U.S. ‘Secretary of War’ call to quit ICC raises questions, but role and remarks are disputed
Reports from a regional security conference in Panama claim a U.S. ‘Secretary of War’ urged Latin American states to leave the International Criminal Court after it issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Netanyahu and Gallant. The account, and even the official’s title, are at odds with known U.S. structures, underscoring how the ICC fight is becoming a fertile ground for misinformation and political pressure.
A reported broadside against the International Criminal Court (ICC) by a supposed U.S. “Secretary of War” is drawing attention not just for its content, but for the inconsistencies surrounding the official said to have delivered it. According to accounts shared on 13 August, Pete Hegseth, described as the American Secretary of War, told a conference of Latin American countries in Panama that he strongly urged them to quit the ICC after it issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
The reported remarks, delivered at a meeting of an organization billed as the Association of South American Countries Fighting the Cartels (ACCC), framed the ICC as a hostile body targeting democratically elected leaders. Hegseth was quoted as saying he “strongly” urges Latin American governments to leave the court in The Hague, which has become a flashpoint in debates over accountability in conflicts involving powerful states and their allies.
However, key elements of the account raise immediate red flags. The United States does not have a formal government position titled “Secretary of War”; that term was historically used for what is now the Secretary of the Army, and today defense policy is overseen by the Secretary of Defense. Pete Hegseth is known as a media commentator and former military officer, not a confirmed cabinet-level official in charge of the Pentagon. The ACCC, as described, is also not a widely recognized regional security organization on the scale of the Organization of American States or similar bodies.
These contradictions do not rule out the possibility that a U.S. political figure spoke critically of the ICC at a regional forum. But they cast doubt on the portrayal of the speech as an official U.S. government directive and highlight how narratives around the court’s actions can be quickly weaponized. Without clear confirmation from Washington or participating governments, the Panama episode remains best understood as a claim about U.S. pressure on the court, not as established diplomatic fact.
For Latin American countries, the issue at stake is tangible. Many are ICC members and have used its framework to signal support for international law and human rights, even as some leaders complain that the court has focused disproportionately on weaker states while struggling to act in cases involving major powers. A call – real or perceived – from a U.S. figure urging them to withdraw plays into long-standing tensions over sovereignty, accountability, and the reach of global justice mechanisms.
The ICC’s move to issue warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant over Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank has already stirred intense reactions. Supporters see it as a step toward holding even powerful democracies to the same standards as others; critics argue it oversteps and risks criminalizing legitimate self-defense. In this charged environment, rumors or half-documented accounts of U.S. attempts to undermine the court can erode trust and complicate quiet diplomacy.
Strategically, any sustained campaign to peel countries away from the ICC would weaken one of the few standing institutions designed to prosecute alleged war crimes when national systems fail or refuse to act. For governments facing domestic scrutiny over security operations, leaving the court could reduce external legal risk but increase political costs, signaling to opponents and civil society that international oversight is unwelcome.
The shareable takeaway is that in today’s information battlefield, even the identity of who speaks for a state can be contested – and that confusion itself can be a tool. The next developments to watch are whether the U.S. government formally comments on the reported Panama remarks, whether any Latin American state publicly cites U.S. pressure in revisiting its ICC membership, and whether the court’s pursuit of cases involving Israeli and other high-profile officials prompts more organized attempts to undercut its authority.
Sources
- OSINT