U.S. federal Judge Blocks Trump's Sanctions on ICC Workers

 

A U.S. federal judge has blocked the enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at punishing individuals who assist the International Criminal Court (ICC). The executive order, signed on February 6, allowed for economic and travel sanctions on anyone supporting ICC investigations involving U.S. citizens or allies like Israel. This included freezing assets and even imposing criminal penalties. Two human rights advocates filed a lawsuit in April, arguing that the order unfairly restricted free speech. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Nancy Torresen ruled in their favor, stating that the executive order overreached and was unconstitutional. In her ruling, she said it violated the First Amendment by broadly restricting speech-based services that benefit ICC prosecutors. Even if the services had nothing to do with investigations targeting the U.S. or its allies, they were still banned. The main target of the sanctions was ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, a British national. The U.S. Treasury had placed him on a sanctions list, which could have exposed any American who interacted with him to legal penalties. The move had been widely condemned by the ICC itself and by dozens of countries who viewed it as an attack on international justice.

See also: Kyiv Residents Take Shelter in Subways Amid Ongoing Russian Attacks

The ruling marks a major setback for Trump-era efforts to shield U.S. military personnel and allies from international legal scrutiny. The ICC has investigated alleged war crimes in Afghanistan and Palestinian territories, prompting strong backlash from Washington and Tel Aviv. Critics argued the executive order was part of a broader strategy to undermine international accountability mechanisms. Judge Torresen’s decision emphasized that the U.S. cannot suppress speech simply because it relates to foreign legal processes. By potentially punishing Americans for working with the ICC, even in ways unrelated to U.S. investigations, the order went too far. “The executive order appears to restrict substantially more speech than necessary to further that end,” Torresen wrote. The White House has not yet issued a response, nor has the ICC. However, human rights groups and legal observers have welcomed the decision, seeing it as a defense of both civil liberties and the independence of global legal institutions. While the ruling only blocks enforcement for now, it sets an important precedent in limiting how far U.S. presidents can go in using economic tools to control international cooperation. It also offers reassurance to activists and lawyers who feared criminal charges for simply doing their jobs.

See also: Zelenskiy: Russia Hits Ukraine with 30 Missiles and 300 Drones Overnight