On February 6, 2025, the fragile détente between Washington and The Hague shattered. In a move that legal scholars called “the single most significant rupture in transatlantic legal relations since 1945”, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14203.

While the order, titled “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court”, established the legal framework, the US “war on the ICC” did not happen all at once—it was a calculated, year-long escalation designed to dismantle the court’s ability to function.

Phase 1: The February First Strike (Prosecutor Khan)

The collision course began immediately after the inauguration. Citing the November 2024 arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, the Trump administration declared a national emergency.

Executive Order 14203 was signed on February 6, immediately freezing the US assets of Prosecutor Karim Khan. The British King’s Counsel, who had requested the warrants, was effectively locked out of the US financial system. The White House justified the move by framing the ICC’s assertion of jurisdiction over non-state parties (Israel and the US) as an “unusual and extraordinary threat to national security.”

Phase 2: The August Escalation (Judge Guillou)

The conflict remained a diplomatic standoff until the summer, when the administration decided to target the judiciary itself. On August 20, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the unprecedented designation of four ICC judges.

The Primary Target: Judge Nicolas Guillou—a French national and former counter-terrorism magistrate—was sanctioned for his role in the Pre-Trial Chamber that approved the warrants.

• The Impact: This marked the first time the US Treasury (OFAC) sanctioned a judge from a NATO ally (France) for issuing a ruling.
• Diplomatic Fallout: The move sparked a crisis with Paris. The UN spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric, publicly criticised the “unilateral sanctions” for inflicting “significant personal harm” on the judges and their families.

Also swept up in the July-August dragnet was Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur, who Rubio labelled as having “open contempt” for US allies.

Phase 3: The Domestic Front (November 2025)

The battle has now moved to American soil. Just this week, on November 24, 2025, Senator Ted Budd (R-NC) introduced the “American Allies Protection Act”.

This legislation was not a random manoeuvre but a direct response to a domestic rebellion: NYC Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani had pledged to arrest Netanyahu if he set foot in New York for the UN General Assembly. Budd’s bill proposes stripping Department of Justice funding from any municipality that attempts to enforce ICC warrants, effectively weaponising federal grants to ensure local compliance with US foreign policy.

The Rule of Law Paradox

The sanctioning of Judge Guillou presents a profound paradox. For decades, the US has championed the “rules-based international order”. Yet, by using sanctions—typically reserved for terrorists and cartels—against a French jurist, the US has signalled that this order is subordinate to American geopolitical interests.

As we approach 2026, the question is no longer whether the ICC can prosecute war crimes, but whether its officials can survive the economic wrath of the United States long enough to try.

Introduction

In a recent legal development that has sent shockwaves through the immigrant community, a federal judge has once again ruled that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is illegal. This decision, which has far-reaching implications, has reignited the debate surrounding DACA and its future. In this comprehensive article, we will delve into the details of this ruling, its background, and the potential consequences it may have for DACA recipients and the immigration policy landscape.

Understanding DACA: A Brief Overview

Before we delve into the recent ruling, it’s essential to have a clear understanding of what DACA is and its history. DACA, established in 2012 under the Obama administration, was designed to provide temporary relief from deportation for undocumented individuals who were brought to the United States as children. To qualify for DACA, applicants had to meet specific criteria, including continuous residence in the U.S. and a clean criminal record.

The Legal Battle Surrounding DACA

The legality of the DACA program has been a contentious issue since its inception. Critics argue that DACA overstepped executive authority and violated immigration laws. Supporters, on the other hand, contend that DACA is a necessary humanitarian measure that protects vulnerable individuals who have spent most of their lives in the United States.

The legal battle surrounding DACA intensified in 2020 when the Trump administration attempted to end the program. This decision led to a series of lawsuits, ultimately landing the case in the lap of federal judges.

The Recent Ruling: A Closer Look

In July 2021, Judge Andrew Hanen, a federal judge in Texas, ruled that DACA was illegal and ordered a halt to the processing of new applications. This ruling sent shockwaves throughout the immigrant community and sparked renewed calls for comprehensive immigration reform.

Fast forward to the present day, and Judge Hanen has once again ruled that DACA is illegal. In his recent ruling, he cited the same reasons as before, asserting that the program was implemented without following the proper administrative procedures.

Potential Consequences of the Ruling

Judge Hanen’s recent ruling has significant potential consequences for DACA recipients and the broader immigration policy landscape. Here are some of the key implications:

1. Uncertainty for DACA Recipients

DACA recipients, often referred to as “Dreamers,” have lived in the United States for most of their lives. The constant legal battles surrounding the program have created a cloud of uncertainty over their future. With this latest ruling, they face the risk of losing their protected status and potentially facing deportation.

2. Renewed Calls for Legislative Action

The legal battles over DACA have underscored the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Many lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican, agree that a permanent solution is necessary to address the status of DACA recipients and other undocumented individuals. This recent ruling may serve as a catalyst for renewed efforts to pass legislation.

