The Real Threat to the ICC Isn't Trump
Mark Kersten
The International Criminal Court faces an aggressive U.S. campaign, but its biggest threat may come from supportive nations that fail to act. Concrete steps—cooperation, membership expansion, funding, and protecting sanctioned staff—are needed to save it.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is once again under attack from the United States. Washington's motive for dismantling the institution is clear: its insistence on absolute immunity for Americans. In many contexts, there are credible allegations that U.S. citizens are involved in international crimes. If the U.S. did not want to face accountability for its atrocities, it would not seek to destroy the court.
Washington's aggression toward the ICC is not new. The U.S. sought to undermine the court's operations even before it became part of the global landscape. Since George W. Bush's presidency, Republican politicians have been particularly obsessed with the court and its work. From National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to current Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Republican officials have focused on the ICC even though the court has never issued an arrest warrant for any American citizen.
Ironically, U.S. officials' efforts to condemn the ICC have lent the institution credibility and legitimacy. For those who believe the ICC is powerless against American imperial ambitions, the rage of successive Republican administrations is a powerful antidote. In short, the greater Washington's frenzy against the ICC, the more robust and persuasive the court becomes to those who believe the U.S. is not above the law.
This contempt and commitment to undermining the institution are a feature, not a bug, of international relations. But this time seems different. The U.S. sanctions targeting ICC staff, threats to sanction the entire court, and Rubio's pledge to dismantle it "brick by brick" signal escalation and pose an existential threat to the ICC.
The only thing that can save the court is its member states. If they do not act, the ICC's killer will not be President Donald Trump, but their own indifference.
Statements of support for the ICC, mainly from Europe and South America, are welcome but insufficient. There are concrete actions that states can take to not only protect the court but also strengthen it.
First, ICC members should enhance cooperation with the court. They should reaffirm support for all situations under investigation and show readiness to cooperate specifically on evidence and execution of arrest warrants. If they have done so before, they should do it again.
Second, supportive states should encourage more countries to join the ICC. This is particularly important after Venezuela and Chad left the court—both departed following Washington's urging. If the Trump administration seeks to weaken the ICC by reducing membership, supportive states should respond with a campaign to recruit other nations to join.
Many countries have considered joining the ICC but have not yet committed. Lebanon, for example, had indicated intention to become a member, which would grant the court jurisdiction over alleged crimes by Israeli officials and Hezbollah commanders. Beirut has now decided not to join, but states could clearly voice support for Lebanon's participation and link bilateral trade negotiations with efforts to encourage accession.
Third, states should provide additional financial support for the ICC. The court's 2026 budget is about $210 million—nearly one-fifth of what the U.S. spends per day on its war in Iran. That is a modest sum for a court seeking to hold perpetrators of war crimes accountable in Ukraine, Palestine, and Darfur. Money speaks louder than words. Providing flexible and supplementary budgets is a way of saying: This is our court, and we will do everything we can to ensure it is fully resourced.
Fourth, states must protect ICC staff facing U.S. sanctions. Last August, many judges were sanctioned simply for doing their duty to apply the law fairly. They cannot use banks, book hotel rooms, or pay with credit cards. The European Union and Canada have laws that could shield judges from the impact of U.S. sanctions, but the EU has not yet activated its Anti-Coercion Instrument, and Canada has refused to apply its Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act.
Neither the EU nor Canada has supported ICC judges' lawsuits against sanctions in U.S. courts. Trying to get Trump's America to stop attacking the ICC is like trying to nail jelly to the wall—it will not happen. But that does not justify the hesitation of nations that claim to support the court.
The U.S. attacks are meant to silence and isolate the ICC's supporters. Why? Because Washington knows its siege alone cannot destroy the institution. To succeed, they need others to abandon the ICC.
Instead, states should seize the unprecedented moment to back the ICC in unprecedented ways. Imperfect as it is, the court is the only permanent institution capable of delivering justice for the worst perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. With all its flaws, the court should be reformed, not destroyed so that those perpetrators escape justice. Maintaining support for the ICC in the face of Trump's assaults is not just about protecting a court—it is about affirming that no one, however powerful, stands above the law.
