Nicolai Haugsted
Trump administration readies sanctions that could cut the International Criminal Court off from key services.
Donald Trump’s long-running battle with the International Criminal Court may soon move from targeting the people inside the building to targeting the building itself.
Washington has already sanctioned judges and prosecutors connected to the court. Preparations are now underway for a considerably broader step that could make everyday business far more difficult for the institution in The Hague.
Trump’s administration is preparing sanctions against the ICC as an organization, according to officials familiar with the plans. Such a move would mark a major escalation in the US campaign against the court and could restrict its access to companies, banks and services linked to the American financial system.
Timing remains uncertain, although US officials told The Wall Street Journal that a decision could come as soon as this week around the United Nations General Assembly.
Washington could go after the whole institution
Previous US measures have largely focused on individuals.
According to several news outlets, including Digi24, Trump’s administration has sanctioned several ICC officials, including judges and prosecutors. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also made Washington’s hostility toward the institution unusually explicit, arguing that the court threatens American sovereignty.
Broader sanctions would operate very differently.
Restrictions under consideration would apply to transactions involving the ICC itself rather than simply freezing assets or imposing restrictions on selected officials. Documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal indicate that most transactions with the court could eventually be prohibited, although communications services would be exempted.
Practical consequences could reach surprisingly mundane corners of the ICC’s operation.
Banking, IT services, insurance, contractors and other commercial relationships could become more difficult if companies fear violating US sanctions. America’s enormous role in the global financial system means restrictions imposed in Washington can create headaches well beyond American borders.
ICC documents have previously acknowledged that US sanctions against the institution could negatively affect its management of funds and investment returns.
Washington’s hostility toward the ICC predates Trump’s second presidency.
Trump imposed sanctions connected to the court during his first term amid objections to an investigation involving US personnel in Afghanistan. President Joe Biden later revoked those sanctions.
Relations deteriorated sharply again after the ICC issued arrest warrants in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-defense minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity connected to the war in Gaza.
Netanyahu and Gallant have denied the allegations.
Neither Israel nor the United States is a member of the ICC, and Washington argues that the court should not exercise jurisdiction over nationals of countries that have not joined it.
ICC officials dispute that interpretation of their authority. The court maintains that it can exercise jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed on the territory of member states or territories where its jurisdiction has otherwise been accepted.
Rubio threatened to dismantle the court “brick by brick”
Rubio has hardly been coy about where the administration wants the confrontation to go.
During a July campaign against the ICC, the secretary of state called for other countries to distance themselves from the institution and warned that Washington was prepared to keep increasing the pressure.
Rubio said the United States would dismantle the court “brick by brick” if necessary.
His argument centers on sovereignty.
Washington contends that allowing the ICC to prosecute officials from countries that never joined the court creates a precedent that could eventually be used against American political leaders or military personnel.
Past US policy toward the ICC has nevertheless been more complicated than outright rejection.
Rubio himself co-sponsored a Senate resolution in 2022 supporting efforts to investigate alleged Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Russia, like the United States and Israel, is not an ICC member. The court subsequently issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2023.
Sanctions could make ordinary business a headache
Financial pressure may prove considerably more disruptive than sanctions against individual officials.
Companies with substantial exposure to the United States tend to treat American sanctions cautiously, sometimes avoiding transactions beyond what the rules strictly require because losing access to US markets or the dollar-based financial system carries enormous risk.
Such caution could leave the ICC searching for alternatives for services that normally attract little public attention but keep an international organization running.
Court officials have spent years preparing for precisely that possibility. ICC budget documents have warned about the potential financial consequences of US sanctions, while later institutional reports describe contingency measures intended to keep critical operations functioning amid external threats.
European governments and Japan have pledged support for the court, according to The Wall Street Journal, although exactly how its supporters would shield it from sweeping American financial restrictions remains uncertain.
Created under the Rome Statute, the ICC began operating in 2002 and prosecutes genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression within the limits of its jurisdiction.
Cases are generally intended to proceed when relevant national authorities are unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute qualifying crimes themselves.
Washington never joined.
Trump’s administration now appears ready to turn that decades-old American distance from the court into something considerably more confrontational.
No final announcement has yet been made, and the precise scope of any sanctions could still change.
Should the administration proceed with institution-wide restrictions, however, the fight would no longer be limited to particular prosecutors and judges.
Paying bills, hiring specialists, buying technology and moving money could all become part of Washington’s pressure campaign – giving an international criminal court a rather different kind of case to deal with.
