Beti Hohler is presenting to a group of European parliamentarians. They shake their heads, concentrate on her words, look visibly concerned, and prepare their calls to action. “The consequences of sanctions were immediate,” Hohler tells them. A judge at the International Criminal Court (ICC), she’s been sanctioned by the United States, the world’s most powerful state, through which most global financial transactions run. “The sanctions have had and continue to have a real impact on my life. As sanctioned persons, we and our family members are banned from travelling to the United States. My colleagues [at the ICC] with assets in the U.S. have seen those assets frozen. As a sanctioned person, I no longer have access to American products and services, even in Europe. My Apple ID, iCloud, Amazon, Airbnb, PayPal, and other accounts have all been blocked or cancelled. These cancellations happened overnight without advance warning.”
Hohler was speaking this month as one of the first four judges sanctioned by the US 10 months ago. The others are Reine Alapini-Gansou from Benin, Solomy Balungi Bossa from Uganda, and Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza from Peru. Two of them had authorized the ICC investigation into Afghanistan that included alleged crimes by US servicemen, and two of them approved the arrest warrants against Israeli leaders Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant in the Palestine investigation. Their sanctions followed that against Karim Khan, the ICC’s head of prosecution, a few months earlier on Feb 6, 2025.
Hohler, a Slovenian citizen, hammers the points home, and you can see every MEP imagining what if it were them; if the might of the US were turned on them for crossing some unacceptable line deemed by Washington – for doing their jobs. “All my credit cards were cancelled immediately after being sanctioned,” she tells them, which means it is “sometimes impossible to do everyday things like making a reservation, buying a plane ticket, or subscribing to an online news outlet.”
Apart the five ICC officials listed above, judges Kimberly Prost from Canada and Nicolas Guillou from France, alongside deputy prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan from Fiji and Mame Mandiaye Niang from Senegal were added to the list on 20 August. And then on 18 December two more judges, Gocha Lordkipanidze from Georgia and Erdenebalsuren Damdin from Mongolia, were targeted for their votes rejecting an appeal by Israel in the Palestine war crimes investigation.
Lost in the sea of Trump’s crises
“The way that the sanctions have been imposed, bit by bit, a few judges here, a few judges there, it feels like it's ratcheting up,” says Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and prosecutors. But for anyone following international news in the last year, with so many Trump-made crises from tariffs to Venezuela to Greenland to Iran, the news that so many ICC personnel have been targeted may have slipped by. Professor Kai Ambos of Gottingen University says, “the fact that a government sanctions a court, the disregard for the law this shows, is unfortunately not really a big topic in Germany or in other European countries, especially given the Iran war, Gaza, and all these other conflicts we have”.
Adam Keith, senior director of accountability at Human Rights First, an NGO, agrees. “There are a lot of crises happening at the same time. And different governments are in dozens of fights with the Trump administration. It's not clear what they'll prioritize, what signals they'll send,” he says. “The US administration has been making distinctions between investigations we hate and investigations we ‘like’ or ‘will tolerate’. Each ratchet of the wrench and escalation of the sanctions makes those distinctions harder to parse.”
Meanwhile it is the ICC judges themselves, at least some of them, who have explained the consequences of the Trump sanctions. (Targeted prosecutors have also made some public comments about it.) Behind the scenes they have regularly been lobbying their foreign ministries and ambassadors in The Hague about the situation. Leading the public charge has been France’s Guillou who spoke to Le Monde newspaper at the end of last year. Two others, Prost and Ibáñez Carrenza have also given interviews to the world’s media. Both their individual 9-year mandates are up next year. At the end of this year, there will be six new judges elected to replace them, along with the two other sanctioned judges Alapini-Gansou and Bossa, Tomko Akane, the court’s current President from Japan, and Rosario Aitala from Italy.
“Over-enforcement” by banks
Of all the sanctioned individuals only two are from the European Union – Guillou and Hohler. And it was specifically because the court is based in an EU state, the Netherlands, and that it has wide support among EU states, that EU parliamentarian legal committees held the hearing at which Hohler spoke. She directed her remarks towards the concern that even though these are US sanctions, based on US foreign policy objectives, they bite hard in Europe against European citizens.
Hohler said she was especially concerned by “the compliance of European financial operators” with US sanctions. “A European bank whose client I was for decades, announced that it was closing my bank account a day after I was sanctioned. My account was then closed within days. I have experienced disruptions in paying bills and transferring funds within Europe. Although a transaction may be between two European banks, in euros without any U.S. nexus, it may still get rejected. This is because a bank will automatically reject payments to and from a sanctioned individual.”
She also reported the effects of sanctions on family members – visas revoked for children, education and employment opportunities disrupted. “Living with US sanctions means living in constant uncertainty. A bank card that works today may not work tomorrow. An insurance company that insures your house today may terminate that contract tomorrow. We are discovering new obstacles every week.”.
James Goldston, executive director of US-based NGO Open Society Justice Initiative, confirms the sanctions have “enormous effect on their ability to transact, because the dollar plays such a significant role in banking and financial transactions, so it really affects their ability to work”.
