The United States does not recognize the International Criminal Court’s authority over Americans. It signed the Rome Statute in 2000, withdrew that signature in 2002, and has never ratified the treaty that created the court. Federal law prohibits most forms of cooperation with the ICC, and as of 2026 the US has active sanctions in place against the court’s personnel. The one consistent exception: when the ICC targets foreign leaders the US also opposes, Washington has quietly helped.
Signed, Then Unsigned
The Rome Statute is the 1998 treaty that created the ICC to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity when national courts fail to act. It has 125 states parties. The United States is not one of them.
President Clinton authorized the US signature on December 31, 2000, the treaty’s deadline. In his statement, Clinton said the US signed “to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability” but made clear he would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification until “fundamental concerns” were addressed.1U.S. Department of State. President Clinton on Signing of ICC Treaty (Rome Treaty) A signature signals interest. Only Senate ratification makes a treaty binding on the United States.
Those concerns were never resolved. In May 2002, the Bush administration formally withdrew the US signature by notifying the UN Secretary-General that the country had no intention of ratifying the agreement. That step eliminated even the preliminary obligation not to undermine the treaty’s purpose. No administration since has moved toward ratification.
Why the US Refuses to Join
The core objection is sovereignty. US officials do not accept that an international court should have authority over American citizens without American consent, and they argue that the US military justice system is capable of handling misconduct by its own personnel.
The Rome Statute does contain a safeguard for that concern. Under Article 17, the ICC can take a case only when the country with jurisdiction is unwilling or unable to genuinely investigate or prosecute.2International Committee of the Red Cross. Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998 – Article 17 If the US prosecuted a service member through a court-martial, the ICC could not pursue the same case unless it found those proceedings to be a sham. The US position is that even being subjected to that admissibility review is an unacceptable assertion of authority by a court it never joined.
The sharper problem is Article 12. It allows the ICC to exercise jurisdiction when a crime occurs on the territory of a member state, regardless of the accused person’s nationality.3International Criminal Court. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – Article 12 A US service member accused of a war crime in an ICC member country, such as Afghanistan, could in theory be investigated by the court. Congress flagged exactly this concern in the findings supporting the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, noting that “United States armed forces operating overseas could be conceivably prosecuted by the international court even if the United States has not agreed to be bound by the treaty.”4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 22 USC 7421 – Findings With US personnel stationed in dozens of ICC member states, this is the operational reality behind the legislative response.
What Federal Law Forbids
The American Servicemembers’ Protection Act of 2002 (ASPA) builds legal walls between the US government and the court. Each provision targets a different form of cooperation.
- No agency or entity of the US government, at any level, may provide support to the ICC, and no appropriated funds may be used to assist an ICC investigation, arrest, detention, or prosecution of a US citizen or permanent resident.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 22 USC 7423 – Prohibition on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court
- The President must establish procedures preventing the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the ICC, including indirect transfers through the United Nations or through foreign governments that are ICC members.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 22 USC 7425 – Prohibition on Direct or Indirect Transfer of Classified National Security Information and Law Enforcement Information to the International Criminal Court
- The US must use its rights under mutual legal assistance treaties and extradition treaties to prevent American-provided information from being forwarded to the ICC.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 22 USC 7423 – Prohibition on Cooperation with the International Criminal Court
- The President is authorized to use “all means necessary and appropriate” to secure the release of any US or allied personnel detained by or on behalf of the ICC. This provision, which excludes only bribes, earned the statute its nickname: the “Hague Invasion Act.”7U.S. Department of State. American Service-Members’ Protection Act
The President can waive some ASPA restrictions, including limits on military assistance to ICC member states, for renewable one-year periods. The conditions are demanding, requiring a binding ICC agreement not to seek jurisdiction over US or allied personnel for official actions.7U.S. Department of State. American Service-Members’ Protection Act A narrower waiver lets the President authorize cooperation on a specific case when doing so serves the national interest.
