The Trump administration has intensified its campaign against the International Criminal Court (ICC), arguing that the tribunal has exceeded its authority, while President Donald Trump acknowledged that the court could theoretically pursue him in the future.
At a Cabinet meeting on Friday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the administration had begun an effort to bring the ICC 'to heel', accusing the court of claiming jurisdiction beyond countries that have signed up to its founding treaty.
Trump, seated alongside Rubio, said the administration's campaign was primarily intended to defend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than himself, while acknowledging that prosecution by the court 'could happen' one day.
Rubio's Vow and Trump's Candid Aside
Rubio framed the campaign as a response to what Washington views as the ICC's overreach.
'The International Criminal Court has made themselves illegitimate because they claim that even if you're not a member of that court, we can come after you,' he told the meeting.
'We tried to get them to reform and listen to us, they wouldn't do it. They're very arrogant. So we've now begun an effort to really try to bring them to heel.'
Trump quickly sought to clarify that the administration's actions were not driven by concerns over any current investigation into him.
'There's no information that they're after me,' he said. 'It could happen, but just so you know, he is not trying to defend me.'
He added that Rubio was 'trying to defend Bibi and various other people', referring to Netanyahu.
Although Trump said no case currently exists against him, he acknowledged that the court could, in principle, attempt to exercise jurisdiction under certain circumstances.
The Netanyahu Warrant Behind the US Campaign
The administration's confrontation with the ICC has largely centred on Netanyahu.
The court issued an arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister in November 2024 over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity linked to the Gaza conflict, a move that significantly intensified opposition to the tribunal within Trump's administration.
Neither the United States nor Israel is a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, and both governments have consistently rejected the court's jurisdiction over their nationals.
However, under the Rome Statute, the ICC maintains that it may prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when the alleged offences occur on the territory of a member state, even if the accused comes from a country that has not joined the court. That legal principle underpins the warrant issued for Netanyahu and is the basis of Washington's objections.
The United States argues that allowing the ICC to prosecute nationals of non-member states infringes on state sovereignty and exceeds the court's intended mandate.
Rubio said the administration's primary concern extended beyond Israel to American personnel.
He argued that US service members could face prosecution years after military operations overseas. Earlier this month, Rubio accused the court of overreach, pointing to calls by activist groups for investigations into US personnel over migrant deportations and maritime operations targeting suspected drug-trafficking vessels.
A Pressure Campaign Reshaping the Court's Membership
The American effort is already producing results abroad. Rubio told the meeting that five countries had announced plans to quit the court since the United States launched its campaign earlier this month, casting the departures as evidence that Washington's pressure was working and that others shared its view of the tribunal as a threat to national sovereignty.
The campaign builds on an approach Trump reached for in his first term and revived on returning to office, including a plan to penalise ICC officials that took shape after his 2024 re-election coincided with the Netanyahu warrant. Sanctions on the court's prosecutors and judges, and pressure on its member states, have become the tools of a strategy aimed at starving the institution of cooperation.
For its defenders, the court exists precisely to reach the powerful when their own governments will not hold them to account, which is why an American drive to bring it 'to heel' alarms human-rights advocates far beyond Washington.
The tribunal was created in 2002 to prosecute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and it asserts jurisdiction only where a country proves unable or unwilling to pursue such crimes itself.
A president who says the court could one day come for him is now leading the effort to ensure it lacks the power to come for anyone, and the distance between those two positions is the space in which the campaign operates.
