Based upon a survey of the establishment and evolution of the International Criminal Court (ICC), including the contention between “the LikeMinded States” and the United States, this paper compares and analyzes the changing policy under the Clinton, Bush and Obama Administrations toward the ICC and the relationship between the each administration and ICC during the last two decades. The author highlights the two unchanged “policy cores” of the three U.S. Administrations: attempts to control and intervene in the ICC through the UN Security Council and demanding “judicial immunity” for all American nationals. It is further argued that, from the perspective of U.S. global strategy and national interest, applying military force internationally when needed is the underlining premise of the “policy cores”. These two “policy cores” and the premise will thus continue to influence the U.S. policy toward the ICC, resulting potentially in new frictions between the U.S. and ICC in the near and long terms, particularly when an emergency event occurs in the global hot spots and when the Aggression Amendments of the Rome Statute takes effect expectedly after 2017.