Marco Rubio Vows to ‘Dismantle the ICC — Brick by Brick’
“America never agreed to a world tribunal that can override our own courts and the Constitution.”
Well aware of the “significant flaws” in the 1998 Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court, President Bill Clinton refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification. Despite his concerns, on December 31, 2000 — the final day the treaty was open for signature — he joined more than 130 other world leaders in signing it.
At the time, a State Department news release declared:
We do so to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability and for bringing to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. We do so as well because we wish to remain engaged in making the ICC an instrument of impartial and effective justice in the years to come.
The news release was clear: until the Treaty was ratified by the Senate, the ICC had no “jurisdiction over U.S. personnel.”
It stated:
The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the Court, over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction. Given these concerns, I will not, and do not recommend that my successor, successor, submit the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.
In May 2002, President George W. Bush informed the United Nations that the U.S. did not intend to become a party to the Rome Statute, and did not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. He effectively unsigned the document.
Despite these actions, Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at George Mason University Scalia Law School and a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, warned in an October 2025 op-ed that the ICC might find “a jurisdictional hook” to prosecute President Donald Trump after he leaves office for actions his administration has taken in or against ICC member states.
He cautioned that the ICC might target the Trump administration over its strikes on narcoterrorist drug boats, its deportations to ICC member nations such as El Salvador, Guatemala, and Mexico, and Trump’s proposal to allow Gazans to leave their devastated territory, which a former ICC judge had declared illegal.
“Mr. Trump’s adversaries caught him by surprise with their lawfare campaign during and after his first term,” Kontorovich wrote. “With the ICC, he has a chance to strike pre-emptively.”
He emphasized that, by taking a far “more aggressive approach” to the ICC while still in office, Trump can avoid becoming a target of its lawfare after leaving office.
Among Kontorovich’s recommendations:
The administration should demand that regional allies like El Salvador and Guatemala quit the court, joining pro-American countries like Hungary, which recently became the first European Union member state to do so. The president should also expand sanctions to target the entire institution and all its employees, whether they work in the office of the prosecutor or the IT desk. The administration is reportedly considering such measures.
BREAKING: @StateDept @marcorubio declares war on the ICC, declaring the U.S. will "dismantle" the organization "brick by brick."
You read it here first: This is the policy I've been advocating consistently since it became clear that the tribunal will prosecute Americans as soon… pic.twitter.com/lE3o9Y1GE7— Eugene Kontorovich (@EVKontorovich) July 13, 2026
Well, it looks like Kontorovich’s warning went from his lips to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s ears. In a Monday morning op-ed, titled “Why We’re Dismantling the ICC,” Rubio confirmed that “using all the tools at our government’s disposal, working beside every ally with whom we can make common cause, we will dismantle the ICC — brick by brick, if necessary.”
He argued that the ICC has assumed powers it does not possess:
Most of us would struggle to imagine a world in which U.S. soldiers, police officers, Border Patrol agents and elected leaders could be dragged before an international court, tried by judges from random countries across the globe, found guilty under international laws we neither consent to nor control, and then imprisoned thousands of miles from America.
But that is what the International Criminal Court now claims the power to do.
“The ICC is backed and run by a powerful network of leftist nongovernment organizations, smug globalists, and hostile Third World governments united by their enmity toward the U.S.,” Rubio wrote. Although the U.S. had repeatedly refused to ratify the Rome Statute, he said that “Americans found themselves in the crosshairs anyway” and offered some examples:
In 2020 the ICC launched an investigation into what chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda of Gambia described as “war crimes by members of the United States armed forces” in Afghanistan, declaring that the U.S. government hadn’t prosecuted enough American soldiers to satisfy the court. In effect, Ms. Bensouda was anointing herself the final judge of U.S. military policy and the entire U.S. justice system.
…
In March, the Washington-based Democracy for the Arab World Now urged the Iranian regime to request an ICC investigation of “apparent war crimes” committed by American personnel. [Did they forget that Iran had killed roughly 40,000 of its own citizens just two months earlier?]
…
When 12 U.S. senators wrote to the ICC prosecutor about their concerns, the prosecutor’s office accused them of crimes. When Mr. Trump imposed sanctions against ICC personnel, a former head of Human Rights Watch said that “all 125 ICC member states would have a legal duty to arrest him were he to show up.”
