Dwain Northey (Gen X)

Before we get started, let me point out one of the oldest traditions in American foreign policy: we absolutely love international law… right up until someone suggests it might apply to us.

For decades, American leaders stood at podiums around the world explaining that no nation should be above international law. We helped build a post-World War II order rooted in the simple idea that there are rules civilized nations follow, especially in war. The Geneva Conventions weren’t written as suggestions. They were written because humanity had already seen what happens when governments convince themselves that military necessity excuses everything.

Now comes Marco Rubio, declaring that the International Criminal Court should be dismantled because it has the audacity to investigate Americans.

Really?

So the problem isn’t whether crimes occurred. The problem is that someone dared ask the question?

That’s an interesting definition of justice.

Apparently the ICC was perfectly acceptable when it investigated African dictators, Serbian war criminals, Russian officials, or anyone else America happened to dislike. Then it was proof that the civilized world could hold tyrants accountable.

But the moment the court looks in our direction?

Suddenly it’s a “rogue court.”

Suddenly it’s “unelected judges.”

Suddenly international law has become an outrageous attack on American sovereignty.

That’s not a legal principle. That’s the diplomatic equivalent of yelling, “The referee is fine until he calls a foul on my team.”

Let’s be honest about what the ICC was created to do.

It wasn’t established after the horrors that culminated in the postwar Geneva Conventions so powerful nations could use it as a club against weaker countries. It exists because the world decided that some crimes are so serious—war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide—that no nation should simply get to investigate itself and declare, “We checked. We found nothing wrong.”

That principle only works if it applies universally.

Otherwise, it’s not justice.

It’s empire.

The current outrage centers on allegations involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and broader decisions surrounding military operations, as well as inflammatory rhetoric from Donald Trump about striking civilian infrastructure in Iran. Whether any individual ultimately bears criminal responsibility is precisely the kind of question courts are supposed to evaluate based on evidence and law—not political loyalty or cable news ratings.

That’s how justice is supposed to work.

Notice that the ICC doesn’t sentence people because politicians dislike them.

It investigates.

It gathers evidence.

It hears arguments.

It follows legal procedures.

You know—the exact process conservatives usually tell everyone else to respect.

Unless, apparently, the defendant has an American passport or lives at Mar-a-Lago.

Then due process suddenly becomes foreign interference.

This exposes an uncomfortable truth.

For years America projected itself as the indispensable defender of the rules-based international order. We lectured other nations about accountability, human rights, and the rule of law.

Those were admirable ideals.

But ideals mean very little if they’re only intended for other people.

If international law only applies to countries too small to object, then it isn’t international law.

It’s selective enforcement.

And selective enforcement breeds cynicism around the globe.

Donald Trump has long operated under a remarkably simple philosophy: laws exist for everyone else. Whether it’s criminal indictments, civil judgments, constitutional limits, or now international law, every institution that questions him suddenly becomes corrupt, weaponized, illegitimate, or part of some vast conspiracy.

The pattern never changes.

If the court agrees with him, it’s brilliant.

If it doesn’t, abolish the court.

If an election goes his way, democracy works.

If it doesn’t, the election was stolen.

If prosecutors investigate him, dismantle the prosecutors.

If international judges investigate potential war crimes, dismantle the international court.

It’s remarkable consistency, if nothing else.

And now Marco Rubio appears to be extending that philosophy onto the world stage.

Imagine the precedent.

China could dismiss international courts.

Russia could dismiss international courts.

Iran could dismiss international courts.

Israel could dismiss international courts.

America could dismiss international courts.

At that point, why even have international law?

Why have the Geneva Conventions?

Why have treaties?

Why pretend that any rules exist at all?

Because once every nation decides that accountability is only for somebody else, the entire framework collapses.

The irony is impossible to ignore.

America helped champion a world where might wasn’t supposed to make right.

Now some of our leaders seem determined to prove that if you’re powerful enough, accountability is optional.

That’s not American exceptionalism.

That’s just exceptional arrogance.

The real test of believing in the rule of law isn’t whether it applies to your enemies.

It’s whether you’re willing to let it apply to yourself.

Because if your first instinct whenever someone investigates you is to destroy the institution doing the investigating, then you never believed in justice.

You only believed in immunity.