Ro Khanna Backs Mamdani’s Netanyahu Arrest Demand, but U.S. Law Stands in the Way
A growing political fight over the International Criminal Court has reached Capitol Hill, with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California endorsing New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s demand that the federal government arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he enters the United States.
Khanna made the remarks Friday during a Capitol Hill interview, arguing that Washington should cooperate with the ICC and apply international law consistently. His intervention gives Mamdani’s position a prominent congressional ally, but it does not remove the formidable legal barriers confronting any attempt to detain the Israeli leader on American soil.
Khanna calls for equal enforcement.
Khanna said the U.S. president should act against Netanyahu or Russian President Vladimir Putin when either leader enters American jurisdiction under an active ICC warrant.
“America needs to cooperate with the ICC,” Khanna said, presenting the controversy as a test of human rights and the international rules-based order. He also argued that the president should direct federal authorities to make an arrest when a person covered by such a warrant enters the country.
The California Democrat maintained that political alliances should not shield leaders from accountability. He said someone accused of grave crimes under an international warrant should not be allowed to enter the United States as though no legal questions existed.
Khanna’s comments followed Mamdani’s public acknowledgment that New York City lacks independent authority to execute the ICC warrant. The mayor said his administration reviewed the available legal options and concluded that any enforcement action would have to come from Washington rather than City Hall.
Mamdani nevertheless urged the federal government to join the ICC and enforce its warrant. He has called Netanyahu a war criminal and accused the Israeli government of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Those remain Mamdani’s allegations and political characterizations, not findings issued by a U.S. court.
Netanyahu has rejected the accusations and dismissed the ICC case as illegitimate. Israel disputes the court’s jurisdiction and denies committing war crimes, arguing that its military operations are directed against Hamas following the group’s October 7, 2023, attack.
What the ICC warrant actually says
The ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on November 21, 2024.
The court said its judges found reasonable grounds to believe the two men bore criminal responsibility for the war crime of using starvation as a method of warfare. The warrant also covers alleged crimes against humanity, including murder, persecution and other inhumane acts.
An arrest warrant is not a conviction or a final determination of guilt. It means ICC judges concluded that the required legal threshold had been met to seek an accused person’s arrest and surrender for further court proceedings.
The ICC does not have its own international police force. It depends on national governments to locate and arrest suspects. Countries that have joined the Rome Statute generally have treaty obligations to cooperate with the court, although disputes concerning immunity and enforcement may still arise.
The United States, however, is not a party to the Rome Statute. Washington therefore has not accepted the same cooperation obligations that apply to ICC member states.
Arrest remains legally and politically unlikely.
Independent legal experts consulted by Reuters said Mamdani could not order Netanyahu’s arrest for several reasons. The federal government primarily controls foreign relations, the United States lacks a regular legal mechanism for executing ICC warrants, and sitting foreign leaders can receive immunity protections.
The American Service Members’ Protection Act, enacted in 2002, also restricts American cooperation with the ICC. The legislation reflects Washington’s longstanding opposition to allowing the court to prosecute American officials, military personnel and certain allied officials without U.S. consent.
Legal experts said the federal government would likely need major legislative and policy changes before attempting the kind of arrest proposed by Khanna and Mamdani. The United States could have to join the ICC, change existing federal law and address immunity protections available to visiting foreign leaders.
A visit connected to the United Nations would create another obstacle. Representatives of U.N. member countries generally receive legal protections while traveling to and from official U.N. meetings, making a General Assembly appearance particularly difficult.
President Donald Trump has said Netanyahu would not be arrested while visiting the United States. That places Khanna’s and Mamdani’s demand directly at odds with the administration and with Washington’s historic skepticism toward ICC authority.
Khanna’s statement is therefore more immediately significant as a political challenge than as an enforceable proposal. It places pressure on American officials to explain why they support international accountability in some conflicts while rejecting the ICC’s authority in cases involving close U.S. allies.
He argues that a rules-based international system loses credibility when enforcement depends on whether the accused leader is considered an adversary or a partner.
For now, Netanyahu faces no realistic threat of arrest during a U.S. visit. However, Khanna’s decision to support Mamdani ensures that the ICC warrant, the Gaza war and the limits of American cooperation with international courts will remain part of the national political debate.
