The administration of President Donald Trump is notably shifting its stance on foreign governments’ human rights practices, as highlighted by leaked draft reports concerning El Salvador, Israel, and Russia. Traditionally, the U.S. has historically promoted human rights globally, holding foreign governments accountable for violations, especially regarding the treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals. However, recent documents reviewed by The Washington Post reveal a concerted effort by the Trump administration to minimize criticism of these governments, signaling a broader rethinking of America’s role in global human rights advocacy. This move is part of a pattern of disengagement from international agreements and norms, aligning with the administration’s changes in areas like trade, environmental policy, and diplomacy.
Diplomatic missions have contributed to the State Department’s annual human rights report for nearly half a century, producing thorough assessments of various countries’ human rights records. However, under Trump, recent guidance indicates a policy to streamline these reports, leading to significant alterations. Current drafts suggest shorter content, with reductions in discussions about government corruption, gender-based violence, and LGBTQ+ rights—issues historically documented by the U.S. government. A senior official stated that the restructured 2024 Human Rights report aims to enhance readability and comply with legal mandates while downplaying criticisms that were standard in prior assessments.
Specifically, the drafts for El Salvador have been notably altered to reflect a less critical view. The 2024 draft claims “no credible reports of significant human rights abuses,” in stark contrast to the previous year’s report, which detailed issues like government-sanctioned killings and torture. This change coincides with the leadership of Nayib Bukele, an allied leader to Trump, who has been involved in creating controversial policies, including housing deported individuals in large prison facilities designed to subdue gang activity. Such revisions suggest an agenda that downplays systemic issues in favor of presenting a more favorable narrative in line with national interests and diplomatic ties.
In the case of Israel, the draft significantly reduces discussion around corruption and judicial independence, omitting references to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ongoing corruption trial that had been covered in previous reports. The document addresses fewer issues compared to last year’s comprehensive report, particularly concerning Israeli surveillance practices affecting Palestinians and judicial independence challenges. This apparent reduction in oversight represents not only a political alignment but also a significant deviation from decades of U.S. policy, which traditionally held Israel to similar human rights standards as other nations.
LGBTQ+ rights, particularly in relation to Russia, have also been notably omitted, raising concerns among human rights advocates. Keifer Buckingham, formerly involved with LGBTQ+ issues at the State Department, criticized this absence as a glaring oversight, especially given Russia’s detrimental clampdown on LGBTQ+ organizations and rights. The exclusion of such discussions indicates a selective approach to human rights, prompting Buckingham to assert that the Trump administration appears to prioritize certain rights based on convenience rather than a steadfast commitment to protecting universal human rights.
As the drafts near finalization, there remains uncertainty regarding whether they will reflect these softened critiques when presented to Congress and the public. With reports marked as “finalized” for El Salvador and Russia and still under quality checks for Israel, the outcome remains to be seen. The administration’s current trajectory suggests an inclination toward ambiguity in upholding human rights standards, reflecting an administration willing to adapt foundational policies in service of political alliances and strategic objectives. This shift raises broader questions about the future of U.S. engagement in promoting and advocating for human rights globally.
