Unprecedented Decision–the United States refuses to review its human rights record

In a move with profound implications for the international human rights architecture, the United States has formally boycotted its scheduled Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva—marking only the second instance in the history of the UPR mechanism (established in 2008) that a state has refused to participate in its own peer review. This unprecedented decision—confirmed by the U.S. Mission in Geneva and enacted under President Donald Trump’s renewed administration—represents not merely procedural noncompliance, but a deliberate recalibration of U.S. foreign policy that positions human rights norms as dispensable instruments of diplomacy rather than binding obligations of governance.

The UPR, a cornerstone of multilateral human rights accountability, mandates that all 193 UN member states undergo peer scrutiny of their domestic rights records every four to five years. Its design embodies the principle of equality of obligation: regardless of geopolitical stature, every state submits to the same process of reporting, questioning, and recommendation. The U.S., long a vocal proponent—indeed, frequent enforcer—of this very system, now stands in open defiance of it. As one former senior U.S. official observed, with poignant irony: “It’s tragic and deeply ironic that we helped to create the norms as well as this process that we are now backing out of.”

This refusal to report is especially striking given historical precedent. During Trump’s first term, the United States withdrew from the Human Rights Council in 2018, citing perceived anti-Israel bias—a claim repeatedly challenged by legal scholars and UN rapporteurs alike—but nonetheless participated in its 2020 UPR. The current refusal, therefore, cannot be attributed solely to institutional grievances. Rather, it signals a deeper ideological shift—one in which multilateral oversight is not only inconvenient, but incompatible with an emerging vision of sovereignty untethered from international legal accountability.

A Pattern of Exceptionalism, Amplified

The U.S. position must be situated within a broader trajectory of selective norm enforcement. For decades, successive administrations—from both major parties—have instrumentalized human rights discourse to justify coercive measures against geopolitical adversaries. Sanctions regimes imposed on states such as Iraq (1990s), Venezuela, Iran, and Syria—often framed as responses to human rights violations—have demonstrably contributed to mass civilian suffering, including malnutrition, preventable disease, and collapse of public health infrastructure (Gordon, 2020; Reinert, 2023). Military interventions in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere were legitimized through appeals to the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), even as post-invasion chaos precipitated new cycles of violence and displacement.

Yet when scrutiny turns inward, the rhetoric falters. The current administration has intensified domestic policies that rights monitors describe as systemic violations: the militarization of immigration enforcement—including reported lethal interdictions of suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean; deployment of National Guard units to suppress urban protests; suppression of academic and artistic expression under vague “anti-subversion” directives; and the systematic dismantling of legal safeguards for dissent (ACLU, 2025; Abolitionist Law Center, 2025). In this context, UPR abstention functions not as omission, but as preemptive insulation—a refusal to allow international legal frameworks to interfere with internal governance choices, however repressive.

The Legitimacy Crisis

The consequences extend beyond symbolic damage. As Phil Lynch, Executive Director of the International Service for Human Rights, warned, the U.S. withdrawal “really, really undermines… the notion that international human rights law is inalienable and applies equally to all.” This is not hyperbole. The UPR rests on the foundational premise of non-derogability—that human rights are universal, indivisible, and not subject to suspension based on national interest. By treating its own review as optional, the U.S. effectively concedes that sovereignty may override accountability, thereby legitimizing similar evasions by authoritarian regimes.

The optics are damning. Since 2008, only Israel has previously boycotted its UPR—postponing its review for ten months in 2013 before ultimately complying. The United States now risks joining the ranks of states that view multilateral scrutiny as a threat rather than a corrective—setting a precedent that regimes in countries with governments that are hostile to human rights norms will no doubt cite to justify their own resistance to external review.

Moreover, the decision fractures the U.S.’s claim to moral leadership. As Uzra Zeya of Human Rights First noted, abstention “weakens a process that has helped drive progress on human rights worldwide—including in the United States.” Indeed, past UPR cycles yielded concrete domestic reforms: recommendations on racial profiling, solitary confinement, and Indigenous rights spurred congressional hearings, policy revisions, and litigation strategies. To abandon the process now is to reject not only international partnership, but self-correction.

Civil Society in the Breach

In the vacuum left by state abdication, civil society has stepped forward with remarkable resolve. Over two dozen NGOs, legal scholars, and elected local officials convened parallel events at the Palais des Nations—ironically, in the very chambers where Eleanor Roosevelt helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Their testimonies—documenting police violence, mass incarceration, suppression of protest, and environmental injustice—constitute a counter-archive of state failure. As Chandra Bhatnagar of the ACLU-Southern California emphasized, “It’s the Human Rights Council… and a community of nations committed to human rights and democracy who can bring necessary sunlight to these abuses.”

This “sunlight” is more vital than ever. With domestic institutions increasingly politicized and judicial independence under strain, transnational human rights mechanisms remain among the few remaining channels for marginalized communities to seek redress. Robert Saleem Holbrook of the Abolitionist Law Center framed the stakes with urgency: “As we see our civil liberties being decimated, these forums are going to take on increasing importance in the future.”

The End of Hypocrisy—or the Birth of Cynicism?

For critics, U.S. human rights policy has long been characterized by instrumental hypocrisy: invoking norms to discipline others while exempting itself from equivalent scrutiny. The current abstention may mark the end of that façade—not through reform, but through explicit renunciation. The administration no longer pretends to uphold a universal standard; it asserts the right to operate beyond it. This is not realpolitik; it is normative abdication. And in a world where authoritarianism is ascendant and multilateralism is fragile, the defection of the world’s most powerful democracy from its own foundational commitments represents a watershed moment—not because it surprises seasoned observers, but because it normalizes impunity at the highest level.

If the architecture of international human rights is to survive this era of democratic backsliding, it will require not only vigilance from civil society, but renewed solidarity among states willing to insist that no nation—least of all the one that helped erect this system—is above review. As history has shown, when the torchbearers retreat into darkness, it falls upon the witnesses to keep the light alive.

References

• Gordon, J. (2020). Invisible War: The United States and the Iraq Sanctions. Harvard University Press.
• Reinert, E. (2023). “Sanctions as Structural Violence: Humanitarian Consequences and Legal Accountability.” Journal of Human Rights Practice, 15(2), 189–210.
• ACLU. (2025). Crisis of Conscience: Civil Liberties Under the Second Trump Administration. Southern California Branch Report.
• Abolitionist Law Center. (2025). State Repression and the Erosion of Dissent: A U.S. Monitoring Report.
• CBS19 News. (2025, November 7). US officials, NGOs cry foul as Washington snubs UN rights review. https://www.cbs19news.com/us-officials-ngos-cry-foul-as-washington-snubs-un-rights-review/article_b26b3364-d5e9-58df-946e-c96f1bd6c0fa.html