US Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked America's tradition of territorial and strategic expansion on Friday to mount a defence of national sovereignty, arguing that the country's founding ideals embodied an outward ambition that modern international institutions seek to constrain. Speaking at the Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention in Washington, Rubio framed expansion as a core American value — not an aberration — and used that framing to challenge the legitimacy of bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Key Remarks at the Federalist Society

Rubio drew on the American Revolution, Alexander Hamilton's first Federalist essay, and the Declaration of Independence to argue that a hunger for growth had always defined the nation. 'America has always been a nation of irrepressible ambition — ambition which, since the very beginning, extended far beyond our borders,' he said. 'Low ceilings and small horizons were never our destiny.'

He went further, characterising that drive as inseparable from the republic's legal and constitutional architecture. 'The history of our nation and our people brims with a hunger to expand, to grow, to explore and conquer, to stake a claim to new frontiers,' Rubio said. Notably, he did not announce a specific territorial objective or outline any new expansion policy in his remarks.

Historical Arguments Rubio Invoked

Rubio cited colonial-era British restrictions on westward settlement — specifically the 1763 Royal Proclamation barring colonial movement west of the Appalachian Mountains — as a grievance that fuelled revolutionary sentiment, pointing to a corresponding clause in the Declaration of Independence. He also quoted Hamilton's reference in Federalist No. 1 to 'the fate of an empire, in many respects the most interesting in the world' — a phrase Hamilton used in the context of constitutional ratification, not territorial conquest, though Rubio deployed it to illustrate American ambition.

Historians and legal scholars would note that Hamilton's framing was specifically about the survival of the proposed constitutional union, not an endorsement of expansionism — a distinction Rubio's address glossed over.

Critique of International Institutions

The Secretary of State used this historical scaffolding to attack what he called 'radical judges' and 'soulless global bureaucrats,' arguing that submitting to their authority would betray American character. 'We are not a passive, inward-looking people,' he said. 'To submit to the sterile vision of radical judges or soulless global bureaucrats would be to betray ourselves.'

Rubio specifically criticised the ICC, arguing that Americans had not consented to its jurisdiction. The United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the court's founding treaty, though the ICC can exercise jurisdiction in certain circumstances involving non-member states — a legal nuance Rubio did not address in his remarks.

He also accused an unnamed global elite of wielding international law to advance narrow interests while invoking universal principles, and claimed their commitment to democracy wavered when election outcomes challenged those interests.

Context and Broader Significance

The address comes as the Trump administration, of which Rubio is a senior member, has signalled a broadly sovereigntist, America-first approach to foreign policy and international legal obligations. Rubio's speech at the Federalist Society — the influential conservative legal network — represents one of the most explicit attempts by a senior US official to construct a historical and philosophical basis for resisting multilateral institutions. This comes amid ongoing debates over US engagement with the United Nations, multilateral trade bodies, and international human rights mechanisms.

Whether the speech signals a formal policy shift or remains rhetorical framing will likely become clearer as the administration navigates specific international legal disputes in the months ahead.