Far from being a tool of Washington, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has maintained a relationship of ongoing confrontation with the United States. This country never ratified the Rome Statute and, as a result, is not a State Party to the Court. Hostility reached a new peak in January 2025 when Donald Trump’s government sanctioned the ICC for investigating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for crimes in Gaza, showcasing that the Court does not operate as an arm of U.S. foreign policy.
Redacción: La Tabla/Plataforma de Periodismo de Datos 9 DIC 2025
The relationship between the United States and the International Criminal Court (ICC) is far from that of a power controlling its instrument. Since the Court’s inception in 1998, this relationship has been characterized by hostility and confrontation, a reality starkly evidenced in 2025 with the imposition of sanctions by Donald Trump’s administration.
A Divorce from the Start
The root of the conflict traces back to the very creation of the ICC. Although the United States participated in the negotiations of the Rome Statute — the foundational treaty of the tribunal — under Bill Clinton’s administration, its commitment was superficial. The country signed the document but took a decisive step in the opposite direction during George W. Bush’s presidency: it chose not to ratify it.
This decision means that, unlike 125 nations, the United States is not a “State Party” to the ICC. It does not recognize its jurisdiction, lacks voting rights in the Assembly governing the Court, and, in theory, is not obligated to cooperate with it. This rejection was not merely symbolic; it was actualized through laws such as the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, which prohibited military cooperation with countries that recognized the Court.
The Breaking Point: The 2025 Sanctions
The latent tension erupted in January 2025, when President Donald Trump, newly in office, signed the executive order “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court.” This measure, described by the ICC as an attempt to “undermine its independent and impartial judicial work,” froze assets and barred Court officials from entering the U.S.
The immediate reason for this escalation was a judicial action by the ICC that implicated a key Washington ally. In November 2024, the Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his then Minister of Defense, Yoav Gallant, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Trump’s executive order explicitly aimed to protect the United States and allies like Israel from what he termed an “extraordinary threat” to national security.
A Cyclical History of Rejection
The 2025 episode is not an anomaly but rather the height of a pattern of confrontation. The Obama administration had a pragmatic approach, but Trump’s first presidency (2017-2021) already included the ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, on a sanctions list for investigating alleged U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan. While Biden revoked those sanctions, hostility from the U.S. legislative branch continued, with proposals to punish the Court for investigating Israel.
Sovereignty vs. Universal Justice
The narrative that the ICC is a “tool” of U.S. foreign policy crumbles under scrutiny. Far from being utilized, successive administrations in Washington have viewed the Court as a threat to their sovereignty and have acted to curtail its reach, particularly when its investigations impact their citizens or closest allies.
The relationship is not one of control but rather a fundamental conflict between the conception of international criminal justice and the defense of absolute national jurisdiction by the superpower. The ICC, despite its flaws and challenges, has proven to operate with an independence that has made it a direct target of the power to which it allegedly serves.