US Sanctions ICC President and Prosecutor Over Investigations Linked to Israel
The United States has escalated its confrontation with the International Criminal Court (ICC), imposing sanctions on the court’s president and a senior prosecutor involved in investigations into alleged crimes connected to Israel’s war in Gaza.
The latest sanctions, announced by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, represent another significant step in Washington’s campaign against the Hague-based court and its efforts to investigate officials from countries that are not parties to the ICC.
Rubio announced the designations against Tomoko Akane of Japan, president of the ICC, and Abdoulaye Seye of Senegal, a senior ICC trial lawyer. According to the US State Department, the two officials were targeted because of what Washington described as their involvement in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute officials whose governments have not accepted the court’s jurisdiction.
In announcing the sanctions, Rubio sharply criticised the ICC, describing it as a “corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court” that had, in Washington’s view, abused its authority and exceeded its mandate.
The latest action adds to an increasingly tense relationship between the United States and the international judicial institution, particularly over the ICC’s investigations involving Israel and the United States.
Washington’s Growing Campaign Against the ICC
The new sanctions follow a broader effort by the Trump administration to restrict the ICC’s ability to operate. The US State Department said last month that Washington was pursuing measures aimed at what it described as dismantling the threat posed by the court to American sovereignty.
The stated objective is to prevent the ICC from targeting American military personnel and government officials while also limiting what Washington considers the court’s ability to interfere in the affairs of the United States and its allies.
Rubio has also urged the 125 member states of the ICC to consider withdrawing from the institution, further demonstrating the administration’s opposition to the court.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticised the ICC, particularly over its actions involving Israel. His administration has argued that the court has unfairly targeted the United States and its close ally.
Gaza War Investigations at the Centre of the Dispute
The confrontation has intensified largely because of the ICC’s investigations into alleged war crimes connected to the conflict in Gaza. The court previously issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes linked to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Israel has rejected the allegations and challenged the ICC’s authority.
The United States previously imposed sanctions on ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, who was involved in efforts that led to the arrest warrants. Trump also sanctioned the ICC in 2025, accusing the court of taking what his administration described as illegitimate and baseless actions against the United States and Israel.
The latest sanctions therefore form part of a continuing campaign rather than an isolated diplomatic measure.
Read alsoTrump Turns Back to Economic Sanctions as Other Strategies Fail to End Iran War
West Bank Investigation Adds Another Dimension
Although Rubio did not specify precisely which ICC activities prompted the latest sanctions against Akane and Seye, Israeli media reports indicate that Seye has also been involved in an investigation concerning Israeli funding for settlements considered illegal under international law and the distribution of weapons to settlers in the occupied West Bank. The possibility of further arrest warrants has already generated concern among Israeli officials.
Israeli officials reportedly warned in May that the ICC could seek additional warrants for ministers and senior military officials accused of involvement in violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Such developments could further deepen the confrontation between the court, Israel and its strongest international ally, the United States.
US and Israel Reject ICC Jurisdiction
A major element of the dispute is the fact that neither the United States nor Israel is a member of the International Criminal Court. Both countries reject the ICC’s jurisdiction over their officials, arguing that the court should not have the authority to prosecute individuals from states that have not accepted its jurisdiction.
The ICC, however, maintains that it can exercise jurisdiction in certain circumstances, including cases involving crimes allegedly committed on the territory of a state that accepts the court’s jurisdiction.
This disagreement over jurisdiction has become one of the central legal and political battles surrounding the court’s investigations.
More Than 11 ICC Officials Already Sanctioned
The latest designations add to a growing list of ICC officials targeted by Washington. The United States has now sanctioned at least 11 ICC officials in connection with cases involving Israel as well as investigations into alleged actions by US military personnel in Afghanistan.
The measures can have significant consequences for the targeted individuals, potentially restricting their access to the US financial system and imposing other limitations connected to American jurisdiction.
For the ICC, however, the sanctions raise broader concerns about the ability of an international judicial institution to conduct investigations when powerful states reject its authority.
Human Rights Groups Challenge Trump’s Sanctions
The escalating dispute has also moved into the US courts. Four human rights organisations sued the Trump administration last week over its sanctions against the ICC. The groups argue that the measures undermine victims’ ability to pursue justice for alleged war crimes.
Their lawsuit highlights the wider debate surrounding the ICC: whether international justice should be able to investigate alleged atrocities regardless of the political power of those involved, or whether the court must respect the sovereignty of countries that have not accepted its jurisdiction. The latest US sanctions are therefore not simply a dispute between Washington and an international court. They form part of a much larger debate over international law, national sovereignty, accountability and the future of global justice.
As investigations involving Israel, the West Bank and Gaza continue to generate international controversy, the confrontation between the United States and the ICC is likely to remain a major issue in discussions about war crimes and accountability.