3. A Prolonged Legal Battle

It is highly likely that this recent ruling will be appealed. The legal battle surrounding DACA is far from over, and it may eventually reach the Supreme Court for a final decision. Until then, the fate of DACA remains uncertain.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the recent ruling by Judge Andrew Hanen declaring the DACA program illegal has once again ignited the debate over immigration policy in the United States. The future of DACA recipients hangs in the balance, and the need for comprehensive immigration reform has never been more apparent. As this legal battle continues, it is essential to remember that behind the legal jargon and court decisions are real people whose lives are deeply affected by these rulings. The resolution of the DACA issue will undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences for the nation as a whole, making it a topic that will continue to dominate headlines and shape the future of American immigration policy.

In order for us to do justice to the topic of Islamophobia, it is imperative that we understand what fear implies. Fear is defined as “a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.” In line with this definition, it would not be wrong to claim that many in the Western world are currently living in a state of fear of Islam.

However, one needs to acknowledge that the threat Islam is seen as posing to the world is imagined rather than real. Unfortunately, though, the repercussions of this irrational fear of Islam are not only affecting individual Muslims in the form of increased discrimination, harassment, and persecution but also infiltrating into foreign policy decisions worldwide. 

The West has numerous misconceptions about Islam, particularly with regard to human rights. Often human rights violations in certain dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world are cited to prove the point. The point to note is that human rights violations can never really occur in genuine Islamic states. Ironically, the West continues to support these oppressive autocracies and despotic regimes in the Muslim world, ignoring popular voices that oppose these regimes and their rulers. 

Islam upholds the same human rights precepts as enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Unfortunately, though, it must be conceded that these rights are rarely upheld in the so-called Muslim world. The word Islam literally means submission to God, which only means that Islam encapsulate the same moral principles as outlined in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, both of which served as templates for the modern Western code of law and legal system. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) introduced the concept of human rights to Arabia when there was no such concept in the world, what to speak of 7th century Arabia. He is the one who promoted human rights and human dignity not only for his followers, but also for all of humanity. 

Islam, as a growing force in the world, is not a threat and it is compatible with the Western ideals of freedom and democracy. This is not to say that an Islamic society would look like an American one, but neither do any of the socialist democracies or monarchies found throughout Western Europe and much of the Western world are modeled on the American system. It should not be the West’s goal in particular America’s, to impose their own version of democracy in the Islamic world but rather to support the rise of governments that uphold the same tenets of equality, freedom, and justice that the West holds dear. 

Undoubtedly, the message of some emergent Islamic groups tends to be more extreme (often misrepresenting or misreading Islamic teachings altogether), but the West needs to understand that this is often a reaction to the policies of some of its states and their governments. If Islamic groups that protect human rights and representative ideals were to receive support from the West, they would be able to find a foothold in the Muslim world and help usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. 

Before proceeding to unveil human rights as envisaged in the Qur’an, it is necessary to point out that while most Muslim scholars cite human rights to highlight certain apparent similarities in Western and Islamic value systems, they erroneously try to cloak the Islamic values in contemporary Western ideological garb so as to project them in a favorable light. 

Using the UDHR as a reference point, they fashion frail arguments using verses such as: “We have honored the children of Adam (AS) and carried them on land and sea and provided them with good things and preferred them over many of those we created,” (Qur’an, 17:70) to prove, for example, that “dignity is a resolute principle that every human being warrants at a humanitarian level.” This initiative is merely an attempt to squeeze out of the Qur’anic verses something, which has a resemblance to modern Western declarations. In fact, most readers would not have otherwise interpreted dignity in this passage as it is conventionally defined (dignity: “the quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect’). Islam does indeed uphold the spirit of such values, but refers to them in a manner that can be applied across time and space. The Qur’anic precepts are universal and are meant for the purpose of individual spiritual development, as well as a blueprint for establishing peace and harmony between peoples. For example, God says in the Qur’an: 

“O mankind, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of GOD is the most righteous. GOD is Omniscient, Cognizant..” (Qur’an, 49:13) 

This affirmation of a single lineage of common ancestry links all human beings as brothers and sisters. After all, we are all descendants of one father and one mother. From this clearly flow the concepts of brotherhood and reciprocity and all other ideals central to civilized interactions between peoples. However, the pursuit of happiness in the Western and Islamic contexts may differ. If one’s pursuit of happiness encroaches on another individual’s basic rights, Islam would not condone it, given the obvious difficulties that would arise (cannibalism is an extreme, albeit excellent example). 

While Qur’anic ideals are timeless, Islamic thinkers need to explain them in universal terms. For example, readers need not be reminded that slavery was allowed in the United States until 1865 (although technically not until 1928 with the abolition of the convict-lease system and even with such legislative mandates, most of the slaves bought and sold today – for sex, labor, etc., unfortunately find their destination in modern Western countries without much press or legislative attention). The Qur’an has been discouraging slavery since 600 C.E. Based on the typical frivolous “catch-up” and imitative approach of Islamist thinking, Muslim apologists, prior to 1865, would even have contended that Islam also allowed slavery because it never forbade it. 

Again, Islamists should concentrate their efforts towards defending universal truths as conveyed through all the sacred scriptures, especially the three Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity & Islam. Some of these timeless spiritual principles are reflected in the thirty articles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though many have been still left out, as subsequent paragraphs will show.