Reported by 1 source

The short version

  • New sanctions target ICC President Tomoko Akane and Senior Trial Lawyer Abdoulaye Seye, adding to restrictions on at least eleven other officials.
  • The administration cites unauthorized investigations into non-member state officials as justification for the punitive measures.
  • Human rights organizations and sanctioned judges have filed lawsuits challenging the legality of the sanctions under US law.

The United States has imposed new economic and travel restrictions on the president of the International Criminal Court and a senior trial lawyer, marking a significant escalation in Washington’s ongoing effort to undermine the global tribunal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the measures against Tomoko Akane, who began her three-year term as ICC president in 2024, and Abdoulaye Seye, a senior lawyer from Senegal. The sanctions include asset freezes and bans on services from US companies, effectively cutting off these individuals from the US financial system and restricting their international travel.

Rubio justified the action by accusing the targeted officials of engaging in efforts to investigate or prosecute government figures from nations that have not consented to the court’s jurisdiction. He characterized the ICC as a corrupt and politicized body that has exceeded its mandate and assaulted state sovereignty. The move aligns with an executive order issued by President Donald Trump last year, which directed the targeting of the court. While neither Trump nor the White House has issued a specific comment on this latest round of sanctions, the administration has consistently framed its actions as necessary to protect American interests and legal independence.

News Journal

This announcement adds to a growing list of sanctioned ICC personnel. The Trump administration has previously targeted at least eleven other officials, including nine judges and the chief prosecutor. These earlier measures were largely retaliatory, responding to ICC investigations into US military personnel in Afghanistan and arrest warrants issued for top Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, regarding alleged war crimes in Gaza. Neither the United States nor Israel are members of the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court, which has jurisdiction over genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in member states or when referred by the UN Security Council.

The diplomatic offensive extends beyond sanctions. Last month, Rubio urged the 125 member countries of the ICC to withdraw from the organization, describing a strategy to dismantle the institution piece by piece. A US official indicated that Washington would closely monitor which nations comply with this call and which do not. This aggressive posture represents a continuation of Trump’s long-standing opposition to the court, dating back to his first term when he described it as a threat lacking legitimacy or authority in the eyes of the United States.

The campaign has triggered significant legal resistance within the United States. Four leading human rights organizations—Human Rights Watch, the Open Society Institute, the American Friends Service Committee, and the Center for Constitutional Rights—filed a lawsuit in New York federal court alleging that the sanctions are unconstitutional. The groups argue that the restrictions prevent them from collaborating with the ICC to pursue justice for atrocities worldwide. Liz Evenson of Human Rights Watch criticized the administration’s approach as an attempt to provide impunity for selected governments.

Legal challenges also come directly from those sanctioned. In June, three ICC judges—Kimberly Prost of Canada, Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, and Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin—sued the administration in a New York federal court. They contend that the sanctions constitute unlawful extrajudicial pressure designed to punish and coerce judicial officers. The White House has defended its actions, stating that Trump lawfully exercised authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose these restrictions.

The practical impact of these sanctions is severe for the targeted individuals. Because many banks have ties to the US or conduct transactions in dollars, compliance with US restrictions is often mandatory globally. This limits the ability of sanctioned officials to perform routine financial transactions, attend international conferences, or maintain professional operations that rely on global banking networks. The administration’s stance suggests a willingness to use economic leverage to isolate the court from key personnel and funding streams.

As the legal battles proceed in US courts, the diplomatic pressure on ICC member states continues to mount. The administration’s rhetoric frames the conflict as a defense of national sovereignty against supranational overreach. Critics argue that this undermines international law and sets a dangerous precedent for holding leaders accountable for war crimes. The outcome of these lawsuits and the response of other nations to US calls for withdrawal will likely determine the future stability and operational capacity of the International Criminal Court.

Sources behind this briefing

Go to the original reporting