The Trump administration has drawn a hard line against the International Criminal Court. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche declared in a June 29 letter that the United States will not recognize the court’s jurisdiction over American citizens. The Justice Department made the letter public on July 2. It marks the latest escalation in a years-long standoff between Washington and the Hague-based tribunal.
Blanche’s letter to ICC President Judge Tomoko Akane leaves no room for negotiation. He wrote that the court has acted in an “increasingly lawless and illegitimate manner.” The Justice Department accuses the ICC of asserting jurisdiction over countries that never consented to its authority. It also criticizes the court for failing to defer to national judicial systems before launching investigations. Blanche claims these investigations are driven more by political pressure than legal merit. He says the ICC’s record raises serious doubts about its impartiality and credibility.
The 2002 American Servicemembers’ Protection Act underpins the administration’s position. The law explicitly rejects the ICC’s jurisdiction over U.S. service members, government officials, and civilians. It also authorizes the president to use all necessary means to secure the release of any American detained under an ICC warrant. Blanche emphasized that this authority will be “fully exercised” if required. The law covers not just military personnel but also private citizens. It reflects a long-standing U.S. policy of resisting external judicial oversight.
The letter outlines a clear policy of non-cooperation. The Justice Department will refuse to assist any ICC investigation or proceeding involving Americans. It will not extradite or transfer U.S. citizens to the court. It will also oppose any foreign government that attempts to do so. If an American is detained under an ICC warrant, the U.S. government will take “all necessary measures” to secure their immediate release. This stance extends to allies. Blanche quoted President Donald Trump’s February 2025 executive order, which demands that U.S. allies oppose any ICC actions against Americans or other non-consenting nations.
The Trump administration’s confrontational approach is not new. The U.S. has never ratified the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. It argues that the court lacks jurisdiction over Americans without explicit U.S. consent. This position has been consistent across multiple administrations, though the intensity of opposition has varied. The George W. Bush administration initially opposed the court but later allowed the U.N. Security Council to refer cases like Darfur to the ICC. The Obama administration cooperated with the court on select cases, including the transfer of suspects to The Hague.
The relationship soured during Trump’s first term. The ICC’s investigation into alleged war crimes by U.S. forces in Afghanistan triggered a sharp response. The administration revoked the U.S. visa of then-ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. It also imposed sanctions on ICC officials, including asset freezes and travel restrictions. The Biden administration lifted those sanctions in 2021 but maintained opposition to the court’s investigations involving Israel. Trump reinstated the sanctions upon returning to office in 2025, calling the ICC’s actions against the U.S. and Israel “illegitimate and baseless.”
Three ICC judges have challenged the sanctions in U.S. federal court. Kimberly Prost of Canada, Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, and Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini-Gansou of Benin filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York in late June. They argue that the sanctions exceed the president’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. They also claim the measures violate the Fifth Amendment. The judges describe the sanctions as a “financial death penalty” designed to intimidate and coerce. The lawsuit seeks to strike down the executive order and unfreeze the judges’ assets.
The ICC’s current investigations involving U.S. interests are limited but contentious. The court’s Afghanistan probe was narrowed after facing U.S. pressure. However, its warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have intensified the standoff. The Trump administration has expanded sanctions to at least nine ICC officials since 2025, citing these actions. The court’s focus on Israel has further alienated Washington, which views the ICC’s jurisdiction as an overreach. The U.S. has consistently argued that Israel, like the U.S., is not a party to the Rome Statute and should not be subject to the court’s authority.
The broader implications of this standoff extend beyond legal technicalities. The U.S. rejection of ICC jurisdiction reflects a deeper resistance to multilateral institutions that challenge national sovereignty. This stance aligns with a broader Trump administration policy of prioritizing unilateral action over international cooperation. It also signals a willingness to use economic and diplomatic tools to undermine institutions perceived as hostile. The ICC, for its part, has defended its independence. It argues that its investigations are based on legal merit, not political pressure. The court’s supporters say the U.S. opposition undermines global accountability for war crimes and human rights abuses.
