HB1839, titled the Move the ICC Out of NYC Act of 2025, would direct the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to seek a supplemental agreement to the U.N. Headquarters Agreement that would bar the United Nations from hosting, leasing, or otherwise allowing use of its facilities in the United States by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The bill is framed around Congress’s findings that the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute, that the ICC has no jurisdiction in the United States or over U.S. persons, and that the ICC currently maintains an office at U.N. headquarters in New York City.
The measure does not itself immediately evict the ICC or directly amend the U.N. Headquarters Agreement; instead, it sets a diplomatic directive and timeline, requiring the Ambassador to open negotiations within 30 days after the opening of the 80th session of the U.N. General Assembly. Its practical effect would be to pressure the executive branch to pursue an international agreement limiting ICC access to U.N. facilities in the United States, particularly the New York headquarters location.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would affect U.S. foreign policy and the legal framework governing the U.N. headquarters in New York by requiring the executive branch to seek a supplemental agreement restricting ICC use of U.N. facilities in the United States. It would not by itself change the ICC’s legal status under U.S. law, but it could lead to changes in the United Nations Headquarters Agreement through negotiation. The bill primarily affects the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, the United Nations, and the ICC’s ability to maintain office space at U.N. facilities in New York.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill is strongly aligned with a skeptical or hostile view of the ICC, emphasizing U.S. sovereignty and the fact that the Senate has not ratified the Rome Statute. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no evidence of broader legislative debate or bipartisan support/opposition in the available record. The bill’s introduction and referral indicate it was still in the early committee stage.
Contention
The main point of contention is the ICC’s presence at U.N. facilities in New York and whether the United States should use its diplomatic leverage to block that presence. Supporters would likely argue that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over the United States and should not operate from U.S.-based U.N. property, while opponents may view the proposal as an unnecessary or politically motivated restriction on an international institution. Another likely issue is whether Congress should direct the executive branch to pursue a negotiated change to an existing U.N. agreement, which raises separation-of-powers and foreign-relations concerns.