Authored by William Brooks via The Epoch Times,
Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent announcement of a “whole-of-government” campaign to challenge the International Criminal Court (ICC) has generated predictable discourse worldwide.
The Trump administration is applying diplomatic pressure on allied governments to reconsider their support for the Court. Washington is calling for expanded sanctions against ICC officials, visa restrictions, and renewed insistence that the Court has no lawful authority over citizens of sovereign nations.
For the usual globalist critics, this is just another example of Trumpian unilateralism. But for sensible Americans, it reflects the president’s determination to place “America First” ahead of international institutions.
In fact, the issue deserves thoughtful examination that goes beyond ideological rhetoric. At its heart lies one of the oldest questions in constitutional government: Who has the ultimate authority to judge the citizens of a sovereign nation—its own national institutions, or an international tribunal whose judges are beyond the reach of that nation’s electorate?
The answer explains why every American administration since the ICC’s creation has refused to recognize the Court’s jurisdiction over American servicemen and government officials.
The International Criminal Court was established under the Rome Statute in 1998 and formally began operations in 2002. It was created with an admirable purpose: to prosecute individuals responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and, more recently, the crime of aggression when national courts either cannot or will not act.
The horrors of Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia convinced many that the “international order” needed a permanent institution capable of bringing the world’s worst criminals to justice. Few people disputed that objective.
Since World War II, the United States has played a significant role in shaping modern international criminal law. From the Nuremberg trials to the creation of temporary tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, successive American governments have supported the prosecution of genuine war criminals.
What Washington has never accepted is the proposition that an international court may exercise criminal jurisdiction over American citizens without the United States’ consent.
Global OverreachBill Clinton authorized the signing of the Rome Statute during the final days of his administration, but he deliberately declined to submit it to the Senate for ratification, acknowledging significant constitutional concerns.
George W. Bush later informed the United Nations that the United States did not intend to become a party to the treaty. Congress reinforced that position through the American Service-Members’ Protection Act of 2002, declaring that American military personnel should never be surrendered to the ICC without U.S. consent.
Subsequent administrations differed in tone but not in principle. Barack Obama cooperated with the Court in certain cases involving foreign atrocities while continuing to reject its jurisdiction over Americans.
Joe Biden lifted some sanctions imposed during Donald Trump’s first term but tacitly maintained that the ICC possessed no lawful authority over U.S. personnel. The American constitutional objection has remained remarkably consistent across the partisan divide.
The present controversy over the court’s power arose from the ICC’s contention that if an alleged offense occurs within the territory of a country that has ratified the Rome Statute, the Court may prosecute even citizens of countries that have never accepted its jurisdiction.
The Court’s reasoning formed the basis for investigations involving American personnel in Afghanistan and has also underpinned recent proceedings involving Israeli leaders. Sovereign nations are right to see this as global overreach.
America in OppositionHistory offers good reasons for American concern. International organizations, such as the United Nations, are not immune from politicization. Their legitimacy depends not only upon noble aspirations but also upon public confidence that they exercise their authority impartially and within clearly defined legal limits.
Whenever global institutions expand their jurisdiction beyond what states originally contemplated, they inevitably invite resistance.
This concern echoes an argument made 50 years ago by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In his influential 1975 book “A Dangerous Place” and in articles and speeches during his tenure as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Moynihan argued that the United States had entered an era of permanent “opposition” within international institutions.
He believed that organizations originally established to foster cooperation had increasingly become grievance forums for a multinational majority of former European colonies that were determined to disparage the United States and its longstanding allies.
Moynihan did not reject international cooperation; quite the opposite. He believed that international institutions were valuable—but only when they respected truth, legal restraint, and the sovereign equality of nations. When those institutions exceeded their proper authority or became instruments of political activism, he believed democratic governments had both the right and the obligation to resist.
Half a century later, Moynihan’s warning is remarkably relevant. The present dispute is not just about whether war crimes should be prosecuted. Every civilized nation supports bringing genuine perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity to justice.
The real question is whether or not an international court has an independent right to define the limits of its own authority.
Washington Rejects the ICC’s JurisdictionAmerican constitutional tradition holds that treaties bind only those nations that freely consent to them. The Senate never ratified the Rome Statute. Consequently, successive administrations have maintained that no international body can acquire criminal jurisdiction over Americans through the unilateral decisions of other governments.
This is not merely a legal technicality. It goes to the heart of democratic accountability. American judges answer to constitutional procedures established by the American people. Congress writes the laws. Presidents appoint judges under constitutional safeguards. Elections provide ultimate political accountability.
The judges of the International Criminal Court answer to no American electorate. American citizens cannot vote them out of office, alter their mandate, or amend the Rome Statute under which they operate. This exempts the Court from democratic accountability and permits it to exercise extraordinary powers over individuals who never consented to its authority. Within this order of things, Americans are as inclined to trust the impartiality of international judges as they are to trust the neutrality of international soccer referees.
