Brussels, 10 October 2026
The EU and US are heading towards a confrontation over international criminal justice. Washington has sanctioned the ICC as an institution, while the EU demands a reversal and considers protective measures. A 180-day exemption provides room for diplomacy, but fundamental differences remain.
The latest US sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC) expose a fundamental disagreement between the Trump Administration and the European Union over sovereignty, international criminal jurisdiction and the authority of multilateral institutions.
Established under the 1998 Rome Statute and operational since 2002, the ICC investigates and prosecutes individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, subject to specific jurisdictional conditions. Its jurisdiction is complementary to national criminal justice systems, meaning that the Court generally intervenes only when national authorities are unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute.
The central disagreement concerns whether an international tribunal can exercise criminal jurisdiction over nationals of a state that has never accepted its founding treaty.
The United States signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but subsequently declared that it did not intend to become a party. Successive US administrations have opposed the Court’s potential jurisdiction over American military personnel and political leaders, although their approaches to cooperation with the ICC have differed.
Washington maintains that the ICC cannot legitimately exercise authority over US citizens without American consent. However, under the Rome Statute, the Court may exercise jurisdiction over nationals of non-party states when alleged crimes occur on the territory of a state party or a state that has accepted its jurisdiction, subject to applicable jurisdictional requirements. The UN Security Council can also refer situations to the Court.
The European Union supports this treaty-based jurisdictional framework and regards the ICC as an essential institution for combating impunity.
The dispute has now moved beyond questions of jurisdiction to the Court’s institutional survival.
On 9 October, the Trump administration designated the ICC itself under Executive Order 14203, extending sanctions previously imposed on individual judges, prosecutors and other personnel. Secretary of State Marco Rubio explicitly threatened to dismantle the institution unless it ceased activities Washington considers threatening to American sovereignty.
The measures restrict transactions involving the Court and block its property and interests in property subject to US jurisdiction, although Washington has issued several general licences permitting specified activities. A 180-day licence temporarily authorises certain operations, creating an opportunity for negotiations. The sanctions designation itself has already taken effect.
The ICC has rejected the measures as an attempt to obstruct international justice. The Court’s Trust Fund for Victims has also warned that sanctions could disrupt financial services and assistance programmes for victims of atrocities. International Criminal Court
For the EU, the confrontation raises questions of legal sovereignty and economic security.
The European Commission has indicated that it is prepared to protect European operators from the extraterritorial effects of US sanctions. Five senior European Parliament committee and delegation chairs have called for the immediate activation of the EU Blocking Statute, which is designed to protect European economic interests against specified extraterritorial legislation.
However, applying the Blocking Statute to the ICC sanctions would require the relevant US measures to be brought within its scope. The Commission has not announced such a decision in the statements provided.
The dispute therefore presents the EU with a strategic choice: whether to rely on diplomatic negotiations during the 180-day period or introduce additional legal protections for the ICC and European organisations cooperating with it.
The confrontation illustrates a broader divergence between the US administration’s emphasis on national sovereignty and the EU’s commitment to treaty-based international criminal justice. Its outcome could have lasting consequences for the independence of international courts, the protection of their personnel and the ability of multilateral institutions to operate under pressure from major powers.
E-Summary by ChatGPT, prompted by Insight EU, based on the EU and US statements below.
International Criminal Court: Statement by the High Representative on behalf of the EU following the announcement of US sanctions
Brussels, 10 October 2026
The EU reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the rules-based international order, of which the ICC is a fundamental part, based on respect for international law. International criminal justice plays a crucial role in holding to account those who violate international law by committing the most serious crimes of international concern.
The ICC does not target sovereign states. Under its foundational principle of complementarity, the ICC only acts if a state is unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute individuals responsible for the most serious crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. The US has a proud history and tradition of pursuing justice and accountability. The complementarity provisions of the ICC are designed to cater for and recognise the primacy of competent national judicial systems and processes such as the US legal system.
Attacks or threats against the Court, elected officials, personnel and those cooperating with the Court, including civil society representatives and service providers, are not acceptable. This is why the EU deeply regrets the announcement by the United States to impose sanctions against the Court as an institution. While we urge the US also to reverse these latest measures, we welcome its readiness to discuss its concerns with the State Parties to the Rome Statute and take note of the US decision to delay the entry into force of its latest measures. This creates space for diplomacy, with a view to securing their prompt reversal and preventing any further measures that seek to undermine the independence and integrity of the ICC.
The ICC must be able to operate independently, free from pressure or external interference. The EU will continue to provide its full support and contribute to ensure the protection of the Court, its staff and those cooperating with it. The EU stands ready to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the Court continues to operate effectively and fulfills its indispensable mandate.
Source – EU Council
EU Commission statement on the International Criminal Court following announcement of US sanctions
Brussels, 9 October 2026
The European Union has been a constant supporter of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is deeply regrettable that the United States has announced intentions to impose sanctions.
