Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s vow to dismantle the International Criminal Court “brick by brick” deliberately omits the court’s active pursuit of Israeli leaders, Drop Site News journalist Julian Andreone told The Young Turks in an interview. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Rubio attacked the ICC as a tool of “leftist” NGOs and “hostile third world governments” without once mentioning Israel, even though the tribunal has outstanding arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in Gaza. Andreone described the administration’s posture as “a win-win” because both the U.S. and Israel are engaged in military operations that experts say violate international humanitarian law, including strikes on desalination plants, telecommunications towers and civilian infrastructure.
Andreone pressed members of Congress on Rubio’s threats, capturing blunt responses that underscored a bipartisan reluctance to constrain U.S. or Israeli military conduct. Arizona Republican Rep. Abe Hamadeh told him the United States “doesn’t have to really abide” by international bodies, while Democratic Rep. Jared Golden — the sole Democrat to vote against a war powers resolution that could have curtailed U.S. involvement — expressed confidence that the U.S. military only hits “legitimate targets.” When Andreone cited civilian infrastructure and a girls’ school reportedly struck in Gaza, the congressman said he simply did not like the ICC and wanted it gone. Andreone argued that lawmakers routinely deflect questions about American or Israeli actions by demanding condemnations of Iran, revealing an expectation that reporters, like politicians, carry water for a particular government. “I only pursue the truth,” Andreone said, asserting that the U.S. and Israel are “killing civilians en masse” outside the rules of war.
The interview also examined the state of journalism itself. Andreone defended the adversarial approach that saw him go viral for asking Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez whether she would halt all military aid to Israel, a question that triggered backlash from some on the left. He said Drop Site is committed to “the truth,” not any party or ideology, and is funded by readers rather than corporate interests. Host Ana Kasparian praised a similarly combative interview by Drop Site’s Jeremy Scahill with Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, calling it a model of accountability at a moment when legacy media often acts as a public-relations arm for power. Both agreed that independent outlets are filling a void left by a corporatized news cycle. “Our democracy is crumbling,” Andreone said, “and we’ll be the last one standing.”
Make sure you’re getting your news from a reliable source. If you’re tired of being fed someone else’s narrative, we highly recommend checking out Ground News. Using our link gets you 40% off the Ground News Vantage plan, and you can also gift a subscription directly through Ground News!
Full Interview Transcript:
Ana Kasparian: You just watched a young Drop Site News reporter, Julian Andreone. You might have caught some of his viral moments with lawmakers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the question of military funding for Israel. Luckily, Julian is with us today to talk about the work he’s doing for Drop Site News and the way he questions members of Congress—tough questions that longtime veterans of legacy media refuse to ask. Julian, wonderful to have you on the show. Welcome.
Julian Andreone: Thank you so much for having me. It’s really an honor.
Ana Kasparian: It’s my pleasure, and I love the work you’re doing. I love that you’re asking the right questions. To give the audience a little more info on this Marco Rubio ICC issue, The Wall Street Journal reported that Marco Rubio says we’re going to dismantle the International Criminal Court. Rubio wrote, “The ICC is backed and run by a powerful network of leftist non-government organizations, smug globalists, and hostile third-world governments united by their enmity toward the United States. Using all the tools at our government’s disposal, working beside every ally with whom we can make common cause, we will dismantle the ICC brick by brick if necessary.” He goes on to explain that the ICC has clashed with the Trump administration, probably because the ICC prosecutes war crimes. But what he does not mention is more revealing: Rubio never brings up Israel even once in his op-ed. And that’s what this is really about.
The ICC currently has active arrest warrants—as we learned through the whole ICC debacle—for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The ICC is also allegedly preparing an arrest warrant for Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. None of that was mentioned in what Marco Rubio wrote. It probably won’t surprise you to hear who’s thrilled about Rubio’s announcement. He says, “The International Criminal Court seeks to become the unaccountable arbiter of a new global law, empowered to prosecute and arrest our citizens and will existentially threaten American sovereignty.” That’s funny. That same argument was regurgitated by Trump’s pathetic lawyer, Jenna Ellis, during a debate I had with her on Piers Morgan Uncensored today. She didn’t want to get into Israeli war crimes, so she said, “This is about Trump. They’re coming after Trump.” I don’t think that’s what this is really about. I think this is about dismantling the ICC to carry out Israel’s bidding yet again. I’m curious what you think.
Julian Andreone: It’s basically a win-win for the Trump administration, because the US is committing war crimes and Israel’s entire military operation is based on committing war crimes—striking desalination plants, as I mentioned in that interview, but also striking telecommunications towers, buildings housing civilians, which is a huge issue. Members of Congress are carrying water for the Israeli government, and whenever they criticize others or accuse them of carrying water for the Iranian government, it’s just projection. It doesn’t surprise me that all these people shy away from mentioning Israel, because it’s becoming increasingly indefensible even for the people who are paid off by that country.
I mean, you even saw during the Epstein file release that Marco Rubio was essentially given $5 million by Larry Ellison. He was emailing with a friend or colleague and said, “Hey, I’m going to go check out Marco Rubio, make sure he’s all good.” They met with him, left, and he said he’s good. And he donated the $5 million. These people—it’s predictable. You can see it years in advance.
Ana Kasparian: That’s exactly right. And so you took it upon yourself to ask members of Congress about what Marco Rubio was threatening to do to the ICC. By the way, I do want to note that the ICC does successfully prosecute world leaders and military leaders who have committed war crimes. It is not lost on me that most of them happen to come from African countries. That stands out. Obviously, I think it’s better to have the ICC than not, but when it comes to violations of international law, it does seem like most prosecutions are focused on a very specific group of people while others literally get away with murder. But you did take it upon yourself to ask members of Congress. I want everyone to watch a little more from your reporting. Take a look.
Video clip (from Julian Andreone’s reporting):
Congressman: “United States, you know, we are the greatest superpower that’s ever known to humankind, and we don’t have to really abide by some of these ICC left-wing Soros-affiliated groups that infiltrate the courts over there. That might be the viewpoint of the ICC, but I think in general I have confidence that the United States military hits legitimate targets when there’s war. So desalination—I don’t have any comments on that. I’ve got to get going. But thank you anyway.”
Julian Andreone: “Okay. Thanks.”
Congressman: “I think the president’s been very clear that he’s not going to tolerate Iran killing American soldiers and has responded accordingly.”
Julian Andreone: “And you think that would justify bombing civilian infrastructure?”
Congressman: “Well, listen, there’s a lot that goes into this stuff. The details matter. It’s not legitimate. Let’s just get rid of it.”
Julian Andreone: “The US has been striking desalination plants, telecommunications towers, bridges—those would under international law—”
Congressman: “Let’s get rid of the ICC. I don’t think they should even truly exist. I don’t like them.”
Julian Andreone: “Do you think we should be able to commit war crimes?”
Congressman: “Listen, war is war.”
Ana Kasparian: Julian, what stands out to me with the various responses you got from Republican lawmakers—and it’s not just Republican lawmakers, it’s Congress overall—they’re not sending their best. “I don’t like them. Get rid of them.” What is that?
Julian Andreone: There are a couple things there. Number one, Marco Rubio in his op-ed said the ICC is acting as this sovereign body that prosecutes crimes. That’s what international law is—you erect an international body that enforces laws across countries so there isn’t bias in enforcing them. Abe Hamadeh, the representative from Arizona in that clip, in much more blunt terms said the US doesn’t have to abide by the law: “We are the greatest power on earth and we don’t really have to follow all of these international bodies. We get to do what we want.”
After that, there’s a clip from Jared Golden, a Democrat. Note that on one of the War Powers resolutions, it failed 214 to 213. He was the one Democrat who voted against the War Powers Resolution. The war could have been ended earlier, but he was the deciding vote and voted with all the Republicans to prolong the war. Now he’s not running for reelection. There’s a Bernie Sanders-endorsed candidate up there, Matt Dunlap, running in Maine’s second district. Golden said, “I’m confident that the US military strikes legitimate targets.” What about the girls’ school that was struck, killing 65 girls? “I don’t like them. Get rid of them.” You just don’t like the ICC, so you can just disband them—even if the United States government strikes legitimate targets, except for the girls’ school, the telecommunications towers, the desalination plants. It’s ridiculous.
