Report on Modifications to U.S. State Department Human Rights Reporting and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

Recent directives within the U.S. State Department indicate a significant alteration of the annual “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.” These changes involve the removal of critical information regarding human rights abuses by foreign governments. This shift fundamentally undermines international commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The revised reporting framework appears to align with a new foreign policy initiative involving the deportation of immigrants to third countries, many of which have documented human rights violations.

Deviation from SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The new reporting guidelines directly contravene the principles of SDG 16, which calls for the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice for all, and the building of effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Specific Reporting Exclusions

• Undermining Target 16.6 (Accountable and Transparent Institutions): Reports will no longer detail significant government corruption.
• Contradicting Target 16.10 (Protect Fundamental Freedoms): Information regarding restrictions on free and fair elections and the harassment of human rights organizations is to be excised.
• Ignoring Target 16.1 (Reduce Violence): The forcible expulsion of refugees or asylum-seekers to countries where they may face torture or persecution (refoulement) will not be reported, weakening protections against violence.

The drastic reduction in the length and detail of reports, such as those for Egypt and Tunisia, signals a retreat from the transparency and accountability central to SDG 16. This action weakens a key tool used by international bodies, civil society, and other governments to monitor and advocate for justice and strong governance.

Impact on SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The directive to modify the reports has severe implications for SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequality within and among countries by promoting the inclusion of all, irrespective of origin or other status, and facilitating safe and responsible migration.

Key Areas of Concern

1. Erosion of Protections for Migrants (Target 10.7): The policy of omitting data on refoulement directly endangers refugees and asylum-seekers. This is compounded by a U.S. policy to expel immigrants to a network of “third countries,” 91% of which were cited for human rights violations in previous State Department reports. This practice creates a risk of returning individuals to harm, a clear violation of international law and the principles of safe migration.
2. Increased Vulnerability of Marginalized Groups (Target 10.2 & 10.3): The explicit instruction to “identify and delete references to discrimination or violence against ‘LGBTQI+’ persons” removes visibility of persecution against a vulnerable community. This undermines efforts to ensure equal opportunity and protect marginalized groups from violence and discrimination.

Consequences for SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The credibility of the Human Rights Reports has historically been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy and international partnerships. Weakening these reports jeopardizes the global cooperation required to achieve the SDGs.

Analysis of Impact

• Damaged Credibility: As noted by former State Department officials, the reports, despite past imperfections, provided a critical benchmark for human rights advocates globally and signaled U.S. commitment to these values. A politicized, hollowed-out report lacks credibility and weakens the U.S. role as a partner in promoting human rights.
• Undermining Foreign Aid and Policy (Target 17.1): The reports are legally mandated to inform the U.S. Congress on the allocation of foreign aid and security assistance. Omitting abuses provides a flawed basis for these decisions, potentially leading to U.S. taxpayer funds supporting regimes that violate human rights, contrary to the spirit of sustainable global development.
• Legislative Response: The proposed “Safeguarding the Integrity of Human Rights Reports Act” seeks to counteract these changes by mandating the inclusion of data on political participation, and violence against LGBTQI+ individuals, persons with disabilities, and indigenous peoples, reaffirming the link between comprehensive reporting and responsible global partnership.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses the U.S. State Department’s decision to alter its annual “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices” by omitting information on various human rights abuses. This action and its consequences directly connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is the most central SDG. The article focuses on the weakening of a key institutional mechanism (the human rights reports) for promoting accountability, transparency, and justice. It details the removal of information on violence, corruption, and restrictions on fundamental freedoms, which are core components of SDG 16.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article explicitly mentions that instructions were given to “delete references to discrimination or violence against ‘LGBTQI+’ persons.” This directly undermines the goal of reducing inequalities and ensuring inclusion for all. Furthermore, the discussion on the forcible expulsion of refugees and asylum-seekers to unsafe countries relates to the unequal and unjust treatment of migrant and vulnerable populations.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality: While SDG 10 is more direct, the specific instruction to remove references to violence against “transgender persons” connects to SDG 5. This goal aims to end all forms of discrimination and violence against all women and girls, and its principles are broadly applied to include gender-based violence and discrimination affecting LGBTQI+ individuals.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues detailed in the article, several specific SDG targets are relevant.

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article mentions that the reports will no longer detail abuses such as “extrajudicial killings,” “disappearances,” and “torture.” By ceasing to report on these forms of violence, the U.S. government undermines international efforts to monitor and reduce them.
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The article states that “Immigration courts in the United States and asylum claim adjudicators around the world look at these reports for guidance.” Gutting the reports damages the evidence base for asylum claims, thereby impeding equal access to justice for refugees and asylum-seekers. The removal of information on the principle of “non-refoulement” is a direct attack on the rule of international law.
   • Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms. The article explicitly states that the reports will no longer call out governments for “significant corruption,” which directly hinders the monitoring and reduction of corruption.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The entire article is about the deliberate weakening of an accountable and transparent institution. The act of “gutting its human rights reporting” and making the reports “completely hollowed out” is a direct contradiction of this target. The reports are described as a tool for Congress to hold the executive accountable, and this check is being removed.
   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. The article notes that the reports will no longer mention “restrictions on free and fair elections” or “serious harassment of domestic or international human rights organizations.” This curtails public access to vital information and weakens the protection of fundamental freedoms.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status. The memo instructing the agency to “delete references to discrimination or violence against ‘LGBTQI+’ persons, ‘transgender’ persons, or similar framing” is a direct assault on the inclusion and protection of these groups, who fall under “other status.”
   • Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies. The article describes the administration turning a blind eye to the “forcible expulsion of refugees or asylum-seekers to countries where they may face torture or persecution.” This policy, which violates the principle of non-refoulement, is the opposite of safe and responsible migration. The creation of a “global gulag” for deportees directly undermines this target.

3. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere. The instruction to remove information on violence against “transgender persons” is relevant here, as it involves erasing the documentation of gender-based discrimination and violence.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides several direct and indirect indicators that can be used to measure the negative progress (or regression) concerning the identified targets.

• Reduction in Report Length and Substance: The article provides a quantifiable indicator of reduced transparency (Target 16.6). It notes that a draft report on Egypt was “slashed down to only 20 pages” from a typical 70 or 80 pages, and a Tunisia report was cut from 60 to 15 pages. This page reduction serves as a proxy indicator for the amount of information being withheld.
• Omission of Specific Abuses: The presence or absence of reporting on key issues serves as a qualitative indicator. The article lists specific abuses that will be omitted:
  • “restrictions on free and fair elections” (Target 16.10)
  • “significant corruption” (Target 16.5)
  • “serious harassment of domestic or international human rights organizations” (Target 16.10)
  • “discrimination or violence against ‘LGBTQI+’ persons” (Target 10.2)
  • “refoulement of persons to a country where they would face torture or persecution” (Target 10.7, 16.3)
• Data on Forcible Expulsions: The article provides quantitative data related to unsafe migration policies (Target 10.7). It states, “More than 8,100 people have been expelled to third countries since January 20.” It also notes that the U.S. has solicited 64 nations for its deportation network, of which “Fifty-eight of them — roughly 91 percent — were rebuked for human rights violations in last year’s State Department human rights reports.” This data directly measures the scale of policies that contradict safe migration.
• Violation of International Law Principles: The explicit instruction to “remove any reference” to “non-refoulement” is a clear indicator of a policy shift away from upholding international law (Target 16.3). Monitoring the application or violation of this principle in U.S. policy is a key indicator.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: theintercept.com