Washington’s position is not unique. Other major democracies, including India, have also declined to join the Court. The objections vary, but many share the concern that international institutions should not gradually acquire powers that sovereign governments never delegated. Dismissing concerns about sovereignty as ultra-America-first nationalism diminishes the importance of an issue that has occupied constitutional scholars for decades.
That is a profound constitutional issue. In spite of the usual virtue signaling and anti-American theater, there is a principle at stake that has united every U.S. administration for more than a quarter century. The United States never consented to place its citizens under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Whether one agrees with Rubio’s assertion or not, it is hardly an extremist position. It reflects a long-standing understanding of constitutional government—that the legitimacy of law rests ultimately upon the consent of the governed. This is not just another battle in the culture wars or more evidence of presidential brinkmanship—it’s an issue that deserves to be taken seriously.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Tyler Durden Fri, 07/17/2026 - 20:05It has been noted by many deportation advocates that the enforcement of basic immigration laws has always been a responsibility of government. It's not a new, unique, bizarre or despotic policy - It's simply common sense. However, in the past decade, the common sense enforcement of the law is being treated like a humanitarian crisis akin to slavery, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Why?
It's not because the general public sees it that way. The citizenry did not suddenly change their views on mass immigration overnight. Most Americans are not particularly enthusiastic about "multiculturalism" or ethnic replacement and they never have been. The big change was the focus of the progressive spin machine.
The multiculturalists turned up the heat on their propaganda from moderate to full-blown "we are the world" cult insanity, and they did this in the span of a few years. In other words, the pro-mass immigration movement is not a real movement; it's astroturf largely created by an army of non-profit organizations with wealthy globalist backers.
Without these NGOs, "anti-ICE" protests and disruption groups would not exist. These people get compensated for the things they do. That's how they're able to spend most of their day tracking ICE agents without losing their jobs - because provocation is their job.
You may have heard of the recent ICE related shooting in Maine this past week, in which a confrontation between agents and an illegal migrant from Columbia led to a deadly outcome. Maine activists took to the streets to protest the fatal shooting of the illegal by an ICE officer in Biddeford. What they don't mention is that 26-year-old Joan Guerrero reportedly attempted to run the agent over with his van and that's why he was shot.
DHS almost put a hold on traffic stops by ICE in response to the event, but Trump immediately brought the hammer down on that decision and traffic stops will continue unabated. Any capitulation, any sign of weakness in the face of left-wing disruption, only emboldens them further.
\
There is no training that can be conducted that will make ICE agents safer from migrants and leftists trying to kill them. Deadly force is the only response that makes a difference.
The establishment media has tried desperately to make Guerrero into a martyr, much like they did with Renee Good and Alex Pretti, but with little success. The reason should be obvious and predictable: Americans are fed up with far-left activism and illegal immigration, and they're tired of the disinformation surrounding these incidents.
Almost no one talks about Renee Good or Alex Pretti because the narratives around their deaths were debunked. When video footage was released showing Good attempting to run over an ICE agent and Pretti (armed with a pistol) attacking an ICE agent in the middle of an arrest, the outrage fizzled and the public realized they were being played.
🚨 UPDATE: ICE has just announced that IN ONE OPERATION across one day, 238 illegal aliens have been arrested — a new record for the Rio Grande Valley
The illegals' crimes included s*xual battery, attempted kidnapping and more
KEEP PUSHING, ICE! Vehicle stops are back on! The… pic.twitter.com/ysPnrah0mW
At bottom, the NGO's want these shootings. They want the chaos and they want to sacrifice low-IQ activists to create martyrdom scenarios. Watch these groups in their post-killing demonstrations; they look almost happy or giddy. They believe that with each tragic sacrifice they are getting closer to a popular consensus against deportations.
Evidence suggests they are mistaken.
The majority of Americans in polling still widely support deportations and strict controls on the southern border. What the NGOs didn't take into consideration was the factor of fatigue. The American populace is tired. The public is growing increasingly acclimated to the idea that when activists and illegal migrants engage in violent encounters with ICE, those people are likely to be killed in the process.
It seems like common sense, but the past decade of propaganda has conditioned many Americans to the idea that immigration enforcement is supposed to be soft and unseen. This is naive. The truth is, most incidents would not have occurred if it weren't for leftist disruption teams, and the public is starting to figure this out. They are also starting to figure out that much of the hysteria around deportations has been conjured from thin air by left-wing news outlets.
The goal is organized insanity - An engineered atmosphere of chaos. It is the attempt to overwhelm the brains of the citizenry and train them to associate all immigration enforcement with constant tension and random violence. They hope that the public will eventually beg for it all to stop, even if it means keeping borders open.
But, as noted, there's another potential outcome; the public stops caring completely. When activists and migrants engage in organized insanity and get killed, no one flinches. That's what is happening today. Ultimately, the solution to ICE related deaths is simple: Just don't interfere with or attack ICE agents.
Tyler Durden Fri, 07/17/2026 - 19:40