The United States has intensified its opposition to the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.), marking a sharp departure from its previously complex but cooperative relationship with the tribunal. On Tuesday, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on the court’s president and a senior prosecutor, expanding the list of I.C.C. officials targeted by U.S. penalties to thirteen individuals.

While the United States played a role in establishing the I.C.C., it never became a member, largely due to concerns that American military personnel and officials could become subject to politically motivated prosecutions. Despite this reticence, the U.S. has at times supported the court through intelligence sharing and diplomatic efforts when it aligned with national interests.

Under President Donald Trump’s administration, however, this relationship has become openly adversarial. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently stated that the United States intends to dismantle the I.C.C., “brick by brick, if necessary,” through exerting pressure on member states to withdraw. Following this declaration last month, Venezuela and Chad announced their departures from the court.

The I.C.C. relies heavily on the cooperation of member states to carry out its mandate, depending on a fragile consensus-based system of international norms. The U.S. hostility toward the court signals a challenge to these norms, undermining the foundation upon which the I.C.C. operates. For instance, Venezuela had remained a member even after the court opened an investigation in 2021 into alleged crimes against humanity committed by its government. Its recent withdrawal has been interpreted as a response to mounting U.S. pressure or as an emboldening by the U.S. campaign against the court.

Experts suggest that the U.S. actions may discourage other countries from supporting the court, raising the political and reputational costs for nations that cooperate with the tribunal. Kate Cronin-Furman, a scholar of human rights in international affairs, noted that some states might find it increasingly difficult to back the I.C.C. amid potential repercussions, while others inclined to exit may see an easier path to withdrawal. Conversely, countries opposed to Trump’s foreign policy might amplify their support for the court, but that could further politicize the institution’s image.

The Trump administration’s targeting of the I.C.C. coincides with the court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, a development that has intensified tensions. The survival of the I.C.C. in this fraught environment is uncertain, particularly as questions arise about its ability to function without widespread state cooperation.

Although the court has managed only a limited number of cases since its inception in 2002, its broader significance lies in its role as a symbol and enforcer of international legal norms. Experts warn that the dismantling or weakening of the I.C.C. could signal a wider retreat from rules-based international order, a trend already observed as countries shift focus toward other pressing global challenges and express skepticism toward multinational institutions.

Harvard law professor Alex Whiting described the court as “an organization built on belief” in international cooperation that is eroding under current pressures. He suggested that even without explicit dismantling efforts, the collapse of foundational support structures may ultimately impair the court’s viability. As the Trump administration continues its confrontation with the I.C.C., the future of international justice appears uncertain.