U.S. launches campaign to isolate International Criminal Court, Rubio says

The Trump administration has begun an effort to challenge and isolate the International Criminal Court, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, according to a Reuters report published July 13, 2026. The campaign places the United States in a renewed diplomatic confrontation with the court and the 125 governments that belong to it.

Rubio described the administration’s position as an effort to dismantle what it views as a threat to U.S. sovereignty. The reported move is a campaign and policy position, not evidence that the court has been dismantled, weakened or abandoned by its members.

What changed on July 13

The significant development was the administration’s publicly described effort to pressure and isolate the ICC. Reuters attributed the announcement to Rubio, the U.S. secretary of state, and reported that the initiative was connected to earlier American sanctions against ICC officials.

The approved reporting does not identify a complete State Department directive, executive order or other formal U.S. legal instrument establishing the campaign. Its scope, legal mechanism and intended timetable therefore remain unclear. Those details would need to be confirmed through official U.S. documents and ICC records.

That distinction matters. The United States has not withdrawn from the ICC because it is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court. The development is instead a new effort by a non-member government to challenge the institution and influence the governments that participate in it.

Why the court’s members are affected

The ICC is headquartered in The Hague and has 125 member states. Governments that belong to the court may face diplomatic pressure from Washington if they cooperate with its investigations, support its work or reject the administration’s argument about U.S. sovereignty.

The practical stakes involve more than the relationship between the United States and the court. The campaign could affect cooperation with the ICC, relations between the United States and Rome Statute members, and the institution’s ability to investigate and prosecute alleged international crimes.

The reported U.S. position also continues broader disputes over the court’s jurisdiction and investigations. Earlier sanctions against ICC officials had already made the court’s work a point of conflict with Washington. The new campaign, as described by Rubio and reported by Reuters, expands that dispute into a broader diplomatic effort.

Separate leadership uncertainty at the ICC

The court is also facing an internal leadership issue. Reuters reporting in June said the ICC’s governing body had separately suspended prosecutor Karim Khan pending a vote by member states after a misconduct investigation.

The approved source packet does not establish a finding against Khan, the outcome of the investigation or the result of the member-state vote. Those matters should not be treated as settled facts. They are relevant context because the prosecutor’s status and the U.S. campaign are occurring during the same period, but the packet does not establish that one caused the other.

What happens next

The next known step is clarification, rather than a documented implementation deadline. Official U.S. records would be needed to establish what measures the administration intends to use, which officials or institutions could be targeted, and how long the effort is intended to last. ICC records and statements from member states would help show how the court and its treaty partners respond.

For now, the July 13 report establishes the administration’s announced direction and Rubio’s public position. It does not establish that the campaign has produced a measurable institutional consequence. The central question is whether the stated effort develops into formal U.S. action capable of changing cooperation between the United States, the ICC and its 125 member governments.