Overview
Two advocacy groups in the United States sued the Trump administration on Wednesday, asserting that recent sanctions tied to the International Criminal Court - and the threat of additional penalties - run afoul of the First Amendment. The legal filing follows a broader U.S. push this week to increase diplomatic pressure on the Hague-based court and to expand punitive measures, including travel bans for ICC staff.
The lawsuit
Filed in a federal court in New York, the complaint was brought by Democracy for the Arab World Now and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide. The plaintiffs asked the court to block an executive order issued in February 2025 under which sanctions have been placed on ICC judges and prosecutors, as well as on Palestinian human rights organizations that had urged the court to examine allegations that the United States and Israel may have committed war crimes during the war in Gaza.
The groups told the court they have curtailed direct engagement with the ICC and limited coordination with those targeted by sanctions - including Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur for Palestine - because they fear fines and possible prison sentences. Those concerns are described in the complaint obtained by Reuters.
Omar Shakir, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now, said in a statement that the administration is using "the blunt instrument of economic sanctions not only to punish human rights defenders but to police the political expression of millions of Americans."
Administration actions and reactions
President Donald Trump and other U.S. officials have long opposed ICC jurisdiction over Americans, particularly members of the U.S. military. On Monday, administration officials described the court as a threat to U.S. sovereignty and announced plans to broaden sanctions - measures that include travel restrictions for ICC staff - alongside stepped-up diplomatic efforts. Those announcements drew criticism from European partners.
The complaint in New York directly challenges those steps by arguing the sanctions and accompanying threats chill protected speech and advocacy related to the ICC.
Legal and diplomatic background cited in the complaint
The lawsuit references prior confrontations over similar policies. It notes that in 2020, President Trump issued a comparable executive order which was later blocked by a judge who found it likely violated the First Amendment; that 2020 order was eventually rescinded by the Biden administration in 2021. The filing also recalls a more recent U.S. push to penalize ICC officials after the court issued an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.
Three judges of the ICC have separately sued the U.S. administration over the sanctions, according to the complaint and related reporting.
ICC investigations and focus
The court, based in the Netherlands, is described in the filing and related materials as having opened an investigation in Afghanistan in March 2020 that at the time included a review of potential crimes by U.S. troops. Since 2021, the court has reportedly deprioritized the U.S. aspect of that probe and concentrated on alleged crimes by the Afghan government and Taliban forces. The court has not taken steps in recent years to investigate U.S. personnel, the filing indicates.
European and Dutch responses
European officials reiterated support for the ICC. The EU said attacks or threats against the court, its elected officials, staff or those cooperating with it are unacceptable and emphasized that the ICC does not target sovereign states nor constitute a threat to their sovereignty, according to EU Commission spokesperson Anouar El Anouni.
The Netherlands' Foreign Ministry said independent courts and tribunals must be able to carry out their mandates without hindrance. The ministry noted it had observed the U.S. statements, described the position as not new, and expressed concern about what it called a hardened tone in recent remarks.
What the plaintiffs say they have done - and not done
The two advocacy groups told the court they have refrained from submitting filings to the ICC and from coordinating advocacy with those designated under the sanctions regime because of fears of financial penalties and criminal exposure. The complaint frames that restraint as a direct consequence of the administration's policy and seeks judicial relief to remove or halt the chilling effects.
This article presents the factual claims and positions as set out in the lawsuit and in statements made by U.S. and European officials. It does not add events or assertions beyond those contained in the complaint and the related official statements referenced above.