# Washington slams the door on the International Criminal Court over Iran > Acting Attorney General of the United States, Todd Blanche, sent a letter Monday to the president of the International Criminal Court, Judge - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Essay - Published: 2026-07-07 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/washington-claque-la-porte-de-la-cour-penale-internationale-sur-l-iran ## Introduction: a letter that closes a case before it even opens ### A message sent directly to The Hague Acting **Attorney General** of the **United States**, **Todd Blanche**, sent a letter Monday to the president of the **International Criminal Court**, Judge **Tomoko Akane**, stating that the **Department of Justice****"unequivocally rejects"** any claim by the Court to exercise **jurisdiction** over American citizens. The **Department of Justice** made the letter public on Thursday, a decision that immediately ratcheted up the confrontation between the **Trump** administration and the tribunal based in **The Hague**. This move did not come out of nowhere. It fits a hard line the American executive has embraced for months, in which every multilateral **institution** deemed too intrusive toward American **sovereignty** gets told, bluntly and publicly, that it lacks authority. ### Words chosen to make an impression In his letter, **Todd Blanche** accuses the Court of acting **"in an increasingly lawless and illegitimate manner,"** systematically claiming **jurisdiction** over countries that never consented to its **authority**, and failing to defer to national courts before launching its own **investigations**. This word choice, unusually harsh for official diplomatic correspondence, shows the administration's determination to leave no ambiguity about its position. *I have to admit some discomfort with this rhetoric. That the United States rejects the ICC's jurisdiction is nothing new, but calling it "lawless" in such sharp terms amounts to a verbal escalation that resolves nothing on the substance of international law.* ## Todd Blanche, the man behind the DOJ's hard line ### A profile built for institutional confrontation Appointed acting Attorney General, **Todd Blanche** embodies a generation of **Department of Justice** **officials** no longer hesitant to openly challenge international institutions historically respected even by earlier Republican administrations that were more cautious on this ground. His letter does not merely reject the Court's **jurisdiction**: it questions the very motivation behind its **investigations**, claiming they are **"driven as much by political pressure and institutional self-interest as by legal merit."** That is a serious accusation, striking directly at the professional credibility of **The Hague's** magistrates. ### A frontal challenge to the Court's impartiality Blanche goes further, saying the Court's record raises **"serious doubts about the ICC's impartiality, credibility, and legitimacy."** That is an attack that goes beyond simple jurisdictional disagreement, striking at the very legitimacy of the **institution** as a body of international justice. *I understand American frustration with a Court seen as selective in its prosecutions, but I remain uneasy with a strategy built on discrediting the institution rather than reforming its practices from within.* ## The concrete consequences announced by Washington ### Refusal to cooperate or extradite In concrete terms, **Todd Blanche** announces that the **United States** will cooperate with no investigation or proceeding conducted by the Court, and will never extradite or transfer American citizens to **The Hague**. **Washington** will even **"actively oppose any effort by other countries"** seeking to do so on its behalf. Should an American national ever be detained under what Blanche calls the Court's **"purported authority,"** the US government **"will take all necessary measures to secure that individual's immediate release,"** a formulation that hints at the possibility of direct intervention to free a detained citizen. ### An old legal basis, now reactivated This position rests on the **American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002**, a law that already rejects the Court's **jurisdiction** over Americans and authorizes the president to use **"all means necessary and appropriate"** to secure the release of any American detained under a Court warrant. The law explicitly protects military personnel, government **officials**, and American civilians. *This 2002 law, nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act" by its critics at the time, shows that American distrust of the ICC did not start with the current administration. What's different today is the tone and the publicity given to this confrontation.* ## The February 2025 sanctions, prelude to this escalation ### A presidential order that already targeted the Court's staff This letter from **Todd Blanche** did not appear in isolation. It extends a **sanctions** order signed by **Donald Trump** in February **2025**, aimed directly at the Court's staff. That order described the Court's conduct as an **"unusual and extraordinary threat"** to American national security and foreign policy, and authorized freezing assets and imposing travel restrictions on Court **officials** and anyone providing material assistance to **investigations** targeting Americans or protected allies. Trump stated at the time that the United States **"unequivocally opposes and expects our allies to oppose any ICC actions against the United States, Israel, or any other ally"** that had not consented to the Court's **jurisdiction**. ### Sanctions already extended to several officials Since **2025**, the American administration has extended its **sanctions** to at least **nine Court officials**, citing in particular the arrest warrants issued against Israeli Prime Minister **Benjamin Netanyahu** and former Israeli Defense Minister **Yoav Gallant**, in connection with the war between Israel and Hamas. *It's hard not to see a direct link between this escalation and Washington's unconditional solidarity with Israel on international judicial matters. That is a deliberate geopolitical choice, not a calendar accident.