Rubio continued, “This is America. Our forefathers fought a revolution against a foreign power, ‘transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses.’ Independence is our birthright. We don’t intend to trade it for rule by a self-appointed priesthood of ‘international law.'” He added, “America never agreed to a world tribunal that can override our own courts and the Constitution.”
The International Criminal Court seeks to become the unaccountable arbiter of a new global law — empowered to prosecute and arrest our citizens at will and existentially threaten American sovereignty.
We will teach the ICC the full meaning of American resolve. pic.twitter.com/2egHK1jA98
— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) July 13, 2026
If Kontorovich’s warning proved prescient, Rubio’s op-ed makes clear the administration has no intention of allowing history to repeat itself. Instead of reacting to future ICC investigations after Trump leaves office, the administration is attempting to eliminate the conditions that could make such prosecutions possible — expanding sanctions, pressuring friendly governments to abandon the court, and stripping the ICC of the international legitimacy and cooperation it would need to pursue American officials.
Trump’s years of being targeted have taught him an important lesson: don’t wait until your opponents weaponize an institution against you — neutralize the threat while you still can.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
from the Birch Society,
Most Americans have never heard of the UN’s International Criminal Court (ICC), but its potential reach is alarming. Under its rules, a U.S. citizen could be stripped of basic legal protections we take for granted: no right to a trial by jury, no guarantee of a speedy trial, and no real avenue of appeal beyond the ICC itself.
Even more concerning, judges and prosecutors could come from regimes that reject our laws and have histories of authoritarianism, cruelty, or hostility toward America. Charges could be based on accusations from NGOs such as the ACLU, Environmental Defense Fund, or the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
In practice, this means an American (whether at home or abroad) could be accused by a radical organization, tried by foreign judges and prosecutors, and imprisoned anywhere the ICC decides, from Zimbabwe to Albania to Cambodia.
This is not a distant concern. Understanding the power of the ICC is essential if we are to protect the sovereignty of the United States and the rights of American citizens.
We have to get out of the UN!
https://x.com/The_JBS/status/1989091752612098335
From first-hand experience I know the UN and its agencies like the ICC are not about freedom. They are about control.
Getting out of the UN may or may not be a good idea, but it has nothing to do with the ICC. Being in the UN doesn’t give the ICC any more power against us, and in practical terms it gives it less power, because our veto power on the Security Council will prevent it from waging war on us.
If we were to leave the UN, then if and when the ICC ever tries to arrest a US serviceman or official, and we respond with military force as authorized by American Servicemembers Protection Act, the Security Council could well authorize military action against us. With us on that council that can’t happen.
The USSR brought the Korean war on itself by boycotting the UN.
President Truman unfortunately helped precipitate the invasion by the North into South Korea. If you go back to that time, Truman was specifically asked about South Korea and the administration signaled that it didn’t consider South Korea as a key area in the Asian theater at that time. This gave Stalin the opening to approve the invasion of the South. Since Stalin gave the green light, the Soviet Union was already in the war with the North as proxy. You will have a hard time finding that little nugget out. It was a mistake as to how Truman’s admin described the position of the US… not intentional. If you go back to WWII and immediately after the war, the Truman administration naively empowered Mao to be in a position to take over China from the Nationalists. See Dikotter’s “Red Dawn Over China: How Communism Conquered a Quarter of Humanity”. Key player in being duped…. Gen. George C. Marshall.
“Military and Strategic Ambivalence: Despite providing more economic and military aid to South Korea than to Greece under the Truman Doctrine, military advisors considered the peninsula barely worth defending and a potential distraction from the primary threat in Europe. As late as January 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson publicly implied the region lay outside America’s critical defense line, a statement that arguably encouraged Joseph Stalin to approve the North Korean invasion.”
AK-Bob, that’s interesting but not relevant. The point is that had the USSR not been boycotting the UN, it would have been able to veto the resolution to go to war against North Korea. Remember that it wasn’t the USA’s war, it was the UN’s war; we were just supplying forces to the UN to fight it. And the only reason the UN was fighting was because we voted for it and the Soviets weren’t there to vote against it.
That’s what could easily happen if we ever use military force to enforce the ASPA, and we’re not on the Security Council to veto a resolution to go to war against us for it.
