Move the ICC Out of NYC Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- H.R. 1839
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- International Affairs
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-03-04: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
- Last Updated
- 2026-01-10T07:33:08Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The "Move the ICC Out of NYC Act of 2025" (H.R. 1839) aims to prevent the International Criminal Court (ICC)—an international tribunal that prosecutes serious crimes like genocide and war crimes—from using facilities of the United Nations (UN) located in the United States. It seeks to negotiate changes to existing agreements to bar the ICC from operating out of the UN headquarters in New York City.
Key Provisions
- Findings Section: Outlines historical context, including the U.S. ratification of the UN Charter in 1945, the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement authorizing the UN's New York location, the U.S. non-ratification of the Rome Statute (the treaty establishing the ICC), the ICC's lack of jurisdiction over the U.S. or its citizens, and the ICC's current office at the UN headquarters.
- Definitions: Defines "International Criminal Court" and "Rome Statute" by reference to the American Service-Members' Protection Act (a U.S. law protecting American personnel from ICC actions). Also defines the "United Nations Headquarters Agreement" as the 1947 pact between the U.S. and UN.
- Negotiation Directive: Requires the U.S. Ambassador to the UN to initiate talks within 30 days of the opening of the 80th UN General Assembly session (expected in 2025) for a supplemental agreement. This new agreement would prohibit the UN from hosting, leasing, or permitting the ICC to use any of its U.S.-based facilities.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This bill does not amend U.S. statutes directly but directs negotiation of a new international supplemental agreement to the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement.
- It builds on prior U.S. laws like the American Service-Members' Protection Act by extending protections against ICC presence on U.S. soil, potentially limiting the original headquarters agreement's flexibility for UN sub-organizations.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The U.S. Department of State and the UN Ambassador's office would handle negotiations, possibly increasing diplomatic workload and requiring coordination with Congress.
- On Citizens: Minimal direct impact on U.S. citizens, but it reinforces protections for American military and officials from ICC scrutiny by limiting the court's physical presence in the U.S.
- On International Relations: Could strain U.S.-UN ties if negotiations fail or lead to disputes, while signaling strong U.S. opposition to the ICC. It may affect the ICC's global operations by disrupting its New York office, potentially shifting activities elsewhere and influencing how other nations view U.S. commitment to multilateral institutions.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- U.S. Government: Congress (via oversight), State Department, and the UN Ambassador as key negotiators.
- United Nations: Directly impacted, as it would need to amend its headquarters agreement and possibly relocate or restrict ICC activities.
- International Criminal Court: Would lose access to its New York office, affecting administrative functions and U.S.-based outreach.
- U.S. Military and Personnel: Indirectly protected, aligning with existing laws shielding them from ICC jurisdiction.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Relies on the President's treaty-making powers (with Senate advice and consent) but mandates negotiation, which could raise questions about enforceability if the UN refuses. It upholds U.S. sovereignty by asserting control over foreign entities on U.S. soil without violating the UN Headquarters Agreement's core terms.
- Constitutional: Involves separation of powers, as Congress directs executive foreign policy actions; no direct constitutional challenges noted, but it echoes historical U.S. assertions of non-subordination to international bodies.
- Political: Represents a bipartisan or Republican-led stance against the ICC (introduced by Rep. Roy), potentially escalating U.S. isolationism in international justice forums. It may provoke debate on U.S. global leadership, especially amid ICC investigations involving U.S. allies like Israel.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2025-03-04: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
- 2025-03-04: Introduced in House
- 2025-03-04: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Move the ICC Out of NYC Act of 2025 — issued 2025-03-04 — PDF (3 pages)