Trump Urges Global Exodus from ICC, Labels Court 'Evil' and 'Rogue'

In a dramatic escalation of tensions between the United States and the international legal order, President Donald Trump used the global stage of the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, September 23, 2026, to call for a worldwide withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC). Addressing a room of world leaders, the U.S. President characterized the Hague-based institution not as a vehicle for justice, but as an "evil" and "rogue institution" that has overstepped its mandate to target sovereign nations.

The President's rhetoric marks a significant hardening of the U.S. position toward the court, which was established by the Rome Statute to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Trump’s primary contention is that the ICC lacks the legal authority to claim jurisdiction over the citizens of countries that have not ratified the Rome Statute. He specifically highlighted the United States and Israel as targets of what he described as "judicial overreach," arguing that the court's attempts to investigate actions by these nations constitute a violation of national sovereignty.

According to a report by the Japan Times, Trump’s appeal was framed as a necessity for the protection of national security and the autonomy of democratic states (https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2026/09/25/world/politics/trump-quit-icc/). The President argued that the court is being used as a political tool by globalist interests to undermine the leadership of sovereign states, suggesting that the only way to stop this "rogue" behavior is for the international community to strip the court of its legitimacy by abandoning it entirely.

However, the response from the international community has been overwhelmingly cold. Despite the President's forceful appeal, the vast majority of the 125 nations that are parties to the Rome Statute have remained steadfast in their commitment to the court. The only nation to align with the U.S. position and announce its intention to quit the court is the Pacific island nation of Naoero (formerly known as Nauru). This solitary instance of compliance underscores the deep divide between the current U.S. administration's view of international law and the prevailing consensus among other global powers.

As reported by Arab News, world leaders have largely rallied behind the court, with many European governments countering Trump's appeal by defending the ICC as a "cornerstone of international justice" (https://www.arabnews.com/world/only-naoero-heeds-trumps-call-to-abandon-icc-as-world-leaders-rally-behind-court-3003027). European diplomats have argued that the court provides a critical mechanism for accountability in regions where domestic legal systems have failed or collapsed, and that abandoning the ICC would create a vacuum of justice that would only embolden war criminals and dictators.

The U.S. administration is not stopping at rhetorical attacks. Sources within the government indicate that the White House is considering the imposition of severe sanctions against the ICC as early as this week. These potential sanctions could include financial restrictions on the court's operations or travel bans on ICC officials, mirroring the aggressive tactics used by the previous Trump administration to deter the court from investigating U.S. personnel in Afghanistan.

The geopolitical implications of this move are profound. By urging other nations to leave the ICC, the U.S. is effectively attempting to dismantle the framework of international criminal law. Critics argue that this approach isolates the United States from its traditional allies in Europe and undermines the very "rules-based international order" that the U.S. has historically championed. Supporters of the President, however, maintain that the U.S. should not be subject to the whims of an unelected body of judges in the Netherlands, especially when those judges seek to prosecute the actions of a superpower.

The tension is further exacerbated by the specific mention of Israel. The U.S. has long been a staunch defender of Israel's right to defend itself, and the ICC's attempts to investigate potential war crimes in the Palestinian territories have been viewed by the Trump administration as a biased and politically motivated attack. By framing the ICC as "evil," Trump is signaling to his domestic base and to international allies that the U.S. will provide an absolute shield for its partners against international legal scrutiny.

As the week progresses, the world will be watching to see if the U.S. follows through with sanctions. Such a move would be unprecedented in its scale and could lead to a formal diplomatic rupture between the U.S. and several EU member states. For now, the ICC remains operational, though its legitimacy is being tested by the most powerful nation on earth.

By the numbers

The current state of the ICC membership following the U.S. appeal remains largely unchanged, with only one nation joining the U.S. in its opposition. The disparity between the 125 member states and the single defector, Naoero, highlights the uphill battle the Trump administration faces in attempting to reshape the global legal landscape.