PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Jan 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1839 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1839 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1839 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1839 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-04 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would direct the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to seek negotiations aimed at stopping the International Criminal Court from using United Nations facilities anywhere in the United States. It would pursue that restriction through an additional agreement governing the United Nations headquarters. The bill requires an effort to begin talks; it does not itself impose the restriction or require negotiations to succeed.
Not later than 30 days after the opening date of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations shall seek to open negotiations at the United Nations for a supplemental agreement to the United Nations Headquarters Agreement to prohibit the United Nations from hosting, leasing, or otherwise allowing use of its facilities within the United States by the International Criminal Court.
The bill's findings offer its stated rationale: they assert that the Senate has not ratified the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, that the court lacks jurisdiction within the United States or over United States persons, and that it maintains an office at United Nations headquarters in New York. These are assertions in the proposed findings, not independently established legal conclusions in this analysis.
(3) The Senate has not ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (4) The International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction within the United States or over United States persons. (5) The International Criminal Court maintains an office within the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York.
The bill uses definitions of the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute from an existing law. It defines the headquarters agreement to be supplemented as the United States–United Nations agreement signed on June 26, 1947, and effective November 21, 1947. A supplemental agreement would add to that agreement.
(1) International Criminal Court; Rome Statute The terms International Criminal Court and Rome Statute have the meaning given those terms in section 2013 of the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (22 U.S.C. 7432). (2) United Nations Headquarters Agreement The term United Nations Headquarters Agreement means the Agreement regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations, signed at Lake Success on June 26, 1947, and entered into force on November 21, 1947, between the United Nations and the United States.
The Ambassador would have to seek to open negotiations no later than 30 days after the opening of the United Nations General Assembly's 80th session. This is a deadline for seeking talks, rather than for completing an agreement.
Not later than 30 days after the opening date of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations shall seek to open negotiations at the United Nations for a supplemental agreement
The proposed negotiating objective covers United Nations facilities throughout the United States, including hosting the court, leasing facilities to it, or otherwise allowing it to use them. The text specifies no exceptions, enforcement mechanism, or end date for the requested restriction.
to prohibit the United Nations from hosting, leasing, or otherwise allowing use of its facilities within the United States by the International Criminal Court.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated January 10, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on March 4, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-01-10T07:33:08Z. 2025-03-04: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 2025-03-04: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-04. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what appears in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; earmark disclosures and accompanying committee materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow benefit, preferential exemption, or special carve-out was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jan 10, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI