Five key points on how a long-respected US human rights report became a ‘cudgel' under Trump
With the release this week of the US government's annual report on human rights worldwide, the president has – in part – followed though on that pledge.
The report – compiled by the state department – softens its criticism of nations that have sought closer ties with the US president, while alleging 'significant' human rights breaches among traditional allies across Europe, all while vastly scaling back criticism of discrimination against minority groups.
The report's claims of 'no credible' human rights abuses in Hungary and El Salvador sit at odds with the state department's own report from a year earlier, which described the situation in Hungary as 'deteriorating', while highlighting 'arbitrary killings', 'enforced disappearance' and 'torture' in El Salvador.
In April, a delegation of EU lawmakers warned that the rule of law in Hungary is 'rapidly going in the wrong direction' under Viktor Orbán's government. They highlighted threats to press freedom and targeting of minorities. In June a law banning content about LGBTQ+ people from schools and TV was found to violate basic human rights and freedom of expression by a scholar at the European court of justice.
Meanwhile, activists and opposition leaders in El Salvador have warned the country is on the path towards dictatorship after its congress scrapped presidential term limits, paving the way for President Nayib Bukele to seek indefinite re-election. Bukele's hardline approach to crime has been accompanied by an assault on civil society and democratic institutions.
Orbán and Bukele have both positioned themselves as Trump adherents – with El Salvador opening up a notorious mega-prison to detain US deportees. Orbán, who came to power in 2010, was once described as 'Trump before Trump' by the US president's former adviser Steve Bannon.
France, Germany and the United Kingdom are among the European countries singled out as having seen a worsening human rights situation. The picture is a far cry from the previous report, which saw no significant changes.
Criticism over the handling of free speech – in particular relating to regulations on online hate speech – was directed at the governments of the UK, Germany and France.
The criticism comes despite the US itself moving aggressively to deny or strip visas of foreign nationals over their statements and social media postings, especially student activists who have criticised Israel.
Since being returning to power, Trump and his administration have stepped up criticism of traditional allies – in February the vice-president, JD Vance, accused European leaders of suppressing free speech, failing to halt illegal migration and running in fear from voters' true beliefs.
The report also singles out Brazil, where Trump has decried the prosecution of former president Jair Bolsonaro. Brazil, the report says, has 'undermined democratic debate by restricting access to online content deemed to 'undermine democracy.''
The report's section on Israel and the Palestinian territories is much shorter than last year's edition and contains no mention of the severe humanitarian crisis or death toll in Gaza. It acknowledges cases of arbitrary arrests and killings by Israel but says authorities took 'credible steps' to identify those responsible.
More than 61,000 people have been killed in Gaza, the Gaza health ministry says, as a result of Israel's military assault after an attack by Palestinian militant group Hamas in October 2023 in which 1,200 people were killed.
Sections within the report highlighting discrimination have been vastly pared back. Any criticism focused on LGBTQI rights, gender-based violence or racial and ethnic violence which appeared in Biden administration editions of the report, appear to have been largely removed.
A group of former state department officials called some omissions 'shocking,' particularly highlighting the lack of detail on Uganda, which in 2023 saw the passing of some of the harshest anti-LGBTQ+ laws in the world, including the death penalty for some homosexual acts.
For decades, the report has been used as a blueprint of reference for global rights advocacy – but critics have labelled this year's edition politically driven.
'The report demonstrates what happens when political agendas take priority over the facts,' says Josh Paul, a former state department official, adding 'the outcome is a much-abbreviated product that is more reflective of a Soviet propaganda.'
In April, secretary of state Marco Rubio wrote an opinion piece saying the bureau that prepares the report had become a platform for 'left-wing activists,' and vowed that the Trump administration would reorient it to focus on 'western values'.
State department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the report was restructured to improve readability and was no longer an expansive list of 'politically biased demands and assertions'.
Democratic party lawmakers, however, have accused Trump and Rubio of treating human rights only as a 'cudgel' against adversaries, in a statement released this week.
