US sanctions International Criminal Court as Rubio vows to ban transactions

The United States imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court on Friday, 9 October 2026, escalating its dispute with the tribunal based in The Hague. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US would ban transactions with the court. The ICC said the move threatened its ability to carry out justice, while the financial and operational effects have yet to be established.

What the US says its ICC sanctions will do

Rubio announced the measures in a video posted on X, according to the Guardian. He said the US would ban transactions with what he called a ‘rogue court’, cutting off its resources and limiting its ability to operate against the United States. Deutsche Welle separately reported his statement that President Donald Trump would never allow the court to prosecute Americans. The reports establish the administration’s stated aim, rather than a measured effect on the court’s operations.

The US position is rooted in its objection to the ICC exercising authority over Americans. Rubio said Americans were not subject to the court’s jurisdiction and that the United States did not need or want it, the Guardian reported. The administration has also opposed ICC arrest warrants for Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Those objections help explain the confrontation, although the reports do not establish how Friday’s restrictions will be applied in individual transactions.

How the International Criminal Court responded

The ICC described the sanctions as an attempt to obstruct justice and an assault on the rule of law and the foundations of the international legal order, according to the Guardian. It urged its member states to ensure it could continue its work. ICC President Tomoko Akane said the court would continue to discharge its mandate independently and impartially, acting on law and evidence, Deutsche Welle reported. Neither account provided a verified estimate of the resources the court could lose.

How Friday’s move follows earlier US pressure

The sanctions against the institution follow measures against people working at the court. Deutsche Welle reported that the US sanctioned Akane and ICC trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye in August. Trump criticized the court in a 22 September address to the United Nations but did not announce sanctions on the organization then. Friday’s announcement therefore marks a further step in the administration’s campaign against the ICC, beyond its earlier measures targeting individuals.

The earlier dispute also involved the court’s work concerning Afghanistan and Israel. The Guardian reported that the ICC had investigated the actions of US soldiers in Afghanistan, although that case has closed. Both reports described US opposition to the warrants for Israeli officials. Deutsche Welle also noted warrants for Russian officials arising from the court’s work concerning Ukraine. These matters illustrate the court’s international reach; they do not, on their own, establish which proceedings Friday’s sanctions will affect.

Washington has pressed other governments to break with the court. Deutsche Welle reported that Rubio and the State Department had called for countries to withdraw from the Rome Statute, and that Venezuela and Chad announced withdrawal plans in July. Those announcements form part of the recent political context for the US move. The supplied accounts do not show that any country has changed its position in response to the sanctions announced Friday.

What remains unclear about the sanctions

The Guardian and Deutsche Welle reported the sanctions announcement and the opposing statements from Washington and the court. Their accounts do not set out the full legal instrument, the precise scope of the transaction ban or every entity it covers. They also provide no verified figures for losses or evidence that particular court proceedings have stopped. For now, Rubio’s description of what the US intends to do and the ICC’s pledge to continue its work are positions expressed by the two sides, not an assessment of the measures’ eventual impact.