Did brian mast impose legislation sanctioning the international court for going after israeli war crimes?
Executive summary
Brian Mast introduced and repeatedly pushed the “Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act” (also cited as H.R. 23) to impose sanctions on International Criminal Court (ICC) officials and others who seek to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute U.S. citizens or allied officials — specifically framing it as protection for Israel after the ICC moved against Israeli leaders; the bill passed the House in June 2024 by a 247–155 vote, according to Mast’s office [1] [2]. Mast and allies argued the measure would deny visas, revoke existing visas and deport ICC personnel, and target those who financially or materially support the court [3] [1].
1. What Mast proposed: a sanctions bill aimed at the ICC
Mast was a principal sponsor of the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, introduced with Rep. Chip Roy and others, which would impose sanctions on ICC officials who pursue investigations of U.S. citizens or allied officials — including visa denials, revocations and potential deportation, and restrictions on those who support the court financially or technologically [1] [3]. Mast’s office and allied Republican committee releases describe the legislation as a direct response to ICC actions targeting Israeli leaders and as protecting U.S. sovereignty and servicemembers [1] [4].
2. Why Mast and co-sponsors said it was needed
Mast framed the ICC moves — specifically the pretrial chamber’s issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli officials — as prosecutorial overreach and a threat to allies and American personnel; he asserted the ICC was “targeting” Israel and that Congress needed to deter that behavior through sanctions [4] [3]. The White House also issued a statement asserting the ICC “has no jurisdiction over the United States or Israel,” framing ICC actions as illegitimate and a national-security concern [5].
3. Legislative progress and outcomes in the House
According to Mast’s congressional press office, a bill authored by Mast passed the House of Representatives in June 2024 by a 247–155 vote; Mast’s site and related committee releases present the House passage as proof of congressional action against the ICC’s warrants involving Israeli officials [2] [6].
4. The broader Republican push and allied actions
Mast was not acting alone: the initiative is part of a broader Republican effort in Congress and allied Republicans in the Senate to warn or threaten sanctions against international bodies that single out Israel, including letters to the UN and proposals to withhold contributions to UN inquiries [7] [8]. Press releases from Rep. Roy and others show coordinated messaging that the ICC’s actions should invite U.S. penalties [9] [10].
5. What the bill would actually do — practical effects claimed by sponsors
Sponsors described concrete measures: denial of new visas to ICC officials and immediate family, revocation of existing visas and deportation of ICC personnel in the U.S., and sanctions on individuals or entities providing support to the ICC [3] [1]. Mast’s statements also framed the bill as extending protection to officials from NATO and other close partners, not solely Israel [3].
6. Competing viewpoints and context missing from sponsor materials
The materials supplied are sponsor and committee press releases and White House messaging; they uniformly present the ICC as “illegitimate” in this context and stress sovereignty and hostage-release objectives [1] [5]. Available sources do not mention independent legal analyses of the bill’s compatibility with U.S. treaty obligations, nor do the provided items quote ICC defenses or international-law experts explaining the court’s jurisdictional basis or responses to sanctions; those perspectives are not found in the current reporting set (not found in current reporting).
7. Where this fits in a larger timeline of U.S.-ICC relations
The bill follows earlier U.S. actions and rhetoric: the Trump administration previously issued executive orders to sanction ICC staff, which the Biden administration later reversed, and the 2024–2025 period saw renewed U.S. political pushback as the ICC opened cases touching on Israeli and U.S.-allied personnel [9] [5]. Reuters reporting (outside the congressional releases cited here) later noted the U.S. was considering broader sanctions on the ICC in 2025 amid continued tensions over ICC indictments — indicating the issue persisted beyond initial House votes [11].
8. Bottom line for the original question
Yes: Brian Mast introduced and led a legislative effort (the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act / H.R. 23) to sanction the ICC for pursuing investigations or warrants that he and co-sponsors said targeted Israel and U.S. allies; the bill’s sponsors and Mast’s office describe specific sanctions (visa denials/revocations, deportations, and penalties on supporters), and the House passed related sanctions legislation, per Mast’s communications [1] [2] [3].