Ana Kasparian: It is ridiculous. And look, the United States through various conflicts and wars, certainly after 9/11, has committed all sorts of war crimes and violated international law. We’re not signatories to the ICC, I get that. And I get how weak the ICC is, because it’s a sovereign international body that doesn’t really have a real enforcement mechanism. If you’re someone like Netanyahu, who has an ICC warrant out for your arrest, and he travels to certain countries that are part of the ICC agreement, that country could arrest him. So there are some consequences potentially. Yet it’s incredible to me that Israel is so sensitive that even knowing how weak the ICC is in enforcing international law, they’re still getting Rubio to threaten the ICC. They’re getting Rubio to write his cutesy little op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. It’s so pathetic. And more than anything, it’s embarrassing for Americans on the international stage, because it’s very clear we are not a superpower when a tiny little foreign country manipulates our government like this. But aside from that, are we really a superpower when we just showed the entire world our asses? What I mean by that is we’re running low on missile interceptors. We’re running low on missiles, period. Drone warfare has advanced to the point where cheap little drones do a number on our military assets. We are actually creating the type of environment, in my opinion, that makes the United States less safe. So this whole notion that we can go around the world doing whatever we want is a total illusion. At some point, I am concerned that the chickens are coming home to roost. Is there anyone in Congress you’ve spoken to who shares a similar concern?
Julian Andreone: Yeah, I think there are some people, but it’s quite few and far between. Ilhan Omar would be one of them. She talks about this pretty bluntly. I’ve heard Ro Khanna talk about it. But they tend to be from that wing of the party and very specifically so. There’s something really interesting to point out from the interviews we spliced into that compilation: Whenever I bring up that the US is committing war crimes or that Israel is committing war crimes, the immediate response from the member, whether it’s a Republican or a pro-Israel Democrat, is to say, “Do you condemn that the Iranians did X? Do you condemn that the Iranians hung protesters in the street?” My answer is usually yes. Then I ask, “Do you condemn that we’re striking desalination plants?” And the reason they ask that question and are surprised—like you saw with Dan Meuser, who froze up when I said yes—is because they expect other people are beholden to governments in the same way they are. They think, “Because I carry water for the Israeli government and defend everything they do, and because I carry water for the US government and defend everything they do, this reporter criticizing those governments must carry water for another government.” No, I only pursue the truth. I am only after the truth. And the truth is the US and Israel are killing civilians en masse, and they are not operating within the rules of war. War is horrible as it is, but if you’re not operating within international law while conducting a war, that’s even worse. When I ask about it, they’re shocked because, as you mentioned at the beginning of the show, all the other reporters from legacy media outlets and corporate papers and stations—I’m shocked by it—they’re not asking any questions about the war or the way the US and Israel have been carrying it out. Maybe that’s because Axel Springer’s constitution was signed by all those political journalists, requiring them to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
Ana Kasparian: Well, you do ask important and provocative questions. I think other members of the media are worried about losing access. They might also just agree with what the politicians are doing, so they don’t want to challenge them. Do you think Jake Tapper is going to ask tough, challenging questions about whether Israel is pushing us into a war against Iran on their behalf? Of course not. Same with Dana Bash. Bash fairly recently had Netanyahu on, and Netanyahu basically tried to launder Israeli settlers who have been raining terror on Palestinians in the West Bank. She didn’t even challenge him on it. It was disgusting.
Going back to you and how you’re doing your job and how you’re being received, I’m curious about something very specific. You went viral after you asked Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez whether she would stop providing aid to Israel. That led to a firestorm because I made a snarky comment basically telling her, “Why don’t you keep sending them more money for weapons?” I was referring to defensive capabilities, which I don’t think we should be providing any money for. Would you agree to send defensive capabilities to Nazis? No, I don’t think so. But anyway, that went mega viral. It led to some backlash toward AOC, but I also got some backlash for calling AOC out for previously supporting defensive military aid to Israel. I’m curious what kind of response or reaction you’ve received as the reporter.
