In a striking diplomatic rupture between two close allies, President Donald Trump has publicly castigated Israeli President Isaac Herzog for refusing to pardon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, escalating tensions at a delicate moment in Israel’s domestic and regional politics. The outburst came during a White House press briefing on Thursday, a day after Trump hosted Netanyahu in Washington, transforming the issue into an unusually personal and public confrontation.
Trump described Herzog’s refusal to intervene in Netanyahu’s corruption trial as “shameful” and “a disgrace”, language rarely used by an American president against an Israeli head of state. He went further still, suggesting that Herzog “should be ashamed of himself” and that the Israeli public “should really shame him” for failing to exercise his constitutional authority. In remarks that appeared to question Herzog’s political standing, Trump speculated that the Israeli president was reluctant to grant clemency because “he is losing his power”, implying that domestic political considerations, rather than legal principle, lay behind the decision.
For latest news and analyses on Middle East, visit: Yello! Middle East
The American president’s criticism reflects his longstanding defence of Netanyahu, whom he has repeatedly praised as a decisive wartime leader. Trump argued that the corruption proceedings against the Israeli prime minister constitute a dangerous distraction at a time when Israel faces grave security threats, particularly from Iran. Framing the trial as a hindrance to national defence, he insisted that Netanyahu’s full attention should be devoted to what he characterised as Israel’s existential struggle rather than to courtroom appearances.
Downplaying the charges of fraud, bribery and breach of trust, Trump dismissed the case as being about “cigars and champagne”, asking rhetorically, “Who the hell cares about it?” He went so far as to describe the proceedings themselves as “illegal”, contending that the trial should be halted immediately in the interest of national unity and security. Such blunt language not only signalled personal loyalty to Netanyahu but also underscored Trump’s expansive view of executive authority, in which political leadership during wartime can justify extraordinary intervention in legal processes.
The episode marks the culmination of what officials describe as a sustained pressure campaign from Washington. Trump reportedly sent a formal letter to Herzog last November urging him to grant a pardon. The matter was also raised publicly during a visit to the Knesset in October, when Trump openly asked the Israeli president, “Why don’t you give him a pardon?” What had initially appeared to be diplomatic nudging has now developed into open confrontation.
Herzog responded while returning from a diplomatic visit to Australia, issuing a statement from his aircraft that firmly but carefully rejected the external pressure. “Israel is a sovereign state governed by the rule of law,” his office declared, an unmistakable assertion of judicial independence. The president clarified that no decision has been made because the legal process remains ongoing. Under Israeli procedure, the Ministry of Justice must first provide a formal opinion before the president can consider clemency, and such decisions are typically made only after judicial proceedings have concluded.
Herzog emphasised that any eventual ruling would be guided by the law, the interests of the state and his own conscience, “without any influence from external or internal pressures of any kind”. The phrasing was deliberate, signalling that neither foreign governments nor domestic political forces would dictate the presidency’s actions. Yet he balanced this firmness with diplomatic courtesy, stating that he “cherishes President Trump for his significant contribution to the State of Israel and its security”. When pressed personally by reporters, Herzog delivered a pointed rejoinder: “To the best of my recollection, I am the president of Israel.”
The dispute exposes contrasting conceptions of the pardon power. For Trump, clemency appears as a political instrument, while Herzog looks at it as a narrowly defined constitutional mechanism, tempered by legal constraints. Herzog cannot model himself on Trump on the issue as under Israeli law, pardon can be granted only after an admission of guilt. Netanyahu has consistently maintained his innocence, making it difficult for Herzog to act. Herzog is also hamstrung by the fact that Netanyahu is facing arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court over alleged war crimes.
Trump’s insistence on immediate closure to what he calls a “distraction” collides with Herzog’s insistence that the presidency must operate within “the slow, deliberate gears of the law”. At stake is not only Netanyahu’s legal future but also the principle that Israel’s constitutional order cannot be shaped by foreign intervention, however powerful the ally.