PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 20, 2010
American Self-Defense Protection Act of 2010 - Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the United States should not ratify, nor should the President submit for ratification, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC); (2) the President and the Secretary of State should not undertake actions that could legitimize the ICC; (3) the President and the Secretary should lead a diplomatic effort to encourage additional countries to enter into agreements with the United States preventing the ICC from proceeding against U.S. personnel present in such countries; (4) the President and the Secretary should lead a diplomatic effort to defend the right to self-defense of the United States and other democracies, including Israel, against efforts such as the Goldstone Report that seek to deny democracies that very right via entities like the ICC; and (5) the President and the Secretary should explore alternative forums to combat impunity for war crimes and other atrocities while respecting the sovereignty and right to self-defense of democracies.
Prohibits funds made available to any U.S. government, state, or local department, agency, or entity, including any court, from being used for U.S. participation in the ICC or its attendant activities, including any review conference or meeting of the Assembly of States Parties.
People & committees
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-18] · R–FL
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 currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. 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.5351 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.5351 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.5351 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.5351 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.