* ## Three Court judges sue the administration ### A legal battle opens in New York In late June, three sitting **judges** of the Court, including Canadian jurist **Kimberly Prost**, sued the American administration before the **Southern District of New York**. Their central argument: the **sanctions** exceed presidential **authority** under the **International Emergency Economic Powers Act** and violate the **Fifth Amendment** of the American Constitution. The **judges** are asking the court to vacate the **sanctions** order and unfreeze the targeted magistrates' assets, a rare move that places international judges in the position of plaintiffs before an American federal court. ### A test for the American balance of powers This lawsuit is a reminder that even an administration determined to challenge an international **institution** must still reckon with its own federal courts, which retain the power to examine the legality of executive measures taken in the name of national security. *Ironically, it may be American courts themselves, not the International Criminal Court, that decide the legality of this sanctions policy. That is a welcome reminder that internal checks and balances still function, despite everything.* ## The tenuous but real link to the Iranian file ### A posture extending to every sensitive file Although **Todd Blanche's** letter does not explicitly name **Iran**, it fits a sequence in which the American administration is simultaneously challenging several international legal frameworks on sensitive files, including tensions with Tehran. This rhetoric of categorical rejection of outside jurisdictions reinforces the image of an America that refuses any external limitation on its military and diplomatic freedom of action, including in its standoff with **Iran**. The timing is not incidental: this statement comes as the American **Congress** keeps stepping up demands for transparency from the **Department of Justice** on several sensitive files, creating internal institutional pressure that contrasts with the firmness displayed internationally. ### A deliberate doctrinal consistency This position aligns with the administration's broader doctrine: no multilateral **institution**, whether the **International Criminal Court** or other UN bodies, should be able to constrain American action, whether on the Israeli file, the Iranian file, or any other national security matter. *I note this doctrinal consistency without necessarily endorsing it. Systematically rejecting any international constraint, even a legitimate one, also deprives the West of a pressure tool it might one day want to use against adversaries like Russia or Iran.* ## Congressional pressure, an internal counterpoint to DOJ firmness ### Oversight demands keep piling up The American **Senate** sent a letter in early July to the **Department of Justice** demanding answers on several pending oversight matters, a bipartisan pressure that illustrates growing tension between the executive and legislative branches over the handling of sensitive judicial files. This double pressure — firmness on display toward **The Hague** on one side, **Congress's** transparency demands on the other — puts the **Department of Justice** in an uncomfortable position, caught between asserting uncompromising **sovereignty** and the obligation to answer to its own democratic institutions. ### A democracy that keeps checking itself Despite legitimate criticism of the hard line taken toward international institutions, this internal oversight mechanism shows that American checks and balances have not disappeared, even under an administration that favors unilateralism. *I find it almost reassuring that Congress keeps asking uncomfortable questions, even when the executive would rather move ahead unhindered. That is one of the mechanisms that still distinguishes a functioning democracy from purely discretionary power.* ## What this rupture means for the international legal order ### A precedent that weakens the Court far beyond the United States The outright rejection of the **International Criminal Court** by the world's leading military power sends a signal that other states, less scrupulous about respecting international law, could exploit in turn. If **Washington** can ignore the Court without consequence, why would **Russia** or other authoritarian regimes feel any more bound by its rulings? That is the central paradox of this affair: in seeking to protect its own judicial **sovereignty**, the American administration is weakening a tool that has also historically served to prosecute Russian leaders for their actions in **Ukraine**, including the arrest warrant issued against **Vladimir Putin** himself in 2023. ### A strategic contradiction that is hard to ignore Weakening the legitimacy of the **International Criminal Court**, even as this **institution** has issued warrants against Russian **officials**, amounts to handing the Kremlin a free rhetorical argument, since it can now cite the American example to justify its own rejection of the Court's **jurisdiction**. *This, to my mind, is the real flaw in this American strategy: by delegitimizing the Court to protect itself, Washington unintentionally hands Moscow a rhetorical shield on the Ukrainian file. That is a consequence the administration seems to be downplaying.* ## Conclusion: a rupture that will not close easily ### A file that goes beyond the Iranian question alone The letter from **Todd Blanche** to the **International Criminal Court** will stand as one more marker of an American administration determined to recognize no international judicial **authority** above its own sovereign decisions. The link to the Iranian file remains indirect, but revealing of a consistent doctrine of rejecting multilateral constraints. ### Vigilance needed for the future of international law It remains to be seen whether this posture, appealing in the short term to its supporters, will not end up weakening legal tools the West could need tomorrow to hold leaders like **Vladimir Putin** **accountable** for their actions in **Ukraine**. *I close this file with genuine concern: every weakening of an international jurisdiction, even one motivated by legitimate sovereigntist reasons, removes one more tool from those who hope to one day see Russia fully answer for its actions before international justice.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - United States Department of Justice — acting Attorney General profile, 2026 - Senate Judiciary Committee — letter to DOJ on outstanding oversight requests, July 1, 2026 - Ukraine's Ministry of Defense — international security context, July 2026 ### Secondary sources - Newsmax — Blanche Rejects International Criminal Court Authority, July 2, 2026 - Axios — American politics coverage, July 2026 - Foreign Policy — international relations analysis, July 2026 --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/washington-claque-la-porte-de-la-cour-penale-internationale-sur-l-iran