In a move that tests the boundaries of international law and sovereign accountability, the United States is preparing to impose sanctions not on individuals but on the International Criminal Court as an institution — a step that could render the world's only permanent war crimes tribunal unable to pay its staff or access its own bank accounts. The escalation follows the court's indictment of Israeli leaders over the Gaza conflict, a jurisdiction Washington refuses to recognize. At stake is not merely a diplomatic dispute, but a fundamental question about whether international legal institution
US weighs sweeping sanctions against entire International Criminal Court
The question now is not whether, but when.
Mark
Why would the U.S. go after the entire court rather than just the officials involved in the Gaza cases?
Mimi
Because individual sanctions haven't stopped the court from investigating. Each prosecutor or judge they've sanctioned has been replaced or the work continues. Targeting the institution itself is meant to make the cost so high that the court can't function at all.
Mark
Can the U.S. actually do that? The court is an international body with 125 member states.
Mimi
The U.S. can't dissolve it, but it can freeze its assets, cut off its banking, block its access to software. That strangles operations without needing anyone's permission. Other countries can object, but they can't easily override American financial power.
Mark
What does the court actually fear most from these sanctions?
Mimi
Payroll. If staff can't be paid, people leave. The institution collapses not from a dramatic blow but from slow suffocation. That's why they've already pre-paid salaries through the end of the year—they're buying time to figure out how to survive.
Mark
Is there any chance the U.S. backs down?
Mimi
The State Department's language suggests otherwise. They're saying the court has a chance to change course, but what they mean is: stop investigating Israel. The court won't do that. So this looks like a collision that's already decided.
Mark
What happens to cases already underway if the court shuts down?
Mimi
That's the real danger. Investigations into Gaza, Afghanistan, other conflicts—all of it stalls. Witnesses disappear. Evidence degrades. The people the court was investigating walk free. That's what makes this not just a diplomatic dispute but something with real consequences for accountability.
El Pulso
- Washington is days away from designating the ICC as a sanctioned entity — a dramatic leap from targeting individual prosecutors to threatening the court's entire operational existence.
- The potential freeze of bank accounts, software access, and salary payments has already sent the court into emergency mode, paying staff wages months in advance and scrambling for alternative service providers.
- Secretary of State Marco Rubio has framed the ICC as a national security threat, signaling that this is not a tactical maneuver but a strategic confrontation with the architecture of international justice.
- The court's 125 member states are mobilizing a diplomatic response at the UN General Assembly, but four senior sources say Washington's momentum is unlikely to be stopped by protest alone.
- The ICC's indictments of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Gallant over Gaza have become the flashpoint, with the US rejecting the court's jurisdiction over both Israeli and American personnel.
In a move that tests the boundaries of international law and sovereign accountability, the United States is preparing to impose sanctions not on individuals but on the International Criminal Court as an institution — a step that could render the world's only permanent war crimes tribunal unable to pay its staff or access its own bank accounts. The escalation follows the court's indictment of Israeli leaders over the Gaza conflict, a jurisdiction Washington refuses to recognize. At stake is not merely a diplomatic dispute, but a fundamental question about whether international legal institutions can survive the withdrawal of the world's most powerful nation.
The United States is preparing to sanction the International Criminal Court not as a collection of individuals, but as an institution — a move that would strike at the court's most basic ability to function. For months, Washington had targeted specific officials, including lead prosecutor Karim Khan, with financial penalties and travel restrictions over the court's investigations into alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza. Now, six sources with direct knowledge of the deliberations say the administration is ready to go further, potentially freezing the court's accounts and severing its access to the software and banking services it depends on daily.
The ICC, based in The Hague, has indicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes in Gaza, along with Hamas figures. The court's jurisdiction over Palestine as a member state is a legal position the US and Israel both reject. When prosecutor Khan sought arrest warrants for the Israeli leaders earlier this year, the White House sanctioned him personally. The next step — sanctioning the institution itself — would be of an entirely different magnitude.
State Department officials have been unambiguous. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called the ICC a national security threat and an instrument of lawfare against the United States and its allies. A department spokesperson warned the court has an opportunity to reform, but that America will act if it does not.
The court has not waited passively. Emergency internal meetings have been convened, member state diplomats have gathered to assess the threat, and the ICC paid its staff salaries for the remainder of 2025 in advance — a precautionary measure it has taken before when sanctions loomed. It is also seeking alternative banking and software providers to insulate itself from potential cutoffs.
Some member states plan to push back at the UN General Assembly this week, but diplomatic sources in both The Hague and New York say the direction is clear. The question, one senior diplomat noted, is no longer whether the US will escalate to entity sanctions — it is only a matter of when.
The United States is preparing to take an extraordinary step against an international institution. Within days, Washington may impose sanctions not against individual prosecutors or judges at the International Criminal Court, but against the entire organization itself—a move that would strike at the court's ability to function at all.
For months, the American government has targeted specific officials at the ICC with financial penalties and travel restrictions, objecting to the court's investigations into alleged Israeli war crimes during the Gaza conflict. But six sources with direct knowledge of the deliberations, speaking anonymously because the decision has not been publicly announced, say the administration is now considering something far broader: designating the court as an entity subject to sanctions. Such a designation would be a dramatic escalation, one that could freeze the institution's bank accounts, sever its access to routine software and services, and prevent it from paying the salaries of its staff.
The implications are stark. The ICC, headquartered in The Hague, operates on the premise that it can investigate and prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It has indicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes in Gaza, along with figures from Hamas. The court also has jurisdiction over Palestine as a member state, a legal position that the United States and Israel reject. When the court's lead prosecutor, Karim Khan, requested arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant earlier this year, the White House responded by sanctioning Khan himself. Now, the administration appears ready to move against the institution that authorized his work.
State Department officials have made their position clear. In a statement, a spokesperson said the court has asserted what Washington views as illegitimate jurisdiction over American and Israeli personnel, and that the U.S. will take further steps to protect its interests. The language was pointed: the court has an opportunity to change course through structural reforms, the official said, but if it does not, America will act. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called the ICC a national security threat and an instrument of what he terms lawfare against the United States and its ally.
The ICC has not been idle. Court officials have already convened emergency internal meetings to discuss what entity-wide sanctions would mean for their operations. Diplomats representing the court's 125 member states have also gathered to assess the threat. In a precautionary move, the court paid its staff their salaries for the remainder of 2025 in advance this month—a step it has taken before when sanctions seemed imminent. The institution is also hunting for alternative banking services and software providers, trying to build redundancy into systems that might otherwise be cut off.
Some of the ICC's member countries plan to mount a diplomatic counteroffensive this week at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, pushing back against further American sanctions. But according to four diplomatic sources in The Hague and New York, the momentum is clearly with Washington. One senior diplomat put it bluntly: the era of targeting individual court officials has run its course. The question now is not whether the United States will escalate to entity sanctions, but when. The decision could come within days.
Citas Notables
The court has an opportunity to change course by making critical and appropriate structural changes. The U.S. will take additional steps to protect our brave service members and others as long as the ICC continues to present a threat to our national interests.— U.S. State Department spokesperson
The road of individual sanctions has been exhausted. It is now more about when, rather than if, they will take the next step.— Senior diplomat
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en Reuters ↗
War & Conflict