Iran Terror Denier Slams Rubio’s America First Decision to Close ICC

Congress erupted over a decision by President Donald Trump’s administration to cut America’s involvement with the International Criminal Court over its selective targeting and wrongful prosecution.

“The words ‘international,’ ‘criminal,’ and ‘court’ should never be used together—certainly not in reference to the United States of America,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who introduced legislation to remove the court’s headquarters from New York City, wrote on X.

In a separate post, Lee wrote, “Keep the ICC out of the U.S.,” after saying that “America never agreed to a world tribunal that can override our own courts and the Constitution.”

Rubio’s Decisive Action

On Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited that the international court has sought to “become the unaccountable global arbiter” that acts as an “arm of a globalist bureaucracy empowered to persecute American servicemen and officials at will.”

He added that he wants to “ensure that the International Criminal Court is incapable of threatening U.S. sovereignty or targeting Americans.”

Under the effort, the secretary of state, deputy secretary, ambassadors, and other senior U.S. officials would urge foreign governments to reject what the administration views as the court’s illegitimate assertions of authority, particularly over American officials and military personnel.

Nations that benefit from U.S. security partnerships or cooperate with American law enforcement and the military would be encouraged to formally reject the court’s jurisdiction over U.S. citizens.

The administration will also increase scrutiny of countries that continue to recognize the court’s authority while relying on U.S. military or economic assistance.

In addition, Washington would press other nations that are not parties to the Rome Statute—the treaty that established the court—to use their own diplomatic channels to oppose the court alongside the United States.

The strategy could also include tougher penalties against the court itself, including expanded sanctions on the court and affiliated organizations, as well as visa revocations and travel bans for personnel.

Supporters argue the measures are necessary to protect U.S. sovereignty and shield American service members from politically motivated prosecutions. Critics contend the effort could further isolate the United States from international legal institutions and allies that support the court’s mission.

Iranian Terror Denier’s Response

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who voted against a measure in March to name Iran as a state sponsor of terror, slammed the decision, claiming that Rubio’s assessment is false. She further claimed that if the United States wanted to avoid the court’s prosecution, American service members should just not “commit atrocity crimes.” And if they do, they should be held accountable.

However, Rubio argued that the reason for pulling support and participation isn’t because the United States has an issue holding its wrongdoers accountable, but that the court selectively chooses what criminals to prosecute.

For instance, the court has not prosecuted or issued arrest warrants for any officials of the Iranian regime, which allegedly slaughtered over 40,000 protesters in the spring of 2026. A select number of Hamas leaders, however, have faced arrest warrants from the court.

Aside from issuing the warrants, the International Criminal Court has not captured or prosecuted any Hamas officials, especially the ones behind the Oct. 7 rapes, killings, and kidnappings of over 1,000 innocent Israelis.