.. Why the ICC must prosecute Donald Trump
By Jonas Mbaevara
The idea behind international justice is simple, the law should not bend for power, influence or political status.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was created on the belief that no individual, whether a President, military commander or powerful political figure, should be beyond accountability when serious crimes are alleged.
But more than two decades after its creation, that principle faces one of its biggest tests.
If the ICC truly stands for equal justice, then it cannot appear selective when allegations involve the leader of the world’s most powerful country.
Donald Trump, like any other political leader, should be subject to the same legal scrutiny.
This is not an argument against prosecuting African leaders or any leaders who find themselves on the wrong side of international law.
Those responsible for genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity should face justice regardless of their nationality, political influence or position.
The ICC was right to pursue former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir over allegations of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur.
Former Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo stood trial over post-election violence, while Kenya’s Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto also appeared before the Court over the 2007–08 post-election violence, although those cases were later withdrawn because of insufficient evidence and witness-related challenges.
The deeper concern is whether international justice has the same courage when allegations involve leaders from powerful nations.
The international community has already demonstrated that accountability is not limited to one continent because through the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, leaders such as Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić were prosecuted for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the Balkan conflicts.
Those cases showed that even powerful political figures in Europe could be held accountable.
The same principle must apply today, regardless of who occupies the White House.
During Donald Trump’s presidency, U.S. foreign policy became significantly more confrontational towards Iran, Venezuela and Cuba, with consequences that remain the subject of intense international debate.
His administration introduced a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran through sweeping economic sanctions, authorised the 2020 drone strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, one of
Iran’s most powerful military figures, and brought the United States and Iran closer to a wider regional confrontation.
The killing of Soleimani intensified fears of a broader conflict in the Middle East and raised serious questions about the use of military force, national sovereignty and accountability under international law.
The current crisis in Iran has further intensified the debate around international accountability.
The country has faced a period of severe instability marked by US military offences and growing undue pressure on its leadership.
Recent events have included escalating hostilities towards Iran by Donald Trump and Israel.
The death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and many countless lives is one human rights violation which the ICC must probe and bring to the culprits to justice.
During the conflict has deepened the political uncertainty inside the country and created a major leadership crisis.
Iran’s civilians have continued to bear the consequences of geopolitical confrontation, economic pressure and instability, reinforcing wider questions about whether international law is applied consistently when powerful states and their leaders are involved.
Human rights organisations and UN experts warned that sanctions could worsen humanitarian conditions by restricting access to essential medicines and other necessities, although the United States maintained that humanitarian exemptions were available.
In Venezuela, the Trump administration imposed severe sanctions aimed at pressuring Nicolás Maduro’s government and removing him from power.
Critics argued that these measures deepened an already devastating economic and humanitarian crisis affecting millions of civilians.
In Cuba, Trump reversed the diplomatic opening initiated under his predecessor, restoring tougher economic restrictions that further strained the island’s struggling economy.
While Washington defended these policies as necessary measures to protect security and promote democracy, critics argued that they contributed to greater regional instability, increased humanitarian suffering and heightened tensions in one of the world’s most politically fragile regions.
If the ICC is genuinely committed to the principle that no leader is above international law, then it should be willing to examine whether actions by powerful states or their leaders fall within its jurisdiction where credible evidence exists.
Questions of accountability should not be dismissed simply because the person involved once occupied the most powerful political office in the world.
The United States is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, and that creates clear legal and jurisdictional challenges.
However, those challenges should not become an excuse for selective justice.
Where the ICC has jurisdiction under international law, it should investigate without fear or favour. Equally concerning is the political pressure placed on the Court by successive U.S. administrations.
Donald Trump imposed sanctions on ICC officials after they pursued investigations involving U.S. interests, a move many viewed as an at- tempt to undermine an institution established to protect international accountability. That is why this moment matters.
The ICC cannot afford to strengthen the perception that it is prepared to pursue leaders from weaker countries while hesitating when allegations involve global powers.
Justice cannot depend on the size of a nation’s military, the strength of its economy or the influence of its political leaders.
If international law is to maintain credibility, every leader must be judged by the same standard.
Donald Trump should not receive different treatment simply because he led the United States.
If credible evidence exists that crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction may have been committed, then the ICC has a legal and moral responsibility to examine those allegations.
If the Court continues to be viewed as constrained by global politics, demands for meaningful reform will only grow.
The future of international justice depends not on who is powerful enough to avoid scrutiny, but on whether the law is applied equally.
Anything less risks reducing the ICC from a symbol of universal justice into an institution accused of selective accountability.
