The Conclusion considers implications of these findings in the era of President Donald Trump and beyond, which so far exhibits clear continuity with the ideological structure of its predecessors. The case of the ICC provides compelling evidence that foreign policy ideology structures distinct conceptions of the international rule of law amongst American legal policymakers and that these received principles set hard limits to reaching a universal understanding of the proper design and development of the international legal order. Defining the international rule of law remains a dialectical process in which ideological visions of global order contest power through the shared space of the international legal system. Continued commitment to this contest is evidence, nevertheless, of the consequence of IL as a framework for sustaining discourse about global power and transcendent values.