President Donald Trump has signed an executive order imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) in response to its investigations into Israel, a key U.S. ally.
Neither the United States nor Israel recognizes or holds membership in the ICC, which recently issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over alleged war crimes related to Israel’s military actions in Gaza following the October 2023 Hamas attack. The Israeli response has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians, including children.
Trump’s order, signed on Thursday, accuses the ICC of engaging in “illegitimate and baseless actions” against the United States and Israel, criticizing the court for issuing what it calls “unfounded arrest warrants” for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The document asserts that the ICC has no jurisdiction over either country and warns that its actions set a “dangerous precedent.”
The move coincided with Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, where he met with Trump at the White House on Tuesday and later held discussions with U.S. lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
According to the order, the U.S. will impose “tangible and significant consequences” on those responsible for the ICC’s actions. These measures could include freezing assets, blocking property, and restricting entry into the United States for ICC officials, employees, and their relatives.
Human rights advocates have strongly criticized the sanctions, warning that such measures could undermine global efforts to hold perpetrators of atrocities accountable. They argue that the move not only restricts access to justice for victims of human rights violations but also contradicts U.S. interests in other international conflict zones where the ICC is active.
Trump blames 'obsolete' air traffic control for deadly crash
“Victims of human rights abuses worldwide rely on the ICC when they have no other recourse,” said Charlie Hogle, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. He added that Trump’s executive order makes it more difficult for them to seek justice and poses serious First Amendment concerns by penalizing those assisting the ICC in investigating war crimes.
Sarah Yager, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, also criticized the decision, stating, “You can disagree with the court’s approach, but this is beyond acceptable.”
The U.S. has historically maintained a complicated relationship with the ICC. While it helped negotiate the Rome Statute that established the court, the U.S. voted against its adoption in 1998. President Bill Clinton signed the statute in 2000 but did not seek Senate ratification. Under President George W. Bush, the U.S. withdrew its signature and pressured other countries to sign agreements preventing them from turning over Americans to the ICC.
Trump had previously sanctioned former ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in 2020 for investigating war crimes in Afghanistan involving U.S. forces. President Joe Biden later lifted those sanctions, allowing limited cooperation with the court, particularly after ICC prosecutor Karim Khan charged Russian President Vladimir Putin with war crimes in Ukraine in 2023.
UN chief rejects 'any form of ethnic cleansing' in Gaza
Senator Lindsey Graham, a longtime ICC critic, had previously facilitated dialogue between Khan and Republican lawmakers. However, he now feels betrayed and has vowed to take action against the court and any country enforcing Netanyahu’s arrest warrant. “This is a rogue court, a kangaroo court,” Graham said, warning that the legal reasoning used against Israel could eventually target the U.S.
Biden has also denounced the arrest warrants, and his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, has accused the ICC of antisemitic bias. Some European nations, including the Netherlands, have pushed back against potential U.S. sanctions, advocating for continued support of the court’s mission.
Potential U.S. sanctions could severely impact the ICC’s ability to function, making it difficult for investigators to travel and compromising key evidence-handling technologies. The court recently suffered a cyberattack that disrupted access to critical files for weeks, adding to its operational challenges.