I believe it was formally called a “Police Action”. Why would Stalin want to stop the war? It was costing the West more to fight the war than Stalin had to invest. It also took pressure off of Europe as the Soviets consolidated power. The Berlin Blockade had failed. As noted above, the US was focused on Europe, hence being blindsided by Korea. Taken from “The Hunt for Red October”…. “The Ruskies don’t take a dump without a plan”. Stalin was moving the chess pieces as he had from the get go in China in the late 20’s to 30’s. I believe the Soviets didn’t want to interfere with the UN vote. The UN obliged Stalin’s plan. Aside from a few Soviet pilots shot down, the cost of Soviet lives was minimal.
Milhouse is exactly right. USSR threw a hissy fit and walked out. We pushed the resolution through the Security Council. Nationalist China, France, UK were the other permanent members of the Security Council with veto power. None of them were going to object and didn’t. Not sure why anyone would downvote a perfectly historically correct post,
As I pointed out… Stalin was pulling the strings. While I include the points below… by others…. I agree with them. It’s was faux protest… you don’t give Stalin due credit. The Soviets knew how to play high theater. Add to that, Stalin was angling for Iran and had influence on the PM. By the way, the PM was not “popularly elected” which is Leftist deception…. as with UK Parliament and PM and US House and Speaker…. they are elected from within the legislative bodies. The Shah had the constitutional right to can the PM and finally did to end his twice being elected PM and approved by the Shah. Sorry, but one has to go beyond superficiality to see the game.
“Joseph Stalin’s motivation for the UN boycott during the Korean War was a calculated strategic gamble designed to entrap the United States and secure long-term Soviet geopolitical advantages, rather than a simple diplomatic error. ”
“Protest Over China’s UN Seat The immediate pretext for the boycott was the refusal of the UN to recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the legitimate representative of China, instead retaining the seat for the Republic of China (Taiwan). While this was a genuine grievance, evidence suggests Stalin prioritized the broader strategic trap over the procedural protest, calculating that the long-term gains of a distracted US and a dependent China outweighed the short-term loss of North Korean territory. “
Steven Kotkin’s third volume on Stalin will pick up with Operation Barbarossa and finish with the aftermath of his death. This may shed additional information on the 1950’s. The first two books are excellent.
“In 2020 the ICC launched an investigation into what chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda of Gambia described as “war crimes by members of the United States armed forces” in Afghanistan, declaring that the U.S. government hadn’t prosecuted enough American soldiers to satisfy the court. In effect, Ms. Bensouda was anointing herself the final judge of U.S. military policy and the entire U.S. justice system.
Even more concerning, judges and prosecutors could come from regimes that reject our laws and have histories of authoritarianism, cruelty, or hostility toward America.”
Dang we got that right here now in America
Activist judges, many not even born here
Khan has his own problems having pawed , screwed, and harassed staff (allegedly?)
Yeah, but his replacement is no better. It’s the ICC that’s the problem, not the prosecutors it hires from time to time.
His jihad against Israel was a blatant attempt at misdirection.
Don’t forget, Britain’s ofcon is trying to enforce fines against 4chan, an U.S. based entity with no foreign connections. And I remember Britain’s top cop threatening to come after U.S. citizens for what they say on the internet. There are some politicians on the left who would sell you down the river if they thought they could get away with it.
Insert picture of a hamster here.
Rubio again shines.
He’s got my vote for President 2028
Ditto to both you and ztakddot.
I give Rubio a 16 on a scale from 1 to 10. God bless him and please clone him.
If the ICC has declared war on the US we should respond by declaring war on the ICC. Drone them Danno!
It hasn’t declared war on us. But it’s threatening to take actions that we would regard as acts of war. The American Servicemembers Protection Act already authorizes the president to use as much force as necessary to prevent this. What form that would take, if and when the occasion arises, would be up to the president of the time.
But Rubio’s aim here is to prevent the occasion ever arising in the first place, by taking the organization down several notches before it attempts anything.
Have you not noticed the number of insane leftists spewing about ‘international law’ in the last year?
It’s practically their new catch phrase.
Well, we do too, when it suits us. For instance, we make a great deal out of the fact that Iran’s blocking the Strait, or attempting to charge tolls to use it, violates international law.
International law—as defined by leftists safe with the gear in the rear in The Hague—is a complete joke. Prior to US ascendancy, international law was whatever Britain said it was. Following WWII international law was whatever the United States said it was. But, the world has been spoiled by hundreds of years under relatively benevolent super powers. Should malevolent collectivists ever gain the power they crave, the world will turn much more Hobbesian.
