Follow The Library Media
The Library Media — National & World · National Desk
U.S. Becomes the First Nation to Fully Shun a U.N. Human Rights Council Review
By Eleanor Ever Loyal
The United States is set to become the first country to completely skip a regular examination of its human rights record by the United Nations Human Rights Council, marking an unprecedented break with a review process that has covered every U.N. member state for two decades.
The review is scheduled for Tuesday, November 10, in Geneva. The Trump administration has declined to send a delegation, leaving the council unable to conduct the examination under the rules of the process. The Associated Press reported that Washington had already missed its original appointment in November 2025. That review was postponed until Tuesday in the hope that the administration might reconsider. It has not.
The process, known as the Universal Periodic Review, examines the human rights records of all 193 U.N. member states approximately every four to five years. Governments send delegations to present their records, answer questions from other countries and hear recommendations. The council says participation by the country under review is required; without U.S. representatives, the examination cannot proceed.
The refusal follows the administration’s decision last year to withdraw the United States from the Human Rights Council. The Trump administration accused the Geneva-based body of anti-American and anti-Israel bias and argued that it failed to uphold the values it was established to promote.
A State Department spokesperson told the Associated Press that the United States gives the council “no credibility.” The spokesperson called it “irredeemable,” alleging a persistent failure to condemn the most egregious human rights violators and accusing it of using human rights proceedings to promote anti-American rhetoric.
The administration’s position is that participation would lend legitimacy to an institution it considers fundamentally compromised. Its withdrawal means the United States will not take part in the same formal process through which other member governments are questioned about their human rights records.
The decision comes as U.S. policies have drawn criticism from human rights advocates. The Associated Press cited deportation practices and U.S. strikes on alleged drug-running boats in the Caribbean and Pacific among the issues prompting scrutiny. The administration has defended those policies as measures intended to protect American workers and keep the country safe.
The criticism is not limited to the decision to withdraw from the council. Advocates say refusing the review removes an opportunity for other governments to question U.S. officials publicly and make recommendations about the country’s conduct.
Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s human rights program, warned that the administration’s position signals disregard for international scrutiny. Speaking to reporters in Geneva on Monday, Dakwar said the council should still hold the United States accountable. The ACLU and allied organizations have called on the U.N. human rights chief to issue an update on the human rights situation in the United States early next year.
Eric Tistounet, the council’s first secretary and now a visiting professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute, warned that the U.S. absence could damage confidence in the review system. He said the failure of a major global power to appear for a process tied to human rights norms creates a serious problem for the council’s credibility.
The concern extends beyond the immediate U.S. review. The Universal Periodic Review is designed to apply to every U.N. member state, rather than only countries that are members of the Human Rights Council. Its reach rests on the expectation that governments will submit themselves to examination, including when other states raise uncomfortable questions.
Critics of the American decision warn that a complete boycott could provide an example for governments that want to avoid international scrutiny of their own records. Some states have long objected to criticism from human rights monitors; a precedent involving the United States could make it harder to maintain participation as a shared expectation.
The immediate consequence is procedural: the U.S. review cannot go forward without a national delegation. The broader question is whether the council and other governments can preserve a system intended to scrutinize all member states when one of its most powerful members refuses to participate.
Washington has not indicated that it will reverse its position for Tuesday’s scheduled session. The administration’s stated objections remain in place, while human rights advocates are pressing for other forms of U.N. scrutiny to continue.
The United States is therefore poised to make history not by completing its review, but by becoming the first country to fully refuse one. The implications for the council’s authority, the universality of its review process and the prospects for future U.S. participation remain unresolved.
Update — The Human Rights Council has since responded to the U.S. absence. According to Anadolu, the Council expressed regret at the United States’ non-cooperation, urged Washington to participate, and rescheduled the U.S. Universal Periodic Review for January 2027. Anadolu reported it as the second time the United States has failed to participate in the review.
Reporting based on Associated Press dispatches and Anadolu reporting.
— Eleanor Ever Loyal, National Desk
Eleanor Ever Loyal is The Library Media’s regulation and governance correspondent.
From The Library — the estate of our family.
