The United States has sanctioned International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye, freezing their U.S. assets and cutting them off from American financial services. The court condemned the move as a flagrant attack on judicial independence, deepening a high-stakes standoff over global war crimes investigations.
The latest escalation in Washington’s campaign against The Hague-based tribunal brings the total number of sanctioned ICC staff members to 13. The targeted personnel now include nine of the court’s 18 judges, both deputy prosecutors, the former chief prosecutor, and one other prosecution office staffer, according to the International Criminal Court.
The Trump administration defended the penalties as a necessary defense of sovereignty, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio characterizing the tribunal as a corrupt body that has exceeded its mandate.
Sanctioning the Judiciary: Assets Frozen and Daily Life Restricted
The measures announced by the State Department freeze any assets held by Akane, a Japanese national, and Seye, a Senegalese lawyer, within U.S. jurisdictions or touching the American financial system. Beyond blocked bank accounts and credit cards, the sanctions severely restrict the daily lives of affected officials and their families, cutting them off from basic services and preventing entry into the United States.
Past targets have described the sweeping reach of these penalties. Canadian judge Kimberly Prost, who faced U.S. sanctions last year, found her financial access sharply curtailed when her credit cards stopped working and even smart home devices ceased responding, leaving her world strictly walled off.
Washington’s aggressive posture stems from court investigations involving individuals from non-member nations, including the United States and Israel. Rubio asserted that no diplomatic option will be off-limits in dismantling what the administration views as a threat to American sovereignty. The pressure campaign also includes travel bans, pressure on the court’s 125 member states to withdraw, and sanctions on organizations collaborating with the tribunal.
Global Pushback and Diplomatic Friction With Tokyo
The decision to sanction Akane created immediate friction between Washington and its close Asian ally, Japan. In a rare rebuke of U.S. policy, Japan’s Foreign Ministry described the measures as very unfortunate, emphasizing Tokyo’s consistent support for the tribunal’s mandate to prosecute grave international crimes and uphold the rule of law.
While Japan relies heavily on U.S. military power for its defense, its public disagreement highlights deep international unease over penalizing judges for executing judicial duties.
“When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk. Threats and coercive measures also impact the ability of victims to seek justice, as they turn to the court when all other avenues have been exhausted.”
The International Criminal Court, via Reuters
Other international partners have similarly voiced alarm. Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen announced that the Netherlands, which hosts the court, opposes the sanctions and invited Akane to discuss continued support.
Withdrawals and Legal Resistance Amid Unresolved Stakes
The U.S. campaign is reshaping the membership landscape of the international tribunal. At least five member states, including Venezuela and Chad, have announced plans to withdraw from the institution over the past year. Formalizing a departure requires a full year, but the steady erosion of member state backing aligns with Washington’s goal of weakening the court from within.
Legal battles are running parallel to the diplomatic fallout. Human Rights Watch, alongside three other advocacy groups, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York challenging the administration’s executive orders and sanctions against Hague officials and Palestinian rights advocates. Balkees Jarrah, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, slammed the measures as the latest example of the Trump administration’s utter contempt for international law.
With Akane having previously warned that U.S. actions could rapidly jeopardize the court’s entire operational existence, the central question remains whether the tribunal can sustain its global investigations as more than half of its judges and top prosecutors face financial exile.
