The Trump administration’s campaign to undermine the International Criminal Court (ICC) has raised concerns among legal experts and human rights advocates about the potential impact on investigations into atrocities in Sudan’s Darfur region. Recent developments involving Chad, a key country in the ICC’s inquiry into war crimes there, underscore the challenges facing efforts to deliver accountability.

In late July, Chad announced its intention to withdraw from the ICC, a decision that surprised observers given the country’s prior cooperation. Just weeks earlier, ICC Deputy Prosecutor Nakhat Shameen Khan had visited Chad and reported "positive discussions" with Justice Minister Ndolenoidj Alixe Naimbaye, with the parties agreeing to strengthen collaboration on the Darfur investigation. However, Chad’s decision followed a meeting between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Frank Garcia and Chad’s Foreign Minister Abdoulaye Bashe Fadoul, during which the United States reportedly urged Chad to reconsider its ICC membership.

The ICC has described the recent withdrawal notifications from Chad, along with similar moves from Venezuela, Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, as part of a broader trend accelerated by U.S. pressure. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that five countries have formally announced their intent to leave the court, describing the ICC as “illegitimate” and “arrogant” and affirming the Trump administration’s goal of curbing its authority. President Donald Trump also emphasized that the campaign aims to protect individuals such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces an ICC arrest warrant related to alleged war crimes in Gaza.

While the withdrawals will take effect only after a one-year notice period, observers warn of immediate practical consequences. Chad hosts approximately 1.3 million refugees from Darfur, many of whom could serve as witnesses in ongoing investigations. Due to active conflict, ICC investigators cannot safely access Darfur itself, rendering refugee camps in Chad critical for gathering testimonies. Experts like criminology professor Mark Kersten from the University of the Fraser Valley noted that a cessation of cooperation by Chad would significantly hinder these efforts.

Human rights organizations have documented grave abuses by Sudanese paramilitary group the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which has been accused of committing genocide against civilians in Darfur since the outbreak of renewed conflict three years ago. A particularly brutal attack in El Fasher last October reportedly resulted in the deaths of around 60,000 people, according to satellite imagery analysis and rights groups.

The Trump administration's position reflects a broader skepticism toward the ICC’s jurisdiction, particularly over countries that have not ratified the Rome Statute, including the United States and Israel. The ICC asserts the authority to investigate alleged crimes committed on the territory of member states regardless of the nationality of the accused, a stance that has prompted opposition from Washington and allies.

Chad’s government justified its withdrawal by accusing the ICC of disproportionately targeting African suspects, suggesting the court has been politicized. Supporters of the ICC counter that many investigations in Africa were initiated at the request of African governments themselves. A decade ago, a wave of criticism from African states nearly prompted mass exits from the court, but most governments, including South Africa, ultimately reaffirmed their commitments and later advocated for expanded ICC action, including investigations related to Gaza.

Human Rights Watch condemned Chad’s decision as a setback for justice. Tamara Aburamadan, an international justice counsel, called the ICC “a critical court of last resort” for victims of serious international crimes worldwide. As the ICC faces diminishing cooperation from key states, the future of accountability efforts, particularly regarding atrocities in Darfur, remains uncertain.