Donald Trump’s administration has announced a campaign to dismantle the International Criminal Court “brick by brick”, stepping up pressure on the court and on countries that continue to work with it.

The US move comes amid a wider retreat from parts of the post-war international framework. The administration has pulled funding from dozens of international institutions, shut down USAID, and withdrew from the Paris climate agreement. It has also signalled it would not automatically come to the aid of allies under attack, and the article says the “Board of Peace” is intended to sideline the United Nations.

US drive against the ICC

Last week, the US State Department said it wants to break up the ICC’s authority and infrastructure. It said the approach would involve “increased scrutiny” of countries that do not reject what it called the ICC’s “false authority” while still receiving US assistance, with particular focus on states that benefit from the US “security umbrella”.

The policy is set out as official US action rather than an informal threat. The article describes it as a sustained effort backed by planning and enforcement, rather than a short-lived political message.

Sanctions aimed at judges, officials and partners

Travel restrictions and sanctions have already been imposed on judges and senior court officials, and further measures are expected.

The article says individuals targeted by sanctions can find themselves cut off from key parts of daily life and commerce. It cites examples such as personal bank accounts being closed and a range of US-based services becoming inaccessible, including ride-hailing and booking platforms. It also notes that email access can be blocked because major providers are based in the United States, and says the court may need to shift or back up evidence stored on Microsoft systems.

The campaign also includes cooperation with other countries outside the ICC, and the article says this could align the US with states such as Russia and China.

UK role and the court’s internal crisis

As one of the court’s major backers, the United Kingdom is likely to be among the countries drawn into the US scrutiny. The article says the UK contributes just over £15m a year and is the fourth largest donor after Japan, Germany and France.

The ICC’s vulnerabilities are also internal. The article reports that two women, including an ICC staff member, have accused Karim Khan, the court’s chief prosecutor, of sexual abuse. It says the ICC’s executive committee voted last month to suspend him after concluding he committed serious misconduct, though Khan denies wrongdoing. The court’s 125 member states are due to vote this Friday on whether to remove him from office.

The article also cites criticism of the ICC’s record. It says the court has struggled with major cases, including those involving Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, accused over Kenya’s post-election violence in 2007-08. It adds that as the ICC delayed, witnesses disappeared and the cases collapsed after Kenyatta and Ruto later won elections.

The article says these weaknesses may make it harder for the court’s supporters to defend it. It argues that even so, the ICC’s existence continues to affect perceptions and decision-making by keeping arrest risks and indictments in play for senior figures, including figures such as Israel’s prime minister and Russia’s president, and it notes that Rodrigo Duterte, the former president of the Philippines, is on trial for crimes against humanity.

It also references Luis Moreno Ocampo, the ICC’s first chief prosecutor, who said the administration views the court as a barrier and fears it could become a target after leaving office.

Join the discussion?

25 July 2026

View full article

President Trump views many international organizations (UN, WHO, ICC, etc.) as anti-American or ineffective!

He has a good point!

At present any form of accountability by the US for its actions is deemed bad.

Last thing Donnie, Vlad and Bibi want is a trial for their crimes.

They can't flee the scene so they try to bring the ICC into disrepute and hobble its prosecutions. The warrants are already out there. They should in fact be on Interpol.

Only 2 countries that originally signed

the Rome Statute and subsequently officially declared they would not ratify it, stripping themselves of any legal obligations to the court are the United States and Israel. Obviously conscious of the war crimes that they have committed. Shameful act of avoiding accountability.

"The ICC’s vulnerabilities are also internal. The article reports that two women, including an ICC staff member, have accused Karim Khan, the court’s chief prosecutor, of sexual abuse. It says the ICC’s executive committee voted last month to suspend him after concluding he committed serious misconduct, though Khan denies wrongdoing. The court’s 125 member states are due to vote this Friday on whether to remove him from office."

It seems that the internal justice system of ICC certainly seems to work better than in the USA. -> Epstein files... again

16 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Last thing Donnie, Vlad and Bibi want is a trial for their crimes.

They can't flee the scene so they try to bring the ICC into disrepute and hobble its prosecutions. The warrants are already out there. They should in fact be on Interpol.

