President Trump moved Friday to sanction the International Criminal Court and announced a diesel deal with Russia—and the real fault line isn't between parties, it's between anyone who thinks a foreign tribunal can dictate terms to Americans and everyone else.

The ICC sanctions are straightforward: no foreign court has jurisdiction over American citizens. Secretary of State Marco Rubio made it plain: companies have six months to wind down ties with the court, and U.S. allies must rein it in. "Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC," Rubio said, according to The Guardian. The ICC's Afghanistan investigation—now suspended—and its arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant triggered the escalation. The Guardian's editorial board framed all of this as Trump "assaulting the rule of law," declaring the United States a "rogue superpower" and insisting the ICC "cannot stand alone." But sovereignty is the law. The U.S. never ratified the Rome Statute. A court the American people never consented to has no legitimate claim over them—period.

The Nobel committee, in what The Guardian described as "intentional" contrast, awarded this year's peace prize to Navi Pillay, a former ICC judge who led a UN commission that concluded Israel committed genocide in Gaza. The committee stated: "Peace requires justice." That's a slogan, not a legal argument—and it doesn't override the Constitution.

The Russia diesel deal is a different story, and it raises legitimate questions the press barely touches. Trump announced on Truth Social that Russia would "immediately supply" hundreds of thousands of tons of diesel to the global market, with over a million more tons to follow. NBC News reported that in 2022, the Senate unanimously passed a ban on Russian oil imports—and Congress has not amended that law to accommodate the president's announcement.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told NBC's "Meet the Press" the deal may be illegal. "I do believe there's a legitimate case for saying the president's not following the law," Tillis said. He warned it could endanger American lives by funding Russian mercenaries and the Kremlin's partnership with Iran. "It absolutely will," Tillis said when asked whether the deal puts American lives at risk.

Tillis, who is retiring, also used the interview to slam Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over plans to livestream the execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, calling Hegseth "a failed leader" who needs to "get the hell out of the Department of Defense."

The Guardian buried the domestic legality question entirely, instead blaming Trump's own "unlawful war on Iran" for high diesel costs and painting the Russia deal as a gift to Vladimir Putin. NBC News at least tracked the statutory conflict. The bipartisan failure here is telling: Congress unanimously banned Russian oil, but now a president of their own party is circumventing that ban—and the same body that passed the law has done nothing to enforce it.

The ICC fight is about whether Americans answer to The Hague. They don't. The Russia fuel fight is about whether a president can ignore statutes he doesn't like. Those are two very different questions, and only one of them has a clean answer.