In advance of the midterms, Trump is blaming Kyiv for high gas prices while making clear moves to support Russia

As the US midterms approach, Donald Trump is abandoning Ukraine’s democracy in a desperate effort to deny responsibility for worsening inflation. Yet this past weekend’s dramatic elections in Brazil and Serbia show that voters can see through such subterfuge.

There is nothing like a political party’s corrupt indifference to the plight of ordinary people to galvanize voter turnout. If US voters follow in the footsteps of their Brazilian and Serbian counterparts, a Democratic landslide is likely.

Here’s what we need to do to stand up for international law

Many applauded when Navi Pillay was awarded the Nobel peace prize. The South African human rights lawyer had chaired the UN commission of inquiry that found Israel to have committed genocide in Gaza and served for five years as a judge on the international criminal court (ICC).

Donald Trump responded a few hours later by imposing sanctions on the ICC. He chose a moment for celebrating the rule of law to try to undermine it.

Kenneth Roth is a Guardian US columnist, a senior fellow at Yale University and a former executive director of Human Rights Watch. He is the author of Righting Wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments

Israel’s conduct in Gaza shows the danger of using AI in warfare. Humans must remain at the center of wartime decisions

As tech leaders warn about the threats of artificial intelligence, most conjure up images of AI agents running amok, such as hacking systems used to run our critical infrastructure, banks or even militaries. Yet one serious danger is mentioned less frequently – the threat posed by AI–empowered lethal weapons. Fully autonomous versions of these weapons are colloquially known as killer robots.

Israel’s conduct in Gaza shows that, in an important respect, such AI weapon systems are already here. An algorithm has been deciding who lives and who dies.

It is sad and dangerous that at such a perilous moment, the United States is saddled with a president like Trump

Donald Trump’s speech on Tuesday to the United Nations general assembly was an object lesson in his lawless rule and remarkable capacity for self-delusion. Disregarding the UN charter’s emphasis on the peaceful resolution of disputes, he doubled down on his violent unilateralism while denigrating the global issues that the UN is designed to address.

For many, the headline remark was his musing about whether to “annihilate the Islamic Republic” of Iran. “Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?”

Kenneth Roth is a Guardian US columnist, a senior fellow at Yale University and a former executive director of Human Rights Watch. He is the author of Righting Wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments

The reluctance of later administrations to repudiate Bush-era torture and endless detention laid the groundwork for recent violence

If George W Bush’s abusive response to the September 11 attacks had been prosecuted rather than swept under the rug, Donald Trump would be less able to pursue his lawless policies. We can’t rewind history, but we can learn from our historic failure.

Twenty-five years ago, on a clear and crisp morning, I was sitting in the Human Rights Watch office in the Empire State Building with an unobstructed view of the World Trade Center towers as al-Qaida operatives flew two commercial jets into them. The horror of the attack required a response, but Bush and his vice-president, Dick Cheney, chose to react by throwing out the rulebook. They deployed torture and endless detention without trial in Guantánamo.

The US is engaged in a lawless quest to protect American and Israeli officials

The Trump administration has taken another step in its crusade against the international criminal court by imposing sanctions on two more senior ICC officials. The growing number of sanctioned jurists – now 13 – does not change the lawless nature of this quest.

Donald Trump and his henchman, Marco Rubio, want to make the world safe for US and Israeli war criminals. No one should let them.

The FBI from the 1950s to the 1970s tried to infiltrate and discredit leftist organizations. Trump seems to be repeating that sordid practice

It is bad enough that the Trump administration blocked a federal criminal investigation when an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent killed Renee Good as she was turning her car away from him in Minneapolis the past January. Just before the shooting, Good and her partner had been observing and protesting against ICE officers.

Instead, it turns out the administration has been investigating progressive and even mainstream groups that have been involved in protests against Donald Trump’s sweeping deportations, according to newly released government documents.

The agreement offers the Saudis the same options Trump has sworn Iran will never have

The stark contrast between Donald Trump’s nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia and his nuclear demands for Iran would be comical if not so tragic. Trump has handed the Saudis the same nuclear options he swore Iran would never have.

To make matters worse, Trump seems to have offered the Saudis this sweetheart deal to make amends for his disastrous war of choice with Iran. Meanwhile, he continues to bomb Iran in a push to open the strait of Hormuz, which was not closed until Trump launched his counterproductive war.

Marco Rubio has offered nonsensical rationale in attacking the court. The Trump administration’s real goal is impunity

With the pointless war of choice in Iran going poorly, the Trump administration has declared a virtual war on the international criminal court (ICC). Secretary of state, Marco Rubio, vowed on Monday to “dismantle” the court as a supposed threat to US sovereignty. His rationale is laced with sophistry. The administration’s real goal is to secure impunity for war crimes, even those committed on the territory of ICC member states.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed and a video posted on X, Rubio conjures up a dystopia in which local American officials such as police officers or border patrol agents “could be dragged before an international court, tried by judges from random countries across the globe, found guilty under international laws we neither consent to nor control, and then imprisoned thousands of miles from America”.

The president has made dangerous inroads in his push toward autocracy. Yet the prospects for his success are dimming

How do we commemorate America’s democracy as Donald Trump undermines it? By embracing his opposition. The United States was founded by breaking from a monarchy. Trump wants to become king. An imperfect yet powerful system of checks and balances is being deployed to prevent him. The resistance is worth celebrating.

This is hardly the first challenge to US democracy. The early nation had no rights for Black people and no vote for women. It survived Jim Crow, the McCarthy era, and the “war on terror”. Yet there is no denying the seriousness of the threat posed by Trump.

The Iran war has accelerated the fraying of ties. An end to unconditional US support would force a reckoning with reality

A generational shift is under way in the relationship between the United States and Israel. Tensions were already palpable because of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Benjamin Netanyahu’s role in pushing Donald Trump to join a counterproductive war against Iran was the last straw.

Stopping unconditional US support for Israel would certainly be important for curbing US complicity in Israeli war crimes. It may also be the best thing for Israel if it is to have any hope of avoiding the dangerous dead end of relentless military escalation. And it is a prerequisite for Palestinians to have any prospect of escaping Israel’s endless occupation.

Kenneth Roth is a Guardian US columnist, visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs, and former executive director of Human Rights Watch. He is the author of Righting Wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments

The agreement shows the US is in a weaker position than before the war

No one gets a Nobel peace prize for ending a war he started, let alone for a pointless war of aggression that set back the causes that supposedly prompted the conflict. No amount of Donald Trump’s spin can obscure the fact that his newly announced deal with Iran is one big lesson in why this war should never have been launched.

The text of the deal, a 14-point memorandum of understanding, underscores its emptiness. The tyrants of Tehran are undoubtedly celebrating.

The US president’s war of choice has accomplished nothing and cost the world greatly

Donald Trump claims to have mastered the Art of the Deal, but he has just given us a master class in negotiating incompetence. I would love to see an Iranian government that no longer represses its people, menaces its neighbors, or can build a nuclear weapon. Trump has set back all of these efforts. His cabinet of sycophants offered little resistance as he naively bombed first and faced reality later.

Trump is reviewing and tinkering with a proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) drafted by American and Iranian diplomats with the aid of Pakistan and Qatar. It would continue the current ceasefire for 60 days while a more permanent peace accord is negotiated. The precise contours of this preliminary agreement are not known, but its gist seems clear – and is a profound embarrassment for Trump. His unprovoked war of choice has accomplished all of nothing. A new approach is urgently needed.

Karim Khan is wrong to say he has been exonerated of sexual misconduct. The case must proceed swiftly

The international criminal court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, has been on an exoneration tour, with stops including an interview with Mehdi Hasan and an appearance at the Oxford Union. Accused by a lawyer in his office of repeated sexual misconduct, which he denies, he claims that an internal review of the allegations has vindicated him but the situation is more complex than that.

It has been a year since Khan took a leave of absence while the claims against him were investigated as an internal employment matter. That absence has left the ICC under the control of his deputies, with important decisions to be taken in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, and elsewhere. Yet the ICC member states, which have ultimate authority over whether Khan stays or goes, have dawdled, acting as if they had all the time in the world. And the procedure that they relied on to resolve the matter turned out to be a travesty.

