The United States on Tuesday, August 18 imposed sanctions against Tomoko Akane, the president of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and Abdoulaye Seye, a senior trial lawyer at the court. The move marks the latest escalation in a sustained campaign by the Trump administration to challenge the ICC’s authority and jurisdiction over non-member states, including the U.S. and Israel.
The sanctions, announced by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, bar Akane and Seye from entering the U.S. and restrict their access to the U.S. financial system. According to Rubio, the individuals were targeted for their roles in ICC efforts to investigate, arrest, or prosecute officials whose governments have not consented to the court’s jurisdiction.
Core Facts of the Sanctions
- Who was sanctioned: Tomoko Akane (ICC President, Japan) and Abdoulaye Seye (Senior Trial Lawyer, Senegal).
- Basis for sanctions: Direct involvement in ICC actions against officials from non-member states, per Rubio’s statement.
- Scope of sanctions: Travel bans and asset freezes within the U.S. financial system.
- Timing: Announced on August 18, 2025, following a 2024 executive order authorizing sanctions against ICC officials.
Reasons Cited by the U.S.
Rubio framed the sanctions as a defense of U.S. sovereignty, arguing that the ICC has exceeded its mandate by attempting to assert authority over American and allied officials. He described the court as a “corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court” that has “maliciously abused its authority.” The U.S. has not ratified the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC, and maintains that the court lacks jurisdiction over its citizens or those of other non-member states.
The sanctions follow prior U.S. actions against the ICC, including measures targeting nine judges and the chief prosecutor in 2024. These earlier sanctions were imposed in response to two key ICC actions: an investigation into alleged war crimes by U.S. personnel in Afghanistan and the issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over the war in Gaza.
ICC’s Response and Legal Challenges
The ICC condemned the sanctions, stating in a public response that the measures undermine the rule of law and the court’s ability to pursue justice for victims of atrocities. The court has not yet issued a formal legal response to the latest sanctions.
In parallel, legal challenges to the U.S. sanctions are underway. In July 2025, four human rights groups filed a lawsuit in a New York court against President Donald Trump, alleging that the sanctions block victims of war crimes from accessing justice. Additionally, three ICC judges sued the Trump administration in June 2025, arguing that the sanctions are unlawful and violate international law.
Broader Diplomatic Campaign
The sanctions are part of a wider diplomatic offensive led by Rubio to isolate the ICC. Last month, the U.S. called on the court’s 125 member countries to withdraw from the institution, framing the ICC as a threat to national sovereignty. The administration has also sought to persuade allies to cut funding to the court and has threatened further measures if the ICC continues its investigations into U.S. or Israeli actions.
Context: The ICC’s Role and Jurisdictional Disputes
Established in 2002, the ICC is the world’s only permanent international criminal court, tasked with prosecuting individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. It operates as a court of last resort, intervening only when national legal systems are unwilling or unable to prosecute such crimes.
The U.S., Israel, Russia, China, and other major powers are not members of the ICC. The court’s jurisdiction over non-members is a contentious issue, with the U.S. and its allies arguing that the ICC lacks authority to investigate their citizens without consent. The ICC, however, asserts that its mandate applies universally to crimes committed on the territory of member states or by nationals of member states, regardless of the accused’s nationality.
Recent ICC Actions Fueling Tensions
The latest sanctions were triggered by two ICC decisions in 2024:
- The issuance of arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant over alleged war crimes in Gaza, including the use of starvation as a weapon of war and attacks on civilians.
- The continuation of an investigation into alleged war crimes by U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan, including torture and other abuses.
Israel has denied the allegations, with Netanyahu calling the ICC’s actions “antisemitic” and accusing the court of bias. The U.S. has provided diplomatic and political support to Israel, including opposing the ICC’s jurisdiction and threatening sanctions against the court’s officials.
International Reactions
The sanctions have drawn criticism from human rights organizations and some allied governments. The European Union and several European countries have reaffirmed their support for the ICC, emphasizing its role in upholding international law. Meanwhile, a small number of countries, including Chad and Venezuela, have announced plans to withdraw from the court in solidarity with the U.S. position.
What’s Next
The Trump administration has indicated that additional measures may be taken against the ICC, including further sanctions, visa restrictions, and diplomatic pressure on member states to withdraw. The ICC has not yet responded to the latest sanctions, but legal and political battles are expected to intensify in the coming months.
The sanctions against Akane and Seye take effect immediately, with a general license issued to allow the wind-down of existing transactions involving the sanctioned individuals until September 17, 2025.
Key Stakeholders and Their Positions
- United States: Argues the ICC overreaches and threatens sovereignty; sanctions are a defensive measure.
- ICC: Maintains its actions are lawful and necessary to hold perpetrators accountable; sanctions undermine justice.
- Israel: Denies war crimes allegations; accuses ICC of bias.
- Human Rights Groups: Allege sanctions obstruct justice for victims of atrocities.
- Allied Governments: Divided; some support the ICC, others align with U.S. pressure.
- Non-Member States: Generally oppose ICC jurisdiction over their citizens but differ on responses to U.S. actions.