The United States government under former President Donald Trump has intensified efforts to undermine the International Criminal Court (ICC), signaling a significant challenge to the institution and the broader framework of international justice. Last week, the State Department announced an official policy aimed at dismantling the ICC “brick by brick,” marking a departure from previous U.S. approaches that, while cautious, had generally supported international judicial mechanisms.

This latest stance involves punitive measures directed not only at the ICC itself but also at countries that continue to support the court. The U.S. indicated it would increase scrutiny of nations that refuse to reject what it terms the ICC’s “false authority,” particularly those benefiting from U.S. security assistance. The United Kingdom, one of the ICC’s top donors with annual contributions exceeding £15 million, is among the countries potentially affected by these policies.

Sanctions have already been imposed on several ICC judges and senior officials, restricting their international mobility and access to financial services and technology predominantly controlled by U.S.-based companies. These measures have practical effects such as bank account closures and denial of access to platforms like Uber, Microsoft, and Google services, complicating both personal and professional activities tied to the court’s operations.

The Trump administration’s hostility toward the ICC is part of a broader pattern of withdrawing from and defunding multilateral institutions, including the Paris climate agreement and various international aid organizations. At the heart of this aggressive stance lies a concern over sovereignty and the possibility that American citizens, including military personnel, could face prosecution by an international tribunal.

Historically, the United States has played a complex role in shaping international justice. Though it championed the establishment of the Nuremberg trials after World War II and supported UN interventions such as those concerning the Darfur conflict, it has consistently resisted subjecting its nationals to external judicial authority. The U.S. declined to ratify the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the ICC in 2002, but until recently refrained from actively seeking to dismantle the court.

Tensions escalated during Trump’s terms, particularly following the ICC’s issuance of an arrest warrant for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over alleged war crimes in Gaza. The subsequent imposition of sanctions on ICC officials, including Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan, marked a notable intensification of the U.S. campaign against the court. Khan himself has faced internal controversy, with accusations of sexual misconduct leading to a suspension vote by the ICC’s executive committee and a pending decision from its 125 member states on his removal.

Beyond political pressures, the ICC also grapples with criticism over its handling of high-profile cases. Investigations into Kenya’s post-election violence in 2007-2008 were undermined as key witnesses disappeared and accused politicians were elected to top government positions, resulting in the collapse of prosecutions. Such setbacks have fueled debate among human rights experts and member states about the court’s effectiveness and governance.

With the ICC under siege, advocacy for its continued support has gained urgency, particularly among leading Western donors. The court’s existence, despite its flaws, remains a crucial mechanism holding figures like Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin, and the Philippines’ former President Rodrigo Duterte accountable on the world stage. Legal experts assert that the threats faced by these leaders underscore the ICC’s role in upholding international norms against war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Looking ahead, there is speculation that a change in the U.S. Congress following upcoming midterm elections could shift the country’s posture, potentially prompting legislative inquiries into Trump’s presidency and broader questions of accountability. Meanwhile, international observers emphasize the need for global solidarity in preserving the ICC as a cornerstone of the international legal order, warning that its dismantling would embolden those accused of serious abuses and erode the principle that actions have consequences under international law.