Imagine you live in a quiet Midwestern town. Your neighborhood's homeowners’ association enforces rules about lawn height, mailbox color, and whether you can park your boat in the driveway. 

Now imagine that the same HOA decides it may enforce those rules on a nearby town that never agreed to join, signed no contract, and has its own laws. 

One day, they announce you’ll be fined, maybe even arrested, for violating their rules. You’d laugh them off the block or call the cops.

That’s exactly how ridiculous it is for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to think it can issue arrest warrants for officials from countries like the United States or Israel. 

These nations never signed on to its authority.

This isn’t just legal fiction. 

It’s arrogant overreach. 

And now, with arrest warrants issued against Israeli leaders and long-standing investigations into U.S. military actions, the ICC has set itself on a collision course with reality and with the U.S. Constitution.

The idea behind the ICC began with genuine intent. 

After the horrors of World War II and the Nuremberg Trials, the world wanted a permanent mechanism to hold war criminals accountable. 

In 1998, the Rome Statute was adopted, laying the groundwork for the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.

Today, the ICC has 125 member countries. But some of the world’s most powerful nations, including the United States, China, Russia, and Israel, have refused to sign or ratify it. 

The reasons? 

Clear and consistent: no nation should surrender its sovereignty to a global body with no democratic accountability, no checks or balances, and no jurisdiction granted by the people it seeks to judge.

Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but immediately recommended against ratifying it without significant revisions. 

George W. Bush "unsigned" it entirely in 2002. 

Barack Obama, despite his globalist leanings, never pushed for ratification. 

Even Biden didn't try to submit it to the Senate because he knew it would fail.

The United States didn't just politely decline ICC membership; we passed legislation making it crystal clear how unwelcome it is. The 2002 American Service-Members’ Protection Act, known as the "Hague Invasion Act," allows the U.S. to use “all means necessary and appropriate” to free American citizens or allies detained by the ICC. 

Yes, even military force.

Congress wasn’t bluffing. 

They were establishing a red line.

The Act also prohibits U.S. cooperation with ICC investigations and bans funding from the court. It came in direct response to concerns that politically motivated prosecutions could target American troops, diplomats, or officials operating in combat zones or high-stakes diplomatic settings.

In 2020, under President Trump, the United States imposed sanctions on ICC officials after they attempted to investigate U.S. conduct in Afghanistan, a nation that never granted jurisdiction. 

The Trump administration declared the ICC’s actions a “threat to U.S. national sovereignty.”

As of June 2025, those same ICC officials are again flexing their imaginary muscles, targeting Israel’s prime minister and defense minister with arrest warrants related to Gaza. 

This is judicial activism, not international law. 

The United States, under President Trump once again, responded with support for Israel and sanctions against four ICC judges involved in the effort.

Here’s the plain truth: the law only applies when there’s jurisdiction. 

If your neighbor tries to sue you using their HOA’s rules, the judge throws it out because you never agreed to those rules.

But the ICC doesn’t see it that way. 

Their arrest warrants against Israel claim jurisdiction under Palestine's supposed statehood, a status not recognized by the United States or the United Nations. 

It's a bureaucratic trick to give the ICC a back door into jurisdictions that never opened the front.

It’s the international law version of squatters' rights. And it would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.

If the ICC can declare jurisdiction based on a disputed claim to statehood or a politically sympathetic region, then there’s no limit to whom it could target next. 

It creates a system where activist lawyers and unelected judges decide who gets dragged before a global tribunal, not by consent but by political calculation.

Let’s not pretend this is evenly applied. 

Where are the ICC’s charges against Chinese officials for their treatment of Uyghur Muslims? 

Against Russia for Ukraine before 2022? 

Against Hamas leaders for using civilians as human shields?

Crickets.

Justice without consistency is not justice. 

It's theater. 

And when a court becomes a stage for political posturing rather than an instrument of evenhanded truth, it loses its moral claim to legitimacy.

If the ICC continues unchecked, the consequences won’t be confined to courtrooms in The Hague.

First, the risk to U.S. and allied personnel abroad grows significantly.

Soldiers, diplomats, or aid workers might think twice before taking action in conflict zones, fearing legal reprisals from a court they don’t recognize.

That hesitation can cost the lives of civilians, allies, or our own people.

Second, it emboldens bad actors. 

If Israel is punished for defending its citizens while terrorist leaders hide behind hospitals, what message does that send? 

That moral equivalence is policy. 

That legality is decided by popularity. 

Standing up for your people might get you arrested unless you're the one who's being aggressive.

Third, it erodes faith in actual international cooperation. 

When one unaccountable body claims power over nations without consent, it poisons efforts to build coalitions on trade, security, or humanitarian aid. Allies don’t respond to dictates. 

They react with respect.

Fourth, it sets the precedent for other international agencies to try the same stunt. 

If the ICC can issue warrants outside its jurisdiction, what’s stopping the World Health Organization from mandating health policies in Texas? 

Or UNESCO from banning textbooks in Oklahoma?

Once the door is opened to governance without consent, it cannot be closed.

The United States was founded on the principle that laws require the consent of the governed. 

That’s why we have elections, a Constitution, and checks on power. 

We do not, and never will, recognize the authority of foreign judges seated in European courtrooms who presume to rule over us.

International cooperation has its place, but it must be earned, not assumed. 

And no amount of well-tailored robes, Latin phrases, or globalist sentiment can replace the core truth: you don’t get to govern people who never permitted you to do so.

Let’s return to the analogy: if a homeowners’ association from three towns over showed up on your front lawn demanding you mow your grass a certain way, you wouldn’t entertain it. 

You’d shut the door, tell them to leave, and if they persisted, you'd call the sheriff.

That’s what the United States must continue to do with the ICC. 

Shut the door. 

Refuse cooperation. 

Impose sanctions. 

And if they persist, use every legal and diplomatic tool to make sure they’re reminded that America governs itself.

The ICC might think it holds the moral high ground. But without consent, it has no authority. 

And without authority, it’s just a group of trespassers posing as judges in a court with no jurisdiction, no accountability, and no respect from those it seeks to command.

They don’t belong here. 

And it’s high time they were reminded.

Hamas broke another ceasefire. The media still paints them as victims.

We tell the truth about terrorists. Join PJ Media VIP and save 60% with code FIGHT.