Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar has introduced a resolution urging the United States to join the International Criminal Court, directly challenging the Trump administration’s new campaign to isolate and weaken the international war-crimes tribunal.
Omar’s proposal calls for the United States to become a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. The court investigates and prosecutes individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression when national justice systems are unable or unwilling to handle credible cases.
“The United States should lead by example,” Omar said while announcing her renewed effort, arguing that Washington should support international accountability rather than seek an exemption from it. Her office had announced the planned resolution two days earlier in response to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s campaign against the court.
The resolution would be politically significant but would not, by itself, make the United States an ICC member. Joining the court would require the president to pursue ratification of the Rome Statute and obtain the approval of two-thirds of senators present, a constitutional requirement for treaties. With the Trump administration firmly opposing the court, Omar’s measure currently has little chance of producing immediate U.S. membership.
TRENDING TODAY
Rubio announced the administration’s expanded pressure campaign on Monday, describing the ICC as an unacceptable threat to American sovereignty. The State Department said it would pursue additional sanctions, travel restrictions and diplomatic pressure while encouraging countries outside the Rome Statute to oppose the court through their own international relationships.
The administration argues that international judges should not have authority over American troops, officials or citizens when the United States has not accepted the court’s founding treaty. It has also strongly opposed ICC investigations and warrants involving Israeli officials, maintaining that the court lacks legitimate jurisdiction over citizens of countries that are not members.
Omar and other supporters of the ICC argue that the court is deliberately structured as a last resort rather than a replacement for national courts. Under the principle known as complementarity, the ICC generally acts only when domestic authorities are unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate serious international crimes themselves. The court currently has 125 member countries.
The dispute over jurisdiction is more complicated than either side’s broad political messaging suggests.
Because the United States is not a member, the ICC generally cannot claim jurisdiction based solely on alleged conduct occurring entirely on U.S. territory unless Washington accepts the court’s authority or the United Nations Security Council refers the situation.
However, the court may investigate nationals of non-member countries when alleged crimes occur on the territory of a Rome Statute member. That principle has previously created concern in Washington over the possible examination of actions by American personnel in Afghanistan, which accepted ICC jurisdiction.
The political divide is further complicated by the United States’ selective history with the court. American lawmakers from both parties have supported international investigations of Russian conduct in Ukraine while remaining divided over investigations involving U.S. personnel or Israeli officials.
Supporters say that position creates a double standard in which Washington welcomes the ICC when it targets adversaries but attempts to weaken it when investigations affect the United States or its allies. Critics of the court respond that unelected international prosecutors could pursue politically motivated cases without sufficient democratic accountability.
The conflict is also moving into federal court. Two U.S. advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s sanctions regime, arguing that it has forced them to restrict constitutionally protected communication and cooperation with people connected to ICC investigations. The administration maintains that the sanctions are lawful national-security measures rather than restrictions on political speech.
Omar’s resolution is therefore unlikely to change U.S. policy in the immediate future, but it establishes a clear congressional alternative to Rubio’s campaign. Instead of isolating the court, the proposal asks the United States to accept its rules and participate in selecting judges, shaping policy and overseeing the institution through the Assembly of States Parties.
Why It Matters
The dispute concerns whether the United States should place itself under the same international justice system it often asks other countries to respect.
Supporters of membership argue that joining would strengthen U.S. credibility when condemning war crimes and authoritarian governments. Opponents warn that membership could expose American military personnel and political officials to investigations conducted outside the U.S. constitutional system.
The debate could also affect victims in conflicts where national courts cannot safely or independently pursue powerful suspects.
What Comes Next
Omar will seek Democratic and potentially bipartisan support for the resolution, although House passage would remain largely symbolic without cooperation from the White House and Senate.
The Trump administration is expected to continue expanding sanctions and diplomatic pressure against the ICC. Meanwhile, European governments, human-rights organizations and the court’s member states are likely to resist efforts to reduce its international support.
Ilhan Omar said the United States should strengthen international justice by joining the International Criminal Court.
The ICC is a crucial tool for justice when victims have nowhere else to turn.
If we believe in human rights and the rule of law, we should strengthen international justice—not work to dismantle it.
Proud to introduce this resolution. https://t.co/H7uPAkSB09
— Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) July 15, 2026