President Trump and Secretary Rubio should jointly declare that if the ICC or any of its employees attempt to take any action against the United States or any employee or agent of the US, it will be interpreted as an act of war against the United States. The United States is a sovereign nation governed SOLELY by the Constitution of the United States, and no act of the ICC can ever have any effect on the United States.
I believe this is already covered under the Invade the Hague Act.
That’s already the law. If and when it does that, the president can respond with as much force as he thinks necessary. But what happens then? Will we be in a position to prevent it? Especially if lunatic John Birchers get their way and we leave the UN, thus leaving it free to take military action against us? That’s why Rubio wants to act now, before the ICC takes any action against us, to ensure that it never does. That’s the best way.
Maybe you haven’t noticed but UN peacekeeping forces have mostly been Americans—especially on the front lines. European allies, with the exception of Britain, were almost exclusively REMFs, and even Britain under leftist rule has joined its fellow Europeans cowering in the rear. So the UN, without US forces, is a sputtering paper tiger.
China would be more than glad to provide the UN with troops to fight us, and would delight in pointing out that that’s exactly what we did to them in Korea.
Presumably the point of the ‘fight’ is for the UN to somehow ‘extradite/snatch up’ Service Member X to bring them to trial and/or secure them for punishment post trial in absentia.
So if Service Member X is at Ft Bragg, NC are the Chinese gonna go to FT Bragg? Are you suggesting they’d attempt to invade HI or the West Coast in an attempt to compel the USA to hand over Service Member X? That isn’t something China can do now or in the foreseeable future. The Europeans gonna do it? Nah, the Brits have more Admirals than operational war ships. The rest ain’t much better.
Oceans matter. Economic power matters. Military capability matters, especially power projection. Any Nation voting for such a resolution would find itself locked out of US markets, their assets frozen (maybe even stolen as Russia’s were over Ukraine) and into a conflict with the USA. Nice international commerce/trade system dependant upon someone protecting it ya got there, be a shame if …the USA decided to let the ‘pirates’ run amok and sink ships, blow up airports and seaports, mine harbors, shoot down commercial aircraft,
No, that’s not how it goes. If the person is in Fort Bragg, the ICC can’t touch him, and thus ASPA never comes into play.
But suppose the person is somewhere where ICC can have him arrested. It issues a warrant, he’s scooped up by wherever he is, and delivered to the Hague. The president of the time invokes ASPA and uses military force to rescue him. The Security Council, with the USA gone, votes to resist our force with force. China supplies to do that. Now what?
We stop that by remaining on the Security Council so we can veto any such resolution.
And we prevent the entire scenario from happening in the first place, by taking the ICC down a few notches now, instead of waiting for it to try something and only then reacting. That’s what Rubio’s announcement is about.
How many “lunatic John Birchers” are there who would get their way??
Who cares how many there are. They’ve always been lunatics.
The best way to dismantle the ICC involves one or more JDAM’s.
Really?! Where exactly would you send them? They just aren’t a useful weapon in this situation. It needs to be taken down effectively, and right now the only weapons we have against it are diplomatic.
Why not flood the ICC with complaints against the totalitarian regimes that are attempting to use it to attack us? The hypocrisy is there for all to see, so why not make that the issue? That way if they ignore our complaints, we can ignore theirs.
That’s useless. They have no shame. And we officially ignore them anyway, but they’re a serious risk. We don’t recognize their authority over us, but they claim such authority. We have a law saying if they ever try exercising such authority we’ll fight them by all means necessary; but when and if they try it we may not be in the best position to do so. We may also have a president who doesn’t want to do so. Therefore the best way is to act against them now, before they try anything, to ensure that they never do.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, ***Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed***…”
I don’t recall the people of the US (or many nations for that matter) consenting to this group.
The people don’t have to consent to treaties. Only the president and the senate do. The president, with the senate’s consent, can commit the US to anything that doesn’t violate the constitution.
Joining the ICC wouldn’t violate the constitution, so had Clinton been so foolish as to want to join, and the senate so foolish as to agree, we’d be in it. Fortunately neither Clinton nor the senate were that foolish, and they kept us out.
Clinton signed it so as to keep our foot in the door, but was very clear that he didn’t want it ratified, and that he advised his successor, whoever that might be, to do the same.
Rubio has more than enough cause to block anyone in the ICC from entering the United States. Has he done so?
Does the ICC have any assets in the United States?