It wasn’t a surprise, but nevertheless, the Executive Order imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) are a deeply troubling development. As Amnesty International’s Agnes Callemard put it, the order “is vindictive. It is aggressive. It is a brutal step that seeks to undermine and destroy what the international community has painstakingly constructed over decades… The sanctions constitute another betrayal of our common humanity.”

It is difficult to know what to do when so much of what we care about and advocate for is under attack. What are we supposed to do? How do we protect the institutions that accountability advocates worked so hard to create – often against the odds? The threats posed by the Trump administration – whether punitive tariffs, arbitrary pauses on foreign aid, or attacks on the ICC – can leave us with a feeling of impending and paralyzing doom. But there are things that can be done to protect and promote institutions like the ICC. While far from perfect and undoubtedly in need of some reform, the Court is worthy of protection from efforts to kneecap and destroy it. In that spirit, here are some things that states and proponents of the institution can do as it faces a potentially existential threat from the U.S.

Hold firm. American decision-making often has the effect of taking all of the oxygen out of the room. President Trump, in particular, has a penchant for ‘flooding the field’: saying and doing multiple atrocious, racist, or hurtful things, in order to fragment media and diplomatic attention. But the ICC must not be deterred by the Trump administration’s bullying. While it may be easier said than done, the Court should not be deterred from continuing its work in the face of Washington’s threats. Its warrants for Israeli leaders are based on firm and compelling evidence. Its investigations into Palestine and Afghanistan are on solid ground. Backing down and showing weakness – especially against Trump – would only leave the Court more exposed to intimidation and vulnerable to interference.

The Court’s staff should likewise remember that when American frustration towards the ICC is at its greatest, that antipathy signals to the rest of the world – which, it should go without saying, matters as much as the United States – that the Court is challenging a political status quo where might is right and Washington can stomp on the rules-based international order when it so pleases. The fact that Trump and his sycophants are so hysterically and unreasonably upset with the ICC is a symptom of the Court’s success, not its failure.

Rally around the Court and its mission. The ICC is far from perfect. It is entirely legitimate and natural to criticize its decisions. But member-states and advocates need to remind themselves and others that the Court is a global achievement worth promoting and protecting, warts and all. It remains the only permanent international court capable of investigating and prosecuting international crimes. It has a role to play in contexts of political violence and it continues to have purchase for states whose civilians have faced atrocity crimes, as demonstrated by the recent decisions of Ukraine and Armenia to join the ICC.

Relatedly, member-states and proponents need to remind the United States who is being hurt and who is benefittingfrom Trump’s sanctions. Palestinian victims are not the only ones legitimately asking that the Court investigate atrocities committed against them. Israeli families of hostages have done so too. Their calls for ICC action have come alongside those of Ukrainians, Venezuelans, and Burmese victims and survivors of mass atrocities. As I’ve written before, every time a new coercive measure is imposed against the ICC, American policymakers should be forced to hear from Ukrainian, Rohingya, and Venezuelan victims and survivors of atrocities. They too will be hurt by sanctions against the ICC.

Protect the court and its staff. Member-states of the ICC need to take strong action to insulate the ICC from the effects of sanctions. There have been reports that staff are backing up evidence for fear that they will no longer be able to use Microsoft. For the time being, the sanctions are targeted at individuals and not the Court as a whole. But if states are in possession of are tools that the Court can use to protect its evidence (including witnesses), they should offer them to ICC staff. If they have not done so already, states – especially those in Europe, where the Court and most of its staff are based – should likewise establish legal carve-outs for European banks and financial institutions to ensure that they are not required to comply with American sanctions. There are precedents for this, and such exemptions are critical to ensuring that staff can get paid and continue to do the work they need to do to investigate and prosecute international crimes.

Diversify sources of support and evidence. Given how much I have written about it, it may seem odd of me to claim that the United States’ relationship with the ICC gets too much attention. But it’s true. The ICC has always had a rollercoaster of a relationship with Washington, and there is no reason to believe that won’t continue. The Court needs to wean itself off of the notion that America is a reliable ally. Trump’s opposition therefore represents something of an opportunity to democratize support of the Court. The institution’s staff should go on a full-court press seeking support from member-states and prospective member-states across the world, and engage directly in groups like the “Hague Group”, created by states to defend the ICC and International Court of Justice. Like states who are being threatened with tariffs, a key to long-term security is the diversification of relationships.

At the same time, the ICC should continue to vary the ways in which it collects evidence. While the Court increasingly uses open-source evidence to help build cases, it can do much more. It should do everything possible to be at the vanguard of using openly available evidence and intelligence to construct viable and robust cases against perpetrators of international crimes. In doing so, the ICC could reduce any dependence on the United States for evidentiary cooperation. 

Get smart, get creative. The ICC needs cases to prosecute, and it needs them fast. That means building viable cases and going after perpetrators, including mid-level figures, who should be far easier to have surrendered to the Court than prime ministers like Netanyahu or presidents like Vladimir Putin. At the same time, the ICC’s prosecutors need to think strategically in order to demonstrate the institution’s capacities and continued relevance. There are things that the ICC can do that first and foremost are the right thing to do and which may have a secondary benefit of countering American hostility. As I have previously suggested, one possibility would be to investigate the Iranian regime for aiding and abetting Hamas. Again, that would be the right thing to do and also something that the U.S. would have a hard time opposing.

When things are going well in the world of international criminal law and justice, a certain complacency and conservatism sets in. In contrast, when posed with significant challenges and barriers to accountability, as with the case of addressing atrocities in the Syrian civil war, advocates get creative in collecting and preserving evidence and looking to novel venues (including states willing to exercise universal jurisdiction) to address international crimes. Now is a time to double down and get creative. This moment of doom will not last forever. A better, more efficient, and more effective ICC may even come out the other side.