WASHINGTON: Two American advocacy organisations on Wednesday filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC), arguing that the measures violate constitutional free speech protections and unlawfully restrict legitimate human rights advocacy.
The case, lodged in a federal court in New York, comes days after the Trump administration announced a broader diplomatic campaign aimed at weakening the Hague-based court, describing it as a threat to US sovereignty.
The plaintiffs — Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide — are seeking to block an executive order signed by Trump in February 2025. The order authorised sanctions against ICC judges, prosecutors and individuals accused of assisting the court’s investigations involving the United States and Israel.
According to the complaint, the sanctions have created a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech and advocacy. The organisations say they have refrained from submitting information to the ICC or coordinating with sanctioned individuals, including United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese, out of concern that doing so could expose them to heavy financial penalties or even criminal prosecution.
“The Trump 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,” Omar Shakir, Executive Director of Democracy for the Arab World Now, said in a statement.
The legal challenge follows the Trump administration’s announcement on Monday that it would intensify pressure on the ICC through expanded sanctions, including travel restrictions on court officials, alongside a wider diplomatic campaign intended to curb the tribunal’s activities.
Washington has long argued that the ICC has no jurisdiction over US citizens, particularly military personnel, maintaining that any attempt to investigate or prosecute Americans infringes upon US sovereignty.
The administration has also strongly opposed the court’s investigations involving Israel, particularly after the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump first targeted the ICC during his previous presidency. In 2020, his administration imposed sanctions on senior court officials over the ICC’s investigation into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, including possible offences involving US forces.
Those sanctions were later suspended after a federal judge ruled they were likely to violate First Amendment protections, before being formally revoked by President Joe Biden in 2021. The current sanctions regime has also prompted separate legal action by three ICC judges challenging the measures.
Although ICC prosecutors initially opened an investigation into alleged crimes committed in Afghanistan in 2020, the court shifted its priorities in 2021, focusing primarily on alleged crimes committed by the Taliban and the former Afghan government rather than US personnel. The ICC has not pursued investigations targeting American officials in recent years.
The Trump administration’s latest campaign has drawn criticism from European governments and international organisations, which have reaffirmed their support for the court.
European Commission spokesperson Anouar El Anouni said the European Union remained committed to defending the ICC and combating impunity, stressing that the court does not threaten the sovereignty of states. “Attacks or threats against the court, its elected officials, personnel or those cooperating with it are simply not acceptable,” he said.
The Dutch Foreign Ministry, whose country hosts the ICC in The Hague, also expressed concern over Washington’s increasingly confrontational rhetoric, stating that independent international courts must be allowed to carry out their mandates without external interference.
The lawsuit marks the latest legal challenge to the Trump administration’s renewed campaign against the ICC and is expected to test the constitutional limits of using economic sanctions against individuals and organisations engaged in international human rights advocacy.