Rubio's state department has 'shamelessly turned a once-credible tool of US foreign policy mandated by Congress into yet another instrument to advance Maga political grievances and culture war obsessions,' said Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
With Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
4 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘What the f--- was that?' My nine hours at Trump's bewildering summit
After travelling 2,000 miles, enduring a three-hour security screening and arguing over seating arrangements with the Russian media, expectations were high for the meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The early signs were positive – a warm handshake, a ride along in 'The Beast' and the claim by Russia that talks could last 'six or seven hours'. But that feeling came to a screeching halt inside the press tent at the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, when a press conference was called just three hours in – and it emerged that the wider bilateral talks had been scrapped. The two leaders appeared on stage for just 12 minutes. There was no ceasefire and they did not take a single question. 'What the f--- was that?' one American journalist exclaimed. 'Is that all?' Indeed, it was. The first surprise of Mr Trump and Putin's post-summit press conference was that the Russian leader was the first to speak. After the two men had taken their place behind their respective podiums, almost the entire room had their eyes fixed on Mr Trump, assuming that the US host would lead the conversation. So when Putin first opened his mouth, you could almost hear the sounds of heads whipping towards the Russian leader. Mr Trump eventually followed suit, and for the first time in his second term, spoke very briefly. Twelve minutes later, it was all over. The press pack, who had flown more than 2,000 miles to the most remote state capital in America in the hopes of witnessing history, were left shouting into the abyss. Colleagues looked around in bewilderment. Almost immediately, chatter between journalists turned from astonishment to frustration, as we realised that the pair had spoken for a twentieth of the painstaking time that it took for us to each be individually screened by the Secret Service that morning. In the few days before the highly-anticipated summit, we had scrambled to secure hire cars and accommodation in Anchorage, which turned out to be as scarce as details of what the two leaders agreed in their talks. Space in Anchorage was precious. With a handful of hotels already bursting with anglers capitalising on the peak salmon season, there was no room at the inn. Some of the Russian delegation were relegated to dorms normally reserved for university students. We also faced accommodation woes. But my colleague, Dom Nicholls, managed to secure us a 26-foot-long Winnebago, affectionately nicknamed the 'Tel Force One', which became an office, recording studio and our sleeping quarters. Some were not so lucky. Angry members of the Russian press pack shared pictures of military camp cots erected on bare hardwood gym floors, prompting taunts about the state of American hospitality. Frustrations were compounded when, upon arriving at the media tents, our Russian counterparts found that their mobile data roaming did not work. In the end, they were able to connect to the special WiFi generously provided by the US Air Force. Security delays prompted outcry from some American journalists who were concerned that Russian reporters would get better seats at the briefing. 'Can we make sure Americans are seated before the Russians?' one disgruntled journalist asked. 'This is America, after all,' another added. The two media camps were being kept apart on separate buses. In the press tent, it was a similar scene. With Russian media lodged on one side, cables hidden under blue and yellow rubber covers acted as a de facto border. A smoking area beside a handful of portable toilets appeared to be exclusively used by chain-smoking Russians. But even they appeared bewildered by the underwhelming press conference, immediately scampering from the press tent via the snack bar to their awaiting bus once it had concluded. After Mr Trump left the venue and the roar of Air Force One receded, we were left wondering how the most consequential diplomatic summit in recent memory could produce so little. Ukraine was shut out of the talks, with no invite for Volodymyr Zelensky, much to the chagrin of his European allies. Given what a non-event the whole thing turned out to be, they may be relieved that they were not required to make the journey.
