Johnson Backed Sanctions Against ICC Investigations

Card photograph: ARCHIVE, 2024. Mike Johnson’s official portrait. Ike Hayman / U.S. House of Representatives. Public domain. Cropped for the card. Source photograph.

Mike Johnson celebrated House passage of an International Criminal Court sanctions bill on January 9, 2025. Reuters reported a 243–140 vote, with 45 Democrats joining 198 Republicans. The speaker backed using U.S. financial and immigration powers against people involved in the court’s cases concerning protected American or allied nationals.

In his public statement, Johnson rejected the court’s jurisdiction over Israel and explicitly defended Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. The court had issued arrest warrants, not convictions.

The mechanism goes beyond a statement of support

The House-passed text directs sanctions against foreign persons involved in, assisting or materially supporting covered ICC investigations and prosecutions. Its measures include blocking property subject to U.S. jurisdiction and restrictions on entry. It also provides for terminating U.S. funding to the court and rescinding previously appropriated unobligated funds.

ARCHIVE. Donald Trump and Mike Johnson speak to reporters at the U.S. Capitol before a House GOP budget-bill meeting, 2025-05-20. Photo: White House / Molly Riley, Public domain. License. Source photograph.

The House passed the measure; the text cited here did not itself make the sanctions law. Gillen’s support for the same bill shows the coalition behind that proposed use of U.S. financial and immigration powers.

Protection from prosecution

Supporters frame the measure as defending sovereignty. For Palestinians seeking a forum capable of examining the conduct of powerful officials, the same mechanism threatens to make access to justice depend on the accused government’s allies.

An arrest warrant is not a conviction. Johnson’s chosen response was nevertheless to threaten penalties against participation in covered proceedings, rather than leave the allegations to be examined through the court’s process. His January statement explicitly defended Netanyahu and Gallant against that scrutiny.

Financial pressure on the court’s work

The bill’s reach was wider than a refusal to recognize the court. It would use access to U.S.-controlled property and entry into the United States as leverage against covered participants. The text also included immigration restrictions for specified immediate family members, extending the effect beyond the individual directly involved in a proceeding.

At the same time, the measure contained a presidential national-interest waiver lasting up to 90 days, renewable under its terms. That provision would leave the executive branch discretion over application even within a framework presented as a categorical defense of U.S. and allied officials.

The bill stalled in the Senate on January 28, 2025. Axios reported a 54–45 procedural vote, short of the 60 required to advance. Congress.gov’s legislative record records the failed cloture motion. House approval did not enact H.R. 23.

Trump imposed sanctions through executive power

The failed bill did not end the sanctions campaign. Trump’s February 6, 2025 executive order authorized asset blocking and entry restrictions against designated people connected with covered ICC proceedings. The administration used executive authority rather than waiting for Johnson’s bill to become law.

On October 9, 2026, Treasury designated the court itself. Its General License 13 permits specified maintenance and wind-down transactions until April 7, 2027. Le Monde reported U.S. demands to cancel the Netanyahu and Gallant warrants, close investigations involving Americans and change the court’s jurisdictional rules. The pressure had expanded from individual participants to the institution.

Johnson’s bill and the executive sanctions are separate legal instruments serving a shared political objective: shielding powerful allied officials from an international proceeding by threatening those who conduct it. For Palestinians seeking accountability, the risk extends beyond one stalled bill to the court’s capacity to investigate and hear cases.