On November 12, 2025, an extraordinary diplomatic ripple was set in motion when U.S. President Donald Trump penned a letter to Israeli President Isaac Herzog, urging him to grant a full pardon to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The letter, which was made public by Herzog’s office the same day, has thrust the Israeli justice system and the nation’s political landscape into the global spotlight—while also raising eyebrows about the appropriateness of such a direct intervention from a sitting American president.
Trump’s letter—its tone unmistakably urgent—called Netanyahu “a formidable and decisive War Time Prime Minister, and now leading Israel into a time of peace.” In his words, the prosecution of Netanyahu was, “a political, unjustified prosecution,” echoing sentiments he’s voiced before about the Israeli leader’s legal troubles. According to reporting from the Presidency of Israel and Getty Images, Trump went further, praising Netanyahu’s partnership in countering Iran and advancing regional peace, and describing the charges against him as the product of political motivation rather than legal merit.
For context, Netanyahu is currently on trial in three separate cases dating back to 2019, facing charges of fraud, bribery, and breach of trust. The allegations include accepting gifts valued at nearly 700,000 shekels (about $211,000) from businessmen, among other accusations. Netanyahu has consistently denied all wrongdoing, pleading not guilty and maintaining his innocence both in court and in the public eye. As BBC and Reuters have previously noted, this makes Netanyahu the first sitting Israeli prime minister to face a criminal trial while in office—a fact that has cast a long shadow over Israeli politics since the trial began in May 2020.
The Israeli presidency, while largely ceremonial, does carry the constitutional power to grant pardons under exceptional circumstances. However, as Herzog’s office clarified in its response, there are strict procedures that must be followed. “Anyone seeking a pardon must submit a request in accordance with established procedures,” the office stated, according to the Presidency of Israel. As of November 12, 2025, no such formal request has been submitted by Netanyahu, his legal team, or his family.
Despite the limitations of his authority, Herzog’s office was careful to recognize Trump’s stature and support. The Israeli presidency said it holds Trump “in high regard” and appreciates his “unwavering support” for Israel, but also pointedly noted that the law applies equally to everyone, regardless of their political connections or international backing.
Trump’s intervention has not gone unnoticed among Israeli politicians, sparking an immediate and highly polarized response. Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir wasted no time in endorsing Trump’s call, urging Herzog on social media to “listen to President Trump,” and labeling Netanyahu’s indictments as “a disgrace.” Ben-Gvir’s support reflects a segment of Israeli society that views the ongoing prosecution as a politically motivated attack on a wartime leader. It’s a perspective that Trump himself has amplified repeatedly, including in a June 2025 post on Truth Social, where he called the legal pursuit of Netanyahu a “ridiculous witch hunt.”
On the other side of the aisle, opposition leader Yair Lapid pushed back, reminding both Trump and Herzog that Israeli law requires an admission of guilt before a pardon can even be considered. Lapid’s stance underscores the procedural and ethical barriers that any such pardon would face, regardless of external pressure or international opinion. As Lapid put it, the rule of law must be maintained, even when the stakes—and the players—involved are as prominent as Netanyahu and Trump.
This is not the first time Trump has spoken publicly in defense of Netanyahu. In fact, his call for a pardon was also made during his address to the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, on October 13, 2025. During that speech, Trump gestured toward Netanyahu and said, “This man is a good man right here. I have an idea. Mr president, why don’t you give him a pardon?” He later admitted, “That was not in the speech, as you probably know. But I happen to like this gentleman right over here, and it just seems to make so much sense.” According to Getty Images and Reuters, the unscripted nature of the remark only added to the sense of unpredictability and controversy surrounding Trump’s involvement.
The backdrop to all this is a nation still reeling from the aftermath of the Israel-Iran conflict and the October 7, 2023, hostage crisis, events in which Netanyahu’s leadership was both lauded and criticized. Trump’s letter, therefore, arrives not just as a legal plea, but as a political statement—one that seeks to influence the direction of Israeli governance at a particularly sensitive time.
Legally, the process for obtaining a presidential pardon in Israel is quite clear. The accused, their legal team, or their family must submit a formal request. Only then does the president have the authority to consider the application. As BBC and Reuters both report, Herzog’s office has reiterated that this process cannot be bypassed, no matter who is making the request.
For Netanyahu, the stakes could not be higher. As Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, his political career has been defined by both remarkable resilience and persistent controversy. The ongoing trial, which began in May 2020, continues to loom over every aspect of his leadership. The charges—fraud, bribery, breach of trust—are serious, and the public debate over their legitimacy is as fierce as ever.
Trump’s letter, while dramatic, is unlikely to change the immediate legal realities facing Netanyahu. Without a formal request for a pardon, Herzog’s hands are tied. Yet the letter has injected new energy into the political debate, galvanizing supporters and critics alike. For some, it is a welcome show of solidarity from Israel’s most powerful ally. For others, it is an unwelcome intrusion—an attempt to undermine the independence of the Israeli judiciary and the rule of law.
As the trial grinds on, and as the political temperature in both Jerusalem and Washington continues to rise, one thing is clear: the intersection of law, politics, and international diplomacy has rarely been more vivid. Whether Trump’s intervention will have any lasting impact on Netanyahu’s fate remains to be seen, but for now, it has ensured that the eyes of the world remain fixed on Israel’s embattled prime minister, and on the legal and political institutions that will ultimately decide his future.
