ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan suspended after sexual misconduct investigation spanning two years

The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, was suspended late Monday after the court's governing body voted to refer his case to disciplinary proceedings, the culmination of a two-year probe into allegations that Khan engaged in coercive and nonconsensual sexual behavior toward a female aide.

The Assembly of States Parties, the ICC's management oversight and legislative body, took the action during a Monday night meeting. Its Bureau voted by a wide margin to suspend the 56-year-old British-born lawyer, who had already been partially suspended earlier in 2025 and placed on leave amid the mounting investigation.

Khan now faces a yet-to-be-scheduled special secret ballot vote by the court's 125 member states, which will determine his future at the institution. Until then, he remains suspended. He has publicly denied the allegations.

What the investigation found

The Bureau's decision drew on an investigation conducted by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services, along with underlying evidence, advice from an ad hoc panel of judicial experts, and written submissions. The Assembly's official statement, published on the ICC's website, laid out the basis for the vote:

"The assessment of the Bureau was based on the report of an investigation undertaken by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), the underlying evidence, the advice of an ad hoc Panel of judicial experts, and written submissions."

The Assembly also declared that the Bureau's decision and all related documentation would remain confidential, calling for "due respect for the privacy and the rights of all parties concerned, as well as for the integrity of the ongoing process."

The Associated Press reported seeing a copy of the U.N. investigation report, which stated that Khan had "nonconsensual sexual contact" with the unnamed aide "in his office, at his private residence, and whilst on mission." The woman herself denounced in filings that Khan had engaged in coercive and nonconsensual sexual behavior against her on several occasions over an extended period of time.

A three-judge panel selected by the executive committee for a legal assessment reportedly found the investigation "was not conclusive enough," the AP noted. The Bureau proceeded with the suspension vote regardless.

The man who sought to arrest Netanyahu

Khan is perhaps best known internationally as the face of the ICC's effort to prosecute Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In May 2024, Khan requested international arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over Israel's military operations against Hamas, actions Israel characterized as self-defense following the terror group's attacks.

Neither Israel nor the United States is a member of the ICC, a fact that has long fueled skepticism about the court's jurisdiction and political motivations. The warrant requests against Israeli leaders drew sharp criticism from both countries and raised questions about whether Khan was using the ICC for purposes beyond impartial justice.

In an August 2025 interview with Breitbart News, Netanyahu offered a blunt theory about Khan's motives. The Israeli prime minister argued that Khan pursued the warrants precisely because sexual misconduct allegations had begun to surface against him:

"So he decided the best way to get out of that was to hit the Jews, or hit the Prime Minister of the Jewish state, because you'll have all that, you know, all the all these extreme progressives lining up automatically behind him. They won't support Israel. They'd support him."

Netanyahu continued:

"So obviously they did. That's exactly what he did. He wanted to extricate himself from these sexual assault charges, and he slapped these false, completely false charges... against Israel."

Whether or not one accepts Netanyahu's characterization in full, the timeline is difficult to ignore. The sexual misconduct allegations had been building for two years by the time Khan moved against Israel's leaders. The question of whether political calculations influenced prosecutorial decisions at the world's highest criminal court is one the ICC's member states will now have to weigh.

Trump's sanctions and Biden's reversal

The ICC has been a source of friction with the United States for years. During his first term, President Trump sanctioned the court in response to its prosecution of U.S. soldiers. The Biden administration lifted those sanctions, a move that drew criticism from conservatives who viewed it as legitimizing an institution hostile to American and allied interests.

The pattern of holding officials accountable for serious alleged crimes has taken different forms under different administrations. Trump reinstated sanctions on the ICC and expanded them last year, sanctioning ICC judges for targeting the U.S. and Israel. That decision now looks prescient in light of the misconduct probe against the court's own top prosecutor.

Biden's decision to lift sanctions gave the ICC breathing room at precisely the moment Khan was consolidating power and pursuing politically charged cases. The contrast between the two approaches, one skeptical of the court's integrity, the other deferential, frames the current scandal in sharp relief.

An institution's credibility problem

The ICC has long positioned itself as the conscience of international law, the body that holds the powerful to account when national courts cannot or will not. That moral authority now faces a serious test. The man who sought to arrest a sitting prime minister for alleged war crimes stands accused of sexual misconduct against his own subordinate, in his own office, at his own home, and while traveling on official business.

The confidentiality surrounding the Bureau's decision and documentation raises its own concerns. The ICC demanded transparency from the nations it investigated. Now, facing an internal crisis, it has chosen to keep the details under wraps.

The case also highlights the broader problem of international institutions that operate with minimal accountability. The ICC answers to its member states, but those states have limited tools to oversee day-to-day conduct. When misconduct occurs at the top, the mechanisms for correction are slow, opaque, and politically fraught. It took two years of investigation just to reach a suspension vote, and the final decision still lies ahead.

In a world where law enforcement agencies are expected to act swiftly against predatory behavior, the ICC's drawn-out process stands out. Khan remained in his post for months after allegations became public, wielding the authority of the prosecutor's office even as his own conduct was under review.

What comes next

Khan's fate now rests with 125 member states, who must schedule and conduct a special secret ballot. No date has been set. In the meantime, the ICC operates without its chief prosecutor in a functional capacity, a vacuum that affects ongoing cases and investigations around the world.

The episode has handed ammunition to critics who have long argued that the ICC is a politicized body more interested in targeting Western-aligned democracies than in delivering impartial justice. Those critics now include not just the United States and Israel, but anyone watching a prosecutor who sought arrest warrants against a democratic leader while allegedly committing serious misconduct behind closed doors.

The willingness of some institutions to accept claims at face value when they align with political goals, while slow-walking accountability when the accused is one of their own, is a pattern familiar to conservative observers. The ICC's handling of the Khan case fits that pattern uncomfortably well.

Khan publicly denied the allegations. The unnamed aide's filings paint a different picture. The U.N. investigation report, at least as described by the Associated Press, describes conduct that no institution should tolerate from a leader entrusted with prosecuting the world's worst crimes.

The broader lesson from politically charged investigations is that the credibility of the investigator matters as much as the investigation itself. When the prosecutor's own conduct is under a cloud, every case he touched deserves a second look.

An institution that cannot police its own prosecutor has no business lecturing sovereign nations about justice.