Senate Democrats Block ICC Sanctions, Position Trump as Next Target

In the past week, Senate Democrats blocked a vote on a proposal that aimed to implement sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) in response to its outrageous arrest warrants issued against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant.

The actions of the ICC highlighted its readiness to target non-members such as Israel and the United States, thereby endangering American service members and other potential US targets.

However, the Democrats’ move was equally despicable: not only did it prevent the grotesque prosecution of Israeli leaders defending their country against terrorist assaults, it also created a ticking time bomb for President Trump.

The “Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act” proposed direct sanctions on ICC officials involved in any investigation, arrest, detention, or prosecution of individuals or entities in the United States, or any citizens or lawful residents of US allies that do not accept the court’s jurisdiction.

Essentially, the bill aimed to shield Americans and allies like Israel from being targeted by the rogue court.

This bill received considerable bipartisan support in the House, and Senate Democrats had previously indicated their approval.

Nevertheless, at the last moment, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) manufactured a reason to vote against it, asserting that the bill’s “lack of precision” could inadvertently target American tech companies that assist the ICC in its inquiries.

Schumer’s rationale was disingenuous: the first Trump administration imposed nearly identical sanctions by executive order without penalizing any US companies.

Yet it was enough to derail the ICC Act — and permit the court’s pursuit of Israel following the events of October 7.

While the ICC boasts an expanding annual budget of $200 million, it has only convicted a total of six individuals for the mass-atrocity crimes it was ostensibly established to prosecute.

Having struggled to target warlords and mass murderers such as Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, it has now shifted its focus onto Israel, a non-member state and a frequent target for globalists.

The recent action against Netanyahu emerged after the ICC launched an investigation into the United States in 2020, allegedly concerning war crimes committed by military personnel in Afghanistan.

Senate Democrats are far from naive. Their party has previously utilized impeachment, state prosecution, and federal criminal charges to target Trump — viewing the ICC warrants against Israeli officials as a potential path for future legal strategies.

Four years from now, when Trump is once again an ex-president, anticipate the ICC to pursue warrants against him, administration officials, and possibly Republican lawmakers for attempting to sanction it.

The ICC warrants against Israeli leaders underscore that its prosecutors can be as inventive as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in fabricating charges.

Indeed, the ICC prosecutor has already cautioned American legislators with repercussions merely for threatening to “retaliate” against the court through sanctions.

Should a Trump indictment occur, a Democratic presidential successor would likely publicly decry the ICC’s overreach while doing nothing to mitigate it.

The ICC is well-versed in such tactics. In its recent maneuver against Israel, the court fabricated a state of Palestine to assert its jurisdiction, subsequently claiming mass starvation in Gaza for prosecution, despite Israel facilitating thousands of aid trucks.

Senate Democrats also contended that sanctions would only entrench the ICC’s stance against Israel, but historical evidence suggests otherwise.

When Trump sanctioned ICC personnel through executive order in 2020, the ICC quickly abandoned its investigation into alleged torture by US forces stationed in Afghanistan — only to restart it when President Biden lifted the sanctions.

Ironically, ICC officials believed that the court could withstand the sanctions that Schumer obstructed. What they truly fear is a more potent measure that would impose sanctions on the institution itself, not just on its employees.

Republicans opted not to pursue such a measure because Democrats indicated their support for the more limited bipartisan bill that passed in the House.

Now that the façade of cooperation has vanished, Trump has no reason not to impose sanctions on the ICC once more through executive order — and having observed the close relationship between the court and the Democrats, he understands he can’t settle for half-measures.

Erielle Azerrad is a senior fellow at the Center for the Middle East and International Law at George Mason’s Scalia Law School, where Eugene Kontorovich is a professor of law.