US Visa Denial to Palestinian President and the Assault on International Law: A Challenge to the UN

The United States’ decision to revoke the visas of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and 80 senior Palestinian Authority (PA) officials is more than a diplomatic slight – it is a direct challenge to international law and the very principles on which the United Nations is built. As the host country to the UN’s New York headquarters, the United States is legally obligated under the 1947 UN–US Headquarters Agreement to permit access to accredited UN delegates.

However, the US has opted to sidestep its treaty responsibilities by invoking loosely defined national security concerns.

The move comes at a time when the UN General Assembly is preparing to take up the question of Palestinian statehood, with countries such as the UK, France, Australia, and Canada expected to formally recognise Palestine. Abbas was scheduled to address the Assembly and participate in a summit co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia on a two-state solution. By denying entry to the Palestinian delegation, the Trump administration has sought to silence one side of the debate and tilt the field in Israel’s favour.

This is not an isolated act. It reflects a clearer pattern of arrogant diplomacy under Trump, one that undermines the authority of the UN, weakens international institutions, and openly favours the agenda of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Washington’s bias and Netanyahu’s war

The US State Department’s explanation for the visa restrictions bore striking similarities to rhetoric frequently used by Israeli officials: “Before the PLO and PA can be considered partners for peace, they must consistently repudiate terrorism – including the October 7 massacre – and end incitement to terrorism in education,” it said.

No mention was made of Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza, where more than 63,000 Palestinians have been killed – most of them civilians – 150,000 injured, and millions displaced. Gaza City, previously a bustling centre of life, has been devastated. According to UN reports, famine conditions have emerged, with Israel accused of obstructing aid deliveries. Netanyahu has intensified the offensive, ordering troops to storm Gaza City. His government flatly rejects any role for the PA in Gaza and denounces international recognition of Palestine as “rewarding terrorism.”

The U.S. ban on Abbas is therefore not about terrorism or peace. It is about shielding Israel from accountability at a critical moment. By denying Palestinian leaders access to the UN, Washington hopes to stifle momentum for recognition of Palestine and protect Netanyahu’s war strategy. This is not impartial diplomacy, it is complicity.

Undermining international law

The legal picture is clear. Under the 1947 Headquarters Agreement, the United States must permit entry to all UN-recognised representatives – whether member states, observers, or official invitees – irrespective of bilateral political disagreements. Palestine, though a non-member observer state, falls under this protection when invited to participate in official UN events.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has addressed similar disputes before. In the late 1980s, when the US denied Yasser Arafat a visa to attend the General Assembly, the UN was forced to convene its meeting in Geneva. The ICJ confirmed that the US is bound by the Headquarters Agreement and that disputes over its interpretation must be referred to binding arbitration under Section 21. The Court rejected Washington’s arguments about expediency and insisted that treaty obligations cannot be overridden by domestic laws or political convenience.

In the current case, the U.S. is invoking a 2014 amendment to its Foreign Relations Authorisation Act, which permits visa denials to officials accused of terrorism or espionage. But this law cannot lawfully supersede international treaty obligations. If the Headquarters Agreement is binding – and it is, both internationally and under U.S. law – then the American decision is a violation. By ignoring its treaty commitments, Washington not only undermines the credibility of the UN system but also sends a message to the world that its own laws stand above international law.

International response and complicity

The Palestinian Authority has condemned the US action as a breach of its duties as host country. European leaders have also voiced concern, pointing out that America’s conduct directly contravenes the Headquarters Agreement. UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric said it was essential for all states and permanent observers to be represented at the Assembly.

However despite criticism, many powerful nations remain silent or hesitant. Washington’s allies in Europe – though preparing to recognise Palestine – are unlikely to escalate the dispute with the US beyond diplomatic protest. Arab powers have condemned the move, but their influence within the UN system is limited.

This silence is troubling. It reflects how deeply entrenched US power is within the UN framework. Year after year, the U.S. uses its position as host country to bend international processes to its will, while other nations protest without consequence. The result is a weakened multilateral system, unable to stand up to one of its own members – even when treaty law is being openly violated.

Trump’s self-serving diplomacy

The visa ban is part of a broader pattern in the Trump administration’s foreign policy: contempt for international law, disdain for multilateral institutions, and blatant favouritism towards allies like Israel. From withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal, to cutting funds to UN agencies, Trump has consistently treated international agreements as disposable.

In this case, the arrogance is even more blatant. By denying visas to Palestinian leaders, the US is not just undermining negotiations; it is trying to erase the Palestinian voice from the global stage. This is a direct assault on the principle of equal representation, the very foundation of the UN.

Other examples highlight this reckless use of visa policy as a political weapon. The State Department has denied entry to Iranian diplomats, Cuban officials, Sudanese representatives, and even artists critical of Israel. In each case, the rationale is “national security,” but the real motive is political convenience.

The case for moving the UN Assembly

If the US continues to abuse its position as host country, then the UN must seriously consider alternatives. If a majority of member states agree and appropriate notice is given (typically 120 days), the General Assembly can legally convene in a location other than New York. This seems to be a challenge now, given the scheduled dates of the meeting. Geneva has been used before, in 1988, when Arafat was denied a US visa. Other European capitals – Vienna, Brussels, or Berlin – could also serve as neutral venues, free from American leverage.

Relocating the Assembly, even temporarily, would send a strong message: no single state can dictate who may or may not take part in the UN’s work. It would restore confidence in the UN’s neutrality and ensure that all parties, including the Palestinians, can be heard.

More importantly, moving the venue would be a symbolic step toward addressing the deeper issue: the denial of Palestinian rights and the repeated undermining of the two-state solution. Without a voice at the UN, Palestinians are effectively silenced in the one forum meant to guarantee equal participation for all.

Defending the future of international law

The American denial of visas to the Palestinian delegation is not a minor bureaucratic matter. It is a direct challenge to international law, a violation of a binding treaty, and a blow to the credibility of the United Nations. By siding openly with Israel and silencing Palestinian leaders, Washington has once again revealed its bias and disregard for the principles of multilateral diplomacy.

The world cannot ignore this. Other countries must speak up, challenge the legality of US’s actions, and consider shifting UN meetings to more neutral ground. Geneva and other European capitals have hosted before, and they can again.

If the UN is to remain a forum for all peoples, not just for those approved by Washington, it must act decisively. To remain silent is to accept a dangerous precedent: that the host country can rewrite the rules of international law at will.

The struggle for Palestinian statehood will not be resolved in New York alone. But denying Palestinian leaders even the chance to speak at the UN undermines the very idea of a peaceful, just, and equal international order. If the UN is serious about its mission, it must stand up now, for Palestine, for international law, and for its own survival.

K.M. Seethi is Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension (IUCSSRE), Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU), Kerala. He also served as Senior Professor of International Relations and Dean of Social Sciences at MGU

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.