Federal Ban Imposed: Local Police Cannot Enforce ICC Warrants Unless Authorized by President or Congress

The newly proposed Sovereign Enforcement Integrity Act of 2025 is a straightforward piece of legislation with a sharp focus: it completely blocks state and local law enforcement from helping the International Criminal Court (ICC). This bill, laid out in SEC. 3, makes it illegal for any state, county, or city official—from a police officer to a government employee—to arrest, detain, or otherwise restrict someone’s freedom solely based on a warrant, indictment, or summons issued by the ICC. Essentially, if the ICC wants to pick up someone in the U.S., they can’t just call the local sheriff for a favor anymore.

Who’s In Charge of International Arrests?

This Act is all about reinforcing the federal government’s exclusive control over foreign policy and international relations, a principle highlighted in SEC. 2. Congress argues that letting local police enforce international warrants without federal oversight could seriously mess up U.S. foreign affairs. The bill ensures that international legal enforcement is a federal decision, period. State and local governments are explicitly barred from using any of their resources—money, buildings, or staff—to aid the ICC in these actions. It’s a complete firewall between Main Street law enforcement and the Hague.

The Super-Narrow Exception

There are only two ways state and local agencies can cooperate with the ICC under this Act, and they are incredibly specific. First, Congress could pass a brand-new law explicitly allowing cooperation in a particular case (SEC. 3.2(A)). Second, the President could issue a written order allowing it, but only if they determine that cooperation is “absolutely necessary for the nation’s security interests” (SEC. 3.2(B)). This means your local police chief can’t decide to help out, even if they want to; the decision has to come from the very top, citing a national security emergency. This provision concentrates significant power in the Executive Branch to make exceptions, using a broad and subjective phrase like “national security interests.”

What This Means for Everyday Life (and Law)

For most people, this bill won't change your morning commute, but it has major implications for how the U.S. interacts with the global justice system. If you’re an individual or a group seeking justice through the ICC—say, you’re a victim of an international crime whose alleged perpetrator is now living in the U.S.—this bill effectively removes a key avenue for enforcement. Your local police can’t help you bring that person to justice, even if they wanted to, unless the President or Congress intervenes. The system is designed to delay or prevent enforcement unless the federal government explicitly decides it serves U.S. interests.

Furthermore, the Preemption clause (SEC. 4) makes it crystal clear: this federal law trumps any conflicting state or local law, ordinance, or policy. If a city tried to pass a resolution supporting cooperation with international tribunals, this federal Act would immediately override it. This ensures a uniform, federal-only approach to dealing with the ICC, preventing any state-level divergence that could complicate national foreign policy.