“A lot of people would call it over-enforcement," says Satterthwaite, “private actors, banks, online services that are afraid that this time the Trump administration is very serious about implementing this sort of sanction, and that they will then come into the crosshairs”.
Special exemptions for some US citizens
In the United States itself there has been limited action to limit the effects of the sanctions. Although separate initiatives have enabled American citizens working in the office of the prosecutor of the ICC or as special advisers to the court to obtain licenses to exempt them from any legal action for their interaction with sanctioned individuals. Keith explains that “once someone's put on the list, there's not a lot of discretion in what ensues. But for people who are adjacent to sanctioned people, there can be a lot more uncertainty”. He mentions a lawsuit where his organisation was involved, representing a trial lawyer from the ICC office of the prosecutor, “who challenged on the First Amendment and other grounds the application of the sanctions to him, because his boss, Karim Khan, had been sanctioned. He was no longer able to do his job on the Darfur investigation. Under threat of lawsuit, the Treasury gave him a license and said: ‘We're not going to enforce the sanctions against you for doing your job’”.
Goldston’s organisation is also part these efforts, after starting an action under the previous Trump administration sanctions on the then ICC prosecutor, years ago: ”Last year, we brought a suit, again, against this new executive order on behalf of two American law professors, both of whom were collaborating with the office of the prosecutor. We made many of the same kinds of arguments, essentially rooted in their First Amendment rights: to, write, speak, provide advice, submit amicus briefs if appropriate, etc, that would assist in the investigation and prosecution of crimes within the Rome Statute. And, in this case, last summer, the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York, ruled that the executive order violated the First Amendment. It issued a permanent injunction preventing the federal government and the administration from applying the sanctions as to those two individuals, those two professors, so they remain now free to continue their work and their expression as they wish.”
Some US lawyers working in the office of the prosecutor became members of the Association of International Criminal Law Prosecutors, to apply for a special license from the US Treasury, to enable them to continue their work.
Keith describes these moves as “loosening, but under threat of lawsuit, a form of flexibility”. But he notes they have “all been circumscribed to [ICC] cases not involving – and I use large air quotes here, advisedly – ‘protected persons’, which is the administration's term for Americans, Israelis, and other personnel of certain allied countries”. So, it “depends on who you are and what you're working on,” he continues. “Eric Iverson [an ICC prosecutor] was working on the Darfur investigation, so he withdrew his complaint, without prejudice, after receiving that license, because it mitigated the harm to his First Amendment [under the US Constitution] ability to do his job,” says Keith. “None of the challenges have been able to get at the heart of the sanctions program. Because being able to bring a successful complaint has been easier if you're an American citizen who has particular constitutional rights at stake. In many of these cases, the plaintiffs have been able to say, I'm not even working on the kind of cases that you say you're trying to go after. And that's helped judges feel comfortable making these kinds of rulings in the context of national security and foreign policy spaces, where they are often inclined to defer to the executive branch.”
“Why don't we hear anything anymore about Netanyahu?”
But what about all the very prominent, named and sanctioned individual non-Americans? Ambos is concerned that the sanctions are hitting differently, depending on the relative weight of each judge or prosecutor's passport: “While countries like France and Canada may be able to protect their judges to a certain extent, less powerful countries may not be able to do so, and this creates a further injustice for judges of these weaker countries.”
Zoe Paris is preparing a new advocacy campaign on the issue for the Coalition for the ICC, a group that represents NGOs supporting the court. She describes the few solutions to counter the sanctions that have been found so far as “ad-hoc and almost on an individual level” and that “structural solutions have not been found by states nor the EU”. This means, she says, “that the situation of a designated individual is different based on their nationality and the willingness and ability of their government to engage on the matter. And this is unacceptable”.
The ICC’s prosecutor is required to report to the United Nations Security Council every six months on the progress in investigations delegated to the court by that body. Tracing the presentations – which take place in the UN’s headquarters in New York in the US – the effects of sanctions can be seen. Whereas Karim Khan – from the UK – spoke in January last year on Darfur before he was sanctioned, by May 2025 on Libya he was on screen. Since then, deputy prosecutor Nazhat Shameen Khan from Fiji has taken over the briefings. In November 2025 she presented on Libya in person, but in January 2026 she was on screen for a Darfur briefing.
Ambos speculates on further effects beyond the direct practical issues: “Why did Germany not present a candidate for the next elections for ICC judges?” he wonders. “Sure, the government wants to focus on Germany’s election to the UN Security Council, this is the priority as the government spokesperson explained recently in the Berlin government press conference, but is this really the only reason? Is it not possible that the government wants to avoid a situation where it is forced to protect a German judge sanctioned by the US? In other words, is it not possible that the government wants to avoid any further conflict with the Trump administration?”. So, Ambos believes, “these sanctions certainly have a kind of chilling effect” on all states.
