Donald Trump’s public criticism of Israeli President Isaac Herzog over the refusal to pardon Benjamin Netanyahu has prompted an unusually frank diplomatic tangle and a search for clarity inside Jerusalem. After a White House meeting with Netanyahu on February 11, Trump told reporters the next day that Herzog “should be ashamed” for not using his pardon power and suggested the president had acted to preserve his own authority by withholding a pardon.
Herzog’s camp reacted with surprise and has reportedly asked Netanyahu’s office to explain whether the prime minister played any role in prompting Trump’s remarks. The prime minister’s office issued a statement on the evening of February 14 distancing itself from Trump’s intervention, saying the US president acted on his own and that Netanyahu learned of the comments only via the media.
The episode exposes the delicate institutional mechanics surrounding Israel’s pardon power. Israel’s president holds the formal authority to grant clemency, but the office traditionally follows the Justice Ministry’s review before making a decision, and the presidency is otherwise a largely ceremonial post. Herzog has publicly insisted that any decision on clemency will follow the established legal procedure and will not be taken under external or internal pressure.
The background is Mr. Netanyahu’s long-running criminal case. Prosecutors indicted him in early 2020 on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of public trust, making him the first sitting Israeli prime minister to stand trial. If convicted, Netanyahu faces significant prison terms, and the case has been a central fault line in Israeli politics; he has repeatedly delayed court appearances citing official duties, travel and health.
What makes Trump’s statements consequential is less the content than the messenger. It is uncommon for a U.S. president to publicly urge a foreign head of state to override or short-circuit another country’s judicial and constitutional processes, and the intervention risks being read as an attempt to influence a sovereign nation’s internal affairs. The spat therefore has implications for U.S.-Israel relations, intra-Israeli politics and perceptions of judicial independence in Israel.
Observers will now watch for several possible developments: whether Netanyahu clarifies his role in prompting or responding to Trump’s entreaties; whether Herzog tightens his stance to signal institutional independence; and whether the episode emboldens or weakens domestic political actors who either support or oppose clemency. The affair also raises a longer-term question about precedent: how foreign leaders’ public interventions may be used by domestic politicians to appeal to supporters or to exert pressure on legal institutions.