US President Donald Trump addresses world leaders at the 81st United Nations General Assembly.
United States President Donald Trump has launched a fresh and forceful attack on the International Criminal Court, ICC, calling it an “out-of-control institution” and an “anti-American tribunal” while urging every country that belongs to the court to withdraw immediately.
Trump made the demand on Tuesday while addressing world leaders at the 81st United Nations General Assembly, UNGA, in New York, where he used a strongly worded speech to challenge the authority of international institutions and defend the sovereignty of the United States.
Speaking from the UN General Assembly podium, Trump said the United States would not permit American military personnel or other U.S. citizens to be subjected to investigations or what he described as “show trials” by a tribunal he said had no jurisdiction over the country.
“The United States is equally opposed to the out-of-control institution known as the International Criminal Court,” Trump said.
He added that Washington would “never allow U.S. service members or anyone else to be investigated or given show trials by an anti-American tribunal with no jurisdiction over us.”
Trump then issued a direct appeal to the ICC’s member states.
“I call on all nations that are members of the ICC to officially resign from this rogue institution immediately,” he said.
He also described the court in highly critical terms, referring to its officials as “an evil group of people.”
The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court and has never ratified the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the court. The ICC, headquartered in The Hague, was created to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in circumstances where national judicial systems are unable or unwilling to act.
Trump’s latest criticism comes amid an escalating confrontation between his administration and the court. The administration has already imposed sanctions targeting the ICC and was reported ahead of the UNGA to be considering broader measures against the institution.
Beyond the ICC, Trump also turned his attention to the United Nations’ human rights institutions, accusing UN human-rights officials of focusing their criticism on the United States while, in his view, failing to sufficiently address what he described as serious abuses elsewhere in the world.
He particularly criticised the UN’s approach to issues surrounding transgender rights and U.S. immigration enforcement.
Trump accused the Human Rights Council of being “craven hypocrites” and questioned what he described as its response to the persecution of Christians in different parts of the world.
“Christians are being persecuted all over the world. It’s not even believable. I never thought I’d say it,” he said.
The remarks formed part of a broader address in which Trump challenged several international institutions and defended his administration’s approach to foreign policy, national sovereignty, security and other global issues.
His attack on the ICC is, however, one of the most prominent moments of the speech, placing the future role of the court and the wider question of international criminal accountability directly before the world’s governments.
Trump’s demand that ICC member states withdraw from the court does not itself alter their membership. Countries that are parties to the Rome Statute would have to follow their own constitutional and legal procedures for any withdrawal.
The ICC has faced sustained criticism from successive U.S. administrations, particularly over questions surrounding the court’s jurisdiction over nationals of countries that have not ratified the Rome Statute. At the same time, supporters of the court maintain that international accountability mechanisms are necessary when domestic systems fail to investigate or prosecute grave international crimes.
Trump’s latest intervention therefore places the United States’ longstanding dispute with the ICC at the centre of his 2026 UNGA address and sets up another major debate among member states over the limits of international judicial authority and national sovereignty.
About The Author