He also points to individuals’ willingness to talk about the ICC most sensitive cases: “Why don't we hear anything anymore about Netanyahu, about Israel? Who wants to touch this case? Or against Putin, for that matter? So this is also a chilling effect. We are all human beings, and even if the president of the court says, ‘we have sworn an oath, and we are independent, and we have to apply the Rome Statute’, in practice, if your family may be in danger” one’s behaviour or convictions may change. “Everybody is giving in to Trump, including the NATO Secretary General. What do or, actually, can we expect from the judges and other officials of the ICC? Should they show the self-respect most of our governments don’t? That would be great, of course, and I would admire them for that.”
A broader pattern
Around the December annual meeting of the states who support the court, there was a flurry of media interviews by judges. They could be seen criss-crossing the public areas on their way to meetings with individual states, sometimes waylaid by broadcasters to take part in a push to get the sanctions noticed. “Some judges have been coming out and being very open about what the impacts of those sanctions have been,” says Satterthwaite. “Judges do not like to speak to the public. They hate talking to the press. Those judges would only come out and talk about that publicly if it was really bad. I think the message here is that it's much more serious than it was in the past.”
Satterthwaite also sees a broader “pattern”. She notes that “not only has the US sanctioned judges and prosecutors of the ICC. But also, Russia has found a number of ICC judges and prosecutors guilty in absentia. Having both Russia and the US take actions against the ICC at the same time is a terrible message.”
Just last week a Costa Rican judge who defended migrants was reported to have had a visa to the US cancelled. The Special Rapporteur says she is "very concerned” to see “reports that the US has cancelled foreign judges' visas, apparently in response to judicial decisions they have made. If confirmed, this would be an attempt to interfere in the independence of another country's judicial branch – something that is quite shocking."
“This a larger pattern of looking at judges as politically persuadable, persuadable through pressure, and as, unfortunately, fair game,” she says. “Too many countries around the world are right now in the middle of what I would call a moment of ‘autocratization’, where political powers, especially powerful executives, are attempting to either take over and capture judiciaries or curb them and limit their capacity to do their work limiting the power of the executive. Or specifically going after justice operators criminally, or using disciplinary proceedings and suspensions against judges and prosecutors, and finally, weaponizing this kind of language that's too common around the world of populism. In populist rhetoric there's an inherent critique of the justice system, saying it's ‘elite’, it's not there for the people. Justice systems are imperfect, they need to get closer to the people, they need to be more responsive. But the weaponization of this discourse is then used to justify capturing those judicial systems.”
Options to pushback?
At the end of last year, Cyril Laucci, a defence counsel before the ICC, expressed the concern felt by many: Why isn’t the court taking a firmer stand? Why “the eight judges and the three prosecutors appear quite alone in facing the sanctions imposed on them?… Must their exemplary individual determination to carry out their mandate at all costs remain the only bulwark of the Court’s independence?” he asked, warning that sanctions may expand to the institution as a whole.
One of the suggested strategies against the sanctions has been for the EU to deploy its “blocking statute”, to protect companies from consequences from the US Treasury. At the EU parliamentary event at which Hohler spoke, it was the complexity of such procedure that was discussed. Not only does it need to have unanimity from all EU states, and with Hungary openly flouting the court’s authority and preparing to withdraw from the Rome Statute, that would not be possible, but also economic integration and the rights of businesses to protect their shareholders from undue risk also come into play.
What about states themselves pushing back? “Some states have felt like it was more helpful for them and for their nationals to take a quieter approach and a diplomatic approach,” says Satterthwaite. “I can't comment on whether that's been effective or not.” But she thinks that “this is not a moment for hesitation and for powering from what is essentially a bullying action”. Goldston agrees: “We need to see more from states around the world in defending this court, in standing up to measures like these sanctions that impair its work. There has been some work along those lines, but I think states can be more forthright, more courageous, and more consistently marrying their action to their principle.”
Laucci even suggested that “anyone of these States, or better yet all of them collectively, could seize the [International Court of Justice] regarding the consequences of the sanctions against the ICC on the application of these treaties, without the United States being able to evade it”. Such a procedure is completely untested. He also posited “a Security Council resolution requesting the ICC to suspend its investigations and prosecutions in the Situation in Palestine,” which would remove the main issue at the heart of US objections.
Keith is pessimistic though that anything would persuade the Trump administration to back down: “No one knows” what would work, he says. He notes a letter President Macron apparently sent to President Trump directly asking Trump to lift the sanctions on the French judge, and that Slovenia has spoken out in support of Hohler and calling on EU states to defend their nationals, their institutions, the cause of justice, and the rule of law. Paris hopes more states will recognise that “attacks against judges, deputy prosecutors, a UN mandate holder and the Palestinian organisations are an attack against the system as a whole and should be treated as such by states when finding solutions”.
Such expressions of solidarity “matter, certainly atmospherically,” says Keith. But they are unlikely to change the US administration's mind and unlikely to divert the full sanctions on the court at some point, he says. “I think they're committed to attacking the ICC. They've been beating this drum for a while. They've sanctioned a lot of individuals, and there's only so many individuals they can sanction. I don't know what, if anything, would change their mind on that course. Hearing from senior officials in close allied governments has the potential to matter, at least in terms of showing that the court is not the defenceless, isolated target that the administration probably sees it as. But this is an empirical question: How defended, how alone is the court? That's a question for its member states to answer.”
