legal order itself is placed at risk." This framing—that the sanctions threaten not just the ICC but the broader architecture of international justice—has found support elsewhere. In June, three ICC judges sued the Trump administration, calling the sanctions illegal. Last week, four human rights organizations filed suit as well, arguing that war crimes victims are being denied justice as a result of the president's actions.

The practical effect of the sanctions is to bar Akane and Seye from entering the United States and from accessing the US financial system. For an institution already under diplomatic siege, the move represents another constraint on its operations and personnel. The question now is whether the administration's campaign—combining sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and legal challenges—will succeed in weakening the Court's reach, or whether the ICC and its supporters can sustain the institution's independence despite the pressure.