{"id":912,"date":"2026-03-23T22:34:01","date_gmt":"2026-03-24T05:34:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/?p=912"},"modified":"2026-03-23T22:35:09","modified_gmt":"2026-03-24T05:35:09","slug":"trump-administration-icc-sanctions-face-setbacks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/trump-administration-icc-sanctions-face-setbacks\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump Administration ICC Sanctions Face Setbacks"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t

By Kailea Weitz<\/strong><\/em>
ASU Law Fellow<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t

The predicate for the Trump Administration\u2019s 2025 ICC sanctions is stated in Executive<\/a> Order 14203<\/a>: a view that the ICC\u2019s \u201cillegitimate and baseless actions\u201d against the United States and Israel threaten U.S. sovereignty and undermine critical national security and foreign policy interests, setting a dangerous precedent, and endangering U.S. military personnel. The Administration\u2019s objection, however, is not to ICC prosecution of U.S. personnel, but to the Court\u2019s assertion of jurisdiction, preliminary investigations into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan, and arrest warrants targeting Israeli leadership. Neither the U.S. nor Israel is party to the Rome Statute recognizing ICC jurisdiction and EO 14203 reflects the longstanding U.S. position, enshrined in the American Servicemembers\u2019 Protection Act of 2002 (ASPA)<\/a>, that U.S. and allied war criminals should be immune to facing justice before the ICC.<\/p>

EO 14203<\/a> declares any effort to \u201cinvestigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute\u201d a \u201cprotected person\u201d constitutes \u201cunusual and extraordinary threat\u201d to U.S. national security and foreign policy. It imposes sweeping sanctions, blocking all property and interests in property within U.S. jurisdiction of designated persons; prohibiting transfers, payments, exports, withdrawals, or other dealings in that property; prohibiting providing or receiving funds, goods, or services to or from designated persons; and suspending entry into the U.S., including family members.<\/p>

Invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), implementing regulations\u00a0<\/a>place designees on OFAC\u2019s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List<\/a>. That designation prohibits U.S. persons from dealing, even indirectly, with SDNs or entities at least 50% SDN-owned, and exposes non-U.S. persons to sanctions for materially supporting SDNs or causing violations by U.S. persons. There are currently 13 ICC-related SDNs<\/a>, including ICC judges and prosecutors designated in August 2025<\/a>: Kimberly Prost, Nicolas Yann Guillou, Nazhat Shameem Khan, and Mame Mandiaye Niang. The AIPAC-backed Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act (H.R. 23) advances<\/a> a similar legislative framework, imposing asset freezes and visa bans against persons aiding ICC efforts against Americans or Israelis. However, some of the sanctioned individuals had no role in investigating or prosecuting U.S. or Israeli personnel.<\/p>

UN experts<\/a> reacted swiftly and critically, describing the sanctions as a \u201cdirect assault against the independence of the tribunal and a devastating blow to victims worldwide\u201d. They argued ICC judges, prosecutors, and lawyers must be free from intimidation and economic coercion to perform their duties and urged the EU and European Commission to shield ICC officials through the EU Blocking Statute.<\/p>

Meanwhile, the ICC sanctions, as interpreted by OFAC, have been found likely to violate the First Amendment to the Constitution. Those arguments draw support from IEEPA<\/a> itself, which excludes, with limited exceptions, the import or export of \u201cinformation or informational materials\u201d from its regulatory authority. In Smith v.<\/em><\/a> Trump<\/em><\/a>, the ACLU describes the sanctions as forcing U.S. advocates to stop providing legal analysis, evidence, and policy expertise to the ICC. A July 18, 2025, preliminary injunction<\/a> found a likely First Amendment violation. In Rona & Davis v. Trump<\/em>, enforcement was permanently enjoined against a wide range of advocacy, analytical, educational, training, and advisory activity tied to the ICC. OFAC\u2019s 2024 GPE<\/a> letter similarly recognized that merely hosting SDN-listed speakers for political dialogue was not prohibited, underscoring limits on sanctions where speech and information exchange are concerned. Nonetheless, the OFAC threat to First Amendment activities continues, because OFAC has not amended its regulations or issued public guidance clarifying that First Amendment activities do not fall within the sanctions. This recalcitrance foreshadows likely further defeats by OFAC in the courts.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Kailea WeitzASU Law Fellow The predicate for the Trump Administration\u2019s 2025 ICC sanctions is stated in Executive Order 14203: a view that the ICC\u2019s \u201cillegitimate and baseless actions\u201d against the United States and Israel threaten U.S. sovereignty and undermine critical national security and foreign policy interests, setting a dangerous precedent, and endangering U.S. military […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":106,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[236,235,239,228,234,238],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/912"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/106"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=912"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/912\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":919,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/912\/revisions\/919"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=912"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=912"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.asucollegeoflaw.com\/ibt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}