Move the ICC Out of NYC Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- S. 833
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- International Affairs
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-03-04: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
- Last Updated
- 2026-01-10T07:33:05Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The legislation aims to prevent the International Criminal Court (ICC)—an international tribunal that prosecutes individuals for serious crimes like genocide and war crimes—from using United Nations (UN) facilities in the United States, particularly the UN headquarters in New York City. It seeks to reinforce U.S. policy that the ICC has no authority over the U.S. or its citizens by negotiating restrictions on the ICC's physical presence in U.S.-hosted UN spaces.
Key Provisions
- Short Title: The Act is titled the "Move the ICC Out of NYC Act of 2025."
- Findings: The bill outlines historical context, including:
- U.S. ratification of the UN Charter in 1945 and the 1947 United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act, which authorized the UN headquarters in New York.
- The U.S. Senate's non-ratification of the Rome Statute (the treaty establishing the ICC).
- The ICC's lack of jurisdiction over the U.S. or U.S. persons.
- The ICC's current office within the UN headquarters in New York.
- Definitions:
- "International Criminal Court" and "Rome Statute" are defined as in the American Service-Members' Protection Act (a 2002 law protecting U.S. military personnel from ICC actions).
- "United Nations Headquarters Agreement" refers to the 1947 treaty between the U.S. and UN governing the New York headquarters.
- Negotiation Mandate (Section 4): Within 30 days after the opening of the 80th UN General Assembly session (expected around September 2025), the U.S. Ambassador to the UN must initiate negotiations for a supplemental agreement to the Headquarters Agreement. This would prohibit the UN from hosting, leasing, or allowing the ICC to use any of its U.S.-based facilities.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- The bill does not directly amend U.S. law but mandates diplomatic action to supplement the 1947 United Nations Headquarters Agreement, which has been updated via prior supplemental agreements.
- If negotiations succeed, it would introduce new restrictions on UN facility usage, effectively barring the ICC from operating within U.S. territory under UN auspices— a change from the current setup where the ICC maintains an office at the UN headquarters without such explicit prohibitions.
Potential Impacts
- Government Agencies: The U.S. Department of State, particularly the Ambassador to the UN, would be required to lead negotiations, potentially straining diplomatic resources and requiring coordination with Congress.
- Citizens: U.S. military personnel and officials could benefit indirectly through reinforced protections against ICC investigations, aligning with existing U.S. laws like the American Service-Members' Protection Act.
- International Relations: This could tension U.S.-UN and U.S.-ICC relations, signaling strong U.S. opposition to the ICC and possibly encouraging other non-ICC member states (like Russia or China) to take similar stances. It might also affect UN operations in New York if the ICC relocates or reduces activities there.
- Broader effects could include debates over U.S. commitments to multilateral institutions, without directly impacting U.S. citizens' daily lives.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- U.S. Government: Congress (via oversight of foreign relations), the State Department, and the U.S. Ambassador to the UN as the primary actors.
- United Nations: Directly involved in negotiations; could face operational changes at its New York headquarters.
- International Criminal Court: Would lose access to U.S.-based facilities, potentially disrupting its liaison office and administrative functions.
- U.S. Persons and Military: Indirect beneficiaries, as the bill underscores protections against ICC jurisdiction.
- New York City and Local Interests: Potential economic effects on the city from any ICC relocation or reduced UN-ICC activities.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Reinforces U.S. non-participation in the ICC under the Rome Statute, building on the American Service-Members' Protection Act. Success depends on UN agreement, which could involve treaty-like obligations; failure might lead to further U.S. legislative actions, such as funding restrictions for the UN.
- Constitutional: Aligns with Congress's authority over foreign affairs (Article I, Section 8) and treaties (Article II), but negotiations could raise questions about executive branch discretion in diplomacy.
- Political: Represents a bipartisan (though introduced by Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican) assertion of U.S. sovereignty, potentially fueling debates on international law versus national interests. It may politicize UN headquarters operations and highlight ongoing U.S. skepticism toward global institutions perceived as overreaching.
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: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
- 2025-03-04: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Move the ICC Out of NYC Act of 2025 — issued 2025-03-04 — PDF (3 pages)