The United States announced that it will not participate in the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of its human rights record scheduled for November, making it the first country to ever boycott the process.
The Aug. 28 move follows President Donald Trump’s February executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the U.N. Human Rights Council and marks a sharp break from decades of American participation in multilateral rights monitoring.
The UPR, established in 2006, requires all 193 U.N. member states to undergo peer evaluations every five years.
The U.S. previously took part in 2010, 2015 and 2020, but is now refusing to submit a report.
In a formal letter to U.N. rights chief Volker Türk, the U.S. mission in Geneva declared, “The United States of America will not participate in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) … scheduled to take place in Geneva on November 7.”
A U.S. State Department officials have defended the decision, citing Trump’s February directive and longstanding skepticism of the council.
“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,” one department official said.
But human rights advocates, like Michael Posner, director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University, warn the withdrawal sets a dangerous precedent.
“Although there are no direct consequences of not submitting a UPR report, the U.S. is undermining global efforts on human rights,” Posner said.
Phil Lynch, executive director of the International Service for Human Rights, was more pointed.
“Under Trump, the U.S. is rapidly becoming a human rights pariah,” he said.
Although there are no direct consequences of not submitting a UPR report, Michael Posner, director of the Center for Business and Human Rights, cautioned that the move signals a step back from global human rights leadership.
Human rights advocates argue that the U.S. withdrawal could weaken global accountability efforts, as the country has historically played a central role in shaping and influencing human rights discussions at the U.N. Without U.S. participation, experts warn, authoritarian governments may feel emboldened to dismiss international criticism, potentially undermining progress made in recent decades.
Ravina Shamdasani, chief spokesperson for the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said, “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.”
Pascal Sim, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Council, added that the Bureau of the Council will discuss the U.S. decision at its earliest convenience.
“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,” Sim said.
The Trump administration has long criticized the U.N. body as biased and ineffective.
Trump himself has framed the decision as part of a broader effort to reassert American sovereignty, arguing that U.N. institutions are dominated by nations with poor rights records.
Still, critics argue the boycott undercuts U.S. credibility in calling out abuses abroad and emboldens authoritarian governments to ignore international accountability mechanisms.
Human rights organizations, including the International Service for Human Rights, the Global Justice Center, Physicians for Human Rights, and Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, have emphasized that while UPR recommendations are non-binding, they provide a critical forum for transparency and peer pressure.
Without U.S. participation, they say, the process risks losing legitimacy.
For now, the U.S. stands alone in rejecting the review, setting up a diplomatic rift that could linger as the world approaches the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Copy edited by Damenica Ellis