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
If Labour gives £2.3bn of our cash to retired British Coal staff, it has truly lost the plot
How big is the black hole in Britain's public finances? The respected think tank National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr) has just forecast a £50bn gap, which the Chancellor will be forced to plug by lower spending or higher taxes. Meanwhile, as Rachel Reeves tries to balance the books by saving every penny, her deputy, Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, casually told Parliament in July that he is 'considering proposals' to hand out £2.3bn of taxpayers' money to the 40,000 members of the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme (BCSSS). He added: 'I will be looking at those issues in more detail over the summer, and I hope to say more in the autumn.' What is this possible £2.3bn giveaway? The BCSSS, for above-ground managers, and its sister scheme, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme (MPS), for those below ground digging out coal, were set up after the coal industry was nationalised in 1947, at a time when it employed 700,000 people. By privatisation in 1994, British Coal had shrunk drastically to just 13,000 staff. The BCSSS and MPS became stand-alone trusts, with the Government guaranteeing all pension entitlements, including annual inflation increases. In return, the Government receives half of any 'surplus' calculated at the three-yearly actuarial valuations, with the other half used to increase pensions. The average BCSSS pension of £15,000 a year is over twice the average MPS pension of £7,000, reflecting much higher pay for British Coal managers compared to the miners. The taxpayers' share of surpluses was also calculated at privatisation, which remained in both schemes as a reserve against poor investment performance. The £2.3bn the Government is now 'considering' giving to BCSSS members is the taxpayers' share of surpluses at privatisation, which under the BCSSS rules will be paid back to the Government in 2033 – in only eight years' time. The BCSSS trustees' argument for a £2.3bn giveaway is that last October, as revealed by Telegraph Money, the Government gave £1.5bn of taxpayers' money to the 112,000 MPS members, boosting their annual pensions by 32pc. This was all part of the rhetoric to end what Labour called an 'historic injustice' and fulfilled Labour's election manifesto pledge, repeated by Ed Miliband at the 2024 Labour Party conference. The BCSSS Trustees' argument simply rests on ' the similarities between MPS and BCSSS'. But the £1.5bn given away to MPS members didn't 'belong' to them in the first place. Just like the BCSSS' £2.3bn, it was the Government's share of surpluses at privatisation. Under the MPS rules it would have been paid back to the Government in 2029. Since privatisation in 1994, all BCSSS and MPS members have received every last penny of the pensions promised to them, including inflation increases. More than that, under the rules set up at privatisation, half of valuation surpluses have been given to members as 'bonus' pensions. To add insult to injury, after receiving the £1.5bn, the MPS trustees are now lobbying for all of any future surpluses to go to members, rather than half going to the Government. And handing over the £2.3bn of taxpayer money to the BCSSS members would not be in exchange for giving up the Government guarantee. If that money is to be handed over, it should at least be on the understanding that BCSSS pensions become a defined contribution plan, entirely dependent on the performance of scheme assets like other private sector schemes. But the trustees say they would 'not consider giving up the guarantee in exchange for the investment reserve… The guarantee does not form part of our discussions with the Government. It will remain in place, whatever decision the Government makes'. This would be an extraordinary case of: 'heads BCSSS members win, tails taxpayers lose'. As guarantor, the Government must step in to make payments if there is a future deficit. Once money is used to increase pensions the only way any future deficit to be plugged is for taxpayers to write a cheque. And because 85pc of BCSSS and MPS assets are in 'risky', that is, not index-linked bonds to match liabilities, any current surplus could easily become a deficit. The Government, and specifically Mr Miliband, still have some serious explaining to do about the £1.5bn already handed over to MPS. If Labour hands over another £2.3bn of taxpayers' money – £3.8bn in all – then surely this government will lose any shred of fiscal credibility left. Rachel Reeves should tell Darren Jones, in plain language, to stop 'considering' this proposal and say a polite 'no' to the BCSSS trustees, and the Labour MPs pushing it.
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
We are gen Z – and AI is our future. Will that be good or bad?
