In a historically unprecedented decision, the United States, under the administration of President Donald Trump, has announced it will no longer participate in the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of its human rights record. This move, effective from November 2025, marks the first time a UN member state has boycotted the peer-review process that holds countries accountable for their human rights practices.
Background and Context of the US Withdrawal
The Universal Periodic Review process, established in 2006, is a critical UN mechanism requiring every member state—totaling 193 nations—to periodically submit to peer evaluations every four and a half years. This process offers a platform for transparency, accountability, and peer pressure to uphold human rights globally. The United States has actively participated in previous review cycles in 2010, 2015, and 2020, but the Trump administration’s recent decision signifies a departure from these long-established practices.
This decision stems from a broader agenda promulgated by President Trump’s February 2025 executive order commanding the withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council and a comprehensive review of US participation in all international organizations and treaties. The White House’s directive was designed to reassess multilateral engagements it deemed contrary to US interests. As part of this policy, the US government has reduced its involvement in a range of UN agencies, including UNESCO and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
The US stance is rooted in skepticism of the UN Human Rights Council’s efficacy, accusing it of bias and failing to condemn severe human rights violations accurately. A US State Department official explained,
“Engagement in UPRs implies endorsement of the council’s mandate and activities and ignores its persistent failure to condemn the most egregious human rights violators.”
This rationale has been the cornerstone of the US withdrawal and boycott of the upcoming UPR.
Details of the Withdrawal and its Scope
On August 28, 2025, the US mission to Geneva formally informed the UN’s human rights chief, Volker Türk, that it would not participate in the UPR cycle scheduled for November 7. This move breaks with decades of precedent, as no other nation has ever declined a UPR assessment. The withdrawal indicates rejection not just of the current review but poses potential long-term disengagement from an essential UN mechanism that ensures states uphold fundamental human rights standards.
While non-participation in the UPR does not incur immediate technical sanctions, it undermines the process’s legitimacy. Over 150 human rights organizations had prepared detailed inputs and recommendations reflecting unresolved issues in the United States, spanning systemic racism, immigration detention practices, and civil liberties concerns. Without US participation, these issues lose a formal international stage for scrutiny.
Impact on Global Human Rights Accountability
Experts warn the withdrawal risks creating a dangerous domino effect globally. The US has conventionally played a pivotal role in shaping human rights standards, promoting transparency, and applying diplomatic pressure on offenders. Michael Posner, director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University, commented,
“Although there are no direct consequences of not submitting a UPR report, the U.S. is undermining global efforts on human rights.”
The US absence potentially emboldens authoritarian regimes to reject scrutiny since the precedent loosens the normative pressure to engage with international human rights oversight.
Phil Lynch, Executive Director of the International Service for Human Rights, was unequivocal in his critique:
“Under Trump, the U.S. is rapidly becoming a human rights pariah. This withdrawal shows disregard for people facing discrimination.”
This dismissal of engagement represents a broader retreat from multilateralism and global leadership on justice and rights issues.
Responses from Human Rights Organizations and the UN
The withdrawal has elicited sharp criticism from a range of stakeholders committed to international human rights. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) branded the move a “chilling attempt to evade accountability,” warning it would embolden dictators and autocrats while weakening respect for rights domestically and abroad. Amnesty International also described the withdrawal as unprecedented and regrettable, highlighting the importance of maintaining rigorous multilateral oversight.
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, represented by spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani, expressed regret over the decision but reaffirmed the value of US involvement:
“Constructive engagement with the Council, by the U.S. and all States, has contributed to the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide over the years.”
Similarly, the Human Rights Council spokesperson Pascal Sim emphasized the inclusive principles of the Council:
“As a matter of principle, we welcome and encourage the engagement of every U.N. Member State in the work of the Council and of its mechanisms.”
These remarks underline how the US disengagement weakens the Council’s universality and authority.
Broader Geopolitical Implications
The US withdrawal from the UPR is part of a wider set of retrenchments from multilateral institutions seen since Trump’s first term and continued through his current tenure. These disengagements include exits or funding cuts to UNESCO, UNRWA, and other global governance bodies. The resulting power vacuum has allowed autocratic states such as China, Russia, Iran, and Qatar—nations frequently criticized for poor human rights records—to seek enhanced influence within UN forums.
A recent report highlighted diplomats from China and Cuba advocating reduced human rights investigations within the Human Rights Council, underscoring how the US withdrawal indirectly bolsters these efforts. These countries argue financial constraints justify cutting back on human rights probes that expose their domestic abuses. As a result, the US retreat shifts the balance of power at the UN towards countries less committed to advancing fundamental freedoms.
Domestic Context and Motivations
The Trump administration’s measures align with a broader nationalist and sovereignty-driven agenda that prioritizes US independence from global oversight. Critics argue that the withdrawal is a strategic move to avoid international condemnation of persistent domestic human rights issues, including controversial immigration policies, police violence, and systemic racial discrimination.
The executive order instructing the withdrawal directed the State Department to reassess all international treaties and organizations to determine if they align with US interests. This directive signals an intent to reduce the US’s commitment to global governance体系, reflecting an inward turn amidst rising domestic political pressures.
The US withdrawal from the UN human rights review process represents a landmark and troubling retreat from decades of American leadership on global human rights accountability. While the decision may be framed as reclaiming sovereignty and rejecting a flawed institution, its consequences are profound. The US absence weakens the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Universal Periodic Review, emboldens repressive governments, and corrodes multilateral efforts critical to advancing human dignity worldwide.
This unprecedented boycott raises urgent questions about the future of international human rights cooperation and the global order. The US, once a champion of universal rights norms, now risks being isolated and losing moral authority amid growing authoritarian influence at the United Nations and beyond.
