This is not, as Trump implies, a minor technicality. It is a case that alleges the fusion of media manipulation and corporate favoritism to serve one man’s personal and political interests, with that person selling assets that belong to the state and not the government, and that certainly that aren’t his. Beyond that, Netanyahu is said to have received — and even demanded — hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of gifts from billionaires in exchange for favors. And there are other truly mind-bending cases — one of which involves nuclear submarines, which landed his aides in jail — which remain open.
When these charges were filed in 2019, Israel underwent an intense public debate over whether a criminal defendant could serve as prime minister. Ministers, mayors and even minor officials in Israel are barred from serving while under indictment. Netanyahu appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that as long as he appeared in court when required, he could still serve. The court accepted that logic — and only then did it allow him to take office.
That commitment is central to the legitimacy of Netanyahu’s current position. It is now deeply hypocritical to suggest, as Trump has, that the prime minister should not be expected to appear in court. If Netanyahu cannot fulfill both roles — prime minister and defendant — the answer is not to cancel the trial. The answer is for him to resign, as anyone else would need to do, and as polling shows most Israelis believe he should. That’s how parliamentary democracy works. That’s what equality before the law means.
Trump, of course, has long signaled his belief that heads of government should be above the law. In the United States, to a very dispiriting degree, the current mutation of a Supreme Court seems to agree. But contrary to what many Americans might think, their democracy — while trailblazing in many ways — is hardly a worthy model for others. It allows votes in one state to count as much as 40 votes in another, it badly politicizes the judiciary, it entrenches nonsense in the constitution that basically cannot be changed, its system for elected the president, which is an imperial office, is an international joke, and it actually produces debates about hanging chads. and more. Either way, simply put, in a functioning democracy the judiciary must be independent and respected.
Many in Israel feared, from the beginning, that Netanyahu would attempt to dismantle the country’s judiciary to avoid the consequences of this trial. In 2020, in an effort to reassure the public and the courts, Netanyahu submitted a sworn affidavit promising to stay out of any matters related to judicial reform while his trial was ongoing.
That promise didn’t last long.
Just days after returning to power at the end of 2022, Netanyahu’s justice minister, Yariv Levin, introduced a sweeping plan that would place Israel’s judiciary under near-total control of the executive branch. The proposal included allowing the governing coalition to appoint judges, override Supreme Court rulings with a bare majority, and eliminate the court’s ability to review government actions.
Had it passed in full, the reform would have allowed Netanyahu’s trial to be canceled outright. It was widely seen for what it was: an effort to reshape the legal system to ensure one man’s political survival.
Trump, given his own posture toward America’s judiciary, may see nothing wrong with this. But in Israel, which has no constitution or bill of rights, the Supreme Court is one of the last checks on executive power. Netanyahu’s attempt to gut it while on trial for corruption was widely viewed as a dangerous abuse. The vast majority of Israelis were scandalized, and the result was many months of crippling street protest by millions.
Trump’s implied threat to condition US aid on ending the trial is another matter altogether. It is extortion. American aid to Israel exists to promote mutual strategic and security interests. Undermining the rule of law in Israel weakens that alliance and invites instability. The idea that judicial independence should be sacrificed to satisfy the whims of an American politician is insulting and dangerous. More importantly, the Israeli judiciary is not accountable to Washington, no matter how much aid the United States provides. It owes its loyalty to the Israeli public and to democratic principles.
Ironically, Trump is right about one thing: the trial has dragged on far too long. But that is in no small part because of Netanyahu’s own delay tactics. His legal team has filed endless procedural motions, challenged the admissibility of evidence, inflated witness lists, and sought repeated postponements. The strategy is clear — to exhaust the system, confuse the public, and run out the clock. If anything, the courts should redouble their efforts — not abandon them.
Some have speculated that Trump’s sudden interest in Netanyahu’s legal woes is transactional — part of a larger effort to pressure the Israeli leader into ending the war in Gaza. That would be one of the most useful acts ever by a convicted felon. But even if so, the legal interference is unnecessary. Netanyahu cannot sustain the war without US support. If Trump wants to influence Israeli policy, he already holds all the cards. He doesn’t need to corrupt the country’s legal system in the process.
Trump may relish the role of global disruptor, but violating democratic norms by interfering in an ally’s judicial process is bad disruption. It further erodes America’s already fraying credibility as a defender of democratic values.
Trump has spent years attacking the foundations of American democracy. He refused to accept the results of a free and fair election, incited a violent insurrection to overturn it, and continues to spread lies about widespread voter fraud despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He has openly pressured state officials to “find votes” and promised “retribution” against opponents if returned to power. His rhetoric has normalized political violence, eroded public trust in institutions, and undermined the peaceful transfer of power, furthered voter suppression and gerrymandering schemes, and aggressively challenged curbs on executive power.
He has has done quite enough to undermine American democracy. He should leave other democracies alone.