Sumaiya Motara Freelance journalist based in Preston, where she works in broadcasting and local democracy reporting An older family member recently showed me a video on Facebook. I pressed play and saw Donald Trump accusing India of violating the ceasefire agreement with Pakistan. If it weren't so out of character, I would have been fooled too. After cross-referencing the video with news sources, it became clear to me that Trump had been a victim of AI false imaging. I explained this but my family member refused to believe me, insisting that it was real because it looked real. If I hadn't been there to dissuade them, they would have forwarded it to 30 people. On another occasion, a video surfaced on my TikTok homepage. It showed male migrants climbing off a boat, vlogging their arrival in the UK. 'This dangerous journey, we survived it,' says one. 'Now to the five-star Marriott hotel.' This video racked up almost 380,000 views in one month. The 22 videos posted from 9 to 13 June on this account, named migrantvlog, showed these men thanking Labour for 'free' buffets, feeling 'blessed' after being given £2,000 e-bikes for Deliveroo deliveries and burning the union flag. Even if a man's arm didn't disappear midway through a video or a plate vanish into thin air, I could tell the content was AI-generated because of the blurred background and strange, simulation-like characters. But could the thousands of other people watching? Unfortunately, it seemed not many of them could. Racist and anti-immigration posts dominated the comment section. I worry about this blurring of fact and fiction, and I see this unchecked capability of AI as incredibly dangerous. The Online Safety Act focuses on state-sponsored disinformation. But what happens when ordinary people spread videos like wildfire, believing them to be true? Last summer's riots were fuelled by inflammatory AI visuals, with only sources such as Full Fact working to cut through the noise. I fear for less media-literate people who succumb to AI-generated falsehoods, and the heat this adds to the pan. Rukanah Mogra Leicester-based journalist working in sports media and digital communications with Harborough Town FC The first time I dared use AI in my work, it was to help with a match report. I was on a tight deadline, tired, and my opening paragraph wasn't working. I fed some notes into an AI tool, and surprisingly it suggested a headline and intro that actually clicked. It saved me time and got me unstuck – a relief when the clock was ticking. But AI isn't a magic wand. It can clean up clunky sentences and help cut down wordiness but it can't chase sources, capture atmosphere or know when a story needs to shift direction. Those instinctive calls are still up to me. What's made AI especially useful is that it feels like a judgment-free editor. As a young freelance journalist, I don't always have access to regular editorial support. Sharing an early draft with a real-life editor can feel exposing, especially when you're still finding your voice. But ChatGPT doesn't judge. It lets me experiment, refine awkward phrasing and build confidence before I hit send. That said, I'm cautious. In journalism it's easy to lean on tools that promise speed. But if AI starts shaping how stories are told – or worse, which stories are told – we risk losing the creativity, challenge and friction that make reporting meaningful. For now AI is an assistant. But it's still up to us to set the direction. Author's note: I wrote the initial draft for the above piece myself, drawing on real experiences and my personal views. Then I used ChatGPT to help tighten the flow, suggest clearer phrasing and polish the style. I prompted the AI with requests such as: 'Rewrite this in a natural, eloquent Guardian-style voice.' While AI gave me useful suggestions and saved time, the core ideas, voice and structure remain mine. Frances Briggs Manchester-based science website editor AI is powerful. It's an impressive technological advancement and I'd be burying my head in the sand if I believed otherwise. But I'm worried. I'm worried my job won't exist in five years and I'm worried about its environmental impact. Attempting to understand the actual impact of AI is difficult; the key players are keeping their statistics close to their chests. What I can see is that things are pretty bad. A recent research paper has spat out some ugly numbers. (It joins other papers that reveal a similar story.) The team considered just one case study: OpenAI's ChatGPT-4o model. Its annual energy consumption is about the same as that of 35,000 residential households. That's approximately 450,000 KWh-1. Or 325 universities. Or 50 US inpatient hospitals. That's not all. There's also the cooling of these supercomputer's super-processors. Social media is swarming with terrifying numbers about the data-processing centres that power AI, and they're not far off. It takes approximately 2,500 Olympic-sized swimming pools of water to cool ChatGPT-4o's processing units, according to the latest estimates. AI agents such as the free products Perplexity or Claude don't actually seem to be consuming that much electricity. At most, the total global energy consumed yearly by AI is still less than 1%. But at the same time, data-processing centres in Ireland consumed 22% of the total electricity used by the whole country last year, more than urban housing. For context, there are 80 data-processing centres in Ireland. At present, there are more than 6,000 data-processing centres in the US alone. With the almost exponential uptake in AI since 2018, these numbers are likely to be completely different within a year. In spite of all these scary