Earlier this month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio launched a political campaign aimed at dismantling what the United States Department of State (DOS) formally characterized as “an intolerable threat to U.S. sovereignty” presented by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The official announcement issued by the Office of the Spokesperson at the State Department explained that the campaign in question “will feature a whole-of-government response to systematically disable the ICC’s ability to operate.”
In plain English, the Trump administration is mobilizing all its governmental agencies and available resources at their disposal to declare full-scale war to disable the Court’s ability to function, and dismantle it “brick by brick,” once and for all.
In addition to imposing sanctions, visa revocations, and travel bans against the Court and its staff, the Trump administration will be waging a global disinformation campaign “to highlight the ICC’s abuses” and pressure friendly or vulnerable nations to withdraw from the Court by rejecting its “authority to prosecute and even imprison American servicemen and officials operating on behalf of America’s national interest.”
In other words, like its predecessors, the current administration is basing its opposition on the alleged broad reach of the Court, as Washington calls it.
In reality, however, the US government is resisting accountability before the international community for potential violations of international law and war crimes that its military personnel might face in ongoing and future conflicts around the world, as witnessed for example in the case of the Abu Ghraib prison abuses during the Iraq war in 2003-2004.
The US attack on the ICC is pure hypocrisy, unadulterated nationalist pride, and imperial hubris, packaged in exaggerated and fake concern for possible overreach by the Court.
A history of distrust
Focusing its animosity on the ICC is not new nor unique to Secretary of State Rubio or the Trump administration as a whole. Indeed, US anxiety and mistrust of the ICC is historically bipartisan and can be traced back to the very inception of the Court on 17 July 1998, at the Rome Conference, and its formal establishment four years later, on 1 July 2002.
Representing the United States at the Rome Conference, the Clinton administration, which called for the establishment of “a properly constituted and structured” court, was clearly conflicted about the Rome Statute, which gave birth to the ICC. Even though the US under Clinton ended up signing but not ratifying the Rome Statute in 2000, the US signature was promptly withdrawn in 2002 by President George W. Bush.
Unfortunately, this political ambivalence and policy flip-flop infected successive US administrations between 1998 and 2026, deeply skewing US policy regarding the ICC through administrations from Bill Clinton’s to Donald Trump’s.
The latter, however, unlike his wavering Democratic predecessors, turned the issue into an outright obsession by targeting the international rules-based order and its various intergovernmental agencies, including the Court. This was part of his so-called “America First” agenda, which contributed to the current campaign to demolish the Court.
Although the Rome Statute was adopted in 1998 by a vote of 120 to seven, with 21 states abstaining, equivocation and eventual rejection remain a puzzling aspect of US foreign policy. Why would the United States of America—which prides itself on being the global beacon of freedom and hope, the historic champion of democracy, a shining city on a hill when it comes to liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness—feel seriously threatened by an international court dedicated to fighting the ugliest crimes devised by man?
Why does the United States of America still refuse to join the 65% of UN member states that opted to sign the Rome Statute of 28 years ago?
Analysts attribute Washington’s refusal to join the ICC to a series of core concerns and fears that have characterized US foreign policy since the Court’s inception. First and foremost, Democratic and Republican foreign policy elites are broadly aligned in the belief that the Court represents a direct challenge to US sovereignty and is destined to intrude on fundamental and constitutionally protected rights of US citizens. This includes both civilians and those in the armed forces – for reasons contradictory to the country’s national interests.
This highlights that the US government has adhered all along to the stubborn notion that it does not want its citizens held accountable by external legal entities with broad powers that might undermine their rights enshrined in the Constitution.
A campaign driven by Trump’s hatred
The Trump administration has been clearly the most adamant and extreme in its rejection of the ICC jurisdiction over US citizens. Trump’s hatred for the Court was expressed as far back as 25 September 2018, when he told the UN General Assembly that the ICC had “no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority” over the United States.
On 6 February 2025, President Trump imposed new sanctions on the Court as part of his sweeping post-inauguration list of executive orders that targeted issues and organizations the president viewed unfavorably.
Certainly, the ICC was high on the list of targeted institutions. In Executive Order 14203, titled ‘Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court,’ Trump accused the Court of engaging in “illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel,” neither of which is a signatory to the Rome Statute, and issuing what he perceived as “baseless arrest warrants” against Israeli leaders.
Consequently, Washington placed the ICC, its judges, officers, prosecutors, and staff on US sanctions lists, froze their assets, blocked their financial transactions within the United States, and demanded the Court drop all its proceedings and investigations of US and Israeli personnel pertaining to criminal violations committed in Afghanistan and the Gaza Strip.
On 2 July 2026, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche sent a letter to Judge Tomoko Akane, President of the ICC, emphasising that “the Department of Justice rejects any assertion of jurisdiction by the ICC over Americans.” Blanche condescendingly reminded Judge Akane that the United States has not been a party to the Rome Statute and does not consider the treaty as binding.
Resorting to typical harsh and undiplomatic language characteristic of the Trump administration, Blanche stated that “The ICC has acted in an increasingly lawless and illegitimate manner…Its record of selective enforcement and credible allegations of internal misconduct raise serious doubts about the ICC’s impartiality, credibility, and legitimacy.”
The US position on the International Criminal Court is untenable and unbefitting a superpower that claims moral superiority over its global challengers. Washington cannot maintain its credibility while flaunting its disregard for the international rules-based order and its fundamental institutions.
Whether at home or abroad, no one is above the law—including the Trump administration.
This op-ed was published by the New Arab on July 30, 2026.
