The International Criminal Court (ICC), established in 1998 to prosecute the most serious international crimes, is facing an unprecedented challenge from the United States. The US, which has long had a complicated relationship with the ICC, is now leading a campaign to dismantle the court, a move that has drawn fierce criticism and prompted several countries to announce their withdrawal.
The ICC, based in The Hague, Netherlands, was created to act as a court of last resort for crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. Despite its noble mission, the court has faced criticism for its perceived focus on African countries and its lack of jurisdiction over powerful Western nations.
US Campaign Against the ICC
Since taking office for the second time in January 2026, US President Donald Trump has taken an increasingly anti-international stance. The US has cut funding to dozens of international organizations, shuttered the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and exited the Paris Agreement. These moves are part of a broader anti-international sentiment that has long been present in the Republican party.
In mid-July, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the US would wage a campaign to systematically disable the ICC’s ability to function. Rubio described the ICC as a threat to US sovereignty and accused the court of targeting American personnel and Israeli leaders. The US has imposed sanctions on 11 ICC officials in response to the court’s 2026 arrest warrant issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials.
International Reactions and Withdrawals
The US campaign against the ICC has sparked a wave of withdrawals from member states. Chad, Venezuela, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger have all announced plans to withdraw from the court. These countries have accused the ICC of disproportionately targeting non-Western nations and have cited the court’s limited effectiveness as reasons for their departure.
The withdrawals will not take effect immediately. Under the Rome Statute, departure generally becomes effective one year after the United Nations receives formal notification. Withdrawal also does not terminate obligations connected to investigations or proceedings that began before a country’s exit took effect.
Political Motivations and Domestic Politics
Analysts say the renewed focus on fighting the ICC is predominantly for domestic political purposes. With upcoming mid-term elections in November and the looming spectre of a presidential race, the Trump administration is seeking to bolster its credentials among conservatives. By waging a campaign against the ICC, Rubio can claim success if he manages to persuade other countries to withdraw.
However, analysts doubt that Rubio will have luck persuading major European nations or countries like Australia to withdraw. The campaign is likely to cause friction between the US and its Western allies. The ICC’s difficulties have been compounded by the dismissal of its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, following an investigation into allegations of serious misconduct.
The ICC is facing one of the gravest institutional crises in its history. The US campaign against the court, combined with the withdrawals and mounting pressure from Washington, has left the tribunal struggling to maintain its credibility and effectiveness. As the situation unfolds, the international community watches closely to see how this battle over global justice will play out.
