The United States is set to become the first country to fully decline a regular review of its human rights record at the U.N.'s top rights body since the United Nations Human Rights Council was established two decades ago. The Trump administration withdrew from the Geneva-based council last year, accusing it of anti-U.S. and anti-Israel bias and alleging that it fails to uphold the values it promotes. Although the U.S. skipped its scheduled review a year ago, the session was postponed to this week in hopes that the government might reconsider its position. It did not.
The Universal Periodic Review process requires the participation of the country under examination. In the absence of national representatives, the review cannot proceed. Under President Trump, the administration has maintained that the council is an "irredeemable body" that makes a "mockery of human rights" through consistent failures to condemn the most egregious violators globally. The scheduled review for the U.S. was originally set for November 2025 but was pushed back to Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2026. The State Department stated in an email to The Associated Press, "We give no credibility to the agency," and noted the council's "persistent failure to condemn the most egregious human rights violators."
What the Right Is Saying
The Trump administration and its supporters maintain that the Human Rights Council has become ineffective due to structural biases and a failure to hold authoritarian regimes accountable. The administration argues that the council disproportionately targets the U.S. and its allies, particularly Israel, while ignoring severe abuses in countries with poor human rights records. By withdrawing, the administration aims to distance the U.S. from what it views as a politically motivated institution that fails to uphold its own stated values.
Supporters of the policy contend that U.S. sovereignty is paramount and that domestic human rights issues are best addressed through internal legal frameworks rather than international bodies perceived as hostile to American interests. The State Department's statement emphasized that the council pushes "anti-American rhetoric" and fails to condemn the world's most egregious violators. This perspective frames the refusal to participate not as an avoidance of accountability, but as a rejection of a flawed multilateral mechanism that no longer serves American interests or the cause of genuine human rights advancement.
What the Left Is Saying
Critics of the U.S. decision argue that the walkout undermines the credibility of international human rights norms and signals a retreat from accountability. Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's human rights program, stated, "The administration is saying to the world, 'we don't care about whether you would review us or not, we're going to continue to violate human rights unabashed.'" Dakwar added that the ACLU and its allies have called on the U.N. human rights chief to respond by presenting an update on rights in the United States early next year.
Progressive voices point to specific domestic policies as reasons for heightened scrutiny, including strong-arm deportations and targeted killings of alleged drug-runners in the Caribbean and Pacific. While the administration states these measures protect U.S. workers and enhance national safety, critics argue they raise significant human rights concerns that require international oversight. Eric Tistounet, a visiting professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute and the council's first secretary, warned of the broader implications. "If the predominant global power — which has always claimed to adhere to the human rights norms — doesn't show up and doesn't even justify why, then you are in big trouble," Tistounet said.
What the Numbers Show
The United Nations Human Rights Council conducts Universal Periodic Reviews of all 193 U.N. member states, typically every four to five years. The U.S. had previously participated in this process since the council's inception. The current refusal marks the first time a nation has fully shunned this regular review since the body was created. The U.S. delegation typically includes a dozen or more officials for these sessions, where they make presentations, face questions, and hear recommendations from other national envoys.
The review was originally scheduled for November 2025 and was postponed for one year, ending on November 10, 2026. This delay represents a significant deviation from the standard four-to-five-year cycle. The U.S. is the only member state to have completely withdrawn from the council's review process in its 20-year history. The council's mandate covers all member states, meaning the absence of the U.S., a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, leaves a gap in the comprehensive global monitoring system.
The Bottom Line
The U.S. refusal to participate in the Universal Periodic Review marks a significant shift in American engagement with international human rights mechanisms. The decision may encourage other nations that resist intense scrutiny from human rights monitors to similarly opt out of the process, potentially weakening the council's universal reach. The ACLU and allied groups are pushing for an independent update on U.S. human rights conditions to be presented by the U.N. human rights chief in early 2027.
Experts like Eric Tistounet warn that the absence of the predominant global power from this accountability mechanism could damage the credibility of the council's review system. The administration maintains that its withdrawal is a principled stand against a biased body, while critics view it as an evasion of responsibility for domestic policies. The international community will watch closely to see if this unilateral action leads to a broader erosion of the Universal Periodic Review's effectiveness or if diplomatic efforts will eventually bring the U.S. back into the dialogue.