The Trump administration’s efforts to undermine the International Criminal Court (ICC) risk hampering ongoing investigations into alleged war crimes in Darfur, analysts warn. Recently, the ICC reported significant progress in its inquiry into atrocities committed in the troubled western Sudanese region, but these efforts may face increased challenges following Chad’s announcement of its withdrawal from the court.
Chad, home to approximately 1.3 million Sudanese refugees — many of whom fled the Darfur conflict — had actively cooperated with the ICC as recently as early July. The court’s deputy prosecutor, Nazhat Shameem Khan, visited Chad at that time, engaging in discussions with Chadian officials that the ICC described as positive and aimed at strengthening collaboration on the Darfur investigation. Ms. Khan emphasized that the court had made a “breakthrough” in its inquiry.
However, on July 27, Chad declared its intention to exit the ICC, a decision made shortly after a senior U.S. diplomat reportedly urged the country to reconsider its membership. This move aligns with a broader U.S. campaign led by the Trump administration to dismantle the court. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that five countries—Chad, Venezuela, Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso—had all taken steps to withdraw from the ICC in response to U.S. pressure. Rubio described the ICC as “illegitimate” and “arrogant,” asserting that the administration aims to “bring that court to heel.”
President Donald Trump, during the same announcement, said the campaign sought to shield figures such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is subject to an ICC arrest warrant over alleged war crimes in Gaza. The U.S. does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction over its citizens or those of non-member states, but the court claims authority to investigate alleged crimes committed on the territory of member states.
Experts caution that Chad’s withdrawal could critically impede the ICC’s ability to investigate Darfur abuses. Because ongoing conflict in Sudan restricts direct access, refugee camps in Chad have become a vital location for gathering testimonies from victims and witnesses. Mark Kersten, a criminology professor, noted that if Chad limits ICC access, it would severely complicate efforts to maintain contact with those crucial to the investigation.
Chad’s official notification to the ICC accused the court of disproportionately targeting African suspects, reflecting concerns about politicization. Supporters of the ICC counter that many African cases were initiated at the request of African governments themselves, underscoring the court’s role as a vital instrument of international justice. Human Rights Watch condemned Chad’s decision as a setback, with international justice counsel Tamara Aburamadan calling the ICC “a critical court of last resort” for victims worldwide.
The announced withdrawals will take effect after a one-year delay, but the potential loss of cooperation from key states such as Chad raises questions about the future effectiveness of the ICC’s work in Darfur and other areas plagued by mass atrocities.