WASHINGTON, October 27, 2026 – The U.S. government also made public its sanctions plan to “cripple” the International Criminal Court. On the same day, however, the government granted the court a license allowing it to use American software.
Treasury Department License No. 14, issued on October 9, allows the large American technology firms to continue to offer their services to the ICC even in the presence of the sanctions plan announced on the same day, De Volkskrant of the Netherlands reports. The license exempts the court from the prohibition on offering “the provision, development, implementation, operation, and maintenance of enterprise software,” while financial transactions via the court’s accounts, which were frozen under the sanction measures, are allowed.
This contradiction is remarkable. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Washington “will prohibit transactions with this rogue court and cripple its ability to function,” while the court will be “dismantled brick by brick.” However, the same federal government found some leeway to allow firms such as Google, Microsoft, and Amazon to continue serving the court.
What the license allows
The exemption is limited yet significant. The exemption doesn’t remove sanctions; rather, it provides an exemption that enables American companies to support the operation of enterprise software applications and the processing of payments for the ICC.
It makes a difference. The ICC depends on a highly technical system—case management systems, communication tools, cloud technologies, and financial platforms. Discontinuation of these services would be disruptive to prosecuting war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide cases.
The exemption does not apply to 13 current and former ICC staff members facing personal sanctions. These individuals still cannot access services from Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Booking.com, and Airbnb.
Why Washington made an exception
And that is when things become uncomfortable for the administration. As reported by de Volkskrant’s sources, the exemption was possibly a result of lobbying on the part of the American technology industry, which was afraid of potential consequences to its finances and image in case it terminated relations with its important international client.
According to ICC Registrar Osvaldo Zavala Giler, as published by De Volkskrant, the case highlights an inherent problem: American technology companies cannot provide uninterrupted services. “This is damaging to these companies,” he said. “It creates a reputational risk in their relationships with other clients.”
In other words, this has been just as much a commercial issue as a diplomatic one for the United States. The United States is an international country that does business around the world, and a complete ban on serving the ICC may have cast doubt on its cloud and enterprise software services.
The official explanation
An official from the U.S. Department of State told the press that sanctions waivers can always be issued where such action will benefit the “economic and national security interests of the United States.” The official also noted that this waiver does not mean that Washington has softened its stance with regard to the ICC, and that there could be tougher rules at any point in time.
This disclaimer is significant. While the waiver has provided the ICC some space, it does not change the fundamental difference of opinion. The United States continues to deny the legitimacy of the court.
A policy built on contradictions
So what is the actual policy? In theory, the U.S. wants to cut off the ICC. In reality, it wants to make sure that there isn’t collateral damage to American tech companies—and potentially keep some level of leverage on the institution’s functioning.
The logic could be practical. Or it could be politically awkward. But either way, it speaks to the difficulty in using economic sanctions against an organization whose daily activities rely on exactly the same global tech network that American firms operate.
At least for the moment, the ICC gets to keep its technological operations going. The 13 individuals under sanctions do not. And the difference between Rubio’s “brick by brick” rhetoric and Treasury’s discreet exception is where the policy lies.
