Survivors of mass atrocities often face tremendous obstacles when seeking justice. They deserve to know that their suffering matters, that their stories will be heard and that accountability remains possible. Our work reflects a deep moral commitment to help ensure that victims are not left to carry their burdens alone.

However, crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide are often perpetrated by people with power, who seek every opportunity to evade, influence or crush judicial processes. The International Criminal Court stands out as one of the few venues where survivors can turn for accountability when all other avenues are blocked.

And now the Trump administration is seeking to cut off that avenue, too. On Oct. 9, in the clearest escalation to date of its contempt for the rule of law, the administration sanctioned the court. This move could put the court out of business altogether, taking with it the hopes of victims around the globe.

To protect victims’ access to justice, my organization, Human Rights Watch, together with the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Open Society Institute, are challenging the Trump administration’s sanctions before a U.S. court.

The sanctions follow from a 2025 Trump executive order authorizing financial sanctions on International Criminal Court officials and non-U.S. citizens and organizations that work with the International Criminal Court in cases his administration opposes. Under U.S. law, anyone in the U.S. who engages with sanctioned individuals or organizations is subject to severe financial penalties or even lengthy prison sentences.

We are challenging that order, calling on the U.S. court to block the entire sanctions regime. In a blatant abuse of power, Trump has labeled the court’s independent investigations a “national emergency,” citing its case against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Even before this escalation, three leading Palestinian human rights organizations, a top human rights expert at the United Nations and judges and prosecutors from the court are under U.S. sanctions.

The result has been restrictions on human rights work, a chilling effect on civil society and a direct threat to the critical work of the International Criminal Court. In addition to Palestine, the court has investigated heinous crimes in such wide-ranging places as the Philippines, Uganda, Sudan, Afghanistan and Ukraine.

Sanctioned individuals and groups have experienced frozen or closed bank accounts, loss of digital services and travel restrictions. The widened sanctions will only create additional harm.

As outrageous as it is that an independent court and respected international judges and prominent human rights defenders are being punished for advancing the cause of justice, the harm reaches far beyond the International Criminal Court and the people named on the sanctions list.

Our organizations work for human rights, justice and accountability in the U.S. and around the world, often in coalition. As the sanctions have been imposed, we have been forced to suspend our work with sanctioned parties. This has hampered our ability to provide legal representation to victims of war crimes, make submissions to the International Criminal Court and collaborate with the sanctioned Palestinian human rights groups on critical research, advocacy, humanitarian aid and human rights monitoring.

When organizations can’t coordinate or collaborate with one another, it harms our ability to advocate for the rights and dignity of the most vulnerable.

Only a couple of years ago, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, acted to support the International Criminal Court in its investigation of egregious crimes in Ukraine. But if justice is legitimate and welcomed only selectively, it is not justice. The rule of law requires acting based on evidence and legal standards, not power or political allegiance.

The court is not a perfect institution; no court is. Civil society organizations have often been among its most persistent critics, with a view toward ensuring that it lives up to its essential mandate. But engaging with the court — or critiquing it — is well within our constitutional and international human rights.

Let’s be clear: The First Amendment does not protect speech only when the government approves of the message or the messenger. Freedom of association means nothing if a president can punish U.S. citizens for associating with individuals and organizations with whom the U.S. government does not agree.

When people and organizations cannot communicate or associate freely, silence takes the place of accountability. Today, the target is support for justice before the International Criminal Court. Tomorrow, it could be work to end corruption, election abuses, torture, political imprisonment or other issues the U.S. government would prefer to keep beyond scrutiny.

That is why our organizations, with different histories, missions and constituencies, have come together in this case.

The question raised by this executive order is larger than the International Criminal Court itself and larger than any single political situation or conflict. It is a question of whether we believe all victims of atrocities deserve justice.

And it is a question of whether people in the U.S. remain free to work for justice when that work is politically inconvenient to those in power. That is a freedom that is worth defending.

Liz Evenson is international justice director at Human Rights Watch.