Opposition to the ICC by Trump, Netanyahu (and others) is based on legitimate concerns about sovereignty, double standards, and politicization — not fear of “facing justice for their crimes.”The ICC has serious credibility issues. Dismissing all criticism of it as criminal self-protection is weak reasoning!

33 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Opposition to the ICC by Trump, Netanyahu (and others) is based on legitimate concerns about sovereignty, double standards, and politicization — not fear of “facing justice for their crimes.”The ICC has serious credibility issues. Dismissing all criticism of it as criminal self-protection is weak reasoning!

If people like Trump, Putin, BB etc are against adjudication, then they (ICC) are doing their job correctly.

Edited July 26Jul 26 by Schoggibueb

On 7/25/2026 at 3:58 PM, Schoggibueb said:

"The ICC’s vulnerabilities are also internal. The article reports that two women, including an ICC staff member, have accused Karim Khan, the court’s chief prosecutor, of sexual abuse. It says the ICC’s executive committee voted last month to suspend him after concluding he committed serious misconduct, though Khan denies wrongdoing. The court’s 125 member states are due to vote this Friday on whether to remove him from office."

It seems that the internal justice system of ICC certainly seems to work better than in the USA. -> Epstein files... again

Whether this becomes a #MeToo issue is debatable. He's a tough investigative prosecutor. I think he should just apologise for any misunderstanding and get back to his important work. Pity he couldn't keep it in his pants but...you know how it is.

Many observers think he's being targeted because he indicted Bibi (ya know, the int'l Jewish conspiracy 5555!).

8 hours ago, Schoggibueb said:

If people like Trump, Putin, BB etc are against adjudication, then they (ICC) are doing their job correctly.

That completely dodges the actual issue.

Democratic leaders are accountable to their country's legal constitution and their voters, not an international tribunal that citizens never voted for and cannot remove.

By reducing an argument to "you only oppose us because you're guilty," the court's defenders bypass the actual question:

Where does their legal authority actually come from?

The ICC’s authority comes strictly from the consent of member states. When it tries to exercise power over leaders or citizens of non-member nations without a UN Security Council mandate, it isn't operating on clear, established international law—it is asserting an authority it was never granted.

This is the core argument of Marco Rubio.

A foreign court cannot claim legal jurisdiction over a nation's citizens without that nation's explicit consent.

Edited July 26Jul 26 by Smokey and the Bandit

8 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

That completely dodges the actual issue.

Democratic leaders are accountable to their country's legal constitution and their voters, not an international tribunal that citizens never voted for and cannot remove.

By reducing an argument to "you only oppose us because you're guilty," the court's defenders bypass the actual question:

Where does their legal authority actually come from?

The ICC’s authority comes strictly from the consent of member states. When it tries to exercise power over leaders or citizens of non-member nations without a UN Security Council mandate, it isn't operating on clear, established international law—it is asserting an authority it was never granted.

The ICC is an intergovernmental organisation and international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands.

Established in 2002 under the multilateral Rome Statute, the ICC is the first and only permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.

As of January 2025, 125 states are party to the statute.

As USA, Israel, Russia, North Korea, Iran and other countries haven't ratified the Rome Statute, they can do as they please on these territories without being accused, but not in the countries who are members.

So what exactly is your problem? The legal authority is clearly defined for those who joined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

This is the core argument of Marco Rubio.

No. The core argument of Rubio is: We're powerful and will do as we please. Nobody will hold us to account.

Marco just wants to tell his daddy ...look I got our Cuban

land and house back at last !

I would imagine many Palestinians feel the same !

13 hours ago, stevenl said:

No. The core argument of Rubio is: We're powerful and will do as we please. Nobody will hold us to account.

Clearly Marco Rubio understands the law better than you do, there again he does actually have a law degree and was an attorney!

The actions by the USA may result in ways Trump could not forecast.

The rise of non US institutions like EU credit cards, EU banks, software and rules that exclude American companies from entry.

Sometimes you get what you wish for.

14 hours ago, Schoggibueb said:

The ICC is an intergovernmental organisation and international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands.

