US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Monday a sweeping diplomatic campaign to dismantle the International Criminal Court (ICC), the global war crimes tribunal headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, accusing it of waging what he called a war against the United States through international law rather than military force. In a video posted to X, an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, and an official State Department statement, Rubio declared that the court posed "an intolerable threat to American sovereignty" and vowed to expand sanctions against its officials and pressure allied nations to withdraw from the institution.
The State Department said it is considering a broad range of measures, including travel bans, visa revocations, additional sanctions against the ICC and affiliated organisations, and diplomatic pressure on member states to exit the court. Officials indicated that countries still receiving US assistance while refusing to reject the ICC's authority would face increased scrutiny. Washington is also reportedly considering sanctioning the tribunal as an institution — a step that would prohibit Americans from working with the court and expose US companies and banks to financial penalties for any dealings with it. The Trump administration had already imposed sanctions on ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan, two of his deputies, and six judges earlier in 2025, following the court's issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant in connection with its investigation into conduct during the war in Gaza.
The ICC was established in 2002 under the Rome Statute and can prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide — but only for conduct occurring on the territory of states that have ratified the treaty. The United States, Israel, Russia, and China are not signatories. Critics of Rubio's campaign argue that his framing fundamentally misrepresents how the court operates. "The ICC is not claiming jurisdiction over conduct in the United States," said Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch. "Rubio is dressing up his quest for impunity for American war crimes under the label of national sovereignty, which ignores the sovereign right of other nations to invoke the ICC for crimes committed on their territory." Three international legal experts echoed this assessment.
The campaign marks an escalation of a long-running confrontation between the Trump administration and the court. In February 2025, Trump signed an executive order declaring a national emergency over what he described as the ICC's illegitimate targeting of the United States and Israel. Sanctions have since expanded to include a UN special rapporteur and Palestinian human rights groups involved in gathering evidence of potential Israeli war crimes. In June, three ICC judges sanctioned by the administration filed a lawsuit in New York against Trump, Rubio, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, arguing the measures constituted unlawful extrajudicial pressure.
The broader stakes have drawn warnings from legal and human rights advocates. Opponents of the campaign argue it risks obstructing justice in active ICC cases covering conflicts from Ukraine to Sudan, and undermines the rules-based international order established after the Second World War. Notably, the Trump administration has at times welcomed ICC jurisdiction when it suited US interests — including investigations into alleged Russian war crimes in Ukraine. That selective posture has deepened criticism that the current campaign is driven less by principled concerns about sovereignty than by a desire to shield specific allies and military personnel from international accountability.