In a Myanmar village, everyone knows the scene. A man drinks too much, hitches up his pasoe or longyi in front of the village head’s house, and shouts abuse to challenge the one person whose job is to keep order. The shame is not only his. The village is also shamed if it lets him carry on unanswered.

That is how Washington’s conduct toward the International Criminal Court looks to much of the world. On 9 October 2026, according to the reports, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on the ICC as an institution, not just on individual judges. They bar US persons and entities from dealing with the court and cut off its access to US financial services, technology and dollar transactions, with a six-month wind-down period. Secretary of State Marc Rubio’s reported words were: “Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC.” This is the language of a man shouting outside someone’s house, not of a diplomat.

The timing made it worse. The sanctions reportedly came hours after former ICC judge Navi Pillay won the Nobel Peace Prize for her work against war crimes. President Trump then told a rally that Norway’s decision was “disgraceful and embarrassing” and that Norway was “ripping off our country.” Israel’s prime minister’s office called Pillay a “bigot.” A court is being punished for doing its job, and the people honored for defending it are being insulted.

The pattern goes beyond the ICC. Critics point to strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that the Washington Office on Latin America says amount to extrajudicial killings, and to the January seizure of Venezuela’s president. They also point to the visa denial for Mahmoud Abbas and the threats against Iran. The administration disputes the legal characterization of these actions. Together they feed the perception that the rules apply to everyone except the powerful.

What the world’s leaders should do

1. Respond quickly and together. The EU, UK, France, Germany and Japan have already criticized the sanctions. Words are not enough. The EU should adopt a blocking statute so the court’s staff, banks and suppliers are shielded from US financial coercion.
2. Keep the ICC funded and operating. States parties should open alternative payment, banking and IT channels before the six-month window closes.
3. Debate the UN’s location. It is uncomfortable that the world’s main peace organization sits in the territory of a government that can deny visas to delegates. Geneva has a long record of neutrality and already hosts many international bodies. Moving the headquarters would not fix the UN’s politics, but it would state that the UN belongs to all nations, not to its host.

Rule of law cannot depend on the goodwill of the strongest. If the village will not answer the man outside the village head’s door, the next one will be louder.

Shameless Trump and Marc Rubio are just trying to protect Satanyahu. Just because of these THREE IDIOT CRIMINALS, we should not decide hastely that ICC is useless.