The International Criminal Court, or ICC, is in the fight of its life. The top prosecutor, Karim Khan, faces serious allegations of criminal misconduct, including claims of repeated sexual abuse. Khan has strongly rejected the accusations and instead blamed Israel for his problems.
The ICC is looking for an exit, one that unties Khan while salvaging his long-criticized stance toward Israel and the United States. The question is: will it work?
Khan is accused of sexually assaulting a junior ICC employee for more than a year, including on ICC premises, and then retaliating against the whistleblower and those who supported the alleged victim. A second alleged victim from a previous professional relationship with Khan has also come forward.
US ANNOUNCES MORE SANCTIONS FOR ICC OFFICIALS FOR TARGETING AMERICANS, ISRAELIANS
The ICC apparatus has already delayed its response for more than 18 months, with Khan on paid leave since May. On December 12, 2025, officials announced that the fact-finding phase of a confidential UN investigation had been completed and that a legal analysis phase by unnamed “judicial experts” would continue for another 30 days.
International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan poses during an interview with AFP in the Cour d’Honneur of the Palais Royal in Paris on February 7, 2024. (Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP via Getty Images)
Both Khan and his alleged ICC victim support the strategy of comparing democratic Israel to genocidal Hamas and using the ICC to bring criminal charges against Israeli officials. Khan’s suggestion that his accuser – who is also Muslim – was influenced by Israeli intelligence has led to skepticism. Reports of a Qatar-backed covert operation aimed at uncovering an Israeli link have apparently gone nowhere.
The problem for the ICC is not only that the best international criminal defense lawyer is now inundated with damaging criminal allegations, but that the institution itself is undeniably tainted.
ZOHRAN MAMDANI SAYS NYC MUST HOLD ICC ARREST WARRANT FOR NETANYAHU WHEN HE VISITS THE CITY
On May 2, 2024, Khan learned that the allegations had been circulated within the ICC. At the time, he and his staff were preparing for a trip to Israel at the end of May, after an extraordinary offer of cooperation from Jerusalem. The plan was to obtain important information for his ongoing investigation. Instead, on May 20, Khan abruptly canceled the trip and announced publicly on CNN that he was seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
Americans, Israelis and even ICC officials speculated about the timing, especially after the allegations became public in the fall of 2024. Many observers argue that Khan has tried to couch his response to the scandal in political terms, hoping that framing Israel would circle the wagons around him. And for a while it seemed to work.
NYC Mayor-Elect MAMDANI DOUBLE DOWN NETANYAHU’s Arrest Promise
The alleged victim told investigators a key reason why she didn’t speak up sooner. She says, “I held out as long as I could because I didn’t want to distort the Palestinian arrest warrants.” It is a sickening testament to how political pressure can erode even basic human dignity.
On November 17, 2025, Israel asked the ICC Appeals Chamber to disqualify Khan and invalidate the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant. By contrast, the ICC’s own Office of Public Counsel for Victims – widely seen as a preparation to distance the Court from Khan – argued on December 10, 2025 that his removal should have no effect on Israeli arrest warrants.
South African Judge Dire Tladi, American Judge Sarah Cleveland, Brazilian Judge Leonardo Nemer Caldeira Brant, German Judge Georg Nolte, Indian Judge Dalveer Bhandari, Somali Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, Slovak Judge Peter Tomka, Lebanese Judge and President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Nawaf Salam, Ugandan Judge and Vice President of the International Court of Justice Julia Sebutinde, French Judge Ronny Abraham, Chinese Judge Xue Hanqin, Japanese Judge Yuji Iwasawa, Australian Judge Hilary Charlesworth, Mexican Judge Juan Manuel Gomez Robledo and Romanian Judge Bogdan Lucian Aurescu stand before delivering a non-binding ruling at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on July 19, 2024, on the legal consequences of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. (Nick Gammon/AFP via Getty Images)
The dilemma facing the ICC is this: before the Appeals Chamber is a prosecutor conducting an investigation against the State of Israel that culminated in arrest warrants based on material collected under his supervision. And at the same time, he uses Israel as a foil to defend himself against personal accusations.
Will anyone in their right mind believe that the explosive allegations against Khan and his public reactions did not taint the investigation, the arrest requests or the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber that relied on Khan to confirm the arrest warrants in November 2024?
As the British would say, “Not damn likely.”
ISRAEL’S NETANYAHU DEMANDS WESTERN GOVERNMENTS TO FIGHT ANTISEMITISM: ‘HEAR OUR WARNINGS’
The problem of the Chamber of Appeal goes deeper. The ICC was established in 1998 after a sharply contested vote in which the United States, Israel and several others voted against it. The central issue: the ICC would upend the fundamental building block of international law – consent. Under the Rome Statute, the Court can exercise criminal jurisdiction over nationals of states that have never signed the treaty and agreed to be bound by it.
Israel and the United States knew exactly where that would lead. And it did – Americans in Afghanistan (for starters) and Israelis from day one.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
As a result, the United States has implemented measures on a bipartisan basis to protect Americans (and allies, including Israelis) from the ICC’s overreach. The truth is that these protections have proven inadequate as political targeting and consequences have increased under the ICC’s extensive criminalization activities.
The ICC was established in 1998 after a sharply contested vote in which the United States, Israel and several others voted against it. The central issue: the ICC would upend the fundamental building block of international law – consent. (Alex Gottschalk/DeFodi Images via Getty Images)
The Trump administration promised to do more. On February 6, 2025, the President signed an executive order authorizing sanctions against individuals involved in the ICC’s efforts to attack Americans and allies. So far, the order has only been applied to twelve people.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
New US demands reportedly call for amending the Rome Statute to limit the ICC’s authority. It is well known that the process – and international politics – makes such an amendment a non-starter.
The ball is therefore only partly in the court of the Chamber of Appeal. Of course, the allegations against Khan and the ICC’s opaque oversight mechanisms have damaged the institution’s credibility. But the real question remains: What is the United States willing to do about it?
CLICK HERE TO BY ANNE BAYEFSKY
