The International Criminal Court, or ICC, is in the fight of its life. Its top prosecutor, Karim Khan, faces serious allegations of criminal misconduct, including claims of repeated sexual assault. Khan has strongly rejected the accusations, instead blaming Israel for his problems.
The ICC is scrambling for an off-ramp, one that cuts Khan loose while salvaging its long-criticized posture 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 engaging in reprisals 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.
The ICC apparatus has slow-walked its response for more than 18 months, with Khan on paid leave since May. On Dec. 12, 2025, officials announced that the fact-finding stage of a confidential U.N. investigation was complete and that a legal analysis phase by unnamed ‘judicial experts’ would take another 30 days.
Both Khan and his alleged ICC victim support the strategy of analogizing democratic Israel to genocidal Hamas and using the ICC to pursue criminal charges against Israeli officials. Hence, Khan’s reported suggestion that his accuser — who is also Muslim — was influenced by Israeli intelligence has drawn skepticism. Reports of a Qatar-backed covert operation aimed at uncovering an Israeli link apparently found nothing.
The problem for the ICC is not only that its top international criminal lawyer is now engulfed in damaging criminal allegations, but that the institution itself has been undeniably stained.
On May 2, 2024, Khan learned that word of the allegations had circulated within the ICC. At the time, he and his staff were preparing for a trip to Israel at the end of May, following an extraordinary offer of cooperation from Jerusalem. The plan was to obtain key information for his ongoing investigation. Instead, on May 20, Khan abruptly canceled the trip and very publicly announced on CNN that he was seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
Americans, Israelis and even ICC staff speculated about the timing, especially after the allegations became public in fall 2024. Many observers argue that Khan has sought to cast his response to the scandal in political terms, hoping framing Israel would circle the wagons around him. And for a time, it appeared to work.
The alleged victim told investigators a primary reason she did not speak up sooner. She is quoted as saying: ‘I held on for as long as I could because I didn’t want to f— up the Palestinian arrest warrants.’ It is a sickening testament to how political pressures can erode even basic human dignity.
On Nov. 17, 2025, Israel asked the ICC Appeals Chamber to disqualify Khan and void the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant. By contrast, on Dec. 10, 2025, the ICC’s own Office of Public Counsel for Victims — widely seen as preparing to distance the Court from Khan — argued that his removal should have no effect on the Israeli warrants.
The quandary the ICC faces is this: Before the Appeals Chamber sits a prosecutor running an investigation against the state of Israel that culminated in arrest warrants based on material compiled under his supervision. And, at the same time, he has been using Israel as a foil to defend himself against personal allegations
Will anyone of sane mind believe that the explosive accusations against Khan and his public responses did not taint the investigation, the arrest requests or the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision that relied upon Khan to confirm the warrants in November 2024?
As the British would say, ‘Not bloody likely.’
The Appeals Chamber’s problem goes deeper. The ICC was created in 1998 by a sharply contested vote that saw the United States, Israel and several others vote against it. The central issue: The ICC would upend the fundamental building block of international law — consent. Under the Rome Statute, the Court can assert criminal jurisdiction over nationals of states that never signed the treaty and consented to be bound.
Israel and the United States knew exactly where that would lead. And it did — Americans in Afghanistan (for starters), and Israelis from day one.
As a result, on a bipartisan basis, the United States has implemented measures to shield Americans (and allies, including Israelis) from ICC overreach. The truth is, those protections have proved inadequate, as political targeting and fallout have grown under the ICC’s expansive criminalization enterprise.
The Trump administration promised to do more. On Feb. 6, 2025, the president signed an executive order authorizing sanctions against individuals involved in ICC efforts to target Americans and allies. To date, the order has been applied to only 12 people.
New U.S. demands reportedly call for amending the Rome Statute to limit ICC authority. It’s common knowledge that the process — and the international politics — make such an amendment a nonstarter.
So the ball is only partially in the Appeals Chamber’s court. Of course, the allegations against Khan and the ICC’s halting and opaque oversight mechanisms have battered the institution’s credibility. But the real question remains: What is the United States prepared to do about it?