Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The bill directs the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, within 30 days after the 80th UN General Assembly opens, to seek negotiations on a supplemental agreement to the U.S.-UN Headquarters Agreement that would prohibit the United Nations from hosting, leasing, or otherwise allowing use of its U.S. facilities by the International Criminal Court (ICC). It cites that the U.S. has not ratified the Rome Statute and notes the ICC maintains an office at UN headquarters in New York.
Progressives emphasize damage to international justice and U.S. credibility
Symbolic, low-cost measure could clear the House more easily, but foreign-policy divisiveness reduces easy majority certainty.
The bill directs the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, within 30 days after the 80th UN General Assembly opens, to seek negotiations on a supplemental agreement to the U.S.-UN Headquarters Agreement that would prohibit the United Nations from hosting, leasing, or otherwise allowing use of its U.S. facilities by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
It cites that the U.S. has not ratified the Rome Statute and notes the ICC maintains an office at UN headquarters in New York.
Narrow and low-cost but politically charged in foreign-affairs; Senate procedural hurdles and potential executive reluctance lower prospects.
How solid the drafting looks.
Progressives emphasize damage to international justice and U.S. credibility
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize damage to international justice and U.S. credibility
Likely opposes the bill as undermining U.S. multilateral credibility and international justice mechanisms.
Sees the step as symbolic and potentially damaging to human rights cooperation, even if it protects perceived U.S. sovereignty.
Views the bill pragmatically: it protects asserted U.S. sovereignty but risks diplomatic costs and practical fallout.
Would weigh benefits against consequences and favor narrower, negotiated language or safeguards.
Likely strongly supports the bill as a defense of national sovereignty and a rejection of ICC influence on U.S. soil.
Views it as a necessary step to prevent perceived international encroachment.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow and low-cost but politically charged in foreign-affairs; Senate procedural hurdles and potential executive reluctance lower prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize damage to international justice and U.S. credibility
Narrow and low-cost but politically charged in foreign-affairs; Senate procedural hurdles and potential executive reluctance lower prospect…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Move the ICC Out of NYC Act of 2025.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.