Representative Ilhan Omar has condemned US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's pledge to dismantle the International Criminal Court, branding his plan 'reckless and dangerous'.
In a sharply worded statement from Washington, the Minnesota Democrat said Rubio's push to neutralise the ICC would 'undermine the rule of law' and 'turn America's back on the values we claim to champion.'
Rubio, speaking through the State Department, has framed the International Criminal Court as an 'intolerable threat to US sovereignty' that could see American troops and officials prosecuted by foreign judges.
Omar rejected that claim, insisting that the court is a last resort for atrocity crimes and that 'the best way to avoid ICC scrutiny is simple, don't commit atrocity crimes.' Their clash over the ICC, one of the world's most sensitive legal institutions, now sits at the heart of a much bigger fight over how far Washington will go to shield itself from international justice.
Ilhan Omar Defends The International Criminal Court
Omar released a detailed defence of the International Criminal Court, stressing that it was created precisely to pursue 'the world's gravest crimes, genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.'
In her statement, she reminded colleagues that the ICC operates as a court of last resort, stepping in only when national authorities are 'unable or unwilling' to investigate.
Omar called Rubio's claim that the court could prosecute US servicemembers 'simply not true', arguing that cases are about atrocity crimes, not ordinary battlefield decisions or lawful deployments.
She pushed a blunt message that cut through the legalese. 'The best way to avoid ICC scrutiny is simple: don't commit atrocity crimes, and if credible allegations arise, investigate them transparently and hold those responsible accountable,' she said.
Secretary Rubio’s announcement that he will dismantle the International Criminal Court is reckless and dangerous. It undermines the rule of law, weakens global accountability, and turns America's back on the values we claim to champion.
— Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) July 13, 2026
In her view, the real issue is not sovereignty but impunity, and whether the United States is prepared to be bound by the same standards it urges on others. Omar pointed out that she introduced a resolution in 2022 calling for the US to join the court, and she vowed to reintroduce it 'in the coming days.'
Her broader argument was that aligning with the ICC would strengthen, not weaken, Washington's moral authority.
'The United States should lead by example, not exempt itself from the standards it expects everyone else to follow,' she said, adding that America is 'strongest when we lead with our values, not when we demand immunity from them.'
Rubio Warns Of 'Foreign Judges' Targeting Americans
In a lengthy opinion piece and a video message, Rubio invoked images of US border patrol agents and elected officials being 'dragged before an international court' and tried by 'foreign judges, thousands of miles away.'
'If we stand idle, all of them will be at the mercy of foreign judges, thousands of miles away, facing the constant risk of prosecution and even imprisonment for the so-called "crime" of defending their own country,' Rubio warned.
According to the State Department's outline, the campaign will involve a wide menu of actions designed to make the ICC 'incapable of threatening US sovereignty or targeting Americans.'
Options under consideration include diplomatic calls by senior US officials urging governments to withdraw from the court, warnings to countries that rely on US military or law enforcement partnerships, and efforts to rally non‑member states to mount parallel pressure campaigns.
Officials are also weighing visa revocations and travel bans for ICC staff, alongside 'increased sanctions against the ICC and affiliated organisations.'
The State Department has argued that the court is 'positioning itself above and beyond the nation state' as 'the unaccountable global arbiter' of justice. It points to past ICC interest in allegations involving US personnel as evidence that the tribunal is overreaching.
Rubio maintains that Americans 'never signed up' to be under ICC jurisdiction and insists that every US president since the court's creation has rejected its authority over US nationals.
Legal Experts And Rights Advocates Back Omar's ICC Defence
International legal experts say Rubio is misdescribing how the ICC actually works. Kenneth Roth, the former head of Human Rights Watch, said the court 'is not claiming jurisdiction over conduct in the United States' and only investigates crimes committed on the territory of states that have accepted its authority.
The ICC, headquartered in The Hague, can open cases where states have ratified the 2002 Rome Statute or otherwise consented to its jurisdiction. The United States has not ratified the treaty, and the court has not launched investigations into crimes committed on US soil.
Roth argued that Rubio is 'dressing up his quest for impunity for American war crimes under the label of national sovereignty', while ignoring the 'sovereign right of other nations' to call in the court for crimes committed on their territory.
In one sharp aside, he said of Donald Trump that the real aim was to 'be able to commit war crimes on the territory of countries that have accepted the court's jurisdiction.'
Rights advocates have also warned that Rubio's campaign could have global consequences. Raed Jarrar, advocacy director at the group Dawn, said the attack on the court 'doesn't just underscore US hypocrisy, but undermines access to justice across the globe, from Ukraine to Sudan.'
He added that it could 'amount to obstruction of justice, a crime under the Rome statute in and of itself', and argued that 'it is not the ICC that Rubio is dismantling brick by brick, but the rules-based international order that grew out of the ashes of World War II.'
A Long, Messy History Of US Sanctions On The ICC
Rubio's latest move does not emerge from a vacuum. The Trump administration previously imposed sweeping sanctions on ICC officials, including the chief prosecutor and several judges, after the court opened investigations into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan and into Israel's conduct in Palestine, which has accepted the court's jurisdiction.
Six weeks into his second term, Trump declared a 'national emergency' based on what he called the court's 'illegitimate and baseless actions' targeting Americans and Israel, and followed that order with measures against UN experts and Palestinian rights groups gathering evidence of possible Israeli abuses.
A former senior US government sanctions official, speaking anonymously, said it is 'rumoured' that the administration could go even further and sanction the tribunal as a whole.
'Presumably, we will start to hear from foreign counterparts who are pressured to take action against the ICC,' the former official said, adding that, in theory, sanctions are meant to 'reinforce what you've achieved through diplomacy.'
It is not yet clear how far Rubio's dismantling campaign will actually go or how other governments will respond. Some US allies have welcomed ICC investigations when they target rivals, such as Russian forces in Ukraine, while bristling when the same legal machinery is applied closer to home.
Omar's bet is that there is still room in American politics for a simple proposition, that 'if we respect human rights, uphold the rule of law, and hold ourselves to the same standards we ask of others, we have nothing to fear from the ICC.'
The war of words followed Rubio's announcement of a 'whole-of-government' campaign to, in his words, dismantle the International Criminal Court's threat to the United States.
The State Department outlined plans for diplomatic pressure, sanctions, visa bans and travel restrictions aimed at weakening the court's reach and persuading other countries to walk away from it.
Officials said 'no diplomatic option will be off-limits' and warned that nations relying on US security assistance could face 'increased scrutiny' if they refused to reject what Rubio called the ICC's 'false authority.'
The move builds on years of hostility towards the court from Washington and comes as the ICC pursues high-profile war crimes investigations, including cases involving US allies. It is into that fraught backdrop that Omar, one of the House's loudest voices on human rights, has chosen to directly challenge the secretary of state.
