US sanctions deepen confrontation with International Criminal Court
The United States has imposed sanctions on International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane of Japan and senior prosecutor Abdoulaye Seye of Senegal, widening Washington’s campaign against the Hague-based tribunal over cases involving Israel and challenges to US sovereignty.
The designations announced on Tuesday target two of the court’s most senior figures under an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in February 2025. The order authorises financial and travel restrictions against foreign nationals involved in ICC attempts to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute protected US or allied personnel without the consent of their governments.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Akane and Seye had directly participated in such efforts. Washington argues that the ICC has exceeded its mandate by pursuing officials from countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute, including the United States and Israel. The administration has made curbing the court’s ability to act against US personnel and officials of close allies a foreign-policy priority.
The sanctions block property and financial interests that the two officials may hold under US jurisdiction and generally prohibit Americans and US companies from dealing with them. Their broader effect can extend well beyond the United States because international banks and technology companies frequently depend on the US financial system. The Treasury Department has authorised transactions needed to wind down dealings involving Akane until September 17.
Akane, who joined the ICC bench in 2018 and became president in 2024, has been a prominent defender of the court’s judicial independence during its confrontation with Washington. She has argued that political or economic pressure cannot determine how judges interpret the Rome Statute or decide cases.
Seye is a Senegalese lawyer serving in the Office of the Prosecutor. His designation places additional pressure on the prosecutorial structure responsible for investigating alleged crimes connected with the war in Gaza. The sanctions bring the number of ICC judges and prosecutors targeted by Washington since Trump returned to office to at least 13, following successive measures imposed through 2025.
The dispute centres heavily on the ICC’s Palestine investigation. Judges issued arrest warrants on November 21, 2024, for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then defence minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel rejects the allegations and disputes the court’s authority over its nationals.
Washington takes the same jurisdictional position, stressing that neither the United States nor Israel has joined the Rome Statute. The ICC maintains that membership is not the only basis for jurisdiction. Palestine acceded to the statute in 2015 and accepted the court’s jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed on its territory, giving prosecutors a legal basis to investigate conduct there regardless of the nationality of an alleged perpetrator.
That disagreement has developed into a broader struggle over the reach of international criminal justice. The United States has also objected to the ICC’s earlier Afghanistan investigation, which examined alleged abuses involving US military and intelligence personnel. Trump’s executive order describes ICC action against non-consenting states as an extraordinary threat to US national security and foreign policy.
The court and its supporters counter that allowing nationality alone to shield people from prosecution for offences allegedly committed on the territory of a member state would severely restrict the Rome Statute. The ICC was created as a court of last resort to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and, under defined circumstances, aggression when national judicial systems cannot or will not genuinely pursue cases. It currently has 125 states parties.
The sanctions campaign has also moved into US courts. Three ICC judges filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in Manhattan in June, arguing that sanctions imposed on them exceeded presidential authority and were intended to coerce judicial decision-making. They described restrictions on banking, commercial services and personal transactions as punishment for carrying out their judicial functions.
The designations announced on Tuesday target two of the court’s most senior figures under an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in February 2025. The order authorises financial and travel restrictions against foreign nationals involved in ICC attempts to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute protected US or allied personnel without the consent of their governments.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Akane and Seye had directly participated in such efforts. Washington argues that the ICC has exceeded its mandate by pursuing officials from countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute, including the United States and Israel. The administration has made curbing the court’s ability to act against US personnel and officials of close allies a foreign-policy priority.
The sanctions block property and financial interests that the two officials may hold under US jurisdiction and generally prohibit Americans and US companies from dealing with them. Their broader effect can extend well beyond the United States because international banks and technology companies frequently depend on the US financial system. The Treasury Department has authorised transactions needed to wind down dealings involving Akane until September 17.
Akane, who joined the ICC bench in 2018 and became president in 2024, has been a prominent defender of the court’s judicial independence during its confrontation with Washington. She has argued that political or economic pressure cannot determine how judges interpret the Rome Statute or decide cases.
Seye is a Senegalese lawyer serving in the Office of the Prosecutor. His designation places additional pressure on the prosecutorial structure responsible for investigating alleged crimes connected with the war in Gaza. The sanctions bring the number of ICC judges and prosecutors targeted by Washington since Trump returned to office to at least 13, following successive measures imposed through 2025.
The dispute centres heavily on the ICC’s Palestine investigation. Judges issued arrest warrants on November 21, 2024, for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then defence minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel rejects the allegations and disputes the court’s authority over its nationals.
Washington takes the same jurisdictional position, stressing that neither the United States nor Israel has joined the Rome Statute. The ICC maintains that membership is not the only basis for jurisdiction. Palestine acceded to the statute in 2015 and accepted the court’s jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed on its territory, giving prosecutors a legal basis to investigate conduct there regardless of the nationality of an alleged perpetrator.
That disagreement has developed into a broader struggle over the reach of international criminal justice. The United States has also objected to the ICC’s earlier Afghanistan investigation, which examined alleged abuses involving US military and intelligence personnel. Trump’s executive order describes ICC action against non-consenting states as an extraordinary threat to US national security and foreign policy.
The court and its supporters counter that allowing nationality alone to shield people from prosecution for offences allegedly committed on the territory of a member state would severely restrict the Rome Statute. The ICC was created as a court of last resort to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and, under defined circumstances, aggression when national judicial systems cannot or will not genuinely pursue cases. It currently has 125 states parties.
The sanctions campaign has also moved into US courts. Three ICC judges filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in Manhattan in June, arguing that sanctions imposed on them exceeded presidential authority and were intended to coerce judicial decision-making. They described restrictions on banking, commercial services and personal transactions as punishment for carrying out their judicial functions.