Trump Has a War Crimes Problem. It’s His Mouth.
He can’t stop freestyling about plunder and atrocities.
DONALD TRUMP IS A WAR CRIMINAL. He has used military force to extract oil from Venezuela. He has extorted Ukraine, tried to “own” Gaza, and demanded “right, title, and ownership” over Greenland. Lately, he’s been blowing up civilian infrastructure in Iran.
In the past week, since his April 1 televised address on the Iran war, Trump has issued more than a dozen statements demonstrating his guilt. His boasts and threats display a grotesque interest in theft and indiscriminate violence.
Let’s start with the theft.
“Take the oil.”
Since last Friday, Trump has threatened several times to “take the oil” from Iran. This is pillage—the use of war to seize a country’s wealth for profit—and it’s prohibited under the 1907 Hague Conventions and the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
“Keep the oil” and “make a fortune.”
Lawyers for Trump might argue that taking Iran’s oil isn’t really a war crime, because he intends to use it for Iran’s benefit. But Trump has made it clear that he would use it for American profit. Last Friday, he wrote on Truth Social, “With a little more time, we can easily OPEN THE HORMUZ STRAIT, TAKE THE OIL, & MAKE A FORTUNE.” Then he followed up with a four-word message: “KEEP THE OIL, ANYONE?”
“It’s there for the taking.”
On Monday, at the White House Easter egg roll, Trump told reporters, “If I had my choice, what would I like to do? Take the oil, because it’s there for the taking. There’s not a thing they can do about it. . . . I’d keep the oil, and we’d make plenty of money.” This statement clarifies Trump’s motive: pure financial opportunism.
“I’m a businessman first.”
Any legal defense of Trump’s conduct would rest on the premise that he was carrying out his official duties. But at a White House briefing on Monday, when a reporter asked the president about his comment that he would like to take Iran’s oil, Trump replied, “Yeah. ’Cause I’m a businessman first.”
“To the victor go the spoils.”
At the briefing, Trump fondly recalled that in “the old days,” the rule was that assets seized in war “belong” to the winner. He proposed to bring back that rule: “Why don’t we use it? To the victor go the spoils.”
Trump thinks about oil the same way he thinks about women: The aggressor is entitled to take what he wants.
“We’ve taken hundreds of millions of barrels.”
Trump’s lawyers could argue that although he has threatened to take Iran’s oil, he hasn’t actually done it. But at the briefing, he pointed out that he had already done in Venezuela what he was proposing to do in Iran. “We’ve taken hundreds of millions of barrels” from Venezuela, he bragged, and the profits from that oil “paid for that war [his invasion of Venezuela] many, many times over.” This boast, which Trump has repeated many times, illustrates his mercenary view of war.
“Buy oil from the United States.”
In his televised address, Trump offered advice to “countries that can’t get fuel” due to Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz: “Buy oil from the United States.” This was an attempt to profit from the war in a second way.
“Go to the strait and just take it.”
This was Trump’s alternative advice in his April 1 address. Countries that relied on oil transiting the strait “must grab it and cherish it,” he declared. “Go to the strait and just take it, protect it, use it for yourselves.” Essentially, he was urging other governments to join him in using military force to get oil.
“We’ll charge tolls.”
At the briefing, a reporter asked Trump whether he was willing to let Iran charge “tolls for passage through the strait.” Trump countered with his own idea: “What about us charging tolls?” He went on: “Why shouldn’t we? We’re the winner. We won.”
In case anyone thought the president was kidding, he repeated, “We have a concept where we’ll charge tolls.” And on Wednesday, he told ABC’s Jonathan Karl he might partner with Iran to collect tolls in the strait. “We’re thinking of doing it as a joint venture,” he explained.
IN ADDITION TO THESE financial war crimes, Trump has targeted or threatened to target civilian infrastructure, in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
“Every power plant.”
Several times in the last week, Trump has vowed to destroy all of Iran’s power plants and bridges. “If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric-generating plants very hard,” he warned in his televised address. At the briefing, he decreed that “every bridge in Iran will be decimated” and “every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding, and never to be used again. I mean complete demolition.”
These statements are legally significant because Trump’s aides have reportedly told him that Iran’s bridges and power plants could be legitimately targeted as dual-use assets—structures that might be used by Iran’s military, not just by civilians. But that can’t be true of every bridge or power plant. Targeting every bridge and power plant is indistinguishable from targeting civilian infrastructure.
“The whole country.”
Last Thursday, Trump wrote on Truth Social that if Iran didn’t make a deal acceptable to him, there would be “NOTHING LEFT” of the country. On Sunday, he told ABC’s Rachel Scott that if Iran didn’t capitulate, “We’re blowing up the whole country.” That same day, he told Axios, “If they don’t make a deal, I am blowing up everything over there.” At the Easter egg roll, he boasted, “We are obliterating that country.” And on Tuesday, he wrote, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”
There’s no way to fulfill such threats without killing civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure. Furthermore, Trump’s explicit threat to extinguish a “whole civilization”—a threat he put in writing, not an off-the-cuff remark—arguably qualifies as threatened genocide.
“I don’t want to tell you that.”
At the briefing, Trump said of potential targets in Iran, “Very little is off limits.” A reporter pressed him: “Are there certain kinds of civilian targets, though? I’m thinking schools—”
Trump cut off the question. “I don’t want to tell you that,” he said.
The lawful answer would have been easy: No, we won’t target schools. But Trump refused to rule out any option.
“Quiet, quiet, quiet.”
At the briefing and the Easter egg roll, Trump brushed off questions about whether his threats constituted war crimes. Not once did he address the distinction, persistently raised by reporters, between military and civilian targets. When a journalist asked whether his plans entailed “violating international law,” the president shot back, “Quiet, quiet, quiet, quiet,” and refused to engage the question. His non-answers conveyed indifference to the whole subject.
“We helped rebuild all those countries.”
One excuse that might be offered for Trump’s plan of destruction is that he would help repair what he destroyed. But in the briefing, he complained that in the past century, America hadn’t followed his “To the victor go the spoils” rule. In particular, he groused that “we didn’t have it with the Second World War. We helped rebuild all those countries. We rebuilt Germany.” His tone conveyed regret about the reconstruction.
ON TOP OF HIS COMMENTS about theft and civilian targets, the president added one more chilling statement:
“We want Greenland.”
Advocates of the war in Iran often point out that the regime in Tehran has been particularly ruthless and destructive. That’s true. But it doesn’t justify American war crimes. And Trump’s behavior since he returned to power shows that a war criminal doesn’t confine his predation to one country. By Wednesday night, he was already sniffing for fresh prey. “Our great Military is Loading Up,” he announced, and “looking forward, actually, to its next Conquest.”
At the end of his press briefing on Iran, the president circled back to his anger at NATO. “It all began with, if you want to know the truth, Greenland,” he fumed. “We want Greenland. They don’t want to give it to us. And I said, ‘Bye-bye.’”
On Wednesday, he returned to that grievance. “NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM,” he wrote. “REMEMBER GREENLAND.”
We’re lucky that this thug has aimed his fire, for now, at a truly pernicious government. Next time we might not be so lucky.
I always love Will's work. His analysis is always sharp, but just the fact of compiling all these statements in one place is tremendously helpful--it's so easy to miss them, forget them, or become numb to them. I really appreciate it!
Perhaps Dems in Congress should just print Will's piece here to use in its impeachment, it's (as usual with Will) clear and concise.