The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has formally communicated to the International Criminal Court (ICC) its unequivocal rejection of the tribunal's authority over American citizens. In a letter dispatched on Monday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche informed ICC President Judge Tomoko Akane that the United States considers any attempt by the Hague-based court to assert jurisdiction over U.S. persons to be invalid under international law. This diplomatic and legal declaration marks an escalation in the long-standing friction between Washington and the ICC.
"increasingly lawless and illegitimate manner" — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche
At the core of the DOJ's position is the fundamental principle of state consent in international law. The United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the foundational treaty that established the ICC in 1998. Consequently, the U.S. maintains that it has never consented to the court's jurisdiction, and therefore, the ICC cannot legally extend its authority to individuals from non-member states, including American citizens, anywhere in the world. Blanche's letter asserted that obligations created under treaties are binding only upon those nations that have agreed to them, rendering the ICC's reach over U.S. citizens "legally baseless."
Beyond the legal arguments, Acting Attorney General Blanche also raised concerns about the ICC's operational integrity. He described the court as operating in an "increasingly lawless and illegitimate manner," citing allegations of selective enforcement practices and internal misconduct. These criticisms underscore a U.S. perspective that questions the tribunal's neutrality and efficacy in upholding its mandate impartially.
In practical terms, the DOJ's communication outlines a robust policy of non-cooperation. The letter explicitly states that the U.S. government will refuse to engage with any ICC investigations, summonses, or proceedings involving American citizens. Furthermore, it affirmed that the United States will not extradite or transfer any American citizen to The Hague under the ICC's authority. The DOJ also signaled a broader diplomatic stance, indicating that it would actively resist any efforts by foreign governments to comply with ICC requests that involve U.S. persons, extending its protective posture beyond domestic legal policy.
This stance is reinforced by existing U.S. statute, specifically the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (ASPA) of 2002. This legislation, highlighted in the DOJ's letter, prohibits cooperation with the ICC and grants presidential authority to secure the release of U.S. personnel detained under ICC warrants. Acting Attorney General Blanche affirmed that these protections remain fully in force and will be rigorously enforced by the current administration. The letter underscored that U.S. courts, grounded in the nation's constitutional framework, remain the exclusive judicial authority for American citizens, rejecting any notion of subordination to an international tribunal.
The current administration has previously demonstrated a firm stance against the ICC. President Donald Trump, in 2025, signed Executive Order 14203, which imposed sanctions on the ICC's chief prosecutor following actions taken by the court tied to Israeli officials. This executive order framed ICC activity as a direct threat to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests and indicated a readiness to impose penalties in response to such actions. Acting Attorney General Blanche's recent letter echoed this framing, stating that the United States will continue to oppose ICC actions targeting the U.S., Israel, or any other country that has not consented to the court’s jurisdiction. He further warned that any detention of Americans under ICC authority would be treated as a matter requiring an immediate federal response.
The dispute reflects a persistent ideological and legal divide between the United States and the ICC. While numerous nations support the ICC as a vital mechanism for international justice, the U.S. has consistently maintained its sovereignty and constitutional prerogative to adjudicate its own citizens. The DOJ's letter concludes by reaffirming this broader constitutional argument, asserting that the United States cannot subordinate its established legal system to an international court that operates outside the purview of domestic democratic accountability. The formal warning solidifies the U.S. government's commitment to protecting its citizens from what it views as an illegitimate assertion of international legal authority.