statistics, I have to hope that things are not as worrying as they seem. Researchers are already working to meet demands as they explore more effective, economic processing units using nanoscale materials and more. And when you compare the first language-learning models from seven years ago to those created today, they have iterated well beyond their previous inefficiencies. Energy-hungry processing centres will get less greedy – experts are just trying to figure out how. Saranka Maheswaran London-based student who pursues journalism alongside her studies 'You need to get out there, meet lots of people, and date, date, date!' is the cliche I hear most often when speaking to people about being in my 20s. After a few questionable dates and lots of juicy gossip sessions with friends, a new fear emerged. What if they're using AI to message me? Overly formal responses, or conversation starters that sounded just a bit too perfect, were what first made me question messages I'd received. I am not completely against AI, and don't think opposing it entirely is going to stop its development. But I do fear for our ability to make genuine connections with people. Pre-existing insecurities about how you speak, write or present yourself make a generation with AI to hand an easy prey. It may begin with a simple prompt, asking ChatGPT to make a message sound more friendly, but it can also grow into a menacing relationship in which you become reliant on the technology and lose confidence in your own voice. The 2025 iteration of the annual Singles in America study, produced in collaboration with the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, found that one in four singles in the US have used AI in dating. Perhaps I am over cynical. But to those who are not so sure of how their personalities are coming across when dating or how they may be perceived in a message, they should have faith that if it is meant to be it will be – and if AI has a little too much say in how you communicate, you may just lose yourself. Iman Khan Final-year student at the University of Cambridge, specialising in social anthropology The advancement of AI in education has made me question the idea of any claimed impartiality or neutrality of knowledge. The age of AI brings with it the need to scrutinise any information that comes our way. This is truer than ever in our universities, where teaching and learning are increasingly assisted by AI. We cannot now isolate AI from education, but we must be ready to scrutinise the mechanisms and narratives that underpin the technology itself and shape its use. One of my first encounters with AI in education was a request to ChatGPT to suggest reading resources for my course. I had assumed that the tool would play the role of an advanced search engine. But I quickly saw how ChatGPT's tendency to hallucinate – to present false or misleading information as fact – makes it both a producer and disseminator of information, true or false. I originally saw this as only a small barrier to the great possibilities of AI, not least because I knew it would improve over time. However, it has also become increasingly clear to me that ChatGPT, Gemini and other AI chatbots contribute to the spread of false information. AI has rendered the relationship between humans and technology precarious. There is research to be done on the potential implications of AI for all the social sciences. We need to investigate how it is integrated into how we learn and how we live. I'd like to be involved in researching how we adapt to AI's role as not only a tool but as an active and contributing participant in society. Nimrah Tariq London-based graduate specialising in architecture In my first years at university, we were discouraged from utilising AI for our architecture essays and models, only using it to proofread our work. However, in my final year, it was introduced a lot more into our process for rendering and enhancing design work. Our studio tutor gave us a mini-seminar on how to create AI prompts so that we could have detailed descriptions to put into architectural websites such as Visoid. This allowed us to put any models or drawings that we created into an AI prompt, asking it to create a concept design that suited our proposal. It gave my original ideas more complexity and a wide range of designs to play around with. While this was useful during the conceptual phase of our work, if the prompts were not accurate the AI would fail to deliver, so we learned how to be more strategic. I specifically used it after rendering my work as a final touch to create seamless final images. During my first and second year, AI didn't have as much impact on the design process of my work; I mainly used existing buildings for design inspiration. However, AI introduced new forms of innovation, which accelerated the speed with which we can push the boundaries of our work. It also made the creative process more experimental, opening up a new way of designing and visualising. Now I have finished my degree, I'm intrigued to see how much more architecture can grow through using AI. Initially, I believed AI wasn't the most creative way to design; now, I see it as a tool to improve our designs. It cannot replace human creativity, but it can enhance it. Architectural practices always ask job applicants for skills in software that uses AI, and you can already see how it is being incorporated in designs and projects. It has always been important to keep up to date with the latest technological advancements in architecture – and AI has reaffirmed this. The panel was compiled by Sumaiya Motara and Saranka Maheswaran, interns on the Guardian's positive action scheme
