Trump suggested a US-Russia-China alliance to take down Int’l Criminal Court when he met Xi—FT report

During a visit to Beijing in May 2026, the US President reportedly proposed that the United States, China, and Russia coordinate efforts to undermine and ult...

What Happened

During a visit to Beijing in May 2026, the US President reportedly proposed that the United States, China, and Russia coordinate efforts to undermine and ultimately dismantle the International Criminal Court (ICC), citing overlapping interests among the three powers.
The proposal was attributed to conversations held during a May 13–15 visit, with the report originating in the Financial Times; China's Foreign Ministry publicly denied the account.
The context for the proposal includes ICC arrest warrants against the Russian President (for alleged unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children) and against Israeli leaders (for alleged use of starvation as a weapon in Gaza).
In February 2025, the US issued an executive order sanctioning ICC officials, including the chief prosecutor; by mid-2026, sanctions had been extended to at least 11 ICC officials including nine judges.

Static Topic Bridges

The International Criminal Court: Establishment and Jurisdiction

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent intergovernmental court established to prosecute individuals — not states — for the most serious international crimes. It is the first permanent treaty-based international criminal jurisdiction of its kind.

The Rome Statute, which created the ICC, was adopted on July 17, 1998 at a UN diplomatic conference in Rome attended by representatives of 161 states; the vote was 120 in favour, 7 against (including the US), with 21 abstentions.
The Statute entered into force on July 1, 2002, bringing the ICC into existence.
The Court has jurisdiction over four categories of crime: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression (added through the Kampala Amendment, which entered into force in 2018).
As of 2026, 125 countries are States Parties to the Rome Statute — approximately two-thirds of UN member states.
The Court is seated in The Hague, Netherlands.
The ICC exercises jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute (the "complementarity principle") — it is a court of last resort, not a superior court.

Connection to this news: Because the US, Russia, and China are not parties to the Rome Statute, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over their nationals through the State Party route — but it can act when the UN Security Council refers a situation, or when an individual commits crimes on the territory of a State Party.

US Relationship with the ICC: A History of Opposition

The United States has had a consistently adversarial relationship with the ICC, alternating between constructive engagement and active opposition depending on the administration.

The US signed the Rome Statute under President Clinton in December 2000, but did not ratify it.
In May 2002, the Bush administration formally "unsigned" the treaty — an unprecedented diplomatic step — and launched a campaign to secure bilateral non-surrender agreements (the so-called "Article 98 agreements") with over 100 countries, shielding US nationals from ICC jurisdiction.
The American Service-Members' Protection Act (2002), popularly known as the "Hague Invasion Act", authorised the use of military force to rescue any US or allied citizen detained by the ICC.
The Obama administration shifted to a more cooperative posture, engaging with ICC proceedings as an observer, particularly in the Libya and Darfur referrals.
In February 2025, the current administration issued an executive order imposing financial sanctions and visa bans on ICC officials involved in investigations touching US or Israeli nationals.
By mid-2026, at least 11 ICC officials — including nine judges and the chief prosecutor — had been sanctioned under this order.

Connection to this news: The reported proposal to build a trilateral coalition against the ICC is an escalation from sanctions (targeting individuals) to a structural challenge (seeking to dismantle or delegitimise the institution itself).

Russia, China, and the ICC: Non-Party Postures

Russia and China have distinct but convergent reasons for opposing the ICC, rooted in sovereignty concerns and the specific situations before the Court.

Russia signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but formally withdrew its signature in November 2016 (under the Putin administration), citing concerns about ICC proceedings related to the Crimea situation.
In March 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for President Putin for the alleged unlawful deportation and forcible transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia — a war crime under the Rome Statute.
China never signed or ratified the Rome Statute; it has consistently opposed what it characterises as the ICC's selective and politically motivated prosecutions.
Both Russia and China have permanent veto power in the UN Security Council, enabling them to block any Council referral of situations involving their nationals or allies.
The three powers — US, Russia, China — together hold three of five UNSC permanent seats with veto power, giving them structural capacity to prevent Council-referred ICC proceedings.

Connection to this news: The alignment of interests is not ideological but transactional: each of the three faces either active ICC proceedings or the risk of future proceedings, creating a convergent incentive to weaken the institution.

The ICC and India: India's Position

India is not a party to the Rome Statute and has historically been sceptical of the ICC on sovereignty and complementarity grounds. India's position is relevant to UPSC candidates as it illustrates the broader developing-world critique of the Court.

India voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998, citing concerns about the definition of the crime of aggression and the role of the UN Security Council in referrals.
India has argued that the ICC, as currently structured, risks becoming a tool for powerful states to use selectively against weaker adversaries while shielding their own nationals through veto power.
At the same time, India supports the principle of accountability for international crimes through legitimate multilateral processes, and has cooperated with ad hoc UN tribunals in the past.
India has generally maintained a neutral public posture on specific ICC proceedings, consistent with its strategic autonomy doctrine.

Connection to this news: Any coordinated effort by the US, Russia, and China to undermine the ICC would have implications for the broader multilateral rules-based order — a framework India rhetorically supports even as it maintains distance from specific ICC proceedings.

Key Facts & Data

Rome Statute adopted: July 17, 1998 (120 in favour, 7 against, 21 abstentions)
ICC entered into force: July 1, 2002
ICC seat: The Hague, Netherlands
States Parties (2026): 125 countries
ICC jurisdiction: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, crime of aggression
US "unsigned" the Rome Statute: May 2002 (Bush administration)
Russia withdrew signature: November 2016
ICC arrest warrant for Russian President: March 2023 (alleged deportation of Ukrainian children)
ICC arrest warrants for Israeli PM and Defence Minister: issued for alleged use of starvation in Gaza
US executive order sanctioning ICC officials: February 2025
ICC officials sanctioned by US (as of 2026): at least 11, including 9 judges and chief prosecutor
Non-parties among UNSC permanent members: US, Russia, China (all three holding veto power)
India's status: non-party; voted against adoption of Rome Statute in 1998