California Democrat’s Reckless Proposal Would Subordinate American Sovereignty to International Court

A sitting California congressman just declared he wants foreign tribunals dictating who can enter the United States—and his dangerous vision threatens the very foundation of American sovereignty.

Rep. Ro Khanna revealed his alarming position during Tuesday’s CBS “Takeout” interview, boldly stating that anyone with an International Criminal Court arrest warrant should be arrested on American soil. The progressive lawmaker didn’t mince words: “We should not allow people in our jurisdiction who have an arrest warrant by the ICC.”

This isn’t theoretical posturing. Khanna explicitly targeted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, declaring America should treat the democratically-elected leader of our closest Middle Eastern ally the same as Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.

The Sovereignty Crisis

The congressman’s position represents a fundamental misunderstanding—or worse, a deliberate rejection—of American constitutional authority. The United States never ratified the Rome Statute that created the ICC, precisely because our Founders understood that no foreign body should exercise judicial power over American interests.

Khanna attempted to deflect obvious concerns about Americans facing politically-motivated ICC charges. “They don’t have any American arrest warrants,” he claimed, missing the point entirely. The issue isn’t whether Americans currently face ICC warrants—it’s whether we recognize the court’s legitimacy at all.

A Dangerous Precedent

By equating Netanyahu with Putin, Khanna reveals the poisonous moral relativism infecting progressive foreign policy thinking. One leads a functioning democracy defending itself against Iranian-backed terrorism. The other is an authoritarian aggressor waging a brutal invasion of Ukraine.

The distinction matters enormously—unless you’ve adopted the progressive worldview that treats America’s allies with the same suspicion as our adversaries.

International Law Doesn’t Trump American Law

Khanna justified his position by invoking “a consistent principle of international law.” Here’s what he conveniently omits: international law only binds nations that consent to it. The United States specifically rejected ICC jurisdiction, and Congress passed the American Service-Members’ Protection Act authorizing military force to free any American held by the court.

The ICC has no legitimate authority to issue warrants affecting American interests or our invited guests. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make principled foreign policy—it makes us subservient to unelected international bureaucrats.

The Real Agenda

Strip away the diplomatic language, and Khanna’s proposal serves one clear purpose: isolating Israel. Progressive Democrats have spent years undermining the U.S.-Israel relationship, and weaponizing the ICC represents their latest tool.

Netanyahu leads a nation fighting for survival against genocidal terrorists who massacred 1,200 innocents on October 7th. The ICC’s decision to target him—while ignoring Hamas’s war crimes—exposes the court’s anti-Israel bias. Khanna’s endorsement of that process speaks volumes.

What’s at Stake

If Khanna’s vision prevailed, foreign courts could effectively veto diplomatic visits to America. Imagine Chinese communists or Middle Eastern autocracies pressuring the ICC to issue warrants against American allies, then watching Democrats demand their arrest on U.S. soil.

This isn’t diplomacy. It’s surrendering control of American foreign policy to international bodies that consistently oppose American interests.

The Constitutional Answer

Article VI of the Constitution establishes that treaties become “supreme Law of the Land”—but only when properly ratified. The ICC statute never received Senate ratification, meaning it carries zero legal weight in American jurisprudence.

Congress already answered this question definitively through bipartisan legislation rejecting ICC authority. Khanna’s proposal doesn’t just contradict that consensus—it repudiates the constitutional framework that makes such decisions.

Consequences Matter

Accepting ICC jurisdiction would fundamentally alter America’s global standing. Every hostile regime would rush to file charges against our military leaders, intelligence officials, and allied heads of state. The court would become a weapon of lawfare against American power projection.

Israel understands this threat. So does Russia, China, and every other major power that rejected ICC authority. Only progressive Democrats seem eager to voluntarily constrain American sovereignty in service of a globalist vision our nation explicitly rejected.

The Bottom Line

Rep. Khanna’s proposal deserves the swift rejection it will undoubtedly receive from serious foreign policy thinkers. American law governs American territory. American officials determine who enters our country. And American voters—not unelected international judges—decide our foreign policy priorities.

The ICC has neither the authority nor the legitimacy to dictate who America welcomes or arrests. Any congressman who thinks otherwise fundamentally misunderstands the constitutional oath he swore to uphold.

Benjamin Netanyahu remains a welcome guest in the United States because America—not The Hague—determines American policy. That principle isn’t negotiable, regardless of how much California progressives wish otherwise.