The United States has initiated a coordinated campaign to systematically weaken the International Criminal Court, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on 13 July. A State Department statement described the effort as a “whole-of-government response” designed to “neutralise” the court’s ability to operate and to target American military personnel or officials. The campaign includes six lines of action: high-level diplomatic demarches urging allies to withdraw from the Rome Statute or reject the court’s jurisdiction; increased scrutiny of nations that rely on US security assistance while cooperating with the ICC; visa revocations and travel bans on court staff; and expanded sanctions against the institution and its affiliated organisations. The move escalates a long-standing US posture of non-recognition into an active attempt to dismantle the tribunal.

Viewed from Washington, the ICC represents an illegitimate encroachment on national sovereignty. Rubio, writing in the Wall Street Journal, framed the campaign as a defence of “sovereignty over globalisation” and accused the court of being sustained by “leftist NGOs, arrogant globalists and hostile Third World governments”. The Trump administration has specifically cited the court’s investigation into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan and the arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant as evidence of overreach. The United States has never ratified the Rome Statute and, alongside Israel, Russia, China and India, does not accept the court’s jurisdiction. In contrast, the European Union and the Netherlands, the court’s host state, have reiterated their firm support. An EU spokesperson called attacks on the tribunal “simply unacceptable” and stressed that the ICC does not target sovereign states. The United Nations also underscored the court’s role as a fundamental element of the international judicial system.

Legal and diplomatic analysts warn that the campaign could cripple the court. Jacobo Dayán, a specialist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, told Aristegui Noticias that sustained pressure on member states to withdraw risks leaving the ICC in “absolute uselessness”. The court, which currently counts 125 states parties, has already seen withdrawals by Hungary, the Philippines under Rodrigo Duterte and three African nations. Experts note that the most severe measure under consideration—sanctions on the court itself—could freeze its bank accounts and cut off access to dollar-denominated payment systems, effectively paralysing its operations. Two US-based rights organisations, Democracy for the Arab World Now and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide, have filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the sanctions violate constitutional free-speech protections by chilling advocacy before the court.

The offensive revives and expands a policy from Donald Trump’s first term, when an executive order imposing sanctions on ICC officials was blocked by a federal judge and later revoked by the Biden administration. Trump signed a new executive order in February 2025, and the State Department has since sanctioned two judges and two prosecutors. The current campaign is described by officials as “just the beginning”. The EU has pledged to uphold the Rome Statute, but Washington is expected to intensify bilateral pressure on allies. The dossier remains open, with further sanctions designations and diplomatic initiatives anticipated in the coming weeks, while the legal challenge in New York proceeds.