Amidst the Trump administration's attack on the International Criminal Court.. Ilhan Omar pushes for Washington to join it

Washington Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 16/7/2026

In a move reflecting the escalating division within the United States regarding its relationship with the International Criminal Court, Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar introduced a draft resolution calling on the United States to formally join the Court and ratify the Rome Statute, days after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced his intention to work on “dismantling” the Court and undermining its ability to carry out its duties.

Omar said that the International Criminal Court represents “an essential tool for achieving justice in places where victims find no other means of redress,” considering that if the United States truly believes in human rights and the rule of law, it should lead efforts to strengthen the international justice system, not weaken it. She added that “no one should be above the law, and the United States should set an example in respecting the standards it demands others adhere to.”

This draft resolution comes at a time when the relationship between President Donald Trump’s administration and the International Criminal Court is at its worst stage, after the US administration intensified its punitive measures against the Court due to its investigations related to Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in addition to previous investigations that addressed allegations of American individuals committing war crimes during the war in Afghanistan.

The US administration did not stop at imposing sanctions on a large number of senior court officials, but also expanded the scope of sanctions to include lawyers and human rights organizations that contributed to providing evidence or supporting the court’s investigations, which Washington opposes, in a move that drew widespread criticism from human rights organizations and defenders of the independence of international justice.

Reports indicate that the US administration demanded the court introduce amendments to the Rome Statute to prevent the prosecution of President Trump, members of his administration, or Israeli officials before the court, which observers considered an attempt to enshrine political and legal immunity that contradicts the principles on which the court was founded as a body competent to prosecute perpetrators of the most serious international crimes.

Rubio’s statements, in which he pledged to “dismantle” the International Criminal Court (on Monday, July 14), sparked a wide wave of condemnations. Amnesty International Secretary-General Agnes Callamard said that the US Secretary’s statements confirm, unintentionally, the importance of the court and its role in holding officials accountable when states are unable or unwilling to conduct genuine investigations.

Callamard added that the US administration’s positions suggest a fear of the possibility of American officials being held accountable in the future for actions that may amount to crimes under international law, pointing to allegations related to the deportation of individuals to places where they are subjected to torture, and extrajudicial killings in various regions.

In contrast, Representative Omar rejected the US administration’s claims that the court might prosecute American soldiers merely for their military service, stressing that the court intervenes only when states are unwilling or unable to conduct independent and credible investigations into war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide.

She said that the best way to avoid the court’s jurisdiction is not to commit those crimes in the first place, and when serious allegations arise, to conduct transparent investigations and hold those responsible accountable according to the law.

The new draft resolution is the third attempt by Omar since 2020 to push the United States towards joining the International Criminal Court, after she submitted two similar drafts in 2020 and 2022, but they did not reach the voting stage in the House of Representatives, despite the second initiative receiving support from a number of Democratic representatives.

The project also coincides with a lawsuit filed by two human rights organizations against President Trump and a number of senior officials in his administration, accusing them of violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution by imposing sanctions on human rights organizations that participated in demanding investigations into alleged war crimes committed by American and Israeli officials during the war on the Gaza Strip.

These developments highlight the widening gap within the United States between a current that views the International Criminal Court as a threat to American sovereignty, and another that considers it one of the most important international justice institutions that should be supported, especially in light of escalating international demands to hold accountable those responsible for grave violations of international humanitarian law.

The initiative led by Ilhan Omar reveals the widening scope of disagreement within the American political establishment regarding the United States’ position in the international legal system. While the Trump administration continues to treat the International Criminal Court as a direct threat to national sovereignty, a growing segment of Democrats believes that refusing to abide by the same rules that Washington demands others respect weakens the credibility of American discourse on human rights. This debate reflects a deeper struggle between the logic of power that has governed American foreign policy for decades, and the logic of legal accountability that is gaining increasing momentum on the international stage.

The current confrontation is of exceptional importance because it comes amidst escalating international pressures related to the war in Gaza, where the International Criminal Court has become a key player in legal accountability issues. Therefore, the Trump administration’s opposition to the court seems largely linked to its desire to protect Israeli officials, along with American officials, from any potential prosecutions. This approach would deepen tensions between Washington and its European allies, who consider the court one of the fundamental pillars of the international legal system after World War II.

Although the chances of passing the draft resolution in Congress appear limited given the current balance of power, its political value transcends the probabilities of it being voted on. It reopens the debate about the relationship between the United States and international institutions, and raises a fundamental question about Washington’s willingness to abide by the same legal standards it calls for globally. It also gives human rights organizations additional momentum in confronting policies aimed at reducing the court’s jurisdiction, and confirms that the battle for international justice has become part of the internal political division in the United States, and not just a disagreement with the international community.