US sanctions ICC president Tomoko Akane as Trump administration escalates campaign against court

The Trump administration has imposed sanctions on International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye, sharply escalating a campaign aimed at limiting the Hague-based tribunal’s ability to investigate officials from the United States and Israel. The August 18 designations freeze assets the two officials may hold within U.S. jurisdiction and generally prevent dealings involving the American financial system.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Akane, a Japanese national, and Seye, from Senegal, were being targeted because of their involvement in ICC efforts concerning officials from countries that have not consented to the court’s jurisdiction. Washington has focused particularly on the ICC’s Israel investigations and its 2024 arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant, who deny allegations arising from the Gaza war.

The International Criminal Court condemned the latest measures, saying sanctions against judicial officials undermine the rule of law and threaten the independence of international justice. The Netherlands, which hosts the court in The Hague, also criticised Washington’s action and reiterated its support for the institution.

The dispute is becoming considerably broader than one disagreement over Israel. Rubio has signalled that the United States wants to weaken the ICC’s ability to act against American personnel and has encouraged member countries to reconsider their participation in the institution, turning a long-running jurisdictional dispute into a direct confrontation over the future reach of international criminal law.

Why did the United States sanction ICC President Tomoko Akane and Abdoulaye Seye?

The State Department said the two officials were designated under Executive Order 14203, the sanctions framework Donald Trump issued in 2025 targeting people involved in ICC actions against the United States or close allies. Washington argues that the court has exceeded its authority by pursuing individuals whose governments have not accepted ICC jurisdiction.

Akane has served as president of the International Criminal Court and has become one of its most visible defenders as Washington increased pressure on judges and prosecutors. Seye is a senior trial lawyer whose work has been associated with investigations involving alleged Israeli conduct, including issues connected with the occupied Palestinian territories.

The sanctions generally block property and financial interests that enter U.S. jurisdiction and can make ordinary international financial activity significantly more difficult because of the central role of American banks and the U.S. dollar. Earlier American sanctions against ICC personnel have generated concerns that banks, technology companies and service providers could restrict dealings with affected individuals even beyond the formal requirements of U.S. law.

How are Benjamin Netanyahu’s ICC arrest warrant and the Gaza investigation connected to the new sanctions?

The confrontation intensified after the ICC issued arrest warrants in November 2024 for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant over alleged crimes connected with the Gaza war. Israel rejected the allegations and challenged the court’s jurisdiction, while the United States argued that Israel, like Washington, is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the ICC.

The court’s position is that jurisdiction can arise from alleged crimes committed on the territory of a state that accepts ICC authority, even when the accused comes from a country that is not an ICC member. That interpretation lies at the centre of the dispute between Washington and The Hague.

The Trump administration has repeatedly framed the Israel cases as evidence that the ICC could eventually use similar reasoning against American military personnel, political officials or other U.S. nationals. Rubio expanded that argument in July when he announced a wider campaign intended to isolate the court diplomatically and protect American personnel from future prosecution.

Trump has also publicly linked the pressure campaign directly to protecting Netanyahu and other Israeli officials. The August 18 sanctions therefore represent a continuation of an established strategy rather than a standalone response to a new court ruling.

How far has Donald Trump’s campaign against the International Criminal Court already gone?

The latest action follows multiple rounds of sanctions against ICC judges and prosecutors. At least 11 court officials have now faced U.S. measures connected with investigations involving Israel, the United States or both, according to reporting on the latest designations.

Washington has also moved beyond financial restrictions. Rubio announced in July that the administration intended to intensify diplomatic pressure on governments supporting the ICC and encourage countries to distance themselves from the institution. The United States has never joined the court and has long objected to any assertion of ICC jurisdiction over American nationals without Washington’s consent.

The campaign has already prompted litigation inside the United States. Human Rights Watch, the Open Society Institute, the American Friends Service Committee and the Center for Constitutional Rights sued the administration on August 11, arguing that the sanctions prevent them from cooperating with the ICC and violate constitutional protections covering speech and other activities. Three sanctioned ICC judges have separately challenged the measures.

