**Title: US Sanctions ICC President and Senior Lawyer Amid Ongoing Tensions**
On August 18, 2026, the administration of former President Donald Trump announced the imposition of sanctions against Tomoko Akane, the president of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and Abdoulaye Seye, a senior trial lawyer at the court. This decision is part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration to challenge the legitimacy and authority of the ICC, which has faced criticism from the US government for its investigations into actions involving American and Israeli officials.
According to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the sanctions are intended to protect American citizens from what he described as a "sham of a court." In a statement shared on social media, Rubio emphasized the administration's commitment to safeguarding American sovereignty, asserting that "Americans will never be transported beyond seas to be tried for pretend offenses." The sanctions will freeze any assets Akane and Seye may hold in the United States and restrict US-based entities from engaging in transactions with them, effective September 17.
Judge Tomoko Akane, who has held the position of ICC president since her election in March 2024, and Abdoulaye Seye, who is from Senegal, have become the latest targets in a series of sanctions that the US has enacted against ICC officials. Over the past few years, more than a dozen judges and prosecutors from the ICC have been sanctioned, resulting in significant repercussions for their access to the international banking system. The sanctions have also extended to human rights organizations and individuals, including UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, due to their cooperation with the ICC.
The ICC has responded to these sanctions by asserting that they undermine the rule of law and judicial independence. In a statement, the court expressed concern that threats against judicial actors could jeopardize the international legal order. This sentiment was echoed by three ICC judges who filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in June, challenging the sanctions as "arbitrary and capricious."
The Trump administration's rationale for the sanctions stems from its belief that the ICC has overstepped its authority, particularly by initiating investigations into actions involving the US and its close ally, Israel. Although neither the US nor Israel is a member of the ICC, proponents argue that the court retains jurisdiction to investigate international crimes committed within the territories of its 125 member states, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators.
The ICC's mandate includes the investigation of serious international crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Notably, the court launched an investigation in 2020 into allegations of US war crimes in Afghanistan, a country where the US was engaged in military operations for nearly two decades. More recently, in 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, citing alleged war crimes during the conflict in Gaza.
In light of the ICC's actions, the Trump administration has characterized the court as an "intolerable threat" to national sovereignty. Rubio's statements indicate a commitment to further punitive measures against the ICC, framing it as a "corrupt and fatally politicized" institution that has exceeded its mandate.
The US's stance has influenced other nations, leading to announcements from countries like Chad and Venezuela regarding their intentions to withdraw from the ICC. Critics of the ICC's actions and the US's response suggest that these developments reflect the significant impact of US foreign policy on international legal frameworks.
As the situation evolves, the ICC remains steadfast in its mission to uphold international law and accountability for serious crimes. The ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and the ICC highlight the complexities of international relations and the challenges faced by global institutions in maintaining their authority amid political pressures.