The United States has imposed sanctions on International Criminal Court staff, including six judges and the chief prosecutor, restricting travel, banking, and even everyday digital services like email and Alexa access.

The sanctions are part of a broader U.S. effort to enforce sovereignty, with White House and State Department officials framing them as responses to perceived interference, in effect since early this year.

Enforcement gaps due to the ICC’s reliance on member states for enforcement raise practical risks to operations, including funding, staff pay, and witness protection within an environment of leadership uncertainty.

Sanctions raise family and security concerns, complicating travel for staff families and sparking fears of broader penalties or arrest warrants affecting relatives or colleagues in other jurisdictions.

The sanctions span a range of everyday effects—from bank accounts being closed to restricted credit card use and even Alexa responses—illustrating broad personal and professional disruption.

The sanctions target ICC personnel involved in investigations of officials from Russia, the United States, and Israel, despite the ICC’s independent mandate and limited membership among states.

Personal anecdotes from those sanctioned illustrate tangible impacts, such as Alexa failures and family members missing U.S. work conferences, highlighting how restrictions ripple through daily life.

Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan and others describe ongoing worry about whether restrictions are technical glitches or sanction-driven blocks, signaling a life disrupted by the measures.

Despite the penalties, several ICC staff members express resolve to continue their judicial duties, signaling determination to uphold work amid restrictions.

The ICC operates as a court of last resort without its own police force and has a history of high-profile actions, such as arresting figures like Rodrigo Duterte, underscoring the geopolitical friction surrounding its investigations.

Leadership issues at the ICC, including an investigation into Karim Khan’s alleged sexual misconduct and his temporary stepping aside, complicate operations during the sanctions.

Sanctions are described by staff as restrictive and disruptive, raising concerns about funding, witness protection, and staffing amid leadership questions at the court.