U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced that the United States will begin a diplomatic campaign aimed at weakening, isolating and ultimately dismantling the International Criminal Court.
The move marks a major escalation in Washington’s long-running opposition to the court, which the Trump administration says threatens American sovereignty and could expose U.S. personnel to foreign prosecution.
Rubio Says U.S. Will Target ICC “Brick by Brick”
In an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal, Rubio said the United States would work with allied governments to take apart the ICC “brick by brick, if necessary.”
He framed the campaign as a choice between national sovereignty and global governance, saying the administration would use available government tools to protect American service members, officials and citizens from ICC jurisdiction.
U.S. Cannot Legally Dissolve the Court Alone
Although Rubio used the language of dismantling the court, the United States does not have direct legal power to dissolve the ICC.
The ICC was created by the Rome Statute, and only its member states can formally decide the future of the treaty-based institution. The Assembly of States Parties says 125 countries are currently parties to the Rome Statute.
Possible U.S. Measures Under Review
The administration has not released a full public plan, but a State Department official told Reuters that possible actions include travel bans, visa cancellations, expanded sanctions and diplomatic pressure on governments that continue supporting the ICC.
Countries that receive U.S. security assistance and refuse to reject ICC authority over Americans could face closer scrutiny, according to the same report.
Rubio Cites Afghanistan Investigation
Rubio pointed to the ICC’s 2020 authorization of an investigation into Afghanistan, which included possible crimes involving U.S. forces, as one reason for the new campaign.
However, Reuters reported that the court has taken no recent action against U.S. personnel, and since 2021 prosecutors have focused more on alleged crimes by the Taliban and Afghan government forces than on the U.S. role.
Concerns Over Future Cases Against U.S. Officials
Rubio also referred to calls from activists and a former ICC prosecutor to treat Trump administration deportations and military strikes as possible international crimes.
The administration argues that such efforts show the ICC could be used politically against the United States, even though the U.S. is not a member of the court.
What Is the International Criminal Court?
The International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, was established in 2002 to prosecute individuals accused of the most serious international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The Council on Foreign Relations notes that the U.S., China, Russia and Israel are among countries that are not parties to the court.
U.S. Has Never Joined the ICC
Former President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but did not send it to the Senate for ratification.
In 2002, Congress passed legislation giving the president authority to use all necessary means to secure the release of Americans detained by or on behalf of the ICC.
That law reflected long-standing U.S. concern that the court could claim authority over American military personnel or officials.
A Shift From Earlier U.S. Approaches
The new campaign goes further than the approach taken by several previous administrations.
Earlier U.S. governments kept America outside the ICC but sometimes supported international criminal justice efforts in specific cases.
The U.S. abstained on the 2005 UN Security Council referral of Darfur to the ICC and supported the 2011 referral of Libya, showing selective engagement with the court rather than an effort to destroy it.
Past Cooperation on International Justice
Washington also supported international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s.
Under later administrations, the U.S. offered limited cooperation or political support for some accountability efforts, including war crimes cases involving Sudan, Libya and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
That selective cooperation contrasts with the Trump administration’s current effort to isolate the court more aggressively.
ICC Declines Immediate Comment
An ICC spokesperson said the court would not comment at this stage.
The court has already faced pressure from Washington, including sanctions against ICC officials and judges linked to cases involving U.S. and Israeli interests. Reuters reported that three ICC judges sued the Trump administration last month over sanctions they argued were unlawful.
Sanctions Could Expand
The new campaign may build on earlier U.S. sanctions against court personnel.
Reuters reported that the Trump administration has already imposed sanctions on multiple ICC judges and prosecutors and has considered broader steps against the institution.
Expanded sanctions could affect not only ICC officials but also organizations and governments seen as supporting the court’s work.
Allies Could Face Diplomatic Pressure
Many U.S. allies are ICC members, including the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Australia and most European treaty allies.
That makes the campaign diplomatically sensitive because Washington may pressure close partners to distance themselves from a court they have formally joined and helped fund.
Debate Over Sovereignty and Accountability
Supporters of Rubio’s position argue that the ICC threatens national sovereignty by allowing foreign judges and prosecutors to examine decisions made by democratic governments.
Critics argue that weakening the court could damage global accountability for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, especially in cases where national courts are unwilling or unable to act.
Marco Rubio’s announcement signals a major hardening of U.S. policy toward the International Criminal Court. While the United States cannot legally dissolve the ICC on its own, the Trump administration is preparing to use sanctions, visa restrictions and diplomatic pressure to isolate the court and discourage allies from supporting its authority over Americans.
The campaign raises a larger debate over sovereignty, international justice and whether powerful countries should be beyond the reach of global accountability mechanisms.