The United States House of Representatives delivered a resounding message of solidarity with Israel on Thursday by passing H.R. 23, known as the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act. This bold and decisive legislation aims to impose stringent sanctions on officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in direct response to the court’s controversial issuance of arrest warrants last year against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The move underscores America’s unwavering commitment to defending its closest Middle Eastern ally against unwarranted international interference.

A Bipartisan Stand for Sovereignty and Justice

The House approved the bill by a commanding bipartisan vote of 243-140, showcasing the enduring majority support in Congress for Israel’s right to defend itself and its sovereignty. Despite opposition from most House Democrats, 45 members of the Democratic Party joined their Republican colleagues in backing the measure. This marked a significant increase in bipartisan support compared to a similar bill passed last summer when 42 Democrats voted in favor.

🇺🇸 🇮🇱 BREAKING: The United States Congress announces sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This is huge. The ICC is going down.pic.twitter.com/vfLfYH2DRI

— Vivid.🇮🇱 (@VividProwess) January 8, 2025

The legislation grants the President authority to freeze property assets and deny visas to any foreign nationals who materially or financially support the ICC’s investigations, arrests, or prosecutions of protected persons. These "protected persons" include current and former military and government officials of the United States and its allies, prominently featuring Israel. The bill explicitly safeguards against the ICC’s jurisdiction over individuals who have not consented to its authority.

Strong Voices Championing Israel’s Cause

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), the architect of the bill, delivered a passionate defense of the legislation, stating, “This bill is about protecting America and our allies’ sovereignty from a rogue, globalist court. The ICC investigating and issuing arrest warrants for the sitting Prime Minister of Israel is a blatant assault on a critical ally’s sovereignty amid an existential fight against Hamas. Make no mistake, if the ICC is allowed to target Israel unchecked, they will go after American service members and veterans again in the future.”

The ICC has NO business trying to target Americans or our allies like Israel.

We need to send this illegitimate kangaroo court a message and SANCTION them.

More on HR 23: pic.twitter.com/KNnWPNi7no

— Rep. Chip Roy Press Office (@RepChipRoy) January 9, 2025

Echoing these sentiments, Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, declared during the floor debate, “America is passing this law because a kangaroo court is seeking to arrest the prime minister of our great ally. This bill sends an incredibly important message across the globe: do not get in the way of America or our allies trying to bring our people home. You will be given no quarter, and you will certainly not be welcome on American soil.”

A Clash of Perspectives

Not everyone in Congress viewed the bill favorably. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) voiced his opposition, accusing Republicans of using the ICC as a scapegoat to avoid accountability. “Republicans want to sanction the ICC simply because they don’t want the rules to apply to everyone,” he argued. “There is no international right to vengeance, and what we are seeing in Gaza is vengeance.” Despite such criticisms, the majority’s stance remained firm in defense of Israel and its leadership.

Like the UN, the ICC and ICJ have become infiltrated by Islamists. And Islamists destroy everything they touch. Hopefully, we'll all be seeing the end of these organisations very soon. https://t.co/ItbTCb4kpK

— Holly Grayle (@HollyGrayle) January 10, 2025

Contextualizing the ICC’s Role and Israel’s Position

The International Criminal Court, established by the Rome Statute, is a judicial body tasked with addressing grave international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Its jurisdiction extends only to crimes committed within the territories of states that have ratified the statute or by their nationals. Non-member states, such as Israel and the United States, are not bound by the ICC’s authority unless they voluntarily accept its jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis.

Israel’s relationship with the ICC has been fraught with tension. Although initially voting against the Rome Statute’s adoption, Israel briefly signed the treaty before formally withdrawing in 2002. Israeli officials have consistently expressed concerns that the court’s proceedings are vulnerable to politicization and biased reinterpretations of international law. For instance, Israel vehemently opposes the classification of “the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory” as a war crime, arguing that such interpretations unfairly target its policies. Additionally, Israel has criticized the ICC’s exclusion of terrorism from its purview, highlighting this omission as a significant oversight.

I’m the only member of Congress who was in attendance at the Rome Conference—the ICC is inherently anti-America.

Today’s passage of H.R. 23 moves us a step closer to restoring American sovereignty.

The House must move my bill to withdraw the U.S. from WHO next. pic.twitter.com/AOnGySwYMu

— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) January 10, 2025

The Road Ahead

H.R. 23 sends a clear and unequivocal signal: the United States will not tolerate unwarranted interference from the ICC in the affairs of its allies. By safeguarding the sovereignty of Israel and other allied nations, the bill reaffirms America’s commitment to standing by its friends in the face of unjust international scrutiny. This legislation represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle to preserve national sovereignty against globalist overreach, reinforcing the principle that alliances built on mutual trust and respect must be defended at all costs.