There’s a lot of talk these days about war crimes. Most of the discussion centers on the threats made by Donald Trump against Iran. He’s promised to blow up bridges, power plants, and desalination plants, all of which are important to the civilian population.
“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!!”-DJT
“…blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet ‘touched.’”-DJT
Across international law, including the Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a war crime is generally understood as a serious violation of the laws and customs of war that creates individual criminal responsibility. The most commonly recognized categories include:
- Deliberate attacks on civilians, including intentionally killing or harming civilians, or targeting civilian infrastructure with no military necessity
- Mistreatment of prisoners or detainees, including torture, inhumane treatment, or denial of fair trial rights.
- Unlawful destruction or seizure of property, including destroying property without military necessity and pillaging.
- Use of prohibited weapons or tactics such as chemical weapons, biological weapons, and indiscriminate attacks.
- Violations of humanitarian protections, including attacking medical personnel or humanitarian workers. Using protected sites (hospitals, schools) for military purposes
These definitions are widely shared across international treaties and customary international law.
Even though the United States has its own legal system and is not a member of the ICC, the U.S. military has strong strategic, legal, and institutional reasons to avoid war crimes. Here are the most important ones.
Protecting U.S. Service Members
If the U.S. violates the laws of war, it weakens the protections those same laws provide to American troops, including humane treatment if captured, medical protections, and protections for civilians around U.S. forces. The laws of war operate on the principle of reciprocity. Violating them puts U.S. personnel at greater risk.
Maintaining Legitimacy and Alliances
The U.S. military depends heavily on allied cooperation, basing rights, intelligence sharing, and joint operations. Allegations of war crimes can damage relationships with partners who rely on adherence to international norms.
If a sitting U.S. president commits a war crime, what recourse does the world have? Below is the full breakdown.
1. The ICC cannot prosecute a sitting U.S. president
The United States never ratified the Rome Statute and has laws restricting cooperation with the ICC. The ICC cannot arrest or prosecute a U.S. president for alleged war crimes unless the U.N. Security Council refers the case and the U.S. cooperates voluntarily. Because the U.S. has veto power on the Security Council, a referral is extremely unlikely.
Bottom line: The ICC has no practical jurisdiction over a sitting U.S. president.
2. Foreign courts cannot prosecute a sitting U.S. president
Under international law, sitting heads of state have immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction. This means that no foreign country can arrest a sitting U.S. president and no foreign court can try them. No extradition is possible. This immunity ends when the president leaves office, but even then, prosecution is extremely unlikely because of diplomatic consequences. You may be confused if you recall that America just arrested the current head of state of Venezuela. The United States decided not to recognize Maduro as the head of state. The bully that is America does what it likes.
3. The U.N. has political tools, not judicial ones
If the world believes a war crime occurred, the U.N. can issue condemnations, impose sanctions, create investigative commissions, pressure allies to restrict cooperation, and call emergency sessions of the General Assembly. But the U.N. cannot arrest or prosecute a U.S. president.
4. The only entity that can prosecute a sitting U.S. president is the United States itself
Under U.S. law, Congress can impeach, investigate, and refer matters for prosecution after a president leaves office, but International bodies cannot force the U.S. to act.
5. After leaving office, international options expand, but only slightly
Once no longer in office, a former president loses immunity, but the U.S. still does not recognize ICC jurisdiction. Extradition would require U.S. approval. Foreign prosecutions would be diplomatically explosive. Historically, the U.S. has never extradited a former president.
6. The most realistic “recourse” the world has is political, not legal
This includes sanctions, travel restrictions, diplomatic isolation, U.N. resolutions, pressure from allies, and international investigations that document events. These actions can shape global opinion and policy, but they do not result in criminal prosecution.
What About the 25th Amendment?
Should the Vice-President and the Cabinet act to remove the President, four steps could take place:
Step 1: VP and Cabinet declare the President unable to serve
They send a written declaration to the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate. At that moment, the Vice President becomes Acting President.
Step 2: The President can immediately contest the removal
The President sends their own written declaration to Congress stating no inability exists.
When that happens, the President instantly regains power unless the VP and Cabinet respond within 4 days.
Step 3: VP and Cabinet have four days to reassert inability
If they do nothing the President resumes office. If they reassert inability Congress must decide.
Step 4: Congress must vote
Congress has 48 hours to assemble (if not already in session) and 21 days to vote.
To keep the President removed both the House and Senate must vote by a 2/3 majority. If they fail to reach 2/3 in either chamber the President resumes power. There is a lot of discussion of removing the President using the 25th Amendment because, as Marjorie Taylor Greene has said:
“I know all of you and him, and he has gone insane, and all of you are complicit.”
An attempt to remove Donald Trump using the 25th Amendment on the grounds of insanity, as opposed to war crimes, would go through the same four steps.
The Supreme Court of the United States has said the President of the United States is immune from prosecution for presidential acts. It may prove easier to make the case that Trump's orders were war crimes than that they weren’t presidential acts. No one outside America will be able to prosecute Trump. The current Cabinet and Vice-President are unlikely to use the 25th Amendment to remove Trump, and both houses of the current Congress are unlikely to vote by a 2/3rds margin to evict him. Impeachment may come with a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives after the midterms, but a supermajority in the Senate is improbable. The odds are that Donald Trump can commit war crimes and nothing will ever happen to him.