Imposing Sanctions In Response To The ICC's Illegitimate Actions Targeting The United States And Israel
Today, I am designating Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza of Peru, Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou of Benin, and Beti Hohler of Slovenia pursuant to President Trump's Executive Order 14203, 'Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court.' These individuals directly engaged in efforts by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without consent from the United States or Israel. Neither the United States nor Israel is party to the Rome Statute.
As ICC judges, these four individuals have actively engaged in the ICC's illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America or our close ally, Israel. The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies. This dangerous assertion and abuse of power infringes upon the sovereignty and national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel.
The United States will take whatever actions we deem necessary to protect our sovereignty, that of Israel, and any other U.S. ally from illegitimate actions by the ICC.
I call on the countries that still support the ICC, many of whose freedom was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices to fight this disgraceful attack on our nation and Israel.
All targets are being designated pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14203. For more information on today's actions, please see the Department of State's fact sheet and the Department of the Treasury's press release.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
3 hours ago
- 1News
Full video: Trump speaks on Apple investment, Russia moves
US President Donald Trump is speaking from the Oval Office after signing an executive order to place an additional 25% tariff on India for its purchases of Russian oil. That brings the combined tariffs imposed by the United States on its ally to 50%. He is also discussing a US$600 billion investment from tech company Apple in production within the US. The tariffs comes after Russian President Vladimir Putin held talks with Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff in Moscow this morning, days before the White House's deadline for Russia to reach a peace deal with Ukraine or potentially face severe economic penalties that could also hit countries buying its oil. The tariffs would go into effect 21 days after the signing of the order, meaning that both India and Russia might have time to negotiate with the administration on the import taxes. ADVERTISEMENT Trump's moves could scramble the economic trajectory of India, which until recently was seen as an alternative to China by American companies looking to relocate their manufacturing. China also buys oil from Russia, but it was not included in the order signed by the Republican president.
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Eighty years after Hiroshima, Japan debates military expansion and pacifism
The destruction of the two cities was followed by Japan's submission days later, ending its decades of brutal conquest. However, the bombings also announced a more terrifying age in which human innovation could spark death and destruction on a previously unimaginable scale. As the flattened city of Hiroshima was rebuilt, it dedicated itself to promoting peace. Survivors of the atomic bombing have campaigned for a world free of nuclear weapons. But 80 years on, that dream is fading. Three of Japan's neighbours – Russia, China and North Korea – are nuclear powers, and Tokyo depends on the American nuclear umbrella to protect it. With tensions in the Pacific heightening and firsthand memories of nuclear devastation waning, more Japanese are questioning the national commitment to peace at all costs. Why did Japan go all-in on pacifism after World War II? The Americans forced it to. The Imperial Japanese Armed Forces' harsh invasion of much of Asia, its shock attack on Pearl Harbour and its willingness to sacrifice a generation of young soldiers for the empire, made the victorious Americans adamant that the country should never again wage war. Japan's so-called 'peace constitution', drafted by the Americans who occupied the country for nearly seven years, forever renounced war. Its Article 9 has been interpreted to mean that Japan should never possess a military with offensive capabilities. In return, the US promised to defend Japan should it come under attack. The security treaty made Japan a beneficiary of the theory of nuclear deterrence, in which the fear of nuclear retaliation is thought to deter a first-strike attack. So why does Japan have a military? To take into account these constitutional limitations, Japan's military is called the Self-Defence Forces. It cannot take on combat roles in international conflicts. That hasn't stopped Japan from expanding its arsenal to counter potential threats from Asian neighbours such as China that, in turn, worry about Japan's rearmament, given its wartime record. If budget hikes continue, Japan will soon be among the world's top military spenders. All of this modern hardware is supposed to be only for defensive purposes, although a debate in Japan about its global military profile has been getting louder. What do Japanese think of their country's rearming? While many in the older generations worry about Japan's waning commitment to pacifism, younger Japanese tend to be more sanguine. Supporters of a military expansion say Japan shouldn't be forced into a defensive crouch forever, especially with security threats ratcheting up in the Pacific. In addition to superpower jousting, Japan has territorial disputes with China, Russia and the two Koreas. They worry that the US may not always be a constant security guarantor for Japan, especially under President Donald Trump, who has criticised Japan for relying too heavily on the presence of US military bases. And with first-hand memories of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki disappearing, most Japanese are now removed from the kind of searing testimony that underwrote the country's pacifist, non-nuclear stance. Nippon Kaigi, an ultra-nationalist political bloc that aims to revise Article 9 of the constitution, has significant support among lawmakers from the governing Liberal Democratic Party. Amending the constitution was once unthinkable; it's now a political talking point. What about nukes? Nihon Hidankyo, a group representing atomic bomb survivors, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year for its campaign to rid the world of nuclear weapons. However, Japan has never signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. In 2023, Fumio Kishida, then the Prime Minister of Japan, whose family is from Hiroshima, supported a statement at a Group of Seven summit he hosted in the city that implied nuclear deterrence might bring its own kind of peace. Kishida's stance reflects a growing feeling in Japan that while nuclear weapons are dangerous and their eradication is a noble ideal, the real world also requires deterrence and robust defence. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Hannah Beech Photograph by: Chang W. Lee ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Could Trump's tariffs force NZ to rethink its trade diversity?
Italy got the same deal as us, 15%. The Italian Institute of International Political Studies dug into the numbers and found that the country's agricultural, pharmaceutical, and automotive sectors are likely to be hit the hardest, with the country's GDP projected to dip by 0.2%. On the other hand, the likes of Australia and the UK have secured a 10% tariff. So, how will the duties actually affect Kiwi businesses? Or is it really American consumers who'll pay the price? University of Auckland Emeritus Professor of Law Jane Kelsey told The Front Page it's hard to know the impact. 'It's very hard to be specific about what the consequences would be, and when people put figures on that, you should be quite skeptical. 'Tariffs are kind of blunt instruments, so it will mean that exports from New Zealand imports into the US will have a higher cost for importers in the US and consumers in the US. That could affect how much New Zealand goods they buy,' she said. She said New Zealand has a 'pretty basic export commodity model' and suggests that recent events should serve as a 'wake-up call to start thinking differently' about the diversification of our domestic market. 'There are real opportunities here, and we seem to have an aversion to taking those opportunities. 'It's not simply about diversifying to other markets, but it's also about rethinking our domestic economic model, which is currently based largely on the housing market and secondly on relatively low-value-added exports to a relatively small number of countries. 'But, we have a great difficulty generating that discussion here. There was a Productivity Commission report several years ago, before it was disbanded, that set out a process for diversification, which would thicken our domestic production, and that, unfortunately, seems to have fallen on deaf ears,' she said. Listen to the full episode to hear more about: Why the World Trade Organisation is 'in chaos'; The erosion of the rules-based trading system over successive US governments; And why it might be a mistake to view Trump's tariffs as purely economic. The Front Page is a daily news podcast from the New Zealand Herald, available to listen to every weekday from 5am. The podcast is presented by Chelsea Daniels, an Auckland-based journalist with a background in world news and crime/justice reporting who joined NZME in 2016. You can follow the podcast at iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
