Weaponised Economics: How Trump's Sanctions Threaten International Justice

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is facing sweeping U.S. sanctions as President Donald Trump declared a national emergency in an executive order on February 6, 2025. The White House accused the ICC of abusing its power through “illegitimate and baseless actions,” targeting America and Israel.

The sanctions are a direct response to the ICC’s unanimous decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes. The warrants were linked to Israeli military operations in Gaza, which led to the deaths of more than 60,000 Palestinian civilians. The ICC has also pursued charges against Hamas leaders, though the U.S. sanctions have not addressed those cases.

The new sanctions block ICC officials from entering the U.S. and bar financial transactions involving individuals who support the court’s investigations. This crackdown echoes a 2020 sanctions program initiated by Trump’s administration, which aimed to shield U.S. military personnel from ICC scrutiny.

The decision has drawn sharp international condemnation. In a joint statement on February 7, a coalition of 79 countries—led by Mexico, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Vanuatu, and Sierra Leone—denounced the Trump administration’s actions, warning that they “increase the risk of impunity for the most serious crimes and threaten to erode the international rule of law, which is crucial for promoting global order and security.”

Key U.S. allies, including Canada, France, and Germany, backed the statement.

European Council President António Costa took to X to warn that “sanctioning the ICC threatens the Court’s independence and undermines the international criminal justice system as a whole.”

These sanctions could deal a crippling blow to ongoing ICC investigations, potentially forcing the closure of field offices and obstructing the Court’s ability to deliver justice. Given the ICC’s reliance on international cooperation, financial transactions, and access to critical resources—many of which are tied to U.S. institutions—Washington’s sanctions could severely restrict the Court’s ability to function.

More alarmingly, these sanctions directly attack the legitimacy of internationally recognized judicial bodies. This sets a dangerous precedent that allows states to evade accountability, weakening global efforts to uphold justice.

This is not the first time the Trump administration has wielded sanctions as a geopolitical weapon. The administration's approach has been characterized by an assertive use of economic restrictions against both adversaries and allies.

In his first term, policies included unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and imposing stringent sanctions on Tehran, leading to significant economic hardship in Iran and escalating tensions in the Middle East.

Additionally, sanctions were imposed on Venezuela at the height of the country's economic crisis, as well as on China and North Korea, among other countries.

The administration also openly sanctioned allied nations, most notably targeting European firms involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a major Russian-German energy project.

While the move was framed as an effort to protect European energy security, critics viewed it as an attempt to curb Russian influence and promote American liquefied natural gas (LNG) as an alternative.

In his second term, Trump has continued this trajectory.

On March 7th Trump proposed banking sanctions against Russia, posting on Truth Social,” I am strongly considering large-scale Banking Sanctions, Sanctions, and Tariffs on Russia until a Cease Fire and FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PEACE IS REACHED.”

While sanctions like these are often framed as tools for upholding democracy, punishing rogue actors, and maintaining international peace, their real-world implications suggest a far more complex and often counterproductive outcome.

A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that U.S. sanctions since 1970 have achieved their intended political objectives only 35% of the time.

Historically, sanctions have pushed resilience and alternative trade networks among targeted states. After the U.S. imposed its initial round of financial restrictions on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, World Bank data shows that Moscow strengthened economic ties with countries like China and India, reducing its reliance on the dollar.

There is also evidence of the administration’s sanctions disproportionately impacting civilians.

In Venezuela, the collapse of vital industries, food shortages, and inflation skyrocketed in the wake of U.S. sanctions, worsening an already dire crisis. The United Nations condemned the U.S. stating that broad-based economic sanctions violate human rights when they result in deprivation of food, medicine, and other essential resources.

A UNICEF report revealed that U.S. sanctions on North Korea placed 60,000 children at risk of starvation due to constraints on humanitarian aid. Similarly, financial restrictions on Afghanistan following the Taliban’s takeover led to a devastating cash crisis, pushing millions into extreme poverty.

The latest sanctions against the ICC expose what has long been evident—sanctions are not a tool for justice, but a weapon of political coercion. Whether used against rival governments, global institutions, or entire populations, they rarely achieve their stated goals and often inflict the most harm on the vulnerable.

Washington frames its economic warfare as a defense of democracy and the rule of law, yet the pattern is unmistakable: punish those who challenge U.S. allies, cripple economies that refuse to comply, and sideline international bodies that threaten American geopolitical interests. With the ICC sanctions, the message is clearer than ever—justice is conditional, and accountability is only for those without power.