Established in 2002 under the multilateral Rome Statute, the ICC is the first and only permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.

As of January 2025, 125 states are party to the statute.

As USA, Israel, Russia, North Korea, Iran and other countries haven't ratified the Rome Statute, they can do as they please on these territories without being accused, but not in the countries who are members.

So what exactly is your problem? The legal authority is clearly defined for those who joined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

My problem is that an unelected court is claiming authority over nations that explicitly said 'no' to its jurisdiction.

The core flaw in that your argument, is its false claim that non-member nations "can do as they please without being accused."

In reality, the ICC routinely claims legal authority over citizens and military personnel of countries that never ratified the Rome Statute (like the US and Israel, etc). By arguing that a member state can "delegate" power to prosecute foreigners whose home nations never signed the treaty, the ICC ignores a bedrock rule of international law: a treaty cannot bind or grant authority over non-consenting third parties.

This overreach directly undermines national sovereignty and the court’s own foundational rule of complementarity.

The ICC was designed as a court of last resort, meant to step in only when a nation's judicial system is genuinely unwilling or unable to investigate itself.

By issuing warrants against leaders of functioning democracies with independent judiciaries, the court discards its own mandate, transforms into a self-appointed supreme court, and attempts to force non-signatory citizens into an unelected legal framework their governments explicitly rejected.

2 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

My problem is that an unelected court is claiming authority over nations that explicitly said 'no' to its jurisdiction.

I have news for you. There are 125 countries that recognize the jurisdiction, it are only the few countries known for their warmongering and breaking the accepted rules and laws of war, who don't recognize it.

7 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

I have news for you. There are 125 countries that recognize the jurisdiction, it are only the few countries known for their warmongering and breaking the accepted rules and laws of war, who don't recognize it.

Calling 70 countries a 'few' is a total distortion of reality.

Beyond the 41 nations that never signed, another 29 signed but explicitly refused to ratify or pulled out—including the US, India, China, Russia, Indonesia, and Israel. That isn't a 'few rogue nations'; that is 70 sovereign states representing over 60% of humanity refusing to hand their constitutional rights over to an unelected foreign tribunal.

Rejecting the ICC is a matter of basic international law, not avoiding accountability.

Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty cannot create legal obligations or grant authority over non-signatory nations without their consent. The ICC’s attempt to bypass this by claiming a member state can "delegate" jurisdiction over foreign citizens whose home governments refused the treaty is a direct violation of international law and national sovereignty.

For sovereign democracies, handing citizens over to an unelected international tribunal violates their own constitutions.

Democratic nations, like the USA, India etc, maintain independent judiciaries and military court-martial systems to hold their own people accountable under their own laws. Submitting citizens to foreign judges who answer to no national constitution or electorate isn't "upholding the rule of law"—it is stripping citizens of their basic constitutional protections.

9 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Beyond the 41 nations that never signed, another 29 signed but explicitly refused to ratify or pulled out—including the US, India, China, Russia, Indonesia, and Israel. That isn't a 'few rogue nations'; that is 70 sovereign states representing over 60% of humanity refusing to hand their constitutional rights over to an unelected foreign tribunal.

LOL, take a look at who those 41 countries are, and the main reasons why they don't recognize ICC.

https://venfort.com/en/which-countries-do-not-recognize-the-international-criminal-court/

Which countries do not recognize the International Criminal Court?

Contrary to common belief, the ICC does not have jurisdiction in all territories of the world. Countries such as Bahamas, Cuba, Chile, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Grenada, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Suriname, and the United States signed the agreement in the first instance, but did not ratify their adherence to the final treaty.

On the other hand, China, India, Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, among 60 other countries, are those who openly reject the interference of the ICC in their territories. Above all, because the competences of this court function to punish acts with individual criminal responsibility, and is applicable to all persons without distinction by public, administrative or parliamentary position. What some consider as a violation of national sovereignty, due to experiences such as the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al Bashir in 2015. Who was arrested for his alleged involvement in the Darfur genocide in 2003-2008, in the midst of his attendance to an African Union summit.

