The International Criminal Court (ICC) is currently navigating a period of intense scrutiny regarding its mandate and its ability to hold powerful actors accountable. While political rhetoric from figures such as Donald Trump has historically challenged the court's legitimacy, the primary threat to the institution may lie in the actions—or inaction—of its own member states.

Al Jazeera argues that the ICC’s survival is not necessarily threatened by external political figures, but rather by the potential failure of its supporters to actively defend its jurisdiction and mandate. The analysis suggests that if nations that claim to support international law do not take concrete steps to protect the court from diplomatic and economic pressure, the institution risks becoming ineffective. This perspective shifts the focus from the aggressive rhetoric of individual world leaders to the collective responsibility of the international community.

Conversely, other geopolitical observers often emphasize the role of U.S. policy, noting that American administrations have frequently sought to limit the court's reach to protect their own military and political personnel from potential prosecution. The tension remains between the court's goal of universal justice and the reality of a global system where major powers often operate outside the court's reach. Whether the ICC remains a functional body or is sidelined by political maneuvering depends on whether its member states prioritize the rule of law over diplomatic convenience when challenged by powerful non-member states.