What specific actions by Trump have been alleged to constitute war crimes and who made those allegations?
Executive summary
Multiple sources report allegations that actions or plans associated with Donald Trump (or his administration) could constitute war crimes: experts say his 2025 proposal to relocate Palestinians from Gaza could amount to forcible transfer/deportation under the Rome Statute (a potential war crime) [1]; Human Rights Watch said Trump’s public threats to attack Iranian cultural sites would be war crimes if carried out [2]; and legal commentators and former military lawyers have accused officials in Trump’s administration of ordering or enabling strikes at sea that some now call unlawful and potentially criminal [3]. These allegations come from international-law experts interviewed by The Guardian, Human Rights Watch, and former military legal advisers cited in reporting by Common Dreams and related outlets [1] [2] [3].
1. “Forcible transfer” allegation: Trump’s Gaza plan and international-law experts
Legal scholars and international-law experts told The Guardian that President Trump’s 2025 proposal to permanently move millions of Palestinians out of Gaza to allow US-led reconstruction could amount to forcible transfer or deportation — crimes under the Rome Statute — particularly if implemented as part of a systematic attack on civilians; they point to Geneva Conventions and Rome Statute prohibitions on deportation/forcible transfer and on attacks on civilians [1]. The Guardian quotes experts who connect the plan’s scale and stated intent (“Palestinians in Gaza would be happy to leave,” according to the reporting) to elements of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, highlighting the specific legal frameworks implicated [1].
2. Threats to cultural heritage: Human Rights Watch’s public warning
Human Rights Watch publicly warned that Trump’s statements threatening to attack Iran’s cultural sites would be war crimes if carried out, because international law protects cultural property in armed conflict and deliberately targeting such sites is proscribed; HRW’s Andrea Prasow urged Trump to reverse such threats and said the statements reflect broader disregard for human rights in US foreign policy [2]. HRW framed the allegation in the conditional—“would be war crimes if carried out”—and tied it to existing US War Crimes statute and customary laws of war [2].
3. Boat strikes and battlefield conduct: former military lawyers’ accusations
Reporting cited by Common Dreams summarizes former top military lawyers and the Former Judge Advocates General Working Group criticizing a September 2025 strike on a Caribbean vessel that killed or disabled crew, saying that if reporting about orders and subsequent targeting of survivors is accurate, the conduct could violate obligations to protect and rescue survivors and therefore amount to war crimes or murder [3]. Those legal critics reacted to Washington Post and CNN reporting about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s alleged orders; they argue international law required interception and law-enforcement measures rather than lethal force if the vessel posed a drug-trafficking, not an imminent military, threat [3].
4. Broader pattern: experts see erosion of laws of war under Trump-era policies
Analysts and scholars argue the administration’s moves — from pardons of service members convicted of battlefield crimes to sanctions on the ICC and public challenges to the laws of war — risk eroding accountability norms. An LSE commentator and a Lawfare piece flagged concerns about presidential clemency for alleged war crimes and executive hostility to international accountability mechanisms like the ICC, noting consequences for enforcement and deterrence [4] [5] [6]. Amnesty International and Reuters reporting show institutional friction after Trump’s sanctions on ICC personnel and the administration’s confrontational posture toward war-crimes accountability [6] [7].
5. Who is making the allegations and in what tone?
Allegations come from three distinct source types: international-law experts and academics interviewed by mainstream press (Guardian) who assessed a public policy plan against Geneva and Rome Statute standards [1]; rights organizations like Human Rights Watch issuing conditional legal warnings tied to specific statements [2]; and former military legal officers and defense-policy commentators interpreting reporting on operational orders as potentially criminal [3]. Those sources range from cautious—saying action “could amount to” or “would be” war crimes if implemented—to more forceful legal denunciations from ex-JAGs calling conduct “war crimes, murder, or both” if verified [1] [2] [3].
6. Limits of available reporting and competing views
Available sources stress allegations and legal interpretations rather than convictions; they do not record domestic criminal charges against Trump for war crimes in the cited items, nor do they present a legal adjudication by an international court in these matters [1] [2] [3]. The Guardian and Human Rights Watch cite expert legal analysis; Common Dreams relays former military lawyers’ statements reacting to press investigations [1] [2] [3]. Counterarguments in the record include official U.S. statements defending policies, and the U.S. non‑membership in the ICC complicates international enforcement [6] [7]. Available sources do not mention a court conviction for war crimes tied to these allegations.
Conclusion: multiple reputable actors — international-law scholars, Human Rights Watch, and former military lawyers — have publicly said particular Trump proposals, threats, or orders could meet legal definitions of war crimes if carried out as described; those statements are expert opinions and conditional legal assertions recorded in the cited reporting, not final legal determinations [1] [2] [3].