The bill directs the United States to pursue a supplemental agreement to the United Nations Headquarters Agreement so the United Nations cannot host, lease, or otherwise allow use of its facilities in the United States by the International Criminal Court (ICC). It defines the ICC and the Rome Statute for reference and places the move within the framework of existing UN authority and U.S. diplomacy.
The measure signals a tight linkage between U.S. sovereignty concerns and how international institutions operate on U.S. soil. It does not change ICC jurisdiction in the United States directly; instead, it seeks to constrain the ICC’s physical footprint by altering where its activities can take place.
The proposal rests on established law about the UN Headquarters and U.S. participation in international agreements, and relies on diplomatic negotiation rather than immediate regulatory enforcement.
At a Glance
What It Does
Not later than 30 days after the opening of the 80th UN General Assembly, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN must seek to open negotiations for a supplemental agreement to the UN Headquarters Agreement to prohibit the UN from hosting or allowing ICC facilities in the United States.
Who It Affects
The United Nations Headquarters in New York, the ICC, and the U.S. government diplomatic apparatus (especially the U.S. Mission to the UN).
Why It Matters
It formalizes a diplomatic means to constrain ICC presence on U.S. soil by altering the legal framework governing UN facilities, reflecting sovereignty concerns and shaping how international institutions interact with U.S. territory.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act targets the environment around the ICC’s presence in the United States by proposing a negotiated change to the UN Headquarters Agreement. It asserts that the ICC has no U.S. jurisdiction and situates the ICC’s New York office within the UN complex, then instructs the U.S. to seek a supplemental agreement with the United Nations to bar the ICC from using U.S. facilities.
The bill frames this as a diplomatic tactic rather than a direct criminal-justice power, relying on treaty renegotiation rather than statutory penalties. Proponents aim to reduce the ICC’s physical footprint in the United States, while critics may view the move as an attempt to affect international accountability mechanisms through venue control.
The bill’s definitions anchor terms like ICC and Rome Statute to existing U.S. law, ensuring the measure references established concepts without creating new enforcement provisions. The practical effect would depend on UN willingness to renegotiate and on subsequent U.S. acceptance of any new terms.
In substance, the bill leverages diplomacy to constrain where ICC activities can occur in the United States, without altering ICC jurisdiction over U.S. persons.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the U.S. Ambassador to seek a UN supplemental agreement within 30 days of the 80th UNGA session opening.
It targets the use of United Nations facilities in the United States by the ICC.
It relies on the UN Headquarters Agreement and standard UN negotiation processes to implement the change.
The Rome Statute and ICC definitions are anchored to preexisting U.S. law for reference.
The bill does not create penalties or direct enforcement mechanisms; it seeks negotiated repositioning of UN facility use.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section provides the act’s formal citation as the Move the ICC Out of NYC Act of 2025. It names the instrument and establishes how it will be referenced in legal and policy discussions.
Findings and Intent
This section catalogs congressional findings about U.N. ratification, the UN Headquarters Agreement, and the ICC’s status. It notes that the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute and that the ICC has no jurisdiction over U.S. persons, while acknowledging the ICC’s presence within UN Headquarters in New York.
Definitions
This section defines the International Criminal Court and Rome Statute as used in the act, and it defines the United Nations Headquarters Agreement—the 1947 pact governing the UN’s presence in the United States—as the framework for potential modification.
Supplement to UN Headquarters Agreement
This provision directs the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to initiate negotiations for a supplemental agreement to the UN Headquarters Agreement within 30 days after the opening of the 80th UNGA session, with the aim of prohibiting the United Nations from hosting or allowing ICC facilities in the United States.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- United States Mission to the United Nations (led by the U.S. Ambassador to the UN) gains a formal mandate to push the negotiations.
- U.S. Department of State gains authority to coordinate and implement a sovereign policy objective in multilateral settings.
- Sovereignty-focused members of Congress and policy advocates can point to a concrete, treaty-based strategy to limit ICC footprint on U.S. soil.
Who Bears the Cost
- ICC operations that depend on UN facilities in New York may incur relocation or venue-cost pressures.
- The United Nations Headquarters and its administration would bear the cost and administrative burden of negotiating and adapting to any supplemental agreement.
- U.S. diplomats and staff engaged in UN negotiations will expend time and resources to advance and implement the maneuver.
- There could be diplomatic signaling costs or friction with international partners if negotiations slow or change UN-ICC interactions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether the United States should leverage control over UN facilities to constrain the ICC’s physical footprint on U.S. soil, balancing national sovereignty and security interests against the practicalities and potential consequences of altering a major international institution’s venue in the United States.
The bill hinges on diplomatic negotiation rather than direct statutory enforcement, so its practical impact depends on the willingness of the United Nations to renegotiate the UN Headquarters Agreement. It assumes a path to bar ICC access to U.S. facilities through a supplement—an instrument that would need broad international and domestic support to be binding.
The focus on UN facilities, rather than ICC jurisdiction or U.S. ratification of the Rome Statute, avoids directly altering existing ICC legal powers but could affect the ICC’s operating environment in the United States and how the United States interacts with international accountability regimes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.