The EU will work closely with the ICC to ensure it continues to operate effectively. And we remain committed to working with all 125 States that are parties to the Rome Statute to preserve and respect its independence so that it can continue its vital mission.
As there is a six-month delay before the measures are applicable, there is room for dialogue.
The EU stands ready to take any necessary measures to enable the Court to carry out its work both in investigating and prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity, and to protect the interests of EU operators within the Single Market.
Source – EU Commission
Sanctions on the ICC: Joint Statement by the chairs of the AFET, DROI, INTA, JURI and D-US Committees of the EU Parliament
Brussels, 9 October 2026
Following today’s announcement by the United States of its intention to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court, leading MEPs join in the following statement:
“The US sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC) are an unacceptable assault on the foundations of international justice. Targeting the Court as an institution crosses a fundamental red line, one that threatens the independence and integrity of a tribunal established to uphold accountability for the gravest crimes of concern to the international community.
The European Union must now demonstrate unwavering solidarity with the ICC and its personnel – not only with words, but also with concrete acts. The European Commission must immediately trigger the EU Blocking Statute, shielding the Court and European actors from the extraterritorial reach of these sanctions. Europe must stand firm in defence of international law and the rule of law.”
Joint Statement by
- David MCALLISTER, Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET)
- Mounir SATOURI, Chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights (DROI)
- Bernd LANGE, Chair of the Committee on International Trade (INTA)
- Ilhan KYUCHYUK, Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI)
- Brando BENIFEI, Chair of the Delegation for relations with the US (D-US)
Further information
- Committee on Foreign Affairs
- Subcommittee on Human Rights
- Committee on Legal Affairs
- Committee on International Trade
Further information
Source – EU Parliament
U.S. State Secretary Rubio on Sanctions on the International Criminal Court
Marco Rubio, Secretary of State
October 9, 2026
For decades, Republicans and Democrats alike rejected the idea that the International Criminal Court had the power to prosecute American citizens, military servicemembers, or political leaders. America never joined the court. We don’t need it. And we don’t want it.
But globalist “experts” an ocean away don’t care what American citizens think. They want the ICC to do more, including the prosecution of American citizens. Servicemembers defending their country, Border Patrol agents protecting our nation, and elected leaders ensuring our national security. They want more power, and they want it at our expense.
President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans. That is why, today, the United States is sanctioning the International Criminal Court. We will ban transactions with this rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling its ability to operate.
We have been clear for over a year as to the basic gestures of good faith we have expected from the court. We exercised discretion and deferred this designation out of respect for our relationships and in hopes that the ICC would change course or would otherwise be restrained by States Parties. However, neither the ICC nor States Parties have yet taken meaningful steps to address our concerns.
Despite their inaction, we hold out hope for a diplomatic solution. We have structured this action to provide an opportunity for States Parties to negotiate and present a solution to address our concerns. If these efforts do not bear fruit, we will continue to adjust accordingly.
Our message is clear: the United States and its people are not subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC. Both parties agree on this, but only President Trump has the resolve to take the action needed to end this threat for good. Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC. We expect our allies, many of whom are part of the ICC and that rely on American servicemembers for their defense, to rein in the court.
If they do not, the United States will continue its campaign to dismantle the ICC, brick by brick, until Americans are threatened no longer.
The ICC is being designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of Executive Order (E.O.) 14203.
Source – U.S. State Department
U.S. State Department: Fact Sheet on imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court
October 9, 2026
Under President Trump, the United States has acted decisively to defend U.S. sovereignty and U.S. citizens against the threat of the International Criminal Court (ICC). To date, the United States has imposed sanctions on 17 persons pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14203 “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court.” Today, the Department of State announces additional actions to defend U.S. sovereignty and neutralize the threat posed by the ICC.
The ICC is being designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(A) of Executive Order 14203.*
Concurrent with this designation, the Department of the Treasury is issuing a set of general licenses (GLs) authorizing certain transactions involving the ICC to protect U.S. interests.
- A 180-day GL authorizing certain activity involving the ICC, including for the maintenance of its operations;
- A GL authorizing certain IT-related activities, including cloud and software services;
- A GL authorizing activity related to the ICC pension plan; and
- A GL authorizing certain activity related to the ICC detainees.
For more details please reference OFAC’s website.
- The 180-day maintenance GL is intended to provide time for States Parties to demonstrate meaningful progress on diplomatic and legal resolutions that address fundamental U.S. concerns regarding the ICC. This GL can be adjusted in response to the success or failure of such efforts to address our concerns.
- Watch Secretary Rubio’s video message announcing U.S. sanctions on the ICC on the Department of State’s YouTube channel.
Sanctions Implications
As a result of today’s sanctions-related actions, and subject to applicable licenses and exceptions, all property and interests in property of the ICC that are in the United States or in possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
All transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons are prohibited unless exempt or authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC, including those general licenses described above. These prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Petitions for removal from the SDN List may be sent to:
[email protected]. Petitioners may also refer to the Department of State’s Delisting Guidance page.
Source – U.S. State Department