CommentaryBy Raymond D’Addario – https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa7376 (Archive URL)National Archives and Records Administration, College ParkCopyright: Public Domainve URL), Public Domain, Link
Undermining the ICC costs America its moral authority, its diplomatic leverage, and its credibility on the rule of law — and abandons the victims for whom the Court is the last resort
The United States once stood as the principal architect of modern international criminal justice, from Nuremberg and Tokyo to the ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. Today, however, it finds itself in the disquieting position of actively undermining the very institutions it helped inspire. The State Department’s recent, sustained effort to weaken and delegitimize the International Criminal Court (ICC) marks a profound departure from decades of bipartisan commitment to accountability, the rule of law, and global leadership.
The retreat accelerated in 2020, when President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13928, targeting sitting ICC judges and prosecutors — an unprecedented act by any democratic government. The order authorized asset freezes and travel bans against jurists whose only “offense” was pursuing investigations that might touch upon US personnel. It was a gesture more familiar in the playbook of authoritarian regimes, not one from a nation that once championed the Nuremberg principles.
In February 2025, President Trump renewed the attack, issuing Executive Order 14203, which declared a national emergency to counter what the order described as “illegitimate and politically motivated” investigations by the International Criminal Court. On June 13, 2026, the US State Department escalated further, with an explicit focus on dismantling the Court.
From the ashes of World War II, the United States helped articulate a new global ethic: aggressors would be held accountable, and atrocities would not be met with impunity. American prosecutors at Nuremberg insisted that crimes against humanity and war crimes were not abstractions but enforceable norms. That legacy continued for decades. Washington was instrumental in designing or supporting nearly every major accountability body of the postwar era. This record reflected a belief that law restrains power, and that justice — however imperfect — remains essential to global stability.
Today’s hostility toward the ICC is therefore not merely a policy disagreement. It is a repudiation of America’s own legacy.
Only authoritarians fear international justice. The ICC’s mandate is straightforward: investigate and prosecute individuals responsible for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression — the gravest crimes known to international law. It does not target nations; it targets perpetrators. Its jurisdiction is limited, its resources constrained, and its procedures subject to judicial oversight. Yet the US government has increasingly portrayed the Court as a threat rather than a safeguard.
This posture aligns the United States with governments that have long feared independent scrutiny — Russia, China, and other authoritarian states that reject accountability as an existential danger. When Washington adopts similar tactics, it signals to the world that power, not principle, guides its actions.
The result is predictable: allies grow uneasy, adversaries grow emboldened, and the United States drifts toward pariah status in the realm of international justice.
The Trump administration’s assault on the ICC was not an isolated episode. It reflected a broader disdain for legal constraints, institutional checks, and international norms. A president who routinely attacked domestic courts, law enforcement, and constitutional oversight unsurprisingly viewed international judges as adversaries rather than partners.
But the danger extends beyond one administration. When the State Department continues to weaken the ICC — whether through diplomatic pressure, legislative obstruction, or public disparagement — it entrenches a posture of aggressor-state exceptionalism. It suggests that American officials should never face scrutiny, no matter the allegation or evidence. That is not leadership; it is fear masquerading as sovereignty.
Most importantly, it abandons the victims of atrocity — those for whom the ICC may be the only avenue for justice.
David M. Crane is a global leader in international criminal justice and the founding Chief Prosecutor of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone. He has spent decades shaping accountability mechanisms around the world, including serving as a driving architect behind the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. Crane is a distinguished scholar of international law, a former senior US national security official, and a leading voice on the rule of law, state responsibility, and the legal limits on the use of force.
Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST’s editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