Donald Trump’s administration has announced a campaign to dismantle the International Criminal Court “brick by brick”

"Self protection" 😁

Donald Trump is not an international criminal!

bang your shoe on the table if they don't believe you

14 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

LOL, take a look at who those 41 countries are, and the main reasons why they don't recognize ICC.

https://venfort.com/en/which-countries-do-not-recognize-the-international-criminal-court/

Which countries do not recognize the International Criminal Court?

Contrary to common belief, the ICC does not have jurisdiction in all territories of the world. Countries such as Bahamas, Cuba, Chile, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Grenada, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Suriname, and the United States signed the agreement in the first instance, but did not ratify their adherence to the final treaty.

On the other hand, China, India, Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, among 60 other countries, are those who openly reject the interference of the ICC in their territories. Above all, because the competences of this court function to punish acts with individual criminal responsibility, and is applicable to all persons without distinction by public, administrative or parliamentary position. What some consider as a violation of national sovereignty, due to experiences such as the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al Bashir in 2015. Who was arrested for his alleged involvement in the Darfur genocide in 2003-2008, in the midst of his attendance to an African Union summit.

LOL.....your source is factually outdated—it lists full, long-standing ICC member states like Chile and Guatemala as non-members, immediately undercutting its credibility. More importantly, attempting to dismiss the 70 nations outside the court by cherry-picking small states ignores basic global demographics, as mentioned previously.

Framing the rejection of the ICC as an attempt to "shield politicians" mischaracterizes the fundamental legal argument.

Democratic nations reject the court not to evade accountability, but to protect their own citizens' constitutional rights.

Handing jurisdiction over to foreign judges who answer to no national constitution or electorate directly violates national sovereignty and bypasses independent domestic court systems—which is precisely why the majority of the world's population has explicitly refused to sign up.

Trump moves to dismantle ICC simply worsened its battered global standing as a defender of human rights. To be clustered with Russia, China and other countries that have poor human rights record is shameful and embarrassing for a country that we looked up as a shining city upon a hill.

2 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Framing the rejection of the ICC as an attempt to "shield politicians" mischaracterizes the fundamental legal argument.

The legal argument is not the reason, it's only the excuse. They simply don't want to be held to account.

Lol! It's Trump who's going to be dismantled 'brick by brick'!

20 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

This is the core argument of Marco Rubio.

A foreign court cannot claim legal jurisdiction over a nation's citizens without that nation's explicit consent.

Edited 20 hours ago20 hr by Smokey and the Bandit

You are quite naive, aren't you? Guess that explains why you're MAGA.

Funny how you overlook Trump claiming legal jurisdiction over other countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Canada, etc. Too long a list to finish.

The US is not a party to the ICC and therefore has no input on what they do.

5 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

My problem is that an unelected court is claiming authority over nations that explicitly said 'no' to its jurisdiction.

The core flaw in that your argument, is its false claim that non-member nations "can do as they please without being accused."

In reality, the ICC routinely claims legal authority over citizens and military personnel of countries that never ratified the Rome Statute (like the US and Israel, etc). By arguing that a member state can "delegate" power to prosecute foreigners whose home nations never signed the treaty, the ICC ignores a bedrock rule of international law: a treaty cannot bind or grant authority over non-consenting third parties.

This overreach directly undermines national sovereignty and the court’s own foundational rule of complementarity.

The ICC was designed as a court of last resort, meant to step in only when a nation's judicial system is genuinely unwilling or unable to investigate itself.

By issuing warrants against leaders of functioning democracies with independent judiciaries, the court discards its own mandate, transforms into a self-appointed supreme court, and attempts to force non-signatory citizens into an unelected legal framework their governments explicitly rejected.

So you are the oppinion, that international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression are not to be prosecuted.

That is your right to have this oppinion. The attempt to portray the ICC as an "illegally operating institution" that shouldn't even exist is completely irrelevant.

War criminals and people who commit genocide can travel in all those countries without any problems which have not joined the ICC. And as you have wrote, thats more than 60% of the world (population).

So - no problem for BB, Putin and Co. - isn't it so?

1 hour ago, gargamon said:

You are quite naive, aren't you? Guess that explains why you're MAGA.

