BOLD: The US Courted the ICC When It Served America. Now It's Dismantling It.

Published October 10, 2026 • By Naeemofficial782

The United States did not always hate the International Criminal Court. There was a time — not long ago — when Washington found it useful.

In 2011, the Obama administration voted for the UN Security Council resolution that referred Libya to the ICC. It was the first time the US had ever cast a vote in favor of an ICC referral. American diplomats framed it as a moral victory. The court, they said, would hold Muammar Gaddafi accountable for crimes against humanity.

The court was useful then. It served American interests. It went after America's enemies.

Now the court has turned its attention to Israel. And the United States is not merely withdrawing its support. It is trying to destroy the institution.

The Receipt

On Friday, the Trump administration sanctioned the ICC itself — not just individual judges, but the entire institution. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called it a "rogue court" and said the US would "ban transactions with this rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling its ability to operate".

"Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC," Rubio said.

The State Department's statement went further: "We will continue our campaign to dismantle the ICC, brick by brick, until Americans are threatened no longer".

The court has been placed on the Treasury's Specially Designated Nationals list. American companies cannot serve the court. Banks must freeze its accounts. Insurers must drop coverage. Software companies must halt cooperation.

The Treasury issued a 180-day license allowing some operations to continue — a window, Rubio said, for the court's member states to "rein in the court".

The Hypocrisy

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. Neither is Israel. Washington has always objected to the court's jurisdiction over non-signatory states.

But the objection has never been consistent. The US supported the ICC's work in Libya. It supported the court's investigations in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2020, it imposed sanctions on the ICC's chief prosecutor over an investigation into American soldiers in Afghanistan.

The pattern is not principled. It is transactional. When the court targets America's adversaries, it is a tool of justice. When it targets America's allies — or America itself — it is a threat to sovereignty.

The trigger for the current escalation was the ICC's 2024 arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Rubio has been explicit about the motivation. In July, he published an op-ed titled "Why We're Dismantling the ICC," arguing that the court threatens "U.S. soldiers, police officers, Border Patrol agents and elected leaders". Trump himself said the campaign was aimed at defending Netanyahu, not himself.

The ICC rejects the premise. It says it has jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed on the territory of member states — regardless of the suspect's citizenship.

The Court's Response

The ICC did not retreat. It called the sanctions "an assault on the rule of law and on the very foundations of the international legal order".

ICC President Tomoko Akane — herself sanctioned by the US in August — said the court "will not be deterred".

"The Court will continue to fully discharge its mandate, with independence and impartiality, acting only on the basis of the law and the evidence, for the sake of the countless victims of grave crimes," Akane said.

But the court also acknowledged it cannot stand alone. "This is not just about defending a single institution," Akane said, "but about safeguarding the international order grounded upon the rule of law".

The Timing

The sanctions came hours after Navi Pillay — a former ICC judge who chaired the UN commission that found Israel committed genocide in Gaza — was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel committee's citation was not subtle. It said it wanted to "issue a reminder" at a time when "judges and institutions of international law are under political attack".

Hours later, the United States began dismantling the institution that enforces it.

What Comes Next

The court has been preparing for this moment for months. Officials have shifted office computers from Microsoft to open-source equivalents. They have made new arrangements for banking and health insurance. The ICC's registrar has called on the European Union to activate a "blocking mechanism" to shield European companies from the extraterritorial effects of US sanctions.

Whether that is enough remains to be seen. The court has 125 member states — including all EU countries and all NATO members except the United States and Turkey.

But those same allies rely on American military power for their defense. Rubio made that leverage explicit: "We expect our allies... to rein in the court".

The United States built the ICC when it was useful. Now it is tearing it down because it is no longer useful. That is not a principled position. It is a warning to every international institution that might one day hold America accountable.