The U.S. has intensified pressure on the International Criminal Court (ICC), sanctioning two officials and prompting five countries to announce withdrawals from the institution in the past year, as the court faces accusations of politicization and challenges to its authority.
The U.S. State Department has escalated its campaign against the International Criminal Court (ICC), sanctioning two senior officials and urging member states to abandon the tribunal, as five countries—Venezuela, Chad, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger—have announced plans to leave the institution in the past year. The move comes amid a broader clash over the court’s jurisdiction, with the Trump administration accusing the ICC of overstepping its mandate and undermining national sovereignty.
U.S. Sanctions and the ICC’s Struggle for Sovereignty
The Trump administration’s latest actions include sanctioning ICC President Tomoko Akane of Japan and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye of Senegal, freezing their U.S. assets and restricting transactions with American entities. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the ICC corrupt and fatally politicized, claiming the court has maliciously abused its authority by investigating officials from non-member states like the U.S. and Israel. The ICC’s ability to target American nationals and those of other non-States Parties must end, Rubio stated, framing the sanctions as part of a broader sweeping campaign to dismantle the threat posed by the ICC to national sovereignty.
As Trump squeezes the International Criminal Court, more countries
The ICC has condemned the U.S. actions as an attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution, arguing that its jurisdiction extends to non-member states when crimes are committed on territory under its jurisdiction. The court’s spokesperson, Oriane Maillet, expressed regret over the withdrawals, stating, The ICC regrets any decision to depart from the collective effort to end impunity for the most serious international crimes.
Chad’s decision to leave the ICC in July followed a phone call with a U.S. official, during which Washington reportedly urged the country to reconsider its membership. The Central African nation cited concerns regarding the functioning of this institution in its statement. Four days after the call, Chad announced its withdrawal. Iva Vukušić, a researcher at Utrecht University, told the AP that the U.S. campaign will lay bare just how committed countries are to the court. Are they willing to defend it if it costs them something real?
she said.
Similarly, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger—governed by military juntas—blamed the ICC for selective justice, accusing it of acting as an instrument of neocolonial repression. The trio said the ICC had become an instrument of neocolonial repression in the hands of imperialism
when they announced their departures last year. A coup ousted Niger’s democratically elected government in 2023, and since then, a military junta has abandoned longtime partners and formed new alliances, including with Russia, where President Vladimir Putin faces an ICC arrest warrant linked to the war in Ukraine. Mali and Burkina Faso have undergone similar transformations.
These countries are ruled by authoritarian leaders who want to avoid accountability for the harms they are inflicting on their own people,
Mel O’Brien, an associate professor of international law at the University of Western Australia, told the AP. Burundi similarly accused the court of focusing too much on conflicts in Africa when, in 2017, it became the first country to leave the ICC. The court had opened an investigation into the East African nation earlier that year. Most of the court’s initial investigations were into African countries, though most requested the involvement of the ICC. South Africa and Gambia also announced in 2017 that they would leave but later changed course.
Trump administration sanctions sitting president of the International Criminal
A change of government can also bring a country back into the fold. Hungary announced it would quit the court in 2025 but following the election of a new government, the country’s parliament voted to stay. The Trump administration’s executive order, signed by President Donald Trump in February 2025, created the framework for the sanctions against ICC officials. The administration argues that the ICC lacks the power to investigate soldiers, military commanders, and political leaders from countries that are not parties to the court, including the U.S. and Israel.
The ICC maintains that it can exercise jurisdiction over nationals of non-member states when they are accused of qualifying crimes committed on the territory of a state that has accepted the Court’s jurisdiction. Qualifying crimes under the Rome Statute include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Afghanistan and Palestine are both members of the court, which the ICC says allows it to investigate alleged crimes committed on their territories, including alleged war crimes by U.S. personnel in Afghanistan and alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity by Israeli officials in Gaza.
In September 2024, the ICC also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, the minister of defense at the time. The court’s investigations into the Philippines, where then-President Rodrigo Duterte said his country would leave the ICC in 2019, remain active. Duterte is currently in ICC detention in the Netherlands, with opening arguments set for November. The court’s active investigation in the Philippines continues despite the country’s withdrawal.
What’s Next for the ICC?
The ICC’s future hangs in the balance as it faces both external pressure and internal challenges. The court’s ability to investigate U.S. and Israeli officials—such as the arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant—remains a flashpoint. Meanwhile, the U.S. has called on nations under its security umbrella to reject the ICC, raising questions about the court’s viability in a polarized geopolitical landscape. As the Duterte trial approaches, the ICC’s credibility and reach will be tested, with the potential for further withdrawals or reforms to address accusations of politicization.
