The United States wants to dismantle the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and this time it says it is willing to go further than ever before.
That is the message from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who used a Wall Street Journal opinion piece and a video on X to announce a campaign against the court, known as the ICC.
The Dutch government has responded with concern, but some experts say concern alone is not enough.
So what exactly does the US want?
The ICC, based in The Hague, can prosecute people anywhere in the world for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
In his opinion piece, Rubio wrote that the US would take the court apart brick by brick if necessary, according to NOS.
He framed the court as an attack on the US, saying America is being targeted not with bullets, but with so called international law.
According to Reuters, the options being weighed include travel bans and visa suspensions for ICC staff, plus pressure on other countries to abandon the court altogether.
Rubio struck the same tone in a video message posted to X:
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.
— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) July 13, 2026
We will teach the ICC the full meaning of American resolve. pic.twitter.com/2egHK1jA98
Why is the US so bothered by a court it never joined?
The US has never been a member of the ICC. Even so, Americans can still be prosecuted for crimes committed in the 125 countries that are members.
That is exactly the sticking point, according to Alette Smeulers, professor of international crimes at the University of Groningen. She says the US essentially wants a free pass to break international law in countries that have signed up.
The criticism itself is nothing new, she notes, but the country is now going further with a certain shamelessness.
Where did this fight come from?
The bad blood goes back years. The Trump administration was furious when the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Israeli prime minister Netanyahu over the Israeli warcrimes in Gaza.
Not long after returning to the White House last year, Trump lashed out at what he called the court’s baseless actions against America and its ally Israel. He then imposed a range of sanctions on ICC judges.
Smeulers calls that an upsidedown situation. Sanctions like these are normally aimed at terrorists, she says, and are now being used against judges instead.
What is the Netherlands saying?
The Netherlands is both the ICC host country and a treaty member, and its foreign ministry says it stands behind the court and its staff. Independent international courts, it says, must be able to do their work without obstruction.
As host nation and State Party, the Netherlands stands behind the International Criminal Court and its staff. International courts must be able to carry out their mandate without interference.
— Tom Berendsen (@ministerBZ) July 14, 2026
The European Commission also condemned the American attacks, calling threats against court officials unacceptable and describing the ICC as a cornerstone of the international justice system.
Is the Netherlands actually doing enough?
Warm words are one thing, but concrete action is another, and critics say the Netherlands is doing very little to actually protect the court on its own soil.
International criminal lawyer Tamara Buruma says the Netherlands, as host country, has a duty to defend the ICC. She argues the Dutch government could push within the EU for a so-called blocking law, as reported by BNR.
Such a law would mean US sanctions do not apply inside Europe. Right now, American companies operating in Europe have to follow two legal systems at once.
A blocking law would stop a firm like Mastercard from being forced to freeze someone’s bank account because of US rules, since European law would protect the company instead.
What happens if it works?
The stakes reach beyond any single arrest warrant. ICC rulings help national judges in countries like the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden approach cases from a shared starting point, Buruma explains.
The worry is that if the US peels enough countries away, the court loses its authority. Last week, three African countries announced they would formally withdraw from the ICC.
It is the sort of erosion that has left Dutch citizens increasingly worried about the international legal order, and it strikes at the heart of what makes The Hague the international city of peace and justice in the first place.
Buruma thinks the American anger is telling. If the US is not even a member, why worry so much about the court? Her reading is that they are afraid of an institution they still quietly respect.
Do you think the Netherlands should do more to defend the ICC, or is quiet diplomacy the smarter play? Let us know in the comments.
