US State Department Debases Human Rights Diplomacy – Human Rights Watch

Analysis of Revisions to the US State Department’s Human Rights Report and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction

The United States State Department’s annual human rights report is mandated to provide Congress with an objective assessment of human rights conditions globally, measured against international law. Recent directives under the Trump administration indicate a significant shift in this mandate, reorienting the report’s focus toward ideological priorities. This report analyzes these changes and evaluates their direct impact on the advancement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

2.0 Observed Modifications and Policy Shifts

Substantive changes have been implemented in the reporting framework, altering both its content and its guiding principles for US diplomatic missions.

2.1 Reductions in the 2024 Report

The 2024 iteration of the report demonstrated a marked departure from previous versions through the reduction or complete removal of critical sections. These included:

• Political freedoms and civil liberties
• Governmental corruption and transparency
• Gender-based violence
• Persecution of LGBTQ+ individuals

2.2 New Reporting Guidance

Further guidance issued in November instructs US embassies to document specific domestic policies of other nations as human rights violations. This directive specifically targets policies that are aligned with international human rights standards and are critical for achieving several SDGs. The policies targeted for negative reporting include:

1. Government initiatives to improve access to abortion services.
2. Programs providing access to gender-affirming healthcare.
3. Efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

3.0 Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The reorientation of the State Department’s report directly undermines the global effort to achieve the SDGs by misrepresenting actions that support these goals as human rights abuses. The primary SDGs affected are detailed below.

3.1 SDG 5: Gender Equality

The new reporting framework poses a direct threat to the achievement of SDG 5. By targeting reproductive health services and gender-affirming care, the policy actively works against key targets of this goal.

• Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere. The attacks on inclusivity policies and the rights of transgender people undermine efforts to eliminate discrimination.
• Target 5.6: Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. Classifying government efforts to improve abortion access as a human rights violation is in direct opposition to this target.

3.2 SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The directive to report negatively on diversity, equity, and inclusion policies fundamentally conflicts with SDG 10, which seeks to reduce inequality within and among countries.

• 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 administration’s stance against DEI initiatives weakens protections for marginalized communities and obstructs their inclusion.
• Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome. The new US foreign policy stance risks encouraging discriminatory practices globally.

3.3 SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The integrity of institutions that protect human rights is central to SDG 16. Altering the report’s purpose from an objective accounting to a tool of ideological pressure weakens the very concept of strong, accountable institutions.

• Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms. The removal of sections on corruption from the report diminishes international focus and pressure on governments to improve transparency.
• Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms. The report’s reduced focus on political freedoms signals a retreat from this core principle.

3.4 SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

Access to healthcare is a fundamental human right and the cornerstone of SDG 3. The US policy shift directly threatens progress on this goal.

• Target 3.7: By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services. The opposition to abortion access and gender-affirming care creates barriers to essential health services, jeopardizing the well-being of affected populations.

4.0 Conclusion and Global Implications

The transformation of the US State Department’s human rights report into a vehicle for a domestic political agenda represents a significant setback for the global human rights framework. This shift not only compromises the report’s credibility but also actively undermines progress toward multiple Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those concerning gender equality (SDG 5), reduced inequalities (SDG 10), and strong institutions (SDG 16). By mischaracterizing essential human rights protections as violations, the US risks weakening international standards. This development underscores the need for other global partners to reaffirm their commitment to international human rights law and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, in line with the principles of global partnership outlined in SDG 17.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • The article directly addresses issues central to SDG 5 by mentioning the reduction of reporting on “gender-based violence,” government policies to improve “access to abortion services,” and restrictions on “reproductive health care.” It also discusses “gender-affirming care,” which relates to ending discrimination and ensuring the well-being of all individuals regardless of gender identity.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • This goal is relevant as the article highlights the removal of sections on “LGBTQ+ persecution” from the State Department report. It also discusses how “attacks on inclusivity policies undermine the rights of marginalized people” and how the new guidance targets efforts to “promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.” These actions directly contradict the goal of promoting the inclusion of all, irrespective of status.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The core theme of the article relates to the integrity and purpose of a key governmental institution—the US State Department. The text states that the annual human rights report is being altered to support “ideological priorities” rather than providing a “clear accounting of how other governments treat their people.” This undermines the principle of accountable and transparent institutions. The article also explicitly notes the removal of sections on “political freedoms” and “corruption,” which are central concerns of SDG 16.

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

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere. The article’s discussion of attacks on “gender-affirming care” and “inclusivity policies” relates to this target by highlighting the reversal of efforts to protect against discrimination.
   • Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres. This is directly identified when the article states that the State Department report “removed or significantly reduced sections on… gender-based violence.”
   • Target 5.6: Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. The article points to this target by discussing how the new US foreign policy opposes “government policies to improve access to abortion services” and how restrictions on “reproductive health care violate the rights of women and girls.”

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… other status. The article connects to this target by mentioning the reduced reporting on “LGBTQ+ persecution” and the opposition to policies that “promote diversity, equity, and inclusion,” which are essential for the inclusion of marginalized groups.
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The article implies this target by criticizing the US administration for turning against “inclusivity policies” that are designed to ensure equal opportunity and protect the “rights of marginalized people.”

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms. This target is explicitly referenced when the article notes that the 2024 report “removed or significantly reduced sections on… corruption.”
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article’s central argument is that the State Department’s human rights report is being made less accountable and transparent, turning from a tool based on “international human rights law” into one that supports an “ideological” and “political agenda.”
   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms. This is directly relevant as the article states that the report has “removed or significantly reduced sections on political freedoms.”
   • Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development. The article discusses how the US is turning against key international human rights protections and undermining policies that support non-discrimination, such as those related to gender identity, reproductive rights, and diversity.

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

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Implied Indicator for Target 5.2: The existence and quality of government reporting on “gender-based violence.” The article’s focus on the removal of these sections implies that tracking the prevalence and official documentation of such violence is a key measure of progress.
   • Implied Indicator for Target 5.6: National laws and policies regarding access to reproductive health care. The article discusses “government policies to improve access to abortion services,” suggesting that the status of these policies is a direct indicator of progress toward ensuring reproductive rights.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Implied Indicator for Target 10.3: The existence of laws and policies that protect against discrimination. The article’s mention of “LGBTQ+ persecution” and “attacks on inclusivity policies” implies that the presence and enforcement of non-discriminatory legal frameworks are crucial indicators. The content of national human rights reports on these issues serves as a proxy indicator.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Implied Indicator for Target 16.5: Government transparency and reporting on corruption. The article’s statement about the removal of sections on “corruption” from the State Department report suggests that the act of monitoring and reporting on corruption is itself an indicator of an institution’s commitment to reducing it.
   • Implied Indicator for Target 16.6: The alignment of national reports and policies with international human rights law. The article contrasts the report’s new ideological focus with its original purpose of measuring government conduct “against international human rights law,” implying that this alignment is a key indicator of institutional accountability.
   • Implied Indicator for Target 16.10: The scope of government reporting on “political freedoms.” The reduction of this section in the report, as mentioned in the article, can be seen as an indicator of a country’s commitment to protecting and being transparent about these fundamental freedoms.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: hrw.org