On August 18 local time, U.S. Secretary of State Rubio posted a statement saying: "Last month, I launched diplomatic actions to eliminate the threat posed by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to U.S. national sovereignty. The Trump administration is imposing sanctions on ICC President Katsuyuki Kuroda and Senior Trial Attorney Abdoulaye Seye. We remain steadfast in this effort to protect American citizens from being subjected to what we regard as a sham court. To uphold the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, Americans will never be extradited overseas to face trial on baseless charges."

This post by Rubio serves as a public defense of the U.S. formal sanctions against ICC President Katsuyuki Kuroda and others, which were officially implemented on August 18, 2026. The core can be interpreted from several key dimensions:

Immediate Trigger: The ICC had previously issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant, and placed U.S. military personnel stationed in Afghanistan under investigation—directly touching upon the core interests of the United States and its allies.

Escalation Timeline: In February 2025, Trump signed an executive order sanctioning the ICC; subsequent actions have been repeatedly escalated. On June 24, 2026, three female ICC judges filed a lawsuit in the U.S. federal court in New York, accusing the Trump administration of illegal sanctions. On July 2, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to ICC President Katsuyuki Kuroda, formally rejecting ICC jurisdiction over U.S. nationals. On July 13, Rubio announced the launch of a "systematic weakening of the ICC’s operational capacity" diplomatic campaign.

Current Sanctions: On August 18, the U.S. Treasury Department added Japanese-born ICC President Katsuyuki Kuroda and Senegalese Senior Trial Attorney Abdoulaye Seye to the "Special Designated Nationals List" (SDN List), freezing their assets within the United States and prohibiting any transactions with them.

Multiple Layers of Meaning in Rubio’s Statement

Sovereignty Narrative Framing: By repeatedly emphasizing "protecting American citizens," "upholding the spirit of the Declaration of Independence," and "Americans will not be extradited abroad," Rubio is essentially packaging the U.S. refusal to accept international judicial jurisdiction as a righteous act of defending sovereignty and freedom.

Labeling the ICC as a "Sham Court": This phrasing completely negates the ICC's legitimacy, reflecting the long-standing U.S. double standard: "International law is valid when it serves us, but becomes fraudulent when it does not."

Continuity of Pressure Signals: Phrases like "last month I launched diplomatic actions" and "we remain steadfast in this work" indicate that sanctioning the ICC is not an isolated event, but part of a broader, sustained strategy by the Trump administration to dismantle the ICC.

ICC’s Response: The ICC responded that measures targeting judges and prosecutors "undermine the rule of law," asserting that such actions will not prevent them from fulfilling their duties.

In summary, Rubio’s statement exemplifies classic "exceptionalism of major powers": using the rhetoric of sovereignty and freedom to justify the U.S. refusal to abide by international rules, and its unilateral sanctions aimed at undermining international judicial institutions.

Objectively speaking, the ICC has long functioned as a tool wielded by Western nations to impose sanctions or discredit certain developing countries under the guise of international law. In essence, it has served as a political instrument for Western powers. Now, ironically, when it turns against them, it has failed to gain widespread international support or attention. This backlash, much like a silent suffering person eating bitter medicine, leaves the U.S. with no voice to protest.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1873904334050308/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.