That litigation means the dispute is developing simultaneously in international diplomacy and American courts.

Could US sanctions materially disrupt how the International Criminal Court operates?

The ICC has no police force of its own and relies heavily on cooperation from its 125 member states to execute arrest warrants and support investigations. Financial and technological restrictions therefore create a different type of pressure from simply refusing to cooperate with a particular case.

Sanctioned judges or prosecutors can encounter difficulties with banking, travel, software services and transactions involving companies exposed to U.S. regulations. Even organisations that are legally permitted to interact with them may become cautious if compliance requirements are unclear.

The broader risk for the ICC is institutional. If Washington persuades additional countries to reduce cooperation or withdraw from the Rome Statute system, the court’s ability to investigate cases and enforce warrants could weaken substantially.

Supporters of the American position argue that an unelected international tribunal should not exercise criminal authority over nationals of countries that never accepted its jurisdiction. Supporters of the ICC counter that excluding citizens of powerful non-member states whenever alleged crimes occur on member-state territory would create major gaps in accountability.

Why does sanctioning the ICC president take the dispute to a more significant level?

Targeting Tomoko Akane places the court’s institutional leadership directly inside the sanctions regime. Previous U.S. actions largely concentrated on prosecutors and judges linked to particular proceedings, but sanctioning the president sends a broader message about Washington’s opposition to the direction of the institution itself.

Akane has publicly defended judicial independence during earlier rounds of pressure and has argued that intimidation of judges undermines international justice. The latest designation therefore intensifies a confrontation between the executive branch of the United States and one of the world’s principal permanent international criminal tribunals.

The timing is also significant because the ICC is already undergoing internal change. Member states dismissed prosecutor Karim Khan in July 2026 following a separate sexual-misconduct process, meaning the institution is simultaneously managing leadership disruption, politically sensitive investigations and mounting pressure from Washington.

What are the key takeaways from the US sanctions on ICC President Tomoko Akane?

• The United States sanctioned International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye on August 18 under Executive Order 14203.
• The measures freeze assets within U.S. jurisdiction and restrict access to transactions involving the American financial system.
• Washington says the ICC has exceeded its jurisdiction by pursuing officials from countries including the United States and Israel that have not joined the court.
• The confrontation is closely connected with the ICC’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant over alleged crimes connected with the Gaza war.
• The ICC condemned the sanctions as an attack on judicial independence and warned that pressure on judges and prosecutors threatens the international legal order.
• The Trump administration is also pursuing a diplomatic campaign encouraging countries to distance themselves from the ICC, widening the dispute beyond individual sanctions.
• Human rights groups and sanctioned ICC judges have challenged the American measures in U.S. courts, ensuring that the legality of the sanctions campaign will remain contested domestically.

Why could the latest US sanctions become a defining confrontation over the future authority of the ICC?

The August 18 action moves the dispute closer to a direct institutional confrontation. Washington is no longer simply declining to recognise ICC jurisdiction or criticising individual arrest warrants. It is using the reach of the American financial system to impose personal consequences on senior officials responsible for operating the court.

The outcome matters far beyond the Netanyahu case. If the sanctions significantly impair the court’s operations or persuade governments to reduce cooperation, the ICC could find it harder to investigate politically powerful non-member states even when alleged crimes fall within territory covered by its jurisdiction.

If the court withstands the pressure and its member states continue enforcing its decisions, Washington may instead discover that financial sanctions have hardened international support for judicial independence without eliminating the underlying cases.

That makes the confrontation fundamentally about who determines the boundaries of international criminal accountability. The United States insists that national consent must limit the ICC’s reach, while the court maintains that crimes committed within its recognised territorial jurisdiction can be investigated regardless of the nationality of the accused. The sanctions on Tomoko Akane have pushed that unresolved legal and political conflict directly onto the institution’s presidency.