European Leaders Defy Trump's Call to Abandon ICC
EU officials unite in support of international justice amid US pressure to dismantle the court.
.jpg?branch=production)
1Trump's direct challenge
During his 45-minute UN speech, Trump explicitly called on all ICC member states to immediately resign from what he termed a 'rogue institution.' He framed this as protecting US sovereignty, stating America would never allow its citizens to be investigated by what he called an 'anti-American tribunal.' This marks the most direct presidential attack on the ICC's legitimacy since its 2002 founding.
2European counter-mobilization
Irish PM Micheál Martin and Dutch PM Rob Jetten led European resistance at the UN, with Martin calling for accountability in Ukraine and Jetten defending the ICC as essential for prosecuting 'the very worst crimes.' Their speeches received loud applause, demonstrating broad diplomatic support. European Council president Antonio Costa later confirmed the EU's unified stance, calling attacks on the ICC 'unacceptable.'
3Legal withdrawal complexities
International law professor Sergey Vasiliev explains that leaving the ICC requires a one-year notification period under the Rome Statute, during which states must still cooperate with ongoing cases. This technicality means even if nations follow Trump's call, they remain bound to the court's processes for months. Only microstate Naoero has so far committed to withdrawal, calling the ICC 'increasingly irrelevant.'
4Historical context of tensions
US-ICC conflict dates to 2017 when the court investigated alleged American war crimes in Afghanistan. Trump's 2020 sanctions against ICC personnel were later revoked by Biden, only to be reinstated in 2025 over ICC warrants for Israeli leaders. Current Secretary of State Marco Rubio has escalated efforts with a 'whole-of-government' campaign to disable the court's operations targeting Americans.
5Recent ICC targeting
The Trump administration imposed September 2026 sanctions on ICC President Tomoko Akane and prosecutor Abdoulaye Seye, calling them 'illegitimate actions.' Thirty-eight civil society groups subsequently filed a legal brief challenging these sanctions' legality. The ICC condemned the measures as a 'flagrant attack' on judicial independence, highlighting the unprecedented nature of targeting sitting judges.
6Shifting global participation
Five African nations (Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Chad) and Venezuela have recently moved to withdraw, following Hungary's reversed 2025 attempt. While professor Vasiliev calls these departures a 'serious loss,' he notes the ICC's 125 member states provide resilience. The US and Israel remain non-members, with Trump leveraging this position to challenge the court's jurisdiction over allies.
7Legal jurisdiction paradox
Vasiliev clarifies the ICC's jurisdictional nuance: while it can't prosecute nationals from non-member states like the US, it retains authority over crimes committed on member state territories regardless of perpetrator nationality. This explains why the court pursued Afghanistan cases involving Americans and why Trump views its reach as threatening to US sovereignty interests abroad.
8Institutional resilience test
The coordinated European response demonstrates the ICC's entrenched position in international governance despite US opposition. With withdrawal being legally cumbersome and politically divisive, Trump's campaign may achieve limited defections but appears unlikely to collapse the court. The confrontation instead highlights growing tensions between unilateral sovereignty claims and multilateral justice frameworks.
Original article: TIME — European Leaders Defy Trump's Call to Abandon ICC