By Marjorie Cohn
This article was originally published by Truthout
Supporters of Trump-sanctioned individuals or entities face maximums of $1 million in fines and 20 years imprisonment.
The United States has long endeavored to undermine the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Donald Trump has taken the assault to a new level with punishing sanctions against those who seek to hold accountable individuals who commit the most atrocious crimes.
On February 6, 2025, Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14203, Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court, which authorized sanctions against ICC judges and senior prosecutors who participated in investigations into alleged crimes committed in Afghanistan and Palestine.
The U.S. has now levied sanctions against nine of the 18 ICC judges and three ICC prosecutors.
Trump’s administration has also sanctioned three well-respected Palestinian human rights organizations — Al-Haq: Law in the Service of Man, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, and Palestinian Center for Human Rights — for supporting justice and accountability at the ICC.
Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on Occupied Palestine, was sanctioned as well. Albanese “directly engaged” with the ICC “in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without the consent of those two countries,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote.
Sanctions include frozen or closed bank accounts, rejection of financial transactions, denial of access to digital services, and travel bans.
Four prominent human rights organizations have filed a lawsuit alleging that Trump’s executive order violates the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and international law.
Trump declared in EO 14203 that the ICC “has engaged in illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel” and “abused its power by issuing baseless arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant.”
Netanyahu and Gallant stand charged by the ICC with war crimes of starvation as a form of warfare and intentional attacks on civilians, and crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.
Trump claims in his order that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the U.S. or Israel because neither country is a State Party to the Rome Statute, ludicrously contending that the militaries of both countries “strictly adhere to the laws of war.”
The Rome Statute authorizes the ICC to exercise territorial jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-State Party nationals on the territory of a State Party. Although Israel has not ratified the Rome Statute, Palestine has, so the ICC determined that it has jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed by Israeli nationals in Palestine. The U.S. has supported several ICC investigations and prosecutions of crimes allegedly committed by non-State Party nationals, including the arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump also objects to the ICC’s investigation of alleged crimes committed in Afghanistan. Until 2021, the court was investigating U.S. as well as Afghan nationals for possible war crimes. But the prosecutor shifted the focus to crimes allegedly committed by the Taliban and its allies and “deprioritized” alleged crimes by Afghan and U.S. forces.
In EO 14203, Trump directed that any attempt by the ICC to investigate, detain, arrest, or prosecute a U.S. person or foreign national of a U.S. ally “constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,” so “I hereby declare a national emergency to address that threat.”
Plaintiffs Allege the Sanctions Chill Their Freedom of Association
On August 11, 2026, the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, and the Open Society Institute sued several officials and agencies in the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Defendants include Trump, Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Attorney General Todd Blanche, Office of Foreign Assets Control Director Bradley Scott, and the Departments of State, Treasury, and Justice, as well as the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
The four plaintiffs assert that the sanctions regime imposed under EO 14203 “has resulted in an environment of fear and uncertainty, chilling the freedom of association.” The sanctions, they argue, infringe their constitutional rights to free speech, association, and religion, and violate U.S. law and U.S. obligations under international law, including the Geneva Conventions, the Genocide Convention, and customary international law.
As a result of the sanctions on ICC officials, the four plaintiff organizations have discontinued activities such as representing victims of war crimes as legal counsel, filing legal and policy submissions with the ICC, and collaborating with Albanese and the sanctioned Palestinian human rights groups in researching human rights violations, advocacy campaigns, litigation, and providing humanitarian aid.
Trump’s “unlawful abuse of power” constitutes “a frontal attack on the rule of law, the independence of judges, prosecutors, and lawyers, basic precepts undergirding the international legal order, and the principle of equal access to justice,” the complaint in the lawsuit says. This causes “grave damage to the ability to bring to justice the perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.”
The sanctions regime is designed to pressure judges, prosecutors, and UN officials into making decisions contrary to the law and facts, and “punishing them when they fail to rule or act in accordance with the administration’s preferences,” the complaint states. “It penalizes human rights organizations for providing evidence regarding alleged international crimes and advocating for and supporting victims in their pursuit of justice.”
EO 14203 invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Now, those who support sanctioned individuals or entities — including by advice, training, education, information, legal representation, analysis, and other assistance — face a maximum of $1 million in fines and up to 20 years imprisonment.
“The Executive Order authorizes draconian sanctions, often described as the ‘financial death penalty,’ for those who the Secretary of State finds provide support for certain investigations and prosecutions by the [ICC] that are opposed by the Trump administration,” the complaint charges.
The Sanctions Are Imposed Under the Guise of a Pseudo “National Emergency”
The National Emergencies Act was enacted in 1976 to prevent abuses of emergency power by the president. The act aimed to ensure that emergency powers “will be utilized only in time of genuine emergency.” It was “not intended to enlarge or add to Executive power.”
Nevertheless, Trump’s executive order invoked this act to declare a national emergency because he didn’t like the ICC issuing arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant.
“There is nothing new about the ICC, the scope of its jurisdiction, or its efforts to end impunity for international crimes (including its investigations concerning Afghanistan and Palestine),” the complaint reads.
In just the first seven months of his second term, Trump declared 10 “national emergencies” in an attempt to legitimize his illegal actions. They include:
- Southern border emergency, to militarize the southern U.S. border and impose a severe crackdown on immigration;
- Designating cartels as terrorists,to prepare for the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act;
- National energy emergency,to deregulate fossil fuels on federal lands;
- Drugs from Canada,to impose tariffs on Canada;
- Drugs from China,to impose tariffs on China;
- Drugs from Mexico,to impose tariffs on Mexico;
- Trade imbalance and tariffs, to impose tariffs on U.S. trading partners;
- Threats from Brazil, to impose additional tariffs on Brazil and punish Brazil for prosecuting its former president;
- Crime in Washington, D.C., to federalize the Washington police force; and
- International Criminal Court, to sanction ICC officials and entities.
None of them qualifies as a genuine national emergency.
A “Flagrant Attack” on Judicial Independence
The plaintiffs seek a declaration from the court that the sanctions under EO 14203 violate the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They are also asking the court to issue an injunction to stop the Trump administration from enforcing the sanctions and the IEEPA’s civil and criminal penalties for working with the sanctioned individuals and groups.
Meanwhile, another lawsuit that was filed in July is also pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charging that EO 14203 violates the constitutional right to engage in Palestine-related human rights advocacy. Democracy for the Arab World Now and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide allege that the sanctions violate the First Amendment by limiting what Americans can say to an international tribunal or to foreign advocates, and by limiting their ability to associate with the sanctioned parties. The lawsuit seeks an order prohibiting the administration from using EO 14203 to prevent U.S. citizens from supporting investigations into U.S. and Israeli abuses, and from working with sanctioned human rights defenders.
It is likely that the district court in New York will consolidate the two cases for decision since they raise similar legal and factual issues regarding EO 14203.
On August 19, the ICC issued a statement in response to Rubio’s most recent designation of two additional ICC judges under EO 14203. “These sanctions are a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution which operates pursuant to the mandate conferred by its States Parties from across regions,” the court wrote. They “undermine the rule of law.”
“When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk. Threats and coercive measures also impact the ability of victims to seek justice, as they turn to the Court when all other avenues have been exhausted,” the statement reads. “The Court will continue its work, with all partners and with the unwavering support of its States Parties, to ensure the effective and independent implementation of its mandate.”
This article was originally published by Truthout and is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Please maintain all links and credits in accordance with our republishing guidelines.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.
Please share this story and help us grow our network!
