The United States has withdrawn its participation in the Human Rights Council’s (HRC) Universal Periodic Review (UPR).Footnote ¹ The move was unanticipated. Though President Donald J. Trump announced early in his second term that the United States would not participate in the HRC,Footnote ² the United States had taken part in the UPR during his first term even though the president had withdrawn the country from the HRC.Footnote ³ The move was also unexpected because if the United States does not reverse its decision by the time the UPR’s fourth cycle ends in 2027, it will be the first country not to have participated in the UPR since its inception in 2008.Footnote ⁴ A U.S. official said that “[e]ngagement in UPRs implies endorsement of the … Council’s mandate and activities and ignores its persistent failure to condemn the most egregious human rights violators.”Footnote ⁵ The United States, the official said, would not be “lectured about our human rights record by the likes of HRC members such as Venezuela, China, or Sudan.”Footnote ⁶ The U.S. decision undermines the norm of universal participation that even dictators and authoritarian regimes have followed, making it easier going forward for other countries to opt out and not subject their human rights record to UPR scrutiny. It also sends an unmistakable signal regarding the Trump administration’s lack of commitment to international human rights, multilateral cooperation, and accountability.

The UPR is a peer-review mechanism designed to evaluate and improve all 193 UN member states’ human rights performance through interactive dialogue with other member states. In contrast to the reviews conducted by treaty bodies, which must focus on their particular treaties and their state parties, the UPR encompasses all states and covers human rights broadly, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, customary international law, and international humanitarian law.Footnote ⁷ The UPR is thus particularly important as an international public forum for citizens of states that have not ratified human rights treaties. But it also provides a general opportunity for states and civil society organizations (CSOs) to shine a light on human rights practices and to seek answers and commitments that might lead to change or might be cited subsequently in other fora, international and domestic, to create momentum and pressure for change.Footnote ⁸

Reviews take place during a four-and-a-half-year cycle. A state’s review proceeds in four chronological stages. The first stage comprises the submission of three documents: a national report presented by the reviewed state on the measures it has taken to improve human rights; a compilation of information concerning the state contained in the reports of treaty bodies, special procedures, and other UN bodies; and a summary of stakeholder submissions—those of national human rights institutions (NHRIs) and CSOs—on the state’s promotion and protection of human rights.Footnote ⁹ The second stage is the review itself, a discussion between the reviewed state and other member states during a three-and-a-half-hour meeting of the UPR Working Group.Footnote ¹⁰ Any UN member state can participate in the review meeting, as can observers, NHRIs, and CSOs. The third stage encompasses the drafting of an outcome report by the three states chosen as the working group’s special rapporteurs. The report, also known as the report of the working group, includes a summary of the review meeting, including questions, comments, and recommendations made by states, as well as a response from the state under review to the recommendations. The fourth and final step involves the adoption of the outcome report by the UPR Working Group and, subsequently, by the Human Rights Council.

The United States has been a dedicated UPR participant from the start despite its criticisms of the HRC.Footnote ¹¹ During the UPR’s first three cycles, the United States engaged actively in its own review, even in the third cycle following the previously noted U.S. withdrawal from the HRC in President Trump’s first term.Footnote ¹² It has also been a very active participant in other countries’ reviews, asking questions and providing comments and recommendations.Footnote ¹³

The United States’ fourth cycle review was scheduled to begin with the submission of its national report in early August 2025,Footnote ¹⁴ and the review meeting for the United States was to take place a few months later, in November.Footnote ¹⁵ CSOs had already contributed 155 submissionsFootnote ¹⁶ noting human rights abuses by the U.S. government, including “arbitrary detention, abusive treatment of immigrants, regression in sexual and reproductive rights and LGBT rights, systemic racial discrimination, and attacks on fundamental rights and the rule of law.”Footnote ¹⁷ With the U.S. withdrawal, the HRC, instead of conducting the review on the scheduled date, issued a decision that “called upon” the United States “to resume its cooperation,” tasked the HRC president with “tak[ing] all appropriate steps and measures … to urge the [United States] to” cooperate, and rescheduled the U.S. review for November 2026, in the hope that in the interim the United States would reconsider.Footnote ¹⁸ In addition to withdrawing from its own review, the United States has not attended other countries’ reviews since the final hours of the Biden administration.Footnote ¹⁹

Participation in the UPR to date has been universal, though not perfect. In 2008, Cape Verde did not submit a national report “owing to internal constraints,” but it otherwise took part in its review.Footnote ²⁰ Israel announced in 2012 that it would not participate in its review during the UPR’s second cycle. It did not submit its national report on time and did not appear for its scheduled review in January 2013.Footnote ²¹ It soon resumed its cooperation, however, submitting its report and participating in a review meeting.Footnote ²² During the third cycle, Israel refused to attend the HRC meeting adopting the outcome report of its review.Footnote ²³ In 2022, the HRC agreed to postpone Ukraine’s UPR review until the end of the fourth cycle, in January–February 2027, due to the “current exceptional circumstances” there.Footnote ²⁴ Uncertainty regarding Myanmar’s representation in the United Nations has delayed adoption of its third cycle report and postponed its fourth cycle review.Footnote ²⁵ Most recently, after having participated in its November 2024 review, Nicaragua has refused to provide its comments on the report of the working group.Footnote ²⁶ The HRC has twice postponed the consideration and adoption of that report.Footnote ²⁷ No state, though, has refused to participate in its UPR review from beginning to end, as the United States is threatening to do.

The U.S. withdrawal from the UPR was widely criticized. Ravina Shamdasani, chief spokesperson for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the office “regretted” the U.S. decision and that “[c]onstructive engagement with the [Human Rights] Council, by the U.S. and all States, has contributed to the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide over the years.”Footnote ²⁸ In a statement issued by its president, the American Bar Association “call[ed] on the United States to reverse its decision not to participate.”Footnote ²⁹ It continued: “Declining to appear before the council sends a troubling signal. It risks diminishing the credibility of the United States in advocating for human rights abroad and may embolden those who seek to avoid scrutiny of their own records. It also denies our citizens, civil society and government the opportunity to showcase the progress the nation has made in areas ranging from criminal justice reform to the protection of fundamental freedoms.”Footnote ³⁰ Uzra Zeya, president and CEO of Human Rights First, stated that “[s]howing up and explaining your own record on human rights is the bare minimum for any government that purports to exercise international leadership and uphold democratic norms.… Running away from that scrutiny doesn’t just show weakness and a lack of confidence, it will give rights-abusing governments cover to do the same themselves.”Footnote ³¹

Because the United States has refused to participate in its review, CSOs organized a “Peoples’ UPR” in New York City “to ensure that people’s voices are heard through important testimonies to build a record toward addressing human rights violations … in the United States.”Footnote ³² A group of U.S. state and local elected officials also signed a letter urging the HRC to “complete [the UPR’s] crucial peer-to-peer assessment of the U.S.’ human rights record regardless of whether the U.S. federal government participates in the process.”Footnote ³³ Since the General Assembly resolution establishing the UPR required that reviews be undertaken “with the full involvement of the country concerned,” it is unclear, however, whether the HRC can proceed with the U.S. review without the United States’ cooperation.Footnote ³⁴