Funny how you overlook Trump claiming legal jurisdiction over other countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Canada, etc. Too long a list to finish.

The US is not a party to the ICC and therefore has no input on what they do.

Oh dear...

When someone runs out of arguments on treaty law, jumping straight to partisan name-calling and conflating domestic trade sanctions with binding judicial jurisdiction only proves they have no idea how international law works.

Imposing import duties on Canadian cheese or embargoing Cuban state companies is executive trade and foreign policy. Neither has anything to do with asserting criminal jurisdiction—the power to arrest, try, and imprison individual foreign citizens without their nation's treaty consent.

Basic treaty law—specifically Article 34 of the Vienna Convention—states that no international agreement can create binding legal obligations or delegate authority over non-consenting nations, a foundational principle that has nothing to do with domestic politics.

Claiming non-members should just quietly submit because they "have no input" completely ignores why the governments representing over 60% of humanity—including the US, India, and China—refused to ratify the Rome Statute in the first place: no sovereign state is required to surrender its citizens' constitutional rights to an unelected foreign tribunal it explicitly rejected.

33 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Imposing import duties on Canadian cheese or embargoing Cuban state companies is executive trade and foreign policy. Neither has anything to do with asserting criminal jurisdiction—the power to arrest, try, and imprison individual foreign citizens without their nation's treaty consent.

Of course Trump would never try and arrest a foreigner without it's government's consent. 5555. You MAGAs sure do have your head in the sand.

---

On January 3, 2026, U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, during a military raid in Caracas authorized by U.S. President Donald Trump. Codenamed Operation Absolute Resolve, the pre-dawn raid involved airstrikes on military infrastructure before special forces detained the couple.

Charges and Legal Proceedings

• Transported to New York City via the USS Iwo Jima, Maduro and Flores were lodged at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.

• Indicted in the Southern District of New York on federal charges including narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation, and weapons offenses.

• Pleaded not guilty during their arraignment in Manhattan federal court.

Political Aftermath

• President Trump stated that the United States would temporarily run and oversee aspects of Venezuela and its oil infrastructure until a transition occurs.

• Vice President Delcy Rodríguez denounced the action as a kidnapping and was sworn in as acting president by Venezuela's Supreme Court.

• International reactions were heavily divided, with condemnation from various global officials over national sovereignty violations alongside celebrations by parts of the Venezuelan diaspora

On 7/25/2026 at 7:45 AM, webfact said:

Last week, the US State Department said it wants to break up the ICC’s authority and infrastructure. It said the approach would involve “increased scrutiny” of countries that do not reject what it called the ICC’s “false authority” while still receiving US assistance, with particular focus on states that benefit from the US “security umbrella”.

The policy is set out as official US action rather than an informal threat.

More bullying. If you don't agree to pull out of the ICC the US will go after you in revenge. This is probably just a stepping stone to a similar move to disband the UN itself.

1 hour ago, Schoggibueb said:

So you are the oppinion, that international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression are not to be prosecuted.

That is your right to have this oppinion. The attempt to portray the ICC as an "illegally operating institution" that shouldn't even exist is completely irrelevant.

War criminals and people who commit genocide can travel in all those countries without any problems which have not joined the ICC. And as you have wrote, thats more than 60% of the world (population).

So - no problem for BB, Putin and Co. - isn't it so?

That is a classic straw man argument.

Challenging the jurisdiction of an unelected foreign tribunal is not the same as saying war crimes shouldn't be prosecuted—and pretending otherwise only proves you've run out of legal arguments.

Sovereign nations prosecute crimes every day under their own constitutional court systems. The issue isn't whether atrocities should be punished; it’s whether an international court can unilaterally override a non-member nation's domestic judiciary and constitutional rights without its consent.

Claiming non-signatories can travel 'without any problems' completely ignores history and international law.

Universal jurisdiction, ad-hoc tribunals, and bilateral extradition treaties existed long before the ICC and continue to hold perpetrators accountable.

Refusing to hand sovereign authority over to an unelected tribunal isn't a free pass for war criminals; it's a defense of constitutional rule of law.