I am tired of writing about Donald Trump.

I have spent years writing about this man, and lately I have begun to wonder what more there is to say. Another attack on an institution. Another announcement that dominates the news for a day. Another round of outrage, followed by something else before anyone has had time to sort through the consequences.

An editor recently told me he was no longer interested in receiving Trump pieces. Readers were tuning out, he explained. I understood. I have felt that fatigue myself. There are days when I sit down to write about the president and can practically predict the sentences before they appear on the screen.

Then came the news from the past several days.

The Trump administration imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court, announced plans to livestream a military execution, arranged for Russian diesel imports, and, on Monday morning, sent federal agents to search the Washington home of Rep. Ilhan Omar.

I don’t think these four stories mean exactly the same thing. They involve different laws, institutions, and circumstances. But how much can happen in the name of governing before we begin to accept things we would once have found extraordinary?

Consider the International Criminal Court. Navi Pillay, the South African jurist who challenged apartheid and helped advance the prosecution of sexual violence as a weapon of genocide, received the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize for her work promoting peace and international law. She also led a United Nations commission that concluded Israel had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel rejects that finding.

Trump responded to the Nobel announcement by resharing a social media post claiming he deserved the prize. His administration then imposed sanctions on the court, accusing it of unfairly targeting Americans.

What happens when a government treats international scrutiny as an attack on its authority?

International courts are not beyond criticism. Their findings can be challenged, their jurisdiction disputed, and their procedures examined. The United States has legitimate interests in protecting its citizens from unfair proceedings. But there is a difference between challenging a court’s decisions and using the power of the American government to punish an institution for investigating serious international crimes.

The United States has spent decades urging other countries to respect human rights and answer for abuses. That argument becomes harder to make when Washington resists........

© CounterPunch