Kenneth Roth is a Guardian US columnist, visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs, and former executive director of Human Rights Watch. He is the author of Righting Wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments. Before joining Human Rights Watch, he served as a federal prosecutor in New York and Washington

As US elections approach, the Hungarian prime minister’s loss is a reminder that history does not march relentlessly toward autocracy

Viktor Orbán’s electoral loss was a slap in the face for Donald Trump and JD Vance, who had enthusiastically endorsed Europe’s most visible autocrat but proved unable to salvage his candidacy. But Hungarian voters’ 12 April rejection of Orbán also holds important lessons for Americans who hope to resist Trump’s own autocratic tendencies. As the November midterm elections approach, here are a few takeaways:

Prioritize opposition unity. Orbán was defeated by a broad coalition led by Péter Magyar under the banner of his new Tisza party. The opposition’s unity mattered. As some Democrats remain wedded to purity tests, refusing to make common cause with people who reject one or more progressive tenets, Hungarians from across the political spectrum joined hands in the shared goal of defeating Orbán. For them, the debate between right and left paled in importance compared to the need to redeem Hungary’s democracy. Some political parties even refrained from fielding candidates, sacrificing their immediate interests to avoid dividing the anti-Orbán vote.

The military approach has backfired, with Iran’s position only strengthened. But the door is still open to a deal

Donald Trump was quick to declare victory over Iran, but this weekend’s negotiations suggest that Tehran has the upper hand. His war of choice has backfired. His military solution has emboldened rather than weakened Iran. Diplomacy is his only reasonable option.

Trump may have hoped that the marathon 16-hour talks in Pakistan would extract him from his self-created quagmire, but the issues that have long divided Washington and Tehran are complex. When it turned out that Iran wanted to negotiate rather than capitulate, JD Vance, who led the US diplomatic team, packed his bags and went home.

Kenneth Roth is a Guardian US columnist, visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs, and former executive director of Human Rights Watch. He is the author of Righting Wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments

There is no question that Trump’s threats, if carried out, would amount to war crimes. The international justice system is positioned to act

Donald Trump is openly threatening war crimes in Iran because he apparently thinks he can get away with them. Sadly, the US supreme court has given him reason to believe in his impunity within the United States. But there are international options for prosecution that lie beyond the court’s lawless license. They are not easy to exercise, but the terrible precedent of the world’s most powerful president openly flouting international humanitarian law should compel action.

There is no doubt that Trump is contemplating war crimes. As part of his plan to bomb Iran “back to the stone ages” and wipe out a “whole civilization”, Trump has threatened to destroy such civilian infrastructure as desalination plants, electrical-generating facilities and bridges.

The US president couldn’t give a single coherent reason for why this aggressive war of choice must still be prosecuted

Donald Trump’s self-congratulatory speech on Iran on Wednesday night was as puzzling as it was divorced from reality. I had hoped he would declare victory and end the war. Some feared he might provide cover for a ground invasion. Instead, he told us in essence to be patient, that he is almost done, but he was utterly unclear about what more there is to accomplish.

If there was ever a purpose to the war, it was to curtail Iran’s capacity to develop a nuclear weapon. Trump harped on that goal repeatedly in his speech, noting that he had long vowed that he “would never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon”. But he didn’t mention that Iran has long agreed to eschew a nuclear weapon. If that is the only goal, this entire war has been pointless.

Richard Nixon’s strategy was about shielding his own reputation. Now Trump needs a face-saving exit of his own

Donald Trump’s struggle to justify continuing his war with Iran reminds me of Richard Nixon’s quest for “peace with honor” in Vietnam. Nixon caused years of death and suffering in pursuit of his elusive goal. How much more devastation will Trump inflict before he cuts his losses and calls off this pointless conflict?

Nixon first called for “an honorable end” to the war in his acceptance speech at the 1968 Republican national convention. It became a centerpiece of his presidential campaign and his presidency. As it became clear that the South Vietnamese government could not survive US withdrawal from the war, Nixon sought to defend Washington’s credibility, cynically understood as a decent interval between America’s departure and Saigon’s collapse.

Instead of regime change, all the bombing has produced so far is regime reinforcement and no end in sight

With the US-Israeli bombing of Iran now in its third week, its costs are mounting, its purpose is increasingly muddled and potential off-ramps have become frustratingly elusive. Yet rather than succumb to despair, we should urgently press for this destructive war to end.

Iran never engaged in an actual or imminent attack that would justify a war of self-defense. The best that Donald Trump could muster was an argument of prevention – that Iran’s missile program and capacity to disrupt the Middle East must be curtailed, along with its ability to build a nuclear weapon. But the UN charter does not permit armed attacks for mere preventive purposes; that would open the door to endless armed conflicts. And even by the standard of Trump’s inadequate justification for war, his bombing has been a fiasco.