The administration of US President Donald Trump has intensified its campaign against the International Criminal Court (ICC), pledging to dismantle the tribunal “brick by brick” while describing it as a threat to American sovereignty.
The ICC, established in 2002 after more than 100 countries voted in favour of its creation in 1998, serves as a court of last resort to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. The United States was among seven countries that voted against the court’s establishment.
The renewed push against the ICC has sparked criticism from rights groups, with Amnesty International describing the campaign as “reprehensible”. Political analysts, however, argue that the administration’s hardline stance is driven largely by domestic political considerations, including preparations for upcoming midterm elections and the 2028 presidential race.
Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has adopted an increasingly confrontational approach toward international institutions. His administration has withdrawn funding from several global organisations, permanently shut down the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and exited the Paris climate agreement.
John Bellinger, a former adviser to the US State Department during President George W. Bush’s administration, said the actions reflect a growing anti-international sentiment within the Republican Party.
“The Trump administration has simply taken it to the highest level ever,” Bellinger said.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio escalated the administration’s rhetoric in July by announcing plans to weaken the ICC’s operations.
“We have lunatics and crazies involved in the ICC that are talking about charging members of the US military, maybe even the president or a future president,” Rubio said.
“We are not members of that; we never signed on to that treaty; they need to understand that.
“Now, they’re going to see the consequences of ignoring us.”
The administration’s opposition intensified after the ICC issued arrest warrants in 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials. In response, Washington imposed sanctions on 11 ICC officials.
Trump insisted the campaign against the court was not intended to shield him personally from prosecution.
“There’s no information that they’re after me. It could happen. I wouldn’t be surprised,” Trump said.
“[Rubio] is not trying to defend me. He is trying to defend Bibi [Mr Netanyahu] and various other people.”
Following Rubio’s announcement, Venezuela and Chad disclosed plans to withdraw from the ICC. Bellinger claimed Venezuela’s move had been underway before the latest US campaign but suggested Washington may have influenced the process.
He also questioned the timing of Rubio’s offensive, describing it as politically motivated rather than driven by foreign policy concerns.
“The ICC has not done anything to provoke the United States directly in the last six years,” Bellinger said.
“It’s really not at all clear why Secretary Rubio decided to announce right now that the US is launching a campaign to dismantle the ICC.”
According to Bellinger, Rubio’s reported presidential ambitions could explain the strategy.
“The Secretary of State, who is obviously a potential candidate for president in 2028, is trying to bolster his credentials among conservatives in the United States,” he said.
He added that Rubio could present the campaign as evidence that he had defended American interests, even if few countries ultimately leave the court.
University of Melbourne law expert Carrie McDougall also linked the administration’s position to domestic politics, arguing that governments facing political pressure often seek external adversaries.
“What we’ve often seen in history is that when an administration, particularly one that has authoritarian tendencies, starts to get in trouble, is that it starts trying to identify external enemies,” she said.
“And I think the Trump administration has said expressly that they have very little regard for international law and international institutions. So it makes [the ICC] a very obvious target as part of Trump’s rhetoric.”
McDougall warned that efforts to persuade other nations to abandon the court would be troubling if successful.
“I think it’s absolutely critical that ICC state parties stand up for the court,” she said.
Although Bellinger described the ICC as “a flawed and politicised institution,” he maintained that it remains the only international forum capable of prosecuting the world’s gravest crimes.
Meanwhile, the Australian government reaffirmed its support for the court.
“We respect the court’s independence and the important role it plays in upholding international law,” a spokesperson for Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said.