The US also negotiated roughly 100 bilateral immunity agreements — commonly called Article 98 agreements — with other countries in the early 2000s. These require the partner country to refuse any ICC request to surrender a US citizen to the court.8U.S. Department of State. Article 98 Agreements and the International Criminal Court Their legal standing under the Rome Statute remains contested by ICC supporters.
Sanctions on the Court Itself
US opposition has moved beyond blocking cooperation to directly penalizing the court. That posture has swung with administrations.
In June 2020, President Trump signed Executive Order 13928, declaring a national emergency over the ICC’s investigation into alleged crimes by US personnel in Afghanistan. The order authorized freezing the US-based assets of ICC officials investigating Americans or allied nationals and barred those officials and their immediate families from entering the country.9Federal Register. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated With the International Criminal Court Sanctions were then imposed on the ICC’s chief prosecutor and the head of its jurisdiction division.
President Biden revoked that order on April 1, 2021, calling the measures “inappropriate and ineffective,” while reaffirming the underlying US objection to ICC jurisdiction over nationals of non-member states.10United States Department of State. Ending Sanctions and Visa Restrictions against Personnel of the International Criminal Court
In February 2025, the Trump administration issued a new executive order reimposing and expanding sanctions. It again declared a national emergency, this time defining the threat as any ICC effort to investigate, arrest, or prosecute a “protected person” without that person’s country consenting. Protected persons include all current and former US government employees, military members, and elected officials, along with citizens of allied nations that have not consented to ICC jurisdiction.11The White House. Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court The 2025 order also authorizes sanctions on anyone providing material, financial, or technological support to those ICC efforts, and suspends entry for ICC employees and agents more broadly. Those sanctions remain in effect as of 2026.
When the US Has Cooperated Anyway
The adversarial posture has never been absolute. When the ICC targets foreign leaders the US also opposes, it has found ways to help without recognizing the court’s authority.
In 2005, the UN Security Council referred the situation in Darfur, Sudan, to the ICC. The US abstained rather than vetoing, letting the resolution pass 11-0 with four abstentions. The text specifically protected US nationals and personnel from non-member states from ICC jurisdiction in connection with Sudan operations.12UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases. Security Council Refers Situation in Darfur, Sudan, to Prosecutor of International Criminal Court That carve-out was the price of US acquiescence.
In 2011, Security Council Resolution 1970 referred the situation in Libya to the ICC and passed unanimously, with the US voting in favor.13UNSCR. Resolution 1970 (2011) – Peace and Security in Africa The US actively supported ICC jurisdiction over Libyan officials while maintaining that the court had no authority over Americans.
The State Department also runs a War Crimes Rewards Program, which can pay for information leading to the transfer of foreign nationals accused of war crimes to international criminal tribunals. The program’s procedures allow information sharing with tribunal officials, though coordination with the Office of Global Criminal Justice and legal advisers is required before information is passed along.14U.S. Department of State. Payment and Rewards for Information Relating to War Crimes (War Crimes Rewards Program)
What This Means for a US Citizen
No US citizen has ever been prosecuted by the ICC, and the federal government’s whole posture is oriented toward keeping it that way. The theoretical exposure is still real. Under Article 12, a US citizen who commits a qualifying crime in any of the 125 ICC member states could be investigated. The court could issue an arrest warrant, and member states would be obligated under the treaty to execute it.
Whether a member state would actually arrest an American is another matter. Diplomatic consequences would be severe, the bilateral immunity agreements create competing legal obligations in many countries, and ASPA’s “all means necessary” authorization is an explicit deterrent. The strongest protections apply to current and former government employees and military personnel, which is also how the 2025 executive order defines “protected person.”11The White House. Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court A private citizen without government connections has less of that structural shield.
The US position is not a neutral non-membership. It is active opposition to the court’s authority over Americans, combined with selective support when the court pursues someone Washington also wants pursued.