By: Fern Sidman – Jewish Voice News

In an extraordinary escalation of Washington’s long-running confrontation with the International Criminal Court, the Trump administration has issued a sweeping ultimatum demanding that ICC judges halt investigations involving senior American and Israeli officials — or face an unprecedented expansion of U.S. sanctions. The warning, first reported by Reuters on Wednesday, underscores the administration’s mounting concerns that the tribunal may soon widen its prosecutorial reach in ways that could entangle top figures in both governments.

According to a senior U.S. official cited extensively by Reuters, Washington has formally communicated to the ICC, as well as to multiple allied governments, that it expects the court to terminate its long-running Afghanistan investigation and abandon proceedings targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in Gaza. The demands, the official said, reflect a “growing concern that the court may attempt to investigate senior American leaders once this administration ends.”

The new posture marks one of the most direct attempts yet by a U.S. government — particularly one that, like every administration before it, has declined to join the Rome Statute — to constrain the authority of the world’s only permanent international criminal tribunal. As the Reuters report noted, the administration’s willingness to consider sanctioning the ICC “as an institution” represents a sharp break from prior U.S. reluctance to disrupt the court’s operational capacity.

The immediate flashpoints driving the ultimatum have global implications. Last year, ICC judges authorized arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas military chief Mohammed Deif. The move was described by Reuters as a landmark escalation in the court’s scrutiny of the Gaza war. The tribunal has also kept active — despite narrowing — its investigation into alleged U.S. abuses in Afghanistan, including CIA and military activities spanning nearly two decades.

For Washington, the prospect of open-ended investigations, particularly ones that could gain momentum after President Trump leaves office in 2029, has become intolerable. The senior U.S. official quoted by Reuters warned that “there is a growing concern that the court may attempt to investigate senior American leaders once this administration ends,” suggesting that future prosecutors could test the boundaries of ICC jurisdiction in ways that directly challenge U.S. sovereignty.

As Reuters reported, the administration has already sanctioned nine ICC personnel but has studiously avoided measures that would obstruct the court’s work. That caution may be ending. New penalties under consideration include targeting additional individuals, restricting financial transactions, and possibly imposing structural sanctions on the institution itself — actions that could alter the global diplomatic landscape around the court.

The administration’s message, relayed through diplomatic channels in capitals across Europe and beyond, has also reignited tension between Washington and longstanding ICC member states. As the Reuters report emphasized, U.S. officials have urged allied governments to reconsider their support for current ICC investigations, arguing that the tribunal’s recent conduct constitutes judicial overreach.

Those appeals, however, crash into the legal architecture of the Rome Statute. The ICC itself, responding to Reuters, stressed that any changes to immunity provisions or jurisdiction must be approved by member states — something requiring broad consensus and unlikely to materialize in the short term. Altering the statute to permanently exempt specific American or Israeli officials would challenge foundational principles that many governments view as essential to preserving the court’s legitimacy.

The administration’s increasingly assertive posture thus isolates Washington on two fronts: first, in its direct challenge to ICC authority; and second, in its effort to mobilize allies around unprecedented constraints on the tribunal.

At the heart of the U.S. argument is a profound anxiety about the potential for retrospective prosecutions after 2029. Senior American officials worry that once today’s political climate shifts, the ICC could use its Afghanistan investigation as a springboard for wider inquiries into U.S. counterterrorism operations, drone strikes, detention practices, and joint actions with foreign governments.

The Afghanistan case, opened in 2020, was one of the ICC’s most ambitious probes, covering alleged crimes by the Taliban, Afghan security forces, and U.S. personnel. While the court later narrowed the investigation, citing limited resources, Reuters noted that it technically remains open — a fact that continues to unsettle U.S. national security officials.

The fear, as articulated by the U.S. official, is that a future prosecutor could choose to revive aspects of the probe or pursue new angles once the current administration is no longer able to exert diplomatic pressure. Such concerns have only intensified as geopolitical scrutiny widens into other regions, including Venezuela, though ICC prosecutors told Reuters they have received no formal requests to pursue American personnel in that context.

The ICC’s involvement in the Gaza conflict has proven to be an especially sensitive trigger point for Washington. The court’s warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant — issued alongside one for Hamas commander Mohammed Deif — marked the first time an ICC prosecutor sought charges against leaders of a close U.S. ally actively engaged in a high-intensity conflict. As the Reuters report detailed, the move was met with bipartisan repudiation in Washington.

The administration’s ultimatum signals that the Gaza investigation is no longer simply a diplomatic irritant but a red line. Israeli officials have long accused the court of selectively targeting democracies while ignoring atrocities committed by authoritarian regimes. The Trump administration has now essentially adopted that argument wholesale, contending, as described by Reuters, that the ICC risks delegitimizing itself through politically motivated prosecutions.

If the ICC refuses to abandon the Gaza and Afghanistan cases, the U.S. is prepared to escalate dramatically. Sanctions could target not just individuals but funding channels, external partnerships, and operational mechanisms that underpin the court’s global activity. Such an approach, if executed, would reshape the balance of power between the ICC and non-member states.

The timing of the U.S. ultimatum is further complicated by new questions regarding a secretive maritime counter-narcotics operation, in which U.S. forces allegedly killed two survivors of an interdicted vessel in the Caribbean and Pacific. As Reuters reported, lawmakers have demanded answers, pressuring the administration for transparency.

Officials would not say whether concerns about possible legal exposure from such missions influenced the decision to confront the ICC more aggressively. But the overlap in timing calls attention to the broader theme running through the Reuters report: Washington is increasingly unwilling to accept international legal mechanisms that could one day sit in judgment of U.S. military or intelligence actions.

What happens next will determine not only the ICC’s immediate authority but the trajectory of international criminal law for years to come. If Washington expands sanctions, the court could face significant operational challenges, including potential disruptions to travel, finances, and partnerships with NGOs and international organizations. The move could also embolden other non-member states — including major powers with their own contentious rights records — to undermine or sidestep ICC mandates.

But if the court capitulates, even partially, it risks eroding its foundational claim to independence. As the Reuters report emphasized, many ICC member states view selective immunity as incompatible with the tribunal’s purpose.

The coming months will reveal whether the U.S. and the ICC can find a diplomatic off-ramp or whether both sides are headed toward a confrontation with far-reaching consequences.

What is already clear from the Reuters report is that the Trump administration has chosen a defining moment to assert its stance: a moment when the ICC may be more willing than ever to test the limits of its jurisdiction, and when Washington is equally determined to prevent it.