Germany has rejected US President Donald Trump’s call for countries to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC), exposing a significant difference between Berlin and Washington over the role of international institutions.
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Germany would not follow Trump’s appeal and described the ICC as an important institution. His comments came after Trump called on ICC member states to leave the court during his address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 22, 2026.
For Germany, the disagreement is about more than one international court. It reflects a broader question: Should international disputes and alleged atrocities be addressed through established multilateral institutions, or should individual states retain greater control over such matters?
Berlin’s answer is clear: Germany intends to remain committed to the ICC.
Germany Sees the ICC as Part of the International Legal System
Wadephul characterized the ICC as part of the rules-based international order. That position is consistent with the court’s stated purpose.
The ICC was created under the Rome Statute to investigate and prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when national judicial systems are unwilling or unable to genuinely handle such cases. Ukraine became the 125th state party in January 2025, according to ICC documentation.
Germany’s position therefore reflects its support for a system in which serious international crimes can be investigated through a permanent judicial institution.
This does not mean Germany agrees with every action or decision of the ICC. Rather, Berlin’s argument is that the institution itself remains an important component of international law.
Trump and Germany Have a Fundamental Disagreement
Trump’s opposition to the ICC is rooted in a very different approach.
The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute and has long objected to the court exercising jurisdiction over US nationals. Under Trump’s current administration, Washington has intensified its pressure campaign against the ICC.
In September 2026, the Trump administration was preparing broader sanctions against the court, following earlier sanctions targeting ICC judges and prosecutors. Reuters reported that Washington’s campaign was connected in part to ICC actions involving Israeli officials and the court’s earlier investigation into alleged US military conduct in Afghanistan.
Trump subsequently called on ICC member states to leave the organization, describing the court in strongly negative terms and arguing that US military personnel should not be exposed to what he characterized as politically motivated proceedings.
Germany has chosen not to adopt that position.
The Netanyahu Case Is Central to the Dispute
One of the most important sources of tension between Washington and the ICC concerns Israel.
The court issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in connection with alleged crimes related to the Gaza war. The ICC’s actions have generated strong opposition from Israel and the United States.
For Washington, the issue raises concerns about the court’s authority and its potential reach over nationals of countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute.
Germany, however, continues to recognize the ICC as an important institution within the international legal system. That creates a difficult diplomatic balance for Berlin because Germany also maintains close relations with Israel and the United States.
The result is a policy position that does not necessarily mean Germany agrees with every ICC decision. Instead, Germany is emphasizing the importance of preserving the institution and the legal framework in which it operates.
Germany’s Historical Experience Matters
There is also a historical dimension to Germany’s position.
Germany’s modern political system places substantial emphasis on constitutional government, judicial independence and the rule of law. Wadephul linked the ICC to concepts including the separation of powers, the rule of law and the enforcement of humanitarian principles.
That helps explain why Berlin views international criminal justice differently from an administration in Washington that emphasizes national sovereignty and protection from international jurisdiction.
For Germany, international institutions can serve as a mechanism for ensuring that individuals accused of the gravest crimes cannot simply avoid accountability because domestic political circumstances prevent effective prosecution.
The ICC Is a Court of Last Resort
Another important point is that the ICC is not designed to replace national courts.
The court describes itself as a permanent court of last resort. Its jurisdiction is intended to operate under the principle of complementarity, meaning national authorities generally retain primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting crimes.
The ICC becomes relevant when national jurisdictions are unable or unwilling to genuinely carry out those proceedings.
This distinction is important in understanding Germany’s argument. Berlin is not simply choosing an international institution over national governments. It is supporting an additional legal mechanism for cases involving the world’s most serious crimes.
Germany Is Not Alone in Supporting the ICC
Germany’s position also fits into the broader European approach to the court.
The European Union and its member states have historically supported the independence and integrity of the ICC and promoted wider participation in the Rome Statute system. EU policy documents have described the ICC as an important component of international criminal justice. That means Berlin’s refusal to follow Trump’s call is also connected to Germany’s role within Europe.
The disagreement is therefore not simply Germany versus Trump. It is part of a larger debate over how Europe should respond when the United States takes a different position on international institutions.
Why This Matters for Germany-US Relations
The ICC dispute adds another issue to an already complicated relationship between Germany and the United States.
Germany remains closely connected to the US through NATO, trade, security cooperation and longstanding diplomatic relationships. At the same time, Berlin has increasingly emphasized European strategic interests and the importance of maintaining international institutions.
This can produce cooperation in some areas while creating disagreement in others.
The ICC is a particularly sensitive example because it involves fundamental questions of sovereignty, international law and accountability.
Germany’s position suggests that its partnership with Washington does not automatically mean adopting every US foreign-policy position.
Is Germany Rejecting Trump Completely?
Not necessarily.
It is more accurate to describe the issue as a specific policy disagreement rather than a complete German rejection of US foreign policy.
Germany and the United States continue to cooperate on numerous international issues. However, the ICC demonstrates that Berlin is prepared to publicly disagree with Washington when German officials believe a major international institution should be preserved.
Wadephul himself described the issue as one of the areas where there is a regrettable difference in policy between Germany and the current US administration.
What Happens Next?
The dispute over the ICC is unlikely to disappear quickly.
Washington has continued increasing pressure on the court, while Germany and other European countries have emphasized the importance of maintaining international judicial institutions. Reuters reported in September 2026 that the Trump administration was preparing sanctions targeting the ICC as an organization, potentially escalating the confrontation.
The situation could therefore become a broader test of how much pressure European governments are willing to withstand while maintaining their support for the ICC.
For Germany, the central issue is not simply whether it agrees with Washington. It is whether the international legal framework represented by the ICC should remain intact.
A Difference Over International Law
Germany’s refusal to follow Trump’s call to leave the International Criminal Court reflects a deeper difference in foreign-policy philosophy.
Trump’s administration has challenged the ICC over questions of sovereignty, jurisdiction and its investigations involving US and Israeli personnel. Germany, meanwhile, continues to view the court as an important part of the rules-based international system.
That does not mean Berlin considers the ICC beyond criticism. Instead, Germany’s position is that international criminal justice requires functioning institutions and that serious allegations of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity should have a judicial mechanism capable of addressing them.
The disagreement between Washington and Berlin therefore extends beyond one speech or one court. It highlights two different approaches to the role of international law: greater emphasis on national sovereignty on one side, and continued reliance on multilateral legal institutions on the other.
As pressure on the ICC increases, Germany’s decision to remain committed to the court could become an increasingly important issue in the future of transatlantic relations and Europe’s approach to international justice.
