Did Trump implicate US government and himself in crimes when he stated his intent to remove the people of Gaza and take over their land?

Anyone with a general understanding of international law, human rights norms, and historical precedents would recoil at the suggestion that a community be forcibly relocated to other countries while their land is seized by another nation-state. When such statements come from the leader of the world’s most powerful nation, they are cause for serious concern. To grasp the gravity of such remarks, it’s essential to consider the historical, legal, and political context behind them.

In 2010, highly respected journalist Helen Thomas faced significant backlash after making a controversial statement suggesting that Jews who had migrated to Israel should return to their countries of origin. While speaking to Rabbi David Nesenoff at the White House during a Jewish Heritage event, she stated that Jews in Israel should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to places like Poland, Germany, and the United States. Her remarks were widely criticized as anti-Semitic and historically insensitive, given the long history of Jewish persecution in those countries.

The consequences went beyond mere criticism—Thomas’s life and career were profoundly transformed. A prominent White House correspondent and columnist for decades, she abruptly retired from her position at Hearst Newspapers following the incident, effectively ending her career in journalism.

In addition to losing the job she had excelled at for decades, several organizations rescinded the awards and honors she had previously received. Her comments dominated the news cycle for weeks, drawing widespread condemnation from political figures, media outlets, and advocacy groups, particularly Jewish organizations.

Thomas later apologized, expressing regret and acknowledging that her comments were offensive. Nevertheless, the incident left a lasting impact on her reputation and legacy as a pioneering female journalist.

In contrast, on February 4, 2025, President Donald Trump, seated alongside the Israeli leader who has long opposed any statement or action suggesting the removal of Jews from their homes, proposed that the United States take control of the Gaza Strip and relocate its Palestinian population to neighboring countries such as Jordan and Egypt. Trump described Gaza as a “demolition site” and suggested transforming it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Instead of admonishing Prime Minister Netanyahu—an indicted war criminal responsible for turning Gaza into a “demolition site”—Trump asserted that Gazans, most of whom are indigenous to the land, while the remainder are refugees displaced by Israel, have no rightful place in Gaza. The media and commentators did not frame these statements as incitement to war crimes or crimes against humanity. Instead, they dismissed them as “impractical,” implying that the only issue was their feasibility, rather than their legality or morality. Trump’s expressed intent to force Palestinians from their homes and seize their land clearly establishes criminal intent under international law. Legal scholars assert that if these statements were followed by concrete actions taken by the U.S. government or Israel, they could implicate both in serious violations, including:

Forced Population Transfer:

Under international law, particularly Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the forcible transfer of populations by an occupying power is considered a grave breach, often classified as a war crime. Trump’s suggestion to “clean out” Gaza and move its residents elsewhere could be interpreted as an endorsement of such a policy if implemented, which would indeed implicate both him and the U.S. government in potential war crimes.

International law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, explicitly prohibits the forcible transfer of protected populations from occupied territories. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court classifies such acts as crimes against humanity. Legal scholars argue that forcibly relocating Gaza’s residents would constitute a grave breach of these statutes.

Ethnic Cleansing: The term “ethnic cleansing” has been used by various commentators and organizations in response to Trump’s comments. Ethnic cleansing, while not formally defined in international law as a crime separate from genocide, involves forcibly removing an ethnic or religious group from a territory. Trump’s proposal, if enacted, would fit this description, potentially implicating the U.S. in acts that could be seen as crimes against humanity.

Sovereignty and International Law: Trump’s plan also touches on issues of sovereignty. Gaza is not legally part of Israel or any other country; it is seen by the international community as occupied territory where Palestinians have the right to self-determination. A U.S. takeover without international legal backing would violate principles of international law regarding sovereignty and non-intervention.

Genocide:

The crime of genocide involves acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. The legal threshold for genocide is stringent and very few cases have been successfully brought to court mainly because, short of explicit statements to that effect, it is very difficult to establish “intent” to commit a genocide. That is the main reason why ICC prosecutors, even when faced with abundant evidence for the commission of the crime of genocide, they opt for bring charges under other categories such as crimes against humanity or war crimes. In this instance, however, Trump declared his clear intent to remove the people of Gaza and take over their land. Should the war in Gaza resume, or should new policies designed to achieve these stated goals, even if it partially achieves the stated goals, would be still a crime of genocide.

Moreover, Trump’s statements and any future actions taken to implement them could be found in violation of numerous provisions of international law and multilateral treaties ratified by the United States. Since Trump’s proposed plan to forcibly remove the Palestinian population from Gaza and seize their land coincided with his authorization to transfer additional weapons to Israel, the U.S. government would not need to deploy its own troops to be implicated in potential crimes. Israel’s past and future actions, carried out with U.S. support, would likely connect the U.S. government to these outcomes and breach several international legal provisions, including the following:

1. 1. The Fourth Geneva Convention (1949)

Article 49: Prohibits the forcible transfer or deportation of protected persons from occupied territories, regardless of motive.

Article 147: Declares the unlawful transfer or deportation of civilians from occupied territory a grave breach of the Convention, constituting a war crime.

1. 2. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) (1998)

Article 6 (Genocide): Includes acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, such as forcibly transferring children or causing serious bodily or mental harm.

Article 7 (Crimes Against Humanity): Covers forced population transfer as a crime against humanity when conducted as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.

Article 8 (War Crimes): Prohibits extensive destruction of property, unlawful deportation, and displacement of civilian populations in occupied territories.