Julian Andreone: Quite a bit of the same. There are people on the left—I’m not talking about politicians, I’m talking about politically involved people—who are operating the same way MAGA does sometimes, where they latch on to a personality or a party and defend anything the party does. So if I ask a tough question to somebody on the left, when people perceive that to be “my team”—which I don’t even really believe—they criticize me for asking the question. I had one account—I’m not going to say because I don’t want to put them on blast, they’re relatively small—but they said it was disgusting that I would ask that question of her. It’s an account that generally supports our work. When we’re asking tough questions of Republicans or pro-Israel Democrats, what a lot of people can’t wrap their head around is that Drop Site News is committed to the truth. We are not committed to any ideology. We’re not committed to any party, any politician. We are the news source that gives you honest information. We’re going to dig into the details where people don’t want us looking. We’re going to ask the questions people don’t want us asking, because our purpose is rooted in the principles that define this profession. It is one of the tenets of our democracy, and our democracy is crumbling, and we’ll be the last one standing if that’s the only thing we do.
Ana Kasparian: I love it. I love it, and I think your work definitely proves it. Just to give an example to our audience: I was away at the time this happened, but I watched the exchange between Jeremy Scahill and Congressman Ro Khanna. Just to preface this, out of the Democratic politicians in the House, Ro Khanna might be my favorite at the moment—among my favorites. I love the fact that Ro is willing to put himself in a challenging environment where he’s going to be asked incredibly difficult questions. He’s been on our show multiple times. I remember during the whole Build Back Better debate, he did something I totally disagreed with. I brought him on the show, and I was not polite—I was very tough on him. But he came back after that, and I respect that. That being said, we’re living in an environment of such crappy journalism that it was so jarring for so many people to witness Jeremy Scahill do his job and pose difficult, challenging questions about military aid to Israel. Ro struggled a little bit. I think Ro is where I was maybe three months after the genocide in Gaza had started. What happens throughout the months, throughout the years of genocide, is you become more and more open to the truth. And the truth is really hard to accept. It is hard to accept that a longtime US ally has been such a detriment to the American people and to our country. It’s hard to accept that we have been funding war crimes, and this belligerent state has been using our weapons and our money to commit crimes against humanity. But that is what’s happening. So it is important for someone like Jeremy to ask the types of questions he did. Of course he got a lot of backlash from the very crappy journalists who probably felt a little jealous that, “Hey, that’s what I was supposed to be doing, but I’m doing the opposite. I’m providing PR to politicians who are failing us, whereas Jeremy Scahill is challenging them.” That’s what journalism is supposed to be, in my view. I really appreciate what you guys are doing at Drop Site, and I want to give you an opportunity to plug some of your work and give us some final thoughts.
Julian Andreone: I wanted to touch on that last thing about Jeremy. Jeremy is an incredible journalist, and he is so dedicated to the facts. He’s also been around all of these people who are suffering the consequences of war crimes, of genocide, of ethnic cleansing, of forced displacement. I think that anger you saw, that passion that came out of him, is passion he has felt and that’s been festering. It is towards the Israeli government, towards the United States—these entities that have been inflicting that type of violence on people he’s grown to know and perhaps even love, and certainly report on. These are people whose stories he’s hearing every day. They’re being vulnerable with him. I think that’s what that was coming from. I don’t think he was angry at Ro Khanna or anything, but I do think he did his job quite well there, and I do think Ro took it well. Journalism, as you said, is sort of a lost art. As soon as the 24-hour news cycle started, advertisers got in, conglomerates started swallowing up all the outlets and papers, and now news is fully corporate. Media is controlled by the very corporate interests they’re supposed to be reporting on and holding accountable. That’s one of the things that’s really encouraging about independent media springing up like Drop Site. We don’t have any corporate bosses. We don’t have any donors trying to steer our coverage. We’re funded by our readers. It is so rewarding to hear from our readers, to have them reach out, to have them suggest questions, because we know we’re being accountable to the people we’re doing it for.
With regard to plugging work, you can go to dropsitenews.com. Our subscription is free. There’s also a paid subscription for $99 a year—that’s less than 25 cents a day. For me personally, my Twitter is just my full name, Julian Andreone, and my Instagram is TheJulianAndreone because the former was taken. I really appreciate everybody at The Young Turks. I was a viewer for a long time in high school. You and Cenk were a big part of my introduction into becoming passionate about politics, and to be on the show is a total honor. I’m really grateful for you guys.
Ana Kasparian: Well, it’s an honor to have you. Just one word of advice: Drop Site is still a bit of a startup; it’s got that startup feel. These are the halcyon days. Savor it. Trust me.