1. 3. The Charter of the United Nations (1945)

Article 2(4): Prohibits the acquisition of territory through the threat or use of force.

Violating this provision undermines the foundational principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty under international law.

1. 4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966)

Article 12: Protects the right to freedom of movement and the right not to be arbitrarily displaced from one’s country or residence.

1. 5. Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

Prohibits collective punishment, the targeting of civilian populations, and forced displacement. These are recognized as customary laws binding on all states regardless of treaty ratification.

1. 6. United Nations General Assembly Resolutions

UNGA Resolution 194 (1948): Calls for the right of return for Palestinian refugees to their homes.

UNGA Resolution 3236 (1974): Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including self-determination and sovereignty over their territory.

If such statements were acted upon, the implications could lead to war crimes prosecutions, violations of international human rights obligations, and damage to the credibility and legal standing of the U.S. in global forums.

The Limits of Political Power and Human Rights

President Donald Trump’s recent statements about removing the people of Gaza and taking over their land have significant legal and ethical implications for both him and the U.S. government. Legal experts and international leaders have condemned the proposal, suggesting it could constitute violations of international law, including potential war crimes.  It is possible that Trump, as serving president, could invoke sovereign immunity to avoid personal liability, a doctrine he has already used to defend himself in court against various charges. However, legal scholars and courts recognize the limits of such protection. For example, sovereign immunity does not shield an individual from liability if they commit an act that clearly violates established and well-known laws, especially after being made aware of the relevant legal provisions prohibiting such actions.

Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine (inherited from common law–“the king can do no wrong”) that generally protects a sovereign state or government and its officials from being sued in court without its consent. In the context of U.S. law, this means that the U.S. government or federal officials (including the President) cannot be sued for actions taken in their official capacity without their consent, usually granted through legislation.

However, sovereign immunity, nowadays, has important limits, especially in cases where actions violate international law or constitutional rights, and in cases of willful misconduct. Here are some of the limits:

Acts Outside Official Capacity: If a government official, including the President, acts outside their official capacity (e.g., personal acts or actions not related to their role), they may not be protected by sovereign immunity.

Intentional Violations of Law: Sovereign immunity does not protect government officials, including the President, from liability for intentional illegal actions. If the President knowingly engages in illegal conduct—whether violating domestic law or international law—there could be legal repercussions. For instance, actions that clearly violate international treaties or human rights law could potentially lead to international claims or legal actions.

Congressional Consent: Congress can waive sovereign immunity in certain cases. For example, the Tort Claims Act allows for certain lawsuits against the government, and civil rights laws (like the Civil Rights Act) can allow suits against officials if they violate constitutional rights.

Criminal Accountability: While sovereign immunity can shield government officials from civil lawsuits for actions taken in their official capacity, it does not protect them from criminal prosecution. If an official, including the President, knowingly commits a crime (such as war crimes or crimes against humanity), they may be subject to prosecution, even if the U.S. government does not consent to legal action.

Impeachment and Accountability: The President can be impeached and removed from office by Congress if they commit high crimes and misdemeanors. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, and it is one way to hold the President accountable for actions that may be illegal or unconstitutional.

Sovereign immunity provides broad protection for government actions within the scope of official duties, but it does not protect illegal actions, especially when committed with knowledge of their illegality. Sovereign immunity does not shield officials from criminal prosecution or liability for intentional violations of law.

…

All said, one may ask: does it really matter that Trump may have implicated himself and the U.S. government in war crimes and crimes against humanity, given that he is the president of the most powerful nation-state in the world?

The position of the U.S. as a global superpower makes it unlikely that legal action on an international level would gain significant traction, given geopolitical realities and the influence the U.S. wields in international institutions. However, there are still significant short- and long-term consequences to ignoring national and global legal orders.

In the short term and in terms of partisan politics, accountability may seem inconsequential. However, considered in a broader context, it absolutely matters both legally and politically if a sitting or former U.S. president is implicated in potential war crimes or crimes against humanity. Here’s why:

Even though the U.S. is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), accusations of such crimes can trigger international investigations and damage diplomatic relations. Domestic laws theoretically provide avenues for accountability, though they are rarely, if ever, pursued for high-ranking officials.

Nonetheless, accusations involving a sitting president from a specific political party can polarize political discourse, energize opponents, and damage a president’s legacy. The erosion of trust in democratic institutions further compounds the political fallout.

Globally, although the political and legal landscape makes prosecution highly unlikely for a sitting or former president by another country or an international organization, the perception that the U.S. or its leadership engages in war crimes undermines its ability to promote human rights and hold other nations accountable for similar violations. The U.S. government has successfully instrumentalized human rights as a tool for political and economic influence around the world. That leverage could be lost or even turned against the U.S.

Furthermore, the fact that U.S. leaders may commit crimes and evade accountability emboldens other countries to dismiss international legal norms. U.S. international allies may distance themselves or impose diplomatic consequences, leading to weakened alliances.

Flouting international norms and failing to hold leaders accountable could set a dangerous precedent, suggesting that high-ranking officials are above the law. This erosion of accountability undermines democratic institutions and the rule of law, both domestically and globally.

In short, while immediate legal consequences might be unlikely, the broader implications for international relations, political stability, and the long-term preservation of democratic norms make the issue profoundly significant. Nothing hastens the fall of a nation more than when it abandons the very values it